The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[dddsprayshop]

👍

Yup, i got the info.You support that info.
Thank you very much.

 

[Danny]

"Hey i'm a masochist, let's be gay"

Just as a side note, this has so far been my most successful chat-up line.

 

[dddsprayshop]

Just as a side note, this has so far been my most successful chat-up line so far.

Thank you, you made me smile.

 

[axletramp]

Just as a side note, this has so far been my most successful chat-up line so far.

Hey, you told me I was special!

 

[dddsprayshop]

Hey, you told me I was special!

Sorry, i need to joke about this and use some irony for gay marriage.

@axletramp , do you see a weddingring at @Danny's finger?

My daughter just text me, she will be here in a couple of minutes.
Weekend time, i'm off.
bye

I wonder if my son is coming this weekend.Puberty, it's a ......you know.

 

[GTracer98]

I'm not gay myself but my stance towards homosexuality is that it's a person's private business, no need to tell them what they have to be. So, while I prefer a heterosexual society, I don't discriminate or hate homosexuals.

I don't like the fact though that some kindergartens and primary schools teach kids that they have to choose whether to sexually like their gender or the opposite one. Children should not be influenced like that, let them make their own choice once they learn about it when they get older.

 

[Danoff]

Hi, why did you call gravity a fact first and then a theory?It was a theory and became a fact after proof.
Gravity is a word for the theory that it excists and is a proven fact.
If it was not a fact, we could fall upwards and kept falling upwards untill we bump into another planet or star.

Gravity is a theory currently. "Theory" is the closest thing science offers to fact when it comes to explanations of data sets. Gravity will never become any closer to "fact" than "theory" because science has no level for gravity to graduate to beyond "theory".

 

[dddsprayshop]

Gravity is a theory currently. "Theory" is the closest thing science offers to fact when it comes to explanations of data sets. Gravity will never become any closer to "fact" than "theory" because science has no level for gravity to graduate to beyond "theory".

I don't want to offend you.
I know i can be selfish and even egocentric.
I understand what you mean.
But gravity is gravity to me, for me it is a fact it is there.
For science purposes it should be nitpicked into all that you wrote.( i use nitpick, because i don't know a word to describe but not offend you)
For me, it is common fact in my life, no gravity? No attraction to theplanet earth? I would float away.

Why don't i want to offend you? But can happen?
I don't care about gravity, and your nice text about it.
I don't care how theory is supposed to be used.I'm a simple guy.
I care about humans.Humans that are labeled because they are not fitting to the "normal" view.

The reason: I was bullied in my young ages, kicked by 5 kids in front of my house when i was 7 yrs old.
I'm not gay, but i know how it feels to be labeled.
I flipped the switch when i was 14, i fought back, it all stopped, there was blood, i hated it.
It is just wrong to label people and think that "normal" is better.


So if someone or somebody is "nitpicking" on proper meaning of words and deviates from the main topic?
I quote, i try to turn it back to the main topic, and i don't care about the proper meaning of some words.

 

[Famine]

I don't want to offend you.
I know i can be selfish and even egocentric.
I understand what you mean.
But gravity is gravity to me, for me it is a fact it is there.
For science purposes it should be nitpicked into all that you wrote.( i use nitpick, because i don't know a word to describe but not offend you)
For me, it is common fact in my life, no gravity? No attraction to theplanet earth? I would float away.

Gravity is a name given to the phenomenon you observe and describe above. You can call it a fact if you wish.

Gravitational Theory is what explains that phenomenon.

Theories are a far higher level of knowledge than facts. Theories explain facts, fitting facts together with data, observations and laws - you know Newton's Laws of Gravity? They're incorporated into Gravitational Theory. They also present predictions of new facts, if they're really good theories, and we can design tests to prove those new facts wrong. That either forces a change in the theory to include the fact the predictions were wrong or reinforces the theory because we couldn't prove it wrong.


As it happens, Gravitational Theory is a bit sketchy. Newton's Laws of Gravity were kicked in the nuts a bit by Einstein, but even so there's a whole bunch of things we don't know about it - we don't even know how the mediator of gravity (gravitation - or the force of gravity) is transmitted. We don't know what information is exchanged or how that stops you from floating away... We've invented, through Gravitational Theory (it's one of the predictions of new facts), a particle called the Graviton which is what we think does it, but we've not detected any of them yet. In fact it may be statistically impossible to do so...

By comparison, Evolutionary Theory is absolutely rock solid.

 

[dddsprayshop]

Gravity is a name given to the phenomenon you observe and describe above. You can call it a fact if you wish.

Gravitational Theory is what explains that phenomenon.

Theories are a far higher level of knowledge than facts. Theories explain facts, fitting facts together with data, observations and laws - you know Newton's Laws of Gravity? They're incorporated into Gravitational Theory. They also present predictions of new facts, if they're really good theories, and we can design tests to prove those new facts wrong. That either forces a change in the theory to include the fact the predictions were wrong or reinforces the theory because we couldn't prove it wrong.


As it happens, Gravitational Theory is a bit sketchy. Newton's Laws of Gravity were kicked in the nuts a bit by Einstein, but even so there's a whole bunch of things we don't know about it - we don't even know how the mediator of gravity (gravitation - or the force of gravity) is transmitted. We don't know what information is exchanged or how that stops you from floating away... We've invented, through Gravitational Theory (it's one of the predictions of new facts), a particle called the Graviton which is what we think does it, but we've not detected any of them yet. In fact it may be statistically impossible to do so...

By comparison, Evolutionary Theory is absolutely rock solid.

yeah, i'm sorry to write this.
I respect you as a person, i don't respect this again.
I'm done reacting to this.
You just lost my interest in your knowledge.

It has nothing to do with Homosexuality except ignoring the fact that i stated it is deviating from the main issue.

 

[Famine]

yeah, i'm sorry to write this.
I respect you as a person, i don't respect this again.
I'm done reacting to this.
You just lost my interest in your knowledge.

Oooooo-kay. It was your question though...

Hi, why did you call gravity a fact first and then a theory?It was a theory and became a fact after proof.
Gravity is a word for the theory that it excists and is a proven fact.
If it was not a fact, we could fall upwards and kept falling upwards untill we bump into another planet or star.

If you didn't want an answer, why did you ask the question? And if you thought it was "deviating from the main issue", why did you respond to @Danoff's post explaining what the difference between a fact and a theory is and their relative importance?

Facts occur before the theories that explain them. Theories are higher levels of knowledge than facts.

The fact things fall to Earth and don't float away into space is gravity - though it's actually gravitation. The theory that explains all known facts about gravity, how it occurs, when and at what rate is also gravity - though it's actually gravitational theory. Gravity was a fact (gravitation) and then a theory (gravitational theory). This answers the question you posted.

 

[dddsprayshop]

If you didn't want an answer, why did you ask the question? And if you thought it was "deviating from the main issue", why did you respond to @Danoff's post explaining what the difference between a fact and a theory is and their relative importance?

Because of this.

So if someone or somebody is "nitpicking" on proper meaning of words and deviates from the main topic?
I quote, i try to turn it back to the main topic, and i don't care about the proper meaning of some words.

Probably a poor attempt to get people back to topic.
But then again, this topic is in the off-topic section, so anything can happen.

 

[Encyclopedia]

I'm not gay myself but my stance towards homosexuality is that it's a person's private business, no need to tell them what they have to be. So, while I prefer a heterosexual society, I don't discriminate or hate homosexuals.

I don't like the fact though that some kindergartens and primary schools teach kids that they have to choose whether to sexually like their gender or the opposite one. Children should not be influenced like that, let them make their own choice once they learn about it when they get older.

Where does this happen?

 

[GTracer98]

Where does this happen?

My dad told that in some countries they do. There are articles on the Internet about that too, like these ones:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ht-homosexuality-celebrate-gay-community.html

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08...n-in-kindergarten-promote-gay-lifestyle-82474

 

[TenEightyOne]

My dad told that in some countries they do. There are articles on the Internet about that too, like these ones:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ht-homosexuality-celebrate-gay-community.html

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/08...n-in-kindergarten-promote-gay-lifestyle-82474

One looks like a source of the other. And that source is the Daily Mail. Nothing to see/read/learn here.

I actually read the Mail this morning, shoulder-to-shoulder with the fluro-clad builders and plumbers of the early-shift butty-run. What a rag, I was very disappointed that Daily Sport had already been taken.

 

[Danoff]

Probably a poor attempt to get people back to topic.
But then again, this topic is in the off-topic section, so anything can happen.

I'll just say that it's closer to the topic at hand than would be immediately apparent. Homosexuality, and the hatred of it, is intimately tied with religion. Religion is intimately tied with metaphysics. And when you talk about metaphysics, you really have to keep words like "theory" straight.

 

[Nurburgthing.]

Just because you find it horrifying, doesn't mean it should be a crime.

OK. Then someone who finds themselves thinking such notions should seek immediate psychiatric help as it is wholly unnatural.

There's a pretty big difference between looking at a little girl and thinking "oh, she's pretty cute" and thinking "I'm gonna rape her until she screams".

You could probably look at 99% of little kids and think they're cute, that's what kids do best. Thinking ""ahh, cute" is not a sexual though though.

That sentence is likely to disturb a lot of people reading this, but I think it's necessary to demonstrate the point.

What a strange point to defend.

If he's not, I will.

Will you now...

Having thoughts of any sort is not a crime. Paedophiles, necrophiles, sadists and anyone else with a :censored:ed up fetish can think whatever they like. It's only when they infringe upon the rights of others that it should be a crime.

But, if these people are walking around with a ticking time bomb poisoning their minds without seeking professional help, I would say it's borderline criminal. If I started thinking in such a way, I would be highly disturbed and guilty. If you have these thoughts and don't feel bad about it, you are on a slippery slope towards physical child abuse.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR child knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually? Personally, it would make my blood boil.

Hey, I had sexual thoughts toward children for about 12 years. Maybe more. And at one point it was even about 10-12 year olds. When my parents found out they told me it was natural.

It eventually went away on its own, when I was no longer a child.

Puberty is a crazy, dangerous thing.

How old were you when puberty hit?

If you were a young teen (13 - 14) I wouldn't worry so much. It's grown adults that cause the most harm and don't have puberty to blame.

Thoughts are no danger at all. No one has been harmed by a thought.

All your other writings made some sense, I will look into this some more, it was a little long winded though.

I didn't say thoughts harmed people, I was saying that certain thoughts can lead to serious wrong doings.

 

[Exorcet]

But, if these people are walking around with a ticking time bomb poisoning their minds without seeking professional help, I would say it's borderline criminal. If I started thinking in such a way, I would be highly disturbed and guilty. If you have these thoughts and don't feel bad about it, you are on a slippery slope towards physical child abuse.

Could it be that feeling bad about them is the problem? If you feel bad about them, you might hide them. You might also think poorly about yourself. It could lead to poor decisions and actions. If your open about being attracted to children, admit that it's something you can't act on, but then go about your business satisfying your desires safely (I suppose an example would be fictional material depicting the subject of interest) then there isn't really a problem. You get to be happy and no one has their rights violated.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR child knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually? Personally, it would make my blood boil.

Well for one thing it doesn't make sense to be mad at them if they can't control their feelings. Actions are another story as that is something people can control.

All your other writings made some sense, I will look into this some more, it was a little long winded though.

I didn't say thoughts harmed people, I was saying that certain thoughts can lead to serious wrong doings.

Yes, but ultimately without the doing, nothing important really happens. In the context here, someone could go about thinking of killing and raping 24 hours a day. If that person is able to keep it merely to thought, it won't be a problem because it will never reach anywhere outside that person's mind. I don't see things like a sexual fantasy as being bad. Certainly not comparable to a thought like "person X Must be killed". Even with that latter thought, what I think is most important is a person's ability to recognize that rationality (or lack of it) behind the thought. Someone thinking that person X must be killed might also be able to recognize that it is irrational and unhealthy. In doing so they could suppress the urge to act on it and seek help. That's the problem with "thought crimes", you punish the innocent.

Now, some people might not be able to handle it. They might give in to the voice in their head. At that point, they're ill and they can't be said to be fully in control either. That is when you would intervene.

 

[Danoff]

OK. Then someone who finds themselves thinking such notions should seek immediate psychiatric help as it is wholly unnatural.

Seems like it occurs naturally.

 

[Famine]

But, if these people are walking around with a ticking time bomb poisoning their minds without seeking professional help, I would say it's borderline criminal. If I started thinking in such a way, I would be highly disturbed and guilty. If you have these thoughts and don't feel bad about it, you are on a slippery slope towards physical child abuse.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR child knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually? Personally, it would make my blood boil.

Funnily, this is exactly the line militant feminists use about men.

Men, they contend, are thinking sexually about every woman they see (well, the straight men). They are walking around with a ticking time bomb poisoning their minds and they're literally one step away from rape at all times.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR sister/girlfriend/wife/mum/adult daughter knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually?



I'm sexually attracted to women. That doesn't mean I find every woman sexually attractive, think sexual thoughts about every woman or act upon my sexual impulses with every woman I do find sexually attractive...

 

[Imari]

OK. Then someone who finds themselves thinking such notions should seek immediate psychiatric help as it is wholly unnatural.

If they feel that they are on the way to committing some act that they do not wish to or that would damage others, then they certainly should. Just as someone who experiences violent rage to the extent that they fear they might injure or kill someone should also seek help.

People who just get angry shouldn't be going to psychiatrists, there's nothing wrong or dangerous about that.
People who just think children are sexy shouldn't be going to psychiatrists, there's nothing wrong or dangerours about that.

You could probably look at 99% of little kids and think they're cute, that's what kids do best. Thinking ""ahh, cute" is not a sexual though though.

You appear to have misunderstood.

I used "cute" as the most mild term I could think of to apply to someone that one felt was sexually attractive. Replace with "sexy" if you wish to remove all doubt.

There's a big difference between looking at a little girl and thinking "Oh, she's sexy" and thinking "I'm gonna rape her until she screams".

Again, I apologise to all for the disturbing image.

But, if these people are walking around with a ticking time bomb poisoning their minds without seeking professional help, I would say it's borderline criminal. If I started thinking in such a way, I would be highly disturbed and guilty. If you have these thoughts and don't feel bad about it, you are on a slippery slope towards physical child abuse.

And there's your problem. You are assuming that anyone who has a sexual thought about a child is by definition on their way to raping a child.

Do you have any thing to support that assumption? Logic, statistics, research, anything? Or is this your emotion speaking, that you are so adamant that you want to protect your child that you are willing to sacrifice innocent people. People who just happened to be born with certain preferences, and are no more at risk of raping a child than you are of running through a mall with a machine gun slaughtering people.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR child knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually? Personally, it would make my blood boil.

That's an instinctive reaction, one that's largely evolutionary. Particularly as a parent, you are designed to protect your child. It's normal.

People have similar reactions to homosexuality, as we can see in this thread, as well as towards incest, furries, and a whole bunch of other things. These reactions are not necessarily rational, and sometimes you need to try and put them to one side so that you can think clearly about what is actually going on.

I'd be uncomfortable being face to face with someone obviously thinking about my child sexually, but as long as they don't touch them and they're not being total creeps, then whatever. It's a free world.


As a related point, I find it jarring the disconnect that we have in Western society between sex and violence. Violent fantasies are almost encouraged, and it's generally fairly accepted that the huge amount of violence in our media is not creating a society of serial killers, and the people who write or create this violent media are not labelled as some sort of sicko for being able to imagine this stuff.

I don't see the guys who created Saw being locked up as potential psychopathic mass murderers, for example.

Yet there's still this idea that even thinking about sex pushes someone inevitably towards that sexual preference. Seeing gay people together will make you gay. Thinking about children sexually will make you a child rapist. It's bollocks.

How old were you when puberty hit?

If you were a young teen (13 - 14) I wouldn't worry so much. It's grown adults that cause the most harm and don't have puberty to blame.

Play the ball, not the man, please. It's none of your business how old I am or how my development progressed.

I didn't say thoughts harmed people, I was saying that certain thoughts can lead to serious wrong doings.

And you appear to be willing to criminalise people who wouldn't have offended in order to make sure that you catch the ones that would have offended before they act.

To what extent are you willing to lock up innocent people in order to catch a paedophile before he offends? One innocent per offender? Ten? A thousand? Let's get a ballpark figure on how high you would go before you deemed the benefit to society to be not worth the violation of those innocent people's rights.

Current population of the earth is about 7 billion, so your range is somewhere between zero and 7 billion.

 

[Roo]

There's an interesting article I read a few days ago that talked about paedophiles who don't act upon it.

I had seen it before but couldn't find it again, so thanks for posting that.

I'm not destabilised, it's probably a knee jerk thing. Kids are so harmless it's hard to not defend them with vigour.

I can understand that, but it's all to easy to let emotion take over and drown out rationality - and on a subject as serious as child abuse I find that to be very irresponsible.

Define thinking about murdering someone.
Is it a fleeting thought in real anger towards another driver who almost killed you or, is it a detailed and reoccurring thought that makes your hands go clammy?

If its the latter, you may have a problem and could be a threat.

So long as it's not acted upon it doesn't matter.

Didn't a guy go to jail for planning a heinous crime on a baby?

I don't know. Probably, and so he should - if he's planned it enough to produce enough evidence to convict him, he's acting on his thoughts.

I feel like you're almost defending people's right to have sexual thoughts towards children .

I am. Reiterating what @Imari said, what people think about is not a problem; it's only a problem if they harm others through acting on the thought.

I used to work with a gay guy who would occasionally like to wind people up by trying to make them uncomfortable, especially if they voiced any homophobic sentiments. He was about as opposite to a gay stereotype as you could get - an overweight Northern Irishman in his 40s. Despite knowing I had no issue with homosexuality he announced over lunch one day that he had a sex dream about me. He was quite deflated when I pointed out that not only did I not care, but that I had also seen it coming* because he wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise. I know he knew not to take it further and that he had no intention of doing so, and it was never mentioned again.

The point is that anyone can think about anything, but having those thoughts doesn't mean a person doesn't know the potential consequences of acting upon them, and so - with a great effort of will, and in the case of paedophiles, all on their own with no support network - do what they can to fight what they're feeling. Some don't manage it and in desperation, give in. Should they then feel the full force of the criminal justice system? Yes. Should they have been allowed to get help without being stigmatised before it got to that point? Absolutely.

*As it were.

OK. Then someone who finds themselves thinking such
notions should seek immediate psychiatric help

Did you read the article Daniel posted? If you haven't I recommend reading all the way to the end, or if large walls of text aren't your thing give the original radio broadcast a listen. It points out that there isn't any proper help for paedophiles if they haven't already abused a child.

as it is wholly unnatural.

There's a lot of reasons already in this thread used to counter that point when it's posted in an arguement against homosexuality. They can just as easily be used to counter that point when it's used against any sexual attraction. You don't chose your attraction. You DO chose your actions.

If I started thinking in such a way, I would be highly disturbed and guilty.

I'm sure many paedophiles do. I say 'I'm sure' because I can't find any data from any investigation in to non-offending paedophiles, which suggests either a) I'm rubbish at researching (quite possible) or b) nobody's actually bothered to try to find out, or has bothered to try to find out but hasn't been given the funding to do so because ZOMG PAEDOS BAD.

Social stigma: preventing research that could potentially save thousands of children from abuse because it makes society feel uncomfortable. Much better to have a child's life ruined and then try to do something about it, apparantly

If you have these thoughts and don't feel bad about it, you are on a slippery slope towards physical child abuse.

Possibly. Again, nobody knows for certain because not enough people are prepared to stick their necks above the parapet in order to find out.

Would you be happy using public transport with YOUR child knowing the person opposite is thinking about them sexually?

How would you know a person is thinking about your child sexually?

I would suggest that you wouldn't unless they started acting on those thoughts in however small a way - in which case they've gone beyond just thinking about your child.

I didn't say thoughts harmed people, I was saying that certain thoughts can lead to serious wrong doings.

Actions can and do harm people. Thoughts do not. I suspect from very different starting postions we've arrived at the same point 👍

In any case, how do you police someone's thoughts if they're not acted upon?

 

[Finduszip]

Being gay myself, the decade-old posts in this thread kinda upset me.

And some recent posts too.

Don't be like that, people.

 

[Carbonox]

Being gay myself, the decade-old posts in this thread kinda upset me.

And some recent posts too.

Don't be like that, people.

The creepy part about some of those crazy decade old posts (mostly referring to the one claiming gays would be meant to stay single and other crap) have actually been liked by people.

 

[Daniel]

Some of the posts are downright laughable though.

I don't know if this has already been said or not. Sorry but I don't posses the patient nor do I have the time to read through the 30'some pages, but I voted that homosexuality is a slap to God/Nature.

I say that because, in Catholicism (Cathlic Belief/Religion) there are 7 deadly sins. One being lust. When a fag decides he wants to hump other fags, it is for pure lust. It IS a sin. To devote an entire lifestyle to sin.... I have very little patience for gay people, and even lesser patience for religious gay people, because of that soul idea.

Homosexuality is a direct slap against nature because of homo love. A butt-hole, is for ****. A vagina, is for dick. Plain and simple. Please excuse my crudeness but....I think some people really don't understand that. (Homos)

I wanted to vote also for "A problem that needs to be fixed". Because this is a serious problem. More and more people are becoming comfortable around and think it is okay to associate with homos. For that matter, some people don't think it is wrong, they feel it's just an alternative lifestyle. They are damning themselves.

anyway that's my 2 cents

 

[Dan]

What a sad, sad little man.

 

[dylansan]

Maybe we should listen to him. He is infallible after all... and so humble too.

 

[afbarnes]

Infallibles post made me cackle :')

 

[Roo]

The creepy part about some of those crazy decade old posts (mostly referring to the one claiming gays would be meant to stay single and other crap) have actually been liked by people.

About 7 or 8 years ago the forum had a Reputation system, where you could click a button marked +Rep in the same way you can Like something now. When the Like button was added, all those old posts that had been +Rep'd were shown as Liked. Don't assume people nowadays are going back to decade old posts and liking them. I'm with you on people agreeing with ignorance whenever they did so is pathetic, though.

Being gay myself, the decade-old posts in this thread kinda upset me.

And some recent posts too.

Don't be like that, people.

I can see why, but take heart from the amount of people who then make a strong counter-argument. Haters gonna hate but in time they'll die out.

 

[Liquid]

This is a serious thread and I'm usually one to make serious points but thanks to Daniel's gravedig this really made me laugh.

A butt-hole, is for ****. A vagina, is for dick. Plain and simple. Please excuse my crudeness but....I think some people really don't understand that. (Homos)

As if we didn't know whom he meant.