The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Scaff]

You made an assumption. Can't deny that.

No I didn't - see my edit above.

You stated that Roney should be locked up for the opinions he holds, not for any actions he has carried out, but for simply holding an opinion that differs to your own.

Hell - I disagree with the majority of what he says, but would never suggest that he be locked up for it, because that's not going to achieve anything but a continued cycle of prejudice and intolerance.

I'm not sure where I said those things about prejudice, if you would be so polite to point me towards the meant post?

You said....

All 3 of you want me to believe you guys know about the difference in life between an normal person and a homosexual. Which you obviously don't.

...and as I was one of the last three people to post prior to that it quite clearly implies that I don't understand the pressures that prejudice brings.

If that's not what you were trying to say then please explain, because that's exact how it reads.

 

[Gonales]

The question was why you get to decide for the planet.

I don't. Like i've been trying to say, freedom of speech is not the same for every single person. For example. If I talk to an extremist religious guy, I'm not going to tell him his religion sucks.

1: That would very likely be offensive, thus probably not allowed.
2: I'm not the bitch, or narrow-minded person you think I am. If people treat me and others with respect, they don't have anything to fear from me.

We've been saying all along that you get to decide for you but no-one else because everyone chooses their own level of what's offensive to them. No-one, you included, gets to decide for the planet.

Yeah, have I said anything else? There are certain things to certain people that are offensive. Those people will have to point that out. As I pointed out that I find it offensive, if people dislike something and say that's gay, because they don't know what they are saying.

If you cannot discuss without denigrating others' intelligence - particularly after pages of gibberish, personal attacks and lip-service reading - you do not belong here.

I did this once, I already told you to infraction me for it if you want. But if you don't stop bringing it up, it's useless.

Which. Isn't. Freedom. Of. Speech.

Dear Xenu, what about this aren't you getting? Limiting something denies freedom of it. If Islam is banned, you don't have freedom of religion - the sentiment "They still have it, they just can't be Muslim" is nonsense.

Dude, you're free to go where-ever you like, you're a so-called free man. Does that mean you can walk into the Oval Office without appointment? Of course not. This doesn't mean you're not free. There are boundaries, as with EVERYthing in life.

Since the start of this was you insulting the intelligence of people who can construct a reasoned, logical argument and at every turn you've managed to abuse and insult others, you've just talked yourself into your own prison cell.

No, I insulted 2 times: 1: People that use 'Freedom of speech' as an excuse to insult people without repercussion. (At least, they think)

I may well have done. My personal experiences aren't relevant because I'm not using my personal history, fuelled by emotion, to construct an illogical argument to destroy the freedoms of society.

If your family left you because some guy called you a fag, they're not much of a family. Your issues seem to stem from something deeper than people saying mean things about homosexuals and more from people's dislike of homosexuals. How much do you think they'll like them if they're told to never be mean about them again or face prison? I'll give you a clue - it's "not that much".

You're good at exaggerating, but let's stay with the facts shall we? What illogical argument? That I think FoS is limited? That, for some reasons I think Romney should be locked away? Yeah, that may be illogical to you, but you don't know everything. You don't know me.

Limiting speech is Limitation of Speech. No limitation is Freedom of Speech.

Once you limit it for one reason, you have precedent for anyone else to limit it for any other reason, some of which you might not like all that much.

As stated before.

For once, towards the Close of Day Matilda, growing tired of play and finding she was left alone went tiptoe to the telephone, and summoned the Immediate Aid Of London's Noble Fire-Brigade...

?

 

[Gonales]

No I didn't - see my edit above.

You stated that Roney should be locked up for the opinions he holds, not for any actions he has carried out, but for simply holding an opinion that differs to your own.

I said Romney should be locked up, yes. Partially for the opinions he holds, the fact that even with the kind of opinions he holds, people look up to him. I know this is irrational, but I hate the guy more than anyone on this planet.

Hell - I disagree with the majority of what he says, but would never suggest that he be locked up for it, because that's not going to achieve anything but a continued cycle of prejudice and intolerance.

Maybe, (probably), maybe not. Because we aren't the same person.

You said....

...and as I was one of the last three people to post prior to that it quite clearly implies that I don't understand the pressures that prejudice brings.

If that's not what you were trying to say then please explain, because that's exact how it reads.

It wasn't aimed at you, I'm pretty sure of that, sorry if there was any confusion there. Considering I agreed to most of your posts I had hoped that was clear. Hence it took me so long to find it.

Plus, I don't think anyone could understand completely if they haven't lived through it. But, that's probably a misconception again.

 

[Famine]

I said Romney should be locked up, yes. Partially for the opinions he holds, the fact that even with the kind of opinions he holds, people look up to him. I know this is irrational, but I hate the guy more than anyone on this planet.

It's funny because at no point have you cited any reference of what opinions Mitt Romney holds about homosexuals.

I mean, he doesn't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, but that's fairly standard religious behaviour - there's about 4 billion religious people on the planet, so you should hate them as much - and even as President he'd have been in no position to do anything about it. You made a glib reference to Obama signing a hate crime bill which was irrelevant - he signed it (didn't draft the bill or vote for it) because his job is to sign into law what senate passes and Romney would have done it too if he were President.

But nothing about these apparently imprisonable opinions he has about homosexuals that make him worse than Westboro, worse than neoNazis, worse than the KKK, worse than the BNP - all of whom have expressed opinions that involve the explusion, genital mutilation and execution of homosexuals.

I don't. Like i've been trying to say, freedom of speech is not the same for every single person. For example. If I talk to an extremist religious guy, I'm not going to tell him his religion sucks.

1: That would very likely be offensive, thus probably not allowed.
2: I'm not the bitch, or narrow-minded person you think I am. If people treat me and others with respect, they don't have anything to fear from me.

Oh for the love of bees.

Freedom of speech is the right to speak freely. It's not different for everyone, it's the same.

It's also not the compulsion to speak whatever's on your mind at any given time. It's not a free pass to be a jerk. It's not a guarantee that you can say what you like and not face any consequences of it. It's the guaranteed right to speak freely.

What about this are you not getting?

Yeah, have I said anything else? There are certain things to certain people that are offensive. Those people will have to point that out. As I pointed out that I find it offensive, if people dislike something and say that's gay, because they don't know what they are saying.

Yes, you said you'd have someone locked up for their opinion and support laws limiting expression.

I did this once, I already told you to infraction me for it if you want. But if you don't stop bringing it up, it's useless.

No, I insulted 2 times: 1: People that use 'Freedom of speech' as an excuse to insult people without repercussion. (At least, they think)

You've been way more insulting than that.

Do you think "Duh" is an acceptable comment to aim at someone when failing to answer the question they posed because you didn't understand the question?

Dude, you're free to go where-ever you like, you're a so-called free man. Does that mean you can walk into the Oval Office without appointment? Of course not. This doesn't mean you're not free. There are boundaries, as with EVERYthing in life.

At what point has anyone argued for freedom of movement? In fact at what point has anyone pointing out to you very patiently the difference between private property and public property argued for freedom of movement?

Oh yes, never.

You're good at exaggerating, but let's stay with the facts shall we? What illogical argument? That I think FoS is limited? That, for some reasons I think Romney should be locked away? Yeah, that may be illogical to you, but you don't know everything. You don't know me.

I neither have to know everything nor you to be able to follow logic. Moreover logic is independent of either of us.

Claiming freedom of speech is still free when you limit it is patently illogical. Claiming you should be allowed to say what you want while other people are thrown in prison and laws passed to stop them saying what they want is patently illogical.

 

[Gonales]

Famine, seeing you're just wanting to read what I type, and the fact our opinions will never be on one line here... Nevermind. Just speak to a lawyer about Freedom of Speech. Nobody would be able to give you a 100% correct answer because all of it is based on emotions.

If you think 'Duh' is offending, I'm sorry, I will not use it again.
(Quite ironic to be called thin-skinned, and than having to apologise for such a thing. Not saying you called me that, although you might have.)

 

[arora]

I said Romney should be locked up, yes. Partially for the opinions he holds, the fact that even with the kind of opinions he holds, people look up to him. I know this is irrational, but I hate the guy more than anyone on this planet.

This is the most selfish thing you have said, and keep on saying.

 

[Gonales]

This is the most selfish thing you have said, and keep on saying.

Yeah, and? Do you find it offensive? If you guys want free speech there you have it.

If any Romney fan says it's offensive, and asks me to stop saying this, I will ask why. If he/she has a valid argument, I will. (Not that I will stop thinking it.)

 

[Famine]

Yeah, and? Do you find it offensive? If you guys want free speech there you have it.

The irony here isn't that anyone finds it offensive, but that you don't agree with freedom of speech and are citing it as valid for use here!

If any Romney fan says it's offensive, and asks me to stop saying this, I will ask why. If he/she has a valid argument, I will. (Not that I will stop thinking it.)

You'll find very few Romney fans and very many fans of backing up your claims here. We've asked you to provide evidence of what you've been saying about Romney. You've provided nothing valid and, more recently, ignored it altogether.

Famine, seeing you're just wanting to read what I type

I can't read what's in your head. I can only read what's on the screen. Try it sometime instead of inventing what people say.

Just speak to a lawyer about Freedom of Speech.

What could possibly compel me to do that?

Lawyers study the law (usually for precedent or gaps). The law is the subjective will of whatever horde has been voted in most recently and varies from country to country - for instance in mine you get thrown into prison for telling a joke. Freedom of speech is an objective right that is nothing to do with law, except that laws are passed to try to deny it with the support of people like you who have no concept of what these rights are or why they were important enough to send millions of our people to die for.

Nobody would be able to give you a 100% correct answer because all of it is based on emotions.

Laws are. Rights aren't. They're based on logic.

If you think 'Duh' is offending, I'm sorry, I will not use it again.
(Quite ironic to be called thin-skinned, and than having to apologise for such a thing. Not saying you called me that, although you might have.)

Once again you've missed the difference between freedom of speech in public places and private property rules.

In public places you can say "duh" to me and someone else can call you a "gay". GTPlanet isn't a public place and we do not tolerate abusive behaviour. Don't apologise - just stop doing it.

 

[arora]

It's not offensive, it's immature. Will you now go make me a sandwich please?

 

[Gonales]

The irony here isn't that anyone finds it offensive, but that you don't agree with freedom of speech and are citing it as valid for use here!

Sorry, next time I'll put a sarcasm warning next to it.

You'll find very few Romney fans and very many fans of backing up your claims here. We've asked you to provide evidence of what you've been saying about Romney. You've provided nothing valid and, more recently, ignored it altogether.

I already told you I was waiting for the evidence, didn't I?

I can't read what's in your head. I can only read what's on the screen. Try it sometime instead of inventing what people say.

I'm getting tired, so yeah, my sentence structures might start to get worse. Shoot me :/

What could possibly compel me to do that?

Wanting to know stuff, like the truth? I'm defo going to ask around.

Lawyers study the law (usually for precedent or gaps). The law is the subjective will of whatever horde has been voted in most recently and varies from country to country - for instance in mine you get thrown into prison for telling a joke. Freedom of speech is an objective right that is nothing to do with law, except that laws are passed to try to deny it.

In a democracy like we live in, we need people to represent us. These people need to be knowledgeable. Hence that most, not all democracies support Freedom of Speech.

Laws are. Rights aren't. They're based on logic.

Not at all. The other way around. Rights are based on emotions.

Once again you've missed the difference between freedom of speech in public places and private property rules.

Have I not complied to private property rules? Infraction me than, or tell me.

In public places you can say "duh" to me and someone else can call you a "gay". GTPlanet isn't a public place and we do not tolerate abusive behaviour. Don't apologise - just stop doing it.

I will apologise, because (like with freedom of speech, see the link?) Things may seem abusive to you, that don't seem that way to me. So, you will have to let me know you find it abusive like you did, which gives me the chance to apologise and not say 'duh' to you again.

It's not offensive, it's immature. Will you now go make me a sandwich please?

Sorry, I already have 2 peeps to take care of, ask someone else. And immature? For having an irrational belief / thought? What do you think of religious people than?

 

[arora]

Immaturity is not selective, it can be found in all walks of life.

 

[Gonales]

Immaturity is not selective, it can be found in all walks of life.

Everyone is irrational once in their life. Everyone is childish?

 

[Famine]

I already told you I was waiting for the evidence, didn't I?

You clearly have enough evidence to have made your mind up to hate some guy halfway across the world for stuff he's never said more than people who'd cut your genitals and hang you that live in your own country.

Otherwise your opinion is ill-informed, knee-jerk rubbish. So share it.

Wanting to know stuff, like the truth? I'm defo going to ask around.

Lawyers specialise in lying. The very last person I'd want to speak to about truth and rights is a lawyer.

Not at all. The other way around. Rights are based on emotions.

No. ALL rights are logical. What you call rights are just a wishlist of things it'd be nice to do (and the UN Declaration of Human Rights contains many that contradict). Laws are almost always subjective - and can be changed at whim, whereas the rights underpin them.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest slavery, rape and child abuse are rights - because they have been legal.

Have I not complied to private property rules? Infraction me than, or tell me.

I did. Three times.

 

[Gonales]

You clearly have enough evidence to have made your mind up to hate some guy halfway across the world for stuff he's never said more than people who'd cut your genitals and hang you that live in your own country.

Otherwise your opinion is ill-informed, knee-jerk rubbish. So share it.



Lawyers specialise in lying. The very last person I'd want to speak to about truth and rights is a lawyer.



No. ALL rights are logical. What you call rights are just a wishlist of things it'd be nice to do (and the UN Declaration of Human Rights contains many that contradict). Laws are almost always subjective - and can be changed at whim, whereas the rights underpin them.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest slavery, rape and child abuse are rights - because they have been legal.

I did. Three times.

1: Laws get changed because of greedy politicians.
2: If you had actually read anything i wrote last post, you might have seen that I myself called it irrational, which means I don't need your comments about it because its self-explanatory.
3: Rights people have come from the positive emotions from other people. Nothing else.

 

[Famine]

1: Laws get changed because of greedy politicians.

And people supporting and voting for them.

If enough people support banning freedom of speech and locking people up for opinions you end up with the last days of the Weimar Republic.

2: If you had actually read anything i wrote last post, you might have seen that I myself called it irrational, which means I don't need your comments about it because its self-explanatory.

I read your last post. The only thing you mentioned as "irrational" was "everyone". No idea what "it" you're referring to.

3: Rights people have come from the positive emotions from other people. Nothing else.

Rights come from logic. Objective logic. Nothing else.

Emotions of people are subjective, like laws.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

I won't be getting in to the main conversation as it is already being fully flushed out by higher intellect then my own, however I have to reply to this:

I think homosexuality is NOT ok and It's a sin against God. You can be born homosexual no more than you can be born a boeing 747. I'm ashamed to see 50% of the people voted that its ok.

Have I got some bad news for you..

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." -Source.

Seems pretty damn natural to me, but what do I know, I'm half human, half Boeing 747.

 

[Gonales]

I won't be getting in to the main conversation as it is already being fully flushed out by higher intellect then my own, however I have to reply to this:



Have I got some bad news for you..

"A 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior has been observed in close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them." -Source.

Seems pretty damn natural to me, but what do I know, I'm half human, half Boeing 747.

Whats your adress? We need to know if we are going to send you a medal

 

[arora]

For something that has been said probably 100 times already in this thread? Hope you have many medals

 

[Zenith]

Good to consider that every single person that has argued against you shares the opinion that gay couples should enjoy the same legal rights and privileges of straight couples.

 

[eXtaticus]

Seems pretty damn natural to me, but what do I know, I'm half human, half Boeing 747.

I'm sure it's okay for 747s to be homosexual too.

 

[Danny]

I'm sure it's okay for 747s to be homosexual too.

Absolutely not.

Biplanes on the other hand...

 

[eXtaticus]

Biplanes on the other hand...

... Are bisexual, clearly?

 

[homeforsummer]

... Are bisexual, clearly?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

It's okay guys, it's not too bad. I mean, I can fly after all.

 

[Pupik]

Seems pretty damn natural to me, but what do I know, I'm half human, half Boeing 747.

Is that what they mean by "If it ain't Boeing, I ain't going?"

(Like we had a choice?)

 

[bradykhuber]

The antov 225 is probably the least likely plane to be gay but anyways, on to more important stuff

 

[sumbrownkid]

Please if any plane is gay, it's definitely the Tri-Star series of aircraft.

 

[Omnis]

So I think gayness is tied to mitochondria. You can have gay mitochondria and straight mitochondria. Replicative segregation of mitochondria determines whether you're straight or gay. If the cell has clonal gay mitochondria, it's homo-homoplasmic. Bisexuals are homoplasmic for gay and straight in roughly equivalent numbers, while a majority of homohomoplasmic cells makes you full-blown gay. The rest of us exhibit majority heteroplasmy.

I'm looking to get published. Science!

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Wait, what?

 

[Omnis]