Forum posts

Well, native tribes are closer to nature than we computerized westerners.

seventth-monkey: I've read more textbooks than you can imagine.

And yes, I'm not always like this. I'm not usually one of those guys who disagrees with what everyone else says just to disagree. But if i were to make one point here, it would not be about homosexuality. What I'd like to get across is that just becaise someone is religious does not mean that they are blindly following their religion, and it does not mean that they are closed-minded. After all, I debated without citing a single religious reference. People who claim to be open-minded and who claim not to conform to society's paradigms are conforming to a different paradigm still. So many people who do this think that they must automatically contradict what the other side has to say.
Here is what I think: I think that life is either black or white. 0 or 1, true or false. That's logig. Therefore as a religious person I think that something is either right or wrong. NOW: keeping my religiousness out of the sexual preference debate, and assuming that we must not discriminate against any sexual preference, we could infer using my judgement that homosexuality is either completely right or completely wrong. AND if it IS right, then ALL sexual preferences are right because we cannot discriminate against any of them. AND pedophilia is a sexual preference, so by that system of reasoning it has to be right, because every other sexual preference is.
You are either for people's rights to have sex with whatever/whoever they want, or you are discriminating against SOMEONE... whether you discriminate against pedophiles, homosexuals or Bestialists it's still discrimination and intolerance. whether you are right to do so or not is up to a system of morals, which is what makes people closed-minded to other people's needs/wants/sexual preferences etc...

So, please don't think that I actually think pedophilia REALLY IS right in any way, but I could never tell anyone that I tihnk homosexuality is right either. And I don't even think they are the same things, or even curable diseases. (tohught they might be... sciendce has not found EVERYTHINg yet.)

Candy = Justification

+I have no daughters. Thank goodness.

Q3 is the roxor. I love the unrealisticness of it all.

Where's our fur? and I want some of those wicked alien claws and teeth!

Back it up with facts, Elon. and no wikipedia.

If *I* make you sick, you should try talking to someone who really IS a pedophile.

I don't remember having sexual urges, but my brothers tell me that I always had my hands in my pants. One of Freud's stages of phychosexual development in children is the "phallic stage" which starts at like age 2 or so. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/sexual_development.html

Satch: this page also answers whether children lust after thier mommies.

I think that mapping for HL2dm is a lot easier because of props. In HLDM you had to actually work on GOOD brushwork.

It's not random, he just wanted to incite an angry response. lol

I actually LOLed at that.

Well SOMETHING had to cause the big bang. Because as madcow says in his "the universe itself" post: "There's no such thing and nothing." And for every action, there is and equal and opposite reaction, so some ACTION had to cause the big bang as a reaction. and without the universe coming into being, how would ANY animal be here? You cannot give me an example of Nothing.

I think we're here on purpose. Maybe YOU were a regrettable accident, but I'm here on purpose.

[edit] the bible said adam and eve talked. probably no single-celled talkers.

Elon, read what I said above. Children start having the desire for sexual gratification in the womb. There are more than a few documented cases of fetuses masturbating.

[edit] and i guess I would call anyone under 18 "children" since that si the age of "consent" or so says society.

How does it hurt them? They get candy and most pedophiles have small weeners anyway. I am arguing that it is "right" because it is a sexual preference, and we cannot discriminate against that. It's got nothing to do with homosexuality, other than the fact that they are both "unorthodox sexual preferences."

Facts are:
1. children have sexual urges
2. Some adults like children
3. There are examples in nature of pedophilia, proving that it's natural.

How is it any different from the proof that I was presented for homosexuality?

[edit] Satchmo: Why else would we have sex? if it didn't feel good we wouldn't do it. The reason we have the inherent urge for it is because we have an urge for all things that feel good, like the endorphins released upon eating.

But how does one regain humanity. Once someone's mind has snapped, how can it be mended? All psychologists do is talk to people and ask them questions.
"tell me about your mother." "He's cured"

Jobabob: I find it entertaining/sad that you all would think the way you do. That's just the way these issues are. Lots of strong feelings.

Fetuses in the womb have been documented masturbating. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/BIBLIO_CHORG.HTM
see "Meizner" and about 100 other references. If children didn't have any sexual urge then why are they masturbating before they are even born? Pedophilia is very natural. Otherwise there would not be adults who love children and there would not be all these sexually frustrated children looking for "sponsors." Plus, the kids get candy... That is like the purpose of life for a kid: "get free candy." THAT'S how a child agrees to sex.

VOX FOR PRESI- Dictator!

Well, what would've REALLY made a point is if you could find some animal that did gay marriages, and benefitted from them evolutionarily. I'd crap a brick, if that'd happened. lol

Anyway, goodnight for now. It's been a good debate!

I know everyone is greedy, selfish, liars, haters, and hedonistic (except my lady [and probably Satch's wife{and hugh}])

People are inherently evil, and clever enough to come up with justifications for the things they do, and if they're not, they are good enough to latch on to anyone who says they can do what they want.

Also, I meant to ask earlier: do those birds who stay together for all thier lives ever form homosexual "marriages?" and one one of them dies, the other one does?

Yeah, but Azura would've cured the guy too. We may not be able to do that...

Even beauty pageant contestants have sharp painted nails, Satch.

Prof. Oak: In the future we will unite in globalism and everything will fall apart. People will become like those in "A Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley. We will only follow a path of hedonism, and then we will all be destroyed by cataclismic natural disasters.

himmeldonnerwetter... sigh

lol. With Teufelanbetung there would have been a sacrifice too.

If we removed everything that people used to make thier atrocities easier, we wouldn't have anything except popsicle sticks. And I'd use those for pedophilia for sure. If we removed everything people use for terorism, we would remove EVERYTHING. Every infrastructure, every mode of transportation and communication.

Fact is, every difference that exists will cause intolerance of another type.

Depends which religion... Had it been atheism he probably would've picked up a few more chicks for the party. Cough.

Jobabob: Society and the governments are the only things that say that children cannot consent. Sex is perfectly natural, no matter who it's between according to you folks; male, female, whatever! So, why do you listen to society's idea of who can consent? The children consent like anyone else. Pedophilia is like prostitution, only the payment is cookies and candy. And what is prostitution if not just casual sex where one party makes a living? The children LOVE thier "sponsors."

Professa: Sickle Cell Anemia only happens in Black people: fun fact.

You know if everyone listened to what all the religions have to say instead of using them to justify thier own actions. There's not a religion besides voodoo and Satanism that says to kill other people.

Good pun actually.

Sure, wars and a bunch of other stuff are started in the name of religion, but it's not EVERY religious person's fault. Just like it's not every gay person's fault that AIDS is so prevalent.

Zombieloffe: That's what I've been trying to tell everyone. I don't include my religion in my debates, because it's not gonna matter to any of the people who don't beleive like i do.

More later.

And me, apparently. Because I say execute the guy. He killed and it was HIS fault for not taking his meds.

Sorry about your brother, Lefty. But i don't really think that anyone could possible call jackin' it "a homosexual act." That's just silly. And I think gays are sinners just like everyone else, and they'll go to hell if they don't repent, etc... God is not going to give them special treatment over the rest of us degenerates. Enough about my religion, that will just start more crap. How an you talk aobut not condemning a way of life, when you condemn hitler's? You condemn my way of life as a person who is strong in my faith.

What is with bashing religion, anyway? Some ppl just don't like buttsex. Religious intolerance is the same as intolerance of someone's sexual preference.

If you truly were open-minded and "progressive," you would not persecute Pedophiles for their sexual preference. I mean after all, it's gotta be natural and not their fault. I, as a former cattle rancher, have seen fully adult bulls mounting 2nd year heiffers. So it's perfectly natural, no?

Jobabob: don't you see that I have nto even MENTIONED religion in any of my posts? How can I be talking from a religious standpoint? What religion is logic and science. I was being objective. I could tell you were Atheist.

Jobabob: For me the Bible has the final say, not some "religion" where other people interpret it for me. But I'm not going to cite religious reasons on a forum that obviously holds no value to it. It's better to be objective and look at it strictly from a logical, scientific point of view Otherwise you're biased one way or another. People long ago thought that smallpox was an incurable punishment from thier gods, but we today have a vaccine. There's no telling what science will dicover next, unless we hold science back in the name of political correctness and tolerance.

Edit: Jobabob, How come you didn't argue when someone said that the Spartans were gay. Are they not a culture, and did they not induce homosexuality as a culture, and not with genetics?

Because apparently all americans are either gay or narrowminded. From what I gather.

Those birds sound cool. >60% of all marriages in the USA end in divorce.

7th: If it's so clear that I have it all wrong, then what's RIGHT? What of what I've said is Wrong? You have not given any examples at all.

Satch: Sure there are homosexual ACTS in animals, but what is different between a dog humping another dog and the same dog humping a barstool? They just take out their sexual "buildup" on anything that is around. Also, the animal homosexuals are not EXCLUSIVELY homosexual. Nor do they form exclusive relationships with other animal homosexuals. An animal's main urge is to reproduce, in most cases, they will reproduce rather than eat. If this urge gets strong enough, the will take it out on anything that is around, including humans' legs.

On the other hand, they could just be enjoying themselves, suggests Paul Vasey, animal behavior professor at the University of Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. "They're engaging in the behavior because it's gratifying sexually or it's sexually pleasurable," he says. "They just like it. It doesn't have any sort of adaptive payoff."

If humans were just like any other animal, you would see normally straight males humping barstools and dogs and other males AS WELL AS females. Which is what these animals do. I've see female dogs in our neighbor's kennel hump their doghouses in the manner of males (they don't even have penises, after all). This does not mean that they are "doghouse fetishists," just like two male monkeys humping doesn't make them "homosexuals" per se.

Plus you can't advocate homosexuality because of animals and condemn infanticide and the castration of others' young, like happens in so many species. If we used this instance of animal homosexuality to justify it in humans, then we'd have to accept: Infanticide, killing in general, stealing, and the free mating with others' mates (adultery).

The stuff about Altrusim is interesting too, sorry on late replies, but I've not had much time to read it yet. Although, I would like to know what makes two humans stay together for a whole lifetime, whereas animals sho this odd type of affection to thier current partner and then move on.

Lol. That is true of some, yes. Those are the ones I don't really care for either.

"Eye for an eye?" or "turn the other cheek?" I gotta say the first one sounds much more fulfilling. I don't know HOW people like this guy can be helped, and I studied Psychology for 2 years.

Seventh-Monkey, you still have not backed up your statements with anything but... well, you have nothing. Start PROVING things. What you're doing is akin to the guy that guy at the party that yells "F-YOU!" and runs off to his car. Or something like when your parents said "because I said so." and didn't ever give you a REAL reason. you're saying I'm wrong, but not saying how.

Professa Oak: I don't HATE anyone. Not blacks or gays or hispanics or whites or women or anything else. There is a difference between hatred of someone and disagreeing with thier lifestyle. Surely you can see that.
BTW the Klan does stll exist, under some corporate guise I beleive.

[edit] Still looking at that stuff, Satch. more later

Jahzel, for all your denouncing the tinfoil hats, you sound like a bit of a conspiracy theorist yourself.

Although I do agree with you that the whole "conservative/liberal, left-right" thing has got to go. Too many people say "I voted for so-and-so because i am of such-and-such a political party." It's sickening. Oh, and how many people voted for Bush because "He had nicer hair."

Saribous: Not all mutations are bad, I guess. I can't think of any good ones, but I don't know for sure that they don't exist.

In this day and age though it flourishes because of our self indulgence fueled socially warped society.

So someone else noticed... lol.

Tycell: So how about only selling certain kinds of guns to the mainstream? Like don't sell sniper rifles and automtics. But even so, the only people that would be restricting is law-abiding citizens. Inner city gang memebers will still manage to get Uzis which are ilegal NOW, and arms dealers will still have thier buyers.

Satchmo: As you know I pride myself on my ability to admit shortcomings, and yes, I have not been able to take that many biology classes in my studies. I graduated top-of-my class in computer science, nothing to do with biology.

Just so, please give me more examples of altrusim in nature. Because the things i think of are squirrels castrating all the young in another's nest, and birds crushing other birds' eggs. Lions killing the offspring of the former alpha male of the pack. Lots more.

Also, if homosexuality is genetic... HOW? because the whole thing with it is that two of the same sex cannot mate, you know? So is it a mutation, or what? If so how come every other mutation is viewed as bad, and not this one?

1. Like it or not, EVERYONE gets treated differently/badly at some time. It's just that some people don't have a "movement" for them. During the civil rights era, it was minorities. Then, from the "affirmative action" era til now, it has been white males. http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/strategy.html this is an interesting piece on just that.
And don't get me started on the feminist movement:So, they DO want to be equal? or do they want us to hold the doors open for them? They want to "break up the old boys' club" but have women-only clubs and buildings? It's so full of double-standards, that I don't see how anyone can take them seriously... at all. Like not wearing a bra is going to keep men from viewing them as sex objects? Come on, ladies, that is going to MAKE them look. It's all so ridiculous.
2. Guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. If you bleeding-heart people who don't like to hunt want to get around the second amendment, then ban bullets. the "right to bear arms" doesn't mean right to bear munitions. use that loophole if you want america to be a bunch of fat, weeping vaginas on legs. But really, guns are not the only thing you can kill with. Otherwise we'd have seen a lack of murder before guns were invented. Sure it's easier to pull a trigger than to do a bit of stabbing, but it's easier for pedophiles to spread child porn on the internet, but you don't boycott that. Guns, like the internet, are tools. To be used for good. It's just that sometimes they are used for evil.

Professa Oak: Thank you, I agree. I was just leaving my own beliefs out of the whole thing and be objective, and I get called names. I need a "Nickelplate Rights" movement.

I just hate when I try to debate something with people and they just get mad. There's no use in being upset, just present your views as best you can.

You CAN fight over a gun, just like a knife. only the gun does not cut you if you mistakenly grab the wrong side.

[edit] Professa oak: All our current technology WORKS on binary logic. Why can't we come to a conclusion?

The poor lot of them. Why don't you hear of these things happening in someplace like denmark or italy? What is it about America that does this to people? Did this sort of thing happen in the past, too? I've not heard of many such things.

Gross.
Although cotton can swell to over 4 times its size when it gets wet. How do you think a tampon works?

Seventh-Monkey: All logic works assuming that things are either true or false. anything else is "Fuzzy Logic," which I'm sure we all want to avoid. All logic works on a binary system. I teach at a high school and one part of what I teach is logic. I think that maybe you're confused about it.

Jobabob: Isn't "heartless bastard" a bit harsh, considering you are so in touch with everyone else's feelings? I mean, are you even reading anything I'm saying? I'm not talking about killing people or anything like that. I'm discussing possible reasons why people might be gay. At the same time I'm making my next point. You need to stop name calling. If you tell me I'm wrong, fine; but prove it so I can SEE that I'm wrong.

Satchmo: NOW you are starting to see what I am saying. People are made up of more than just science. What makes people help other people at a clear disadvantage to themselves? Why do they take care of people who only lessen thier abilities to spread their genes as much as possible? Why would someone turn the other cheek instead of fighting to defend themselves and therefore their bloodlines? Any other organism would never do anything like this. Why? Perhaps there is more to humans than there is to other animals: a soul, or a spirit perhaps. You know there is more to humans than just logic, why deny this other side until it fits your argument?

Also, we KNOW that male-pattern baldness is a genetic thing. There's no "BALD RIGHTS" activist movement, because nobody feels the need to justify what they know is natural. Balding is part of getting old in just about every culture and genetic "race" in the world. I don't know what purpose this gene could've served in the past, but probably the same as people getting grey hair. Interesting, that.

Why are you fellows just calling names and telling me what I'm saying is not true, without providing any proof or reasons. I'm not above admitting that I'm wrong, just, you know... provide proof, don't just call me names, please.

Pepper: With logic there's always just 2. True and False. On and Off. 0 and 1.

Vox: I'm not trying to cure them, nor do I really want to. I'm leaving them alone, or else I'd be gay myself.

Seventh-monkey: I understand all of those theories thoroughly.

I guess my main point would be that there is more to life than just Science. And that life is bigger than just an issue of homosexuality, or any single issue for that matter.

Science doesn't have to be flawed. There's more than science.
And Gays don't have to change. They're not a drain on society, so I don't see why they have to.

But when someone says that people who are blinded by religion and don't tolerate gays are haters and are like Nazi Murderers, it does require a rebuttal.

Dude, I'm NOT obsessed with "the natural order of things."
Evolution, natural selection, and Science are the things that are beleived by atheists and agnostics and those people. I am a Christian. If I used my bible verses and Christian morals to justify my position it would not mean anything to them at all. So I chose to stick ONLY to what they beleive in so that no one could refute my views on the grounds that it's "based on a fake religion," or whatever they want to say. If they don't beleive in God and the bible, then what good would it do to use them as a source? Instead, I used their OWN beliefs to make my point.
All I've presented here are statistics, logic, science, and the basics of natural selection; and using all those together, you get a few choices about homosexuality: that it is a disorder/imbalance of some kind, or that it is passed on socially. To say otherwise would be to deny that the science/logic/evolution that they all love so much is false or flawed, which is hardly possible. You have to make a choice, and you can't ride the fence on it.
Either:
A. Evolution, Science, Logic is flawed, and homosexuality is in perfect natural order.
Or
B. They are all still valid and homosexuality is not a natural thing and is therefore is one of the 2 choices presented above.

You can't just deny the perfectly sound arguments I've made by calling me a "regressive fool" and saying that I beleive in Eugenics and I'm a nazi and that I make love to Josef Mengele and whatnot. If you think I'm wrong, I don't mind you telling me, but back it up with some logos (logic) and not with pathos (emotions). Because responding with name-calling and condemnations is what pisses everyone off about most Christians and conservatives.
Oh, and the moderators haven't said anything, probably because they beleive in a person's freedom of speech and all that.

Satchmo: Sorry, you've had a rough time lately. It'll get better I'm sure. I hope your new job works out!

Jobabob: How is ANYTHING I've said supportice of Eugenics? Natural Selection/Evolution is completely different that Eugenics. And it's DOCTOR Josef Mengele to you, mister.

Tycell, I agree fully. along with the use of technology, comes the prolonging of lifes that without it, would have been ended before they could have passed on the genes for it. Instead, we have people living a long time that would have been dead otherwise.

VOX: homosexuality being a curable disease is only an option, you know? But think of it this way, we treat everyone else for mental disorders against their wills, and they don't want to be cured. So, IF (just a scenario), homosexuality is a mental disorder, should we not treat them too? What makes it different? Of course people like Schizophrenics and other "crazy" people don't want to be cured, because they think everyone else is crazy. Homosexuality, in all honesty, DOES show many of the same signs as many other mental disorders.

Surely not. If it turns out to be a disorder, cure them. If it's genetic, it'll phase itself out. If it's social (it IS in style to be gay these days..), then we need to rethink our position on what's acceptable for our future generations. But, it's NOT natural or normal. So why do we have to accept or tolerate it if we don't want to. Not accepting/tolerating something is not the same as hating it, and intolerance is not tantamount to nazi murderers.

In the end, it's up to science and the gay ppl what will happen. Gays certainly DO have rights, but only the same rights that everyone else has. No such thing as "Gay rights." because that implies that they have rights that "straight" people don't. They can be equal under the law, but no special treatment, yeah?

Surrogate mothers and adoption are completely against the basics of natural selection. You'll notice that when an animal happens upon a nest of another of it's species it will automatically kill all of the young in the nest. Adopting is very rare in nature and will only happen in very specific circumstances and with humans is a very complicated and psychologically effecting situation. Still adoptions and surrigacy are not "two gay men reproducing," it is more like "two unnaturals recieving the results of natural relations between two naturals." As for being a "regressive fool," I think that you may need to reconsider. I've not mentioned anything religious or conservative in nature at all. Rather, I have only mentioned progressive ideals and REAL statistics. I haven't seen you refute anything I've said, you've only shown your disaproval of my post by calling me a name. Maybe you hope that if you call me a good enough name or a sub-par name with enough conviction that others will forget that you didn't do shit to disprove what I said.

I've been a member of TWHL since mar 15th of last year, lol.

People who have sex for fun are lots more natural than two of the same sex having the same relations. Heterosexual relations have the propensity to create new life. Most times, people who "hook up" do so solely because of superior physical characteristics, which, according to natural selection is the makings of a more superior offspring. Whereas homosexual relations have no possibility of making new life at all, whether superior or inferior. There's not even a one in a quadrillion chance! There is infinitely more chance of contracting HIV than getting anything done for the human race.

Why can't "gay-haters" be born with such a propensity? You are adamantly vouching for gays' propensities, and yet, you will not allow the same possibilities for the side that is against yours. And what can things like increased fashion sense do to aid in the survival and improvement of a species? Even if it does make them more attractive to the opposite sex, what good would it do if they refuse to mate with them? As a medical doctor, you should know how genetics work lots of genes are dominant, such as the myopic gene that makes people near-sighted. Without bad vision, we would've never discovered glasses. Only there was nobody that claimed that bad vision was a perfectly normal thing as they do with homosexuality. How can you think logically and claim that homosexuality is genetic: if genes are passed on by the mating of a male and a female, or by asexual reproduction, and the definition of "homosexuality" is that two of the SAMe sex are having sex, and humans are not asexual, how can a homosexual gene POSSIBLY be passed on? You may say it's a mutation, but then you would have to treat it as any other mutation like kleinfelters or turner's disease and try to find a "cure."

you said "Bullies pick on the weak because they're afraid of being called weak themselves." That would imply that all gays are weak, and THAT is discrimination.

you said "From our experience, we know that there are people in the world who are just too stupid and stubborn to be educated. For them, we should give up hope at educating them and let them die from their own stupidity." So we should leave alone those people who think they can procreate by having sex with others of the same sex?

"overprotective parents for the big lose" indeed. That is why people are so weak these days.

Being an atheist, you can relate to what I'm about to say. I'm going to withhold all the religious stuff so there can be no doubt about it.
Homosexuality is fast approaching the "Nazi" killing level. Gay sex is the leading cause of HIV infections in the US.
Just male/male gay sex by itself infected 19,611 people with HIV in the year 2004. Then there are the 5,149 heterosexual-contact infections that follow. and then the 47 perinatal infections after that.* That is in just ONE YEAR. HIV infection rates are higher now.
And as an atheist, you must beleive in evolution and natural selection. Yet you beleive that homosexuality is a perfectly normal thing, when in fact, homosexuality is contrary to every law or natural selection/evolution. How can two animals of the same sex of ANY species reproduce to make the race better? Everyone knows they can't. Logically, if homosexuality were a genetic thing, these genes would have died out long ago, according to evolution and natural selection.
So we can infer that homosexuality is either passed on by some social tradition or is a mental disease. So if it's a disease, then shouldn't we as a PROGRESSIVE society be finding a cure. And if it's just passed on by social tradition, then the only thing keeping it alive is "tolerance."
*Statistics from CDC.gov

Make an invisible brushbased entity that rotates how you want[e1] then make a brushbased hinge-thing that falls over like you want[e2] then make one the parent of another then make tower the child of the lowest on the heirarchy. is that understandable? instaed of trying to do it all with one ent. tie a few together, one for each motion.