The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Pako]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Homosexual incest at least eliminates the possibility of recessive genetic problems in any offspring of the union. This is the fundamental reason that incest has been considered taboo throughout history, particularly between brothers and sisters (who share 100% of their genetic makeup, not 50% as is the case in parent/child incest).

However, offspring aside, incest does not bind the family unit into its society, because the members are not going out to pair with members of other family units. This is a secondary, social reason why incest is considered taboo in 99.9% of all societies throughout history.

I fail to see how you can relate incest in any form to 'normal' homosexual sex. Can you please explain how you arrived at that conclusion?

Define 'normal' and define 'family'.... We could split hairs here, but a family in not limited to biological ties nor does biological ties make a family unit.

So are you saying that incest homosexuality is not 'a good thing to do'?

As far as genetic reasons for not sharing relations with opposite sex partners of the same gene, I will turn to the ancient Hawaiian and Polynesian cultures. In Hawaii, before the missionaries, any child born with any kind of mark or blemish or any other abnormalities, the village would throw the babies off of a cliff and into the ocean. This was their way of maintaining a healthy society where the gene diversity is limited because the live on an island. The point being, missionaries from Europe saw this type of behavior barbaric and taught them otherwise, but also gave them the means to broaden their gene pool selection.

So, what is right! If you take a child with sexual thoughts of any kind, it is the parents obligations to steer that child into the right direction. If a person is left of their own devices, without the added wisdom of their elders.....you are left with "Lord of the Flies", and that's a mild example. If you take a drug addict for instance. Here is a person that was never taught the tools to deal with life on life's terms. As a result, the drug of choice becomes the necessary stimulus to deal with or hide from life's situations. Now if that same person was taught at a young age on how to deal with those situations, those drugs would be less appealing, and the chances of that drug ever becoming an addictive problem would be minimal, or non existent. Some kids are easier than others, but if we teach our kids that homosexuality is the norm by example or from a social standpoint, then more than likely, that's what you'll get. How could you have an entire society of homosexuals as given by the example of some of the early, non westernized tribes? It is a taught, socially adaptive lifestyle and nothing more. This is not to say that certain feelings won't come up, but those feelings can be either detoured or nurtured. And that is the responsibility of our society today.

[edited]
To expand on another example of teaching other than what 'feels' right. What about stealing? If a child steals from a store because that child is complelled to take that 35 cent stick of gum from Walmart, is that child harming anyone? No, that stick of gum is so insugnificant to Wal-mart that their business would see no ill effects from that child's action. So why do we punish and teach our children an alternative course of action? What if someone stole a $1,000 dollars from Bill Gates, would Bill come to any harm or even notice that it was stolen? Harm-no, would he notice, probably not. Is it still wrong? Sure it's wrong. It's not morally right to steal from another. Further more, if you feel like stealing, does that make you thief? No, but the act of stealing does make you thief.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
It is a taught, socially adaptive lifestyle and nothing more.

I thoroughly disagree. I am not straight because I was taught to be straight. To put it bluntly, I am straight because when I hit puberty I wanted to have sex with girls... not boys. If I was gay something else would've occured. If somebody had tried to teach me that to be gay is normal, I probably would've ended up impotent or something.

But then normal is a relative term. What's normal for you may or may not be normal for me. If something you don't like is normal it doesn't mean you have to change.

Maybe a better way to put it would be not abnormal.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by milefile
when I hit puberty I wanted to have sex with girls

Nice.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
I thoroughly disagree. I am not straight because I was taught to be straight. To put it bluntly, I am straight because when I hit puberty I wanted to have sex with girls... not boys. *snip*

How can you be so sure? Think back to growing up. Think about every cartoon you watched that had 'partners' in it. Think about your parents example of relations. Think about all your influences growing up. What direction has society steered you with your sexuallity?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
This is a mis-conception (pardon the pun, ROFL). Incest does not create "freak's",... it has recently been proven otherwise. I'd find the documentation, but I don't have time to search at work.

Duke and milefile have already hit all the bases on this issue, but to add a real-world example:

The Amish people are obviously very secluded from the rest of the world. Because of this, they reproduce within their own little society. Over time, this has caused a limited gene pool, and so the Amish are more likely to have a few certain mutations... more than five finger per hand, for instance.

Royalty had all kinds of sick problems, because of this breeding within a small population. Just do a little research and see how many strange folks held a royal status.

The key to nature's success is a large gene pool that promotes variation in individuals-- this way, you can maintain many different alleles. If you get two individuals in a family to reproduce, chances are they will become homozygous dominant/recessive, and with continued "inter-breeding", that lineage will continue, and the individuals will be at a disadvantage.

Originally posted by DGB454
No I did mean 20 years ago. I remember 20 years ago and I remember the reaction most of us had towards homosexuality.
We laughed about them...we would call each other names like queer and fagot as a put down. Try that now and most people would be upset because the names are degrading to a group of people.

As a teenager going to a high school, I'd have to say that you're at least partially wrong. I here these kinds of put downs every single day... from the simple "This assignment is so gay" to the downright harsh, "Stop staring at me that way, you **** fag!". And, I'm not exaggerating when I say that I here those kinds of remarks every single day-- I'd wager that I hear about 10 such remarks per day.

It's really sick how such things are still being said... even if the speaker doesn't realize how offense the statements are.

 

[infallible]

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

 

[Klostrophobic]

If I said I was gay would any of you really give a ****?

Or would you just say that my closet had a glass window?

 

[Klostrophobic]

Originally posted by infallible
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

I'm quite certain you've been brainwashed by your church. I could be wrong though.

What the hell is the difference between Doug [not you] having sex with John and Doug [not you again] having sex with Mary? Well, besides the blatantly obvious physical differences?

I'm thinking of becoming gay just to spite all you fundamentalist Christians.

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by infallible
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

Another afraid of differences pious member...

 

[1X83Z]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic
I'm quite certain you've been brainwashed by your church. I could be wrong though.

What the hell is the difference between Doug [not you] having sex with John and Doug [not you again] having sex with Mary? Well, besides the blatantly obvious physical differences?

What's the difference between Shelley having sex with ... eh, I won't get into it.

I'm thinking of becoming gay just to spite all you fundamentalist Christians.

I would if I were your age. Seriously. And not because I wanted to, but just to tick off people like infallible, because they're easily ticked off by what they don't understand.

 

[Gil]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic



I'm thinking of becoming gay just to spite all you fundamentalist Christians.

You wanna be the husband? Or do you wanna be the wife?








...and why?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Pako
How can you be so sure? Think back to growing up. Think about every cartoon you watched that had 'partners' in it. Think about your parents example of relations. Think about all your influences growing up. What direction has society steered you with your sexuallity?

The proof is physiological. There are many gay men who grew up surrounded by all the "right" influences. Nevertheless, the are still gay.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by infallible
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

Okay. First:

Second, your analysis of lust is as crude as your language.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by infallible
When a fag decides he wants to hump other fags, it is for pure lust.................. anyway that's my 2 cents

ROFL!

If I were to judge a book by it's cover,.... I'd say your an only child who's never been in love. Your dad is a hard ass,... and you need to develop better communication skills with your mom. But that's JMO of your 2 cents......

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
The proof is physiological. There are many gay men who grew up surrounded by all the "right" influences. Nevertheless, the are still gay.

I would have to say that it would be a very small percentage of modern day society. Of course there is no censis out there to give us the exact % but I would assume that it's pretty small. But now we have contradictory facts as you stated here:

A society in Paupa New Guinnea practices institutionalized pedophilia. The same society where homosexuality is the norm and hetero sex is ritualized for procreation only. During the 50 weeks a year the men are separated from the women, the boys perform oral sex on the men (they may do more but I can't be sure). They believe that semen is what makes boys men and they must get it (consume and incorporate) this way. Also, if two boys are caught being sexual without men, they are punished as thieves trying to steal the other boys' life force. That's their morality.

Of course I'm glad I wasn't raised in that world. But these people will never know anyting different... unless some Christian missionaries show up to tell them they are evil.

These people were taught to be gay, as that was their culture and didn't know any different. The ones (again I bet a small % of rebels ) were punished for abstanance or heteralsexual relations.

I only know (that I know of) 4 people with 'alternative lifestyles', and not a single one of them had a stable upbringing as a child. Not a single one of them had role models or any other "good" influences. I haven't read any studies, but from what I personally know, 100% of them are a product of their environment. I know that 3 of the 4 were molested as children. These are people that I love and care for, but I see their choice of lifestyle to be rebellious, and safe with their partner because of the lack of social skills were always looked at differently, and shunned aside. What started out as experimentation, later became confortable, and now a way of life for them. I'm sure that their's other factors involved as well, but I honestly wouldn't have a clue as to what they are.

And yes, the proof is psycological which is hard to prove, and without a doubt, probably will never be able to prove. Our society believes that a person is born that way. I'm offering an alternative perspective on this topic. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[milefile]

It is contradictory. But the toilets also swirl the other way down there. Gayness can be socially conditioned, as can anything (so many totally "unnatural" things are socially conditioned in our own society as well). And something that is physiological for a few can be socially chosen by many. The reasons are are another issue. But I see your point.

It goes back to what I think is the heart of the issue: choice or not? I think both. And I think I can tell the difference. But my circumstances, as opposed to past years, do not expose me to any gay men so I may be incapable of those subtle observations now. I may never know.

Choice or not, it transgresses Christian morality. I understand this and have nothing against anyone who wishes nobody was gay. Frankly, most fags annoy me. But I'll still defend their right to live freely.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Originally posted by milefile
Frankly, most fags annoy me. But I'll still defend their right to live freely.

BRAVO

 

[DGB454]

Originally posted by Klostrophobic


I'm thinking of becoming gay just to spite all you fundamentalist Christians.

Good luck with that...Believe me it wouldn't bother me a bit if you did. Just don't try and push it on me and don't get in my face with it. I say that just to spite all you fundaMENTAList gays.

 

[Pako]

Originally posted by milefile
It is contradictory. But the toilets also swirl the other way down there. Gayness can be socially conditioned, as can anything (so many totally "unnatural" things are socially conditioned in our own society as well). And something that is physiological for a few can be socially chosen by many. The reasons are are another issue. But I see your point.

It goes back to what I think is the heart of the issue: choice or not? I think both. And I think I can tell the difference. But my circumstances, as opposed to past years, do not expose me to any gay men so I may be incapable of those subtle observations now. I may never know.

Choice or not, it transgresses Christian morality. I understand this and have nothing against anyone who wishes nobody was gay. Frankly, most fags annoy me. But I'll still defend their right to live freely.

I agree and am glad to see your caring nature for people who you don't even know, much less, people who annoy you! They should be able to live freely without being subject to hate crimes, and other acts of physical and psycological attacks.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
So are you saying that incest homosexuality is not 'a good thing to do'?

I'm saying incest in any form is 'not a good thing to do', and I'm aksing what you've read that makes you equate it to homosexuality.

The point being, missionaries from Europe saw this type of behavior barbaric and taught them otherwise, but also gave them the means to broaden their gene pool selection.

The missionaries also saw worshipping a non-Christian god as barabaric. You point is...? To reinforce the idea that anything outside of a Judeo-Christian morality is barbaric?

So, what is right! If you take a child with sexual thoughts of any kind, it is the parents obligations to steer that child into the right direction.
<snip>
It is a taught, socially adaptive lifestyle and nothing more. This is not to say that certain feelings won't come up, but those feelings can be either detoured or nurtured. And that is the responsibility of our society today.

But who's morality sets society's standard? As I've said time and again - if society's standards are open and tolerant of physically harmless activities, then individuals and families are always free to hold stricter standards for themselves. But if the standards are held too strictly to begin with, there is no opportunity for those with more open standards to practice them without running into trouble.

To expand on another example of teaching other than what 'feels' right. What about stealing? If a child steals from a store because that child is complelled to take that 35 cent stick of gum from Walmart, is that child harming anyone? No, that stick of gum is so insugnificant to Wal-mart that their business would see no ill effects from that child's action. So why do we punish and teach our children an alternative course of action? What if someone stole a $1,000 dollars from Bill Gates, would Bill come to any harm or even notice that it was stolen? Harm-no, would he notice, probably not. Is it still wrong? Sure it's wrong. It's not morally right to steal from another. Further more, if you feel like stealing, does that make you thief? No, but the act of stealing does make you thief.

You are mistaken in this premise. Wal-Mart and Bill Gates are harmed by the theft. It causes them physical (in this case, economic) damage, no matter how slight. As such, it is wrong as a matter of principle. Besides, as I have also repeated many times, it is wrong because it is not consensual. If you steal $1000 from Bill, he doesn't have a choice about it. He is powerless to decide whether he wants to give you $1000 or not, so THAT is where the wrongness lies, not in the degree of harm.

But if two consenting adults of the same gender choose to have sex together, there is no harm in that! This incidentally invalidates your 'drug addict' analogy as well. Regardless of the extent of the harm (and that's a totally separate topic), using drugs is physically bad for you, as well as psychologically - outside the realm of society's opinion on the subject. Homosexuality causes no physical harm in and of itself, and it only causes psychological harm when subjected to repression from society.

Your point about homosexuality being a learned behaviour is also mistaken in premise. I agree with milefile that it is some combination of environment and predisposition that may lead to an openly gay lifestyle. However, I was raised in a household that taught tolerance of many things, including homosexuality. Yet it did not make me gay. I am not repulsed by the very idea of homosexual sex, so if that had manifested as my tendency then I would be comfortable with it in myself. But that tolerance has no power to make me be gay. By contrast, my parents were very intolerant of drug use, yet I went ahead and satisfied my curiousity on that subject regardless of my upbringing.

Originally posted by Infallible:
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.

This post eloquently explains so many of the reasons that I am 1) atheist, 2) tolerant, 3) politically Libertarian, and 4) glad as hell that I have an open mind and can think for myself.

 

[Pako]

neon_duke:

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I can clearly see the difference between to parties knowingly participating in a action, whereas the Gum and the BG analogy was a construed example. I still do not see how you could be accepting of only a particular form of homosexuality. Consenting adults, no harm to each other or others seems to be the common theme for acceptance with this life style, so why would incest be excluded from this acceptable standard. Based on your core guidelines, how is it any different other than having close common genealogical ties between each other, and why would those biological ties be a deciding factor or 'right' or 'wrong'?

Off-Topic: I also laughed to myself when I read your response to Infallible. He's definitely got his opinions, but so often spirituality is judged by what a single person says as they are acting and speaking in regards to a particular sect, but If I didn't know any better, I would totally agree with you.

Off-Topic: Not to shove this down anyone's throat, but I ran across this verse and analyzed the psychological implications of it. The verse goes on to say that God will separate the chaff from the wheat and that if a man is wants to see God then He will give him the eyes to see, and if he wants to hear Him, He will give him the ears to hear. Without the willingness to see or hear God then you will not hear or see Him. Now in looking at this, are we talking about a delusional manifestation of our own imagination? It just caught my eye, and I want to share that... My thought process goes on to analyze reality as we know it. If I sense or feel something with my senses, is it not real to me? An extreme case of scitsophrenia (sp?), that persons reality is very real. So yes, there are physical laws that govern the universe, but is it not our conscience that determines what reality is? I'm concluding that reality, as we know it, is beyond the realm of physics. I'm really not trying to make a point or change anyone's views, but rather just thinking out loud.

Anyhow,

 

[Red Eye Racer]

Off-Topic, on topic to the previous Off-Topic
Nice perspective. 👍

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by Pako
Thank you for your detailed explanation. I can clearly see the difference between to parties knowingly participating in a action, whereas the Gum and the BG analogy was a construed example.

Glad to know you understand the difference.

I still do not see how you could be accepting of only a particular form of homosexuality. Consenting adults, no harm to each other or others seems to be the common theme for acceptance with this life style, so why would incest be excluded from this acceptable standard.

I'm not trying to avoid this question, but let me put it back on you: assuming that your morals/religion approve of contraception, why isn't protected heterosexual incest acceptable? That also removes the probability of offspring (let's assume for the argument that contraception can be 100% effective).

Based on your core guidelines, how is it any different other than having close common genealogical ties between each other, and why would those biological ties be a deciding factor or 'right' or 'wrong'?

Consider your position on the question I asked above. In addition, there are psychological/social reasons why insest is bad for the family unit. As I said earlier, incest prevents the family from becoming integrated into the local society. If the unattached young adults are staying within the family, there is no interaction and no social diversity within the given larger group. So the argument against incest has a physical and social reason for the taboo, regardless of the gender-preference issue.

Off-Topic: I also laughed to myself when I read your response to Infallible. He's definitely got his opinions, but so often spirituality is judged by what a single person says as they are acting and speaking in regards to a particular sect, but If I didn't know any better, I would totally agree with you.

I almost added an aside that I felt bad for the likes of you and Der Alta when somebody like infallible opens his mouth. Believe me, I know better than to generalize that badly.

So yes, there are physical laws that govern the universe, but is it not our conscience that determines what reality is? I'm concluding that reality, as we know it, is beyond the realm of physics.

On this I have to disagree. I firmly believe that there is an objective reality, independent of our perception of it, but that all of this reality can be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, and heard.

 

[milefile]

Ahhhhhhhh!!!!! Where does it end!?

 

[Pako]

milefile:
It doesn't!

neon_duke:
In short, the only sexual relationship that IMO is a healthy and nuturing relationship is one of compromsie, trust, patience, love, understanding, life long commentment, opposite sex, and from different family origins. That pretty much sums up where I'm coming from, and I think I stated that before.

In regards to your question:

I'm not trying to avoid this question, but let me put it back on you: assuming that your morals/religion approve of contraception, why isn't protected heterosexual incest acceptable? That also removes the probability of offspring (let's assume for the argument that contraception can be 100% effective).

This does not make incest acceptable just because reproduction is hindered, but I fail to see the relevance. I think I understand what your saying about social starvation within a closed family group, but what couples are only limited to their own pair, without social stimulas from the outside? Especially with communications as it is today, each partner of the same family group has ample opertunity to get diverse social interactions with others. With regards to society's 'taboo' causing psycological damage on the incest couple....., we're kinda hitting the same cord with homosexual couples, except society is more accepting of them now then in the recent past. If it was socially acceptable, with no psycological damage then it would be 'a good thing to do'? In a closed family system I can see your point, but unless your on an island in the south pacific that no one knows about, the world is in a very open social system compared to say a 100 years ago.

So homosexuallity is ok because it is more socially acceptable thus not causing psycological harm, and because they are social diverse in nature coming from different families, while the incest couple is not accepted and screwtenized because of it, and thus making it 'wrong' because of societies pressure causing psycological damage. That is a summary of what you are saying, yes?

[edit]
It seems that the morallity line is moved and influenced given the pressures of society and what seems to be politically correct if there is no other influences at work. If enough people practicing incest came out of the closet, rallied for rights, and faught hard for acceptance....the line of morality would move again on a macro level.

Hummmm.....

 

[Red Eye Racer]

<sniff-sniff-sniff>

Do I smell the hypocritical flame burning somewhere?

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
<sniff-sniff-sniff>

Do I smell the hypocritical flame burning somewhere?

I don't know. Do You?

 

[Red Eye Racer]

yeah,...... I do......

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Red Eye Racer
yeah,...... I do......

Well.. Don't keep us hanging. Do share.

 

[Red Eye Racer]

I just think it's hypoctitical to say your 'pro' for one group having freedom of life experience, while 'anti' for another. I always thought free will was free will. ****, I could give a **** if it was the old west and everyone was killin one-and-other,...

To me,... it goes right along with the earlier discussion about how someone can condem homosexuality between men,.. but turn around and enjoy lesbian porn.

"Hey guy's,... let's get sloppy drunk and lose our scences. But, whatever you do, dont smoke pot because it's BAD!"

Everyone is entitled to their opinion,... I just think some people need to take a brauder perspective when analizing these situations so that they dont confuse the crap outta me when they say on thing and then the other.

THINK, PEOPLE, THINK!