Using the word 'gay' as a slur
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2008
- Posts
- 1,390
But it's not irrational. My beliefs are based on logic and rationale.
In the real world, where is the actual tangible, quantifiable negativity that stems from homosexuality? It doesn't directly cause suffering or pain, it doesn't oppress people or violate their freedom or human rights. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that homosexuality itself has a negative effect on our society.
I wonder how that even occurred in the first place? ...widely held beliefs or ideas about it being "wrong or bad" perhaps ?
The later I would agree with, people very likely do not think through what they are saying. If I use the word, rest assured I am well aware of what I am saying and that I have thought it through.
Wow, you really are full of venom. As for calling me fascist, well I do find that offensive, far more offensive than the other less than complimentary thing you called me. Do you really understand what you are saying when you call me fascist, that is my question to you? ...while you're still able to post at least. After all, is it not you who are showing a lack of tolerance, who are resorting to personal attacks and general thuggary to make yourself heard and get your views accross now?
Also, why should I be banned? ...what have I said that contravenes the forum rules? ...or is it just because you disagree with me?
No one here who has been debating this should be banned for anything they have said except you, for that post you made, which was a direct attack on me and a flagrant breach of forum rules and etiquette.
Last edited:
Do you think that a homosexual activity being a small minority of sexual activity threatens the survival of humanity?
Or that it ever did?
If not, then there's your argument flying out the window.
The "best" you can do with the evolution argument is that homosexuality is neutral, that it neither helps nor hinders the survival of the species.
You'd be better off, far better off, using the same argument against oral sex, contraception...anything that constitutes sex without reproduction (or at least greatly reduces the chance of conception).
Yes, you are. And we are free to point out that you are failing to show a rational basis for your opinion. You are demonstrating both ignorance and fallacious reasoning.
If you stick with "I don't like it because I don't", that would be a different matter.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think Nazism was about tolerating everyone's views.
He has irrational prejudices. That is a very long way from Nazism. You're making yourself look bad with that comparison.
Yea, but if I had said, "I don't like it because I don't" would we have gotten this debate going? ...I doubt it, I'd have just had a few outright insults thrown at me and that would likely be that.
I actually did my undergraduate disertation on Nazism, in a around about sort of way, it was a lot more specific than that of course, but bascially I examined the reasons why National Socialism took root in Germany during the 1920-1930s. I was interested in exactly how this ideology came about and how Hitler was able to make it stick and take Germany to total war. I examined all sorts from traditional 'Völkisch' culture and the roots of German anti-sematism etc right upto the economic woes of 1930s Germany etc. So when it comes to Nazism I know in quite some depth, what I am talking about (that was some years ago mind, so I'm not as sharp on it as I was then). So I will say this now, be, very, very careful with that word and make sure you know and understand what you are saying when you throw it around. I did notice you Angilion, did mention this yourself, which is good to see.
I actually did my undergraduate disertation on Nazism, in a around about sort of way, it was a lot more specific than that of course, but bascially I examined the reasons why National Socialism took root in Germany during the 1920-1930s. I was interested in exactly how this ideology came about and how Hitler was able to make it stick and take Germany to total war. I examined all sorts from traditional 'Völkisch' culture and the roots of German anti-sematism etc right upto the economic woes of 1930s Germany etc. So when it comes to Nazism I know in quite some depth, what I am talking about (that was some years ago mind, so I'm not as sharp on it as I was then). So I will say this now, be, very, very careful with that word and make sure you know and understand what you are saying when you throw it around. I did notice you Angilion, did mention this yourself, which is good to see.
Last edited:
On a tangent, I think that's actually a large part of the cause for most people who are irrationally prejudiced against homosexuality - they're thinking in subjective terms and find the idea disgusting, which they then project onto other people.
An analogy...
i) I find the idea of me eating cooked cheese disgusting. Even the smell makes me feel sick. I really, seriously, find the idea of me eating cooked cheese very disgusting indeed. I once ate some by mistake (a pasty - I'd asked for a corned beef one and was given a cheese one by mistake) and I vomited as a result.
ii) I don't regard eating cooked cheese as disgusting.
(i) and (ii) might initially appear to contradict each other, but they are both true and they don't conflict. The key difference is the word 'me' in (i). Eating cooked cheese myself is disgusting to me. So I don't do it. Eating cooked cheese is delicious to some other people, so they do it. I don't judge eating cooked cheese in general on the basis of me eating cooked cheese, but I do see how some people would.
That is probably the first time you've seen having homosex linked with eating cooked cheese
The bottom line for whether I think something is wrong (as opposed to how I feel about doing it) is this question: Who's the victim? No victim, nothing wrong.
Angilion, that is perhaps one of the most insightful things posted in this thread yet. Now I'm not backing down and saying I am wrong. But your reasoning is fairly sound. I am projecting my revulsion at the idea of me being engaged in such activities onto a wider audience. However, I struggle to accept anything outside of that right now. I had not thought of it like this before.
Incidentally, I really like cooked cheese
Incidentally, I really like cooked cheese
Last edited:
There is neither logic nor reason in your attempts to explain your position. That's why they have been dismissed.
I'll give my answer to the question you asked of someone else, as it's also relevant to me:
i) OK. I think it's OK because it doesn't inherently result in a victim, any more than heterosex does. No victim, so it's OK. Obviously, there are victims in some cases, but that's a result of something else, not homosex, and it's exactly the same with heterosex.
ii) Natural. An irrelevant argument, as I've explained before. Either everything humans do is natural or we're a highly unnatural species. Either way, it's irrelevant whether something is natural or not. It also has no relevance to whether something is right or wrong. For example, killing someone in order to more conveniently steal their resources is entirely natural.
I don't see anything more than a miniscule and irrelevant difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
Would you say that "killing someone in order to more conveniently steal their resources" is right though?
Now I am guessing you won't as there is a clear victim in this regard and as you say there is not with regards to homosexuality. However I do think that the British medias portrayal of it in many cases these days, does infact incur victims, it is sensationalised and in many respects, (in my opinion at least) made to seem almost trendy and the done thing. This I do believe can have an effect on children and the impressionable.
I don't really think it is good, for various reasons, no doubt fallacious and illogical though, that it is a good thing to have kids growing up thinking that having two mums or two dads is a perfectly normal and absolutely fine thing.
Of course when we come down to what the media says you could say the same thing about almost anything I guess. I think our 'free and imaprtial' media is little more than circus for the most part and has a lot to answer for.
So while the blame may not actually be with homosexuality in this regard, but the wider portrayal and perception of it. The fact is, if it was still treated and thought of as a minority habbit that was generally to be frowned upno and kept under wraps. Then I personally feel that society today, would be better off. I have no proof of this though and i can't really provide logical reasoning for it, at least none that I haven't already mentioned.
I have pretty set ideas about what I think is normal and acceptable and what I do not. Why I hold these believes could be debated until the end of time I suppose. Why does anyone believe what they do? Still, the fact is I do, and so do a lot of other people. And I don't like what I see happening around me with regards to more widely accepted views and general public portrayal of homosexuality. I think it's almost promoted these days.
Now I am guessing you won't as there is a clear victim in this regard and as you say there is not with regards to homosexuality. However I do think that the British medias portrayal of it in many cases these days, does infact incur victims, it is sensationalised and in many respects, (in my opinion at least) made to seem almost trendy and the done thing. This I do believe can have an effect on children and the impressionable.
I don't really think it is good, for various reasons, no doubt fallacious and illogical though, that it is a good thing to have kids growing up thinking that having two mums or two dads is a perfectly normal and absolutely fine thing.
Of course when we come down to what the media says you could say the same thing about almost anything I guess. I think our 'free and imaprtial' media is little more than circus for the most part and has a lot to answer for.
So while the blame may not actually be with homosexuality in this regard, but the wider portrayal and perception of it. The fact is, if it was still treated and thought of as a minority habbit that was generally to be frowned upno and kept under wraps. Then I personally feel that society today, would be better off. I have no proof of this though and i can't really provide logical reasoning for it, at least none that I haven't already mentioned.
I have pretty set ideas about what I think is normal and acceptable and what I do not. Why I hold these believes could be debated until the end of time I suppose. Why does anyone believe what they do? Still, the fact is I do, and so do a lot of other people. And I don't like what I see happening around me with regards to more widely accepted views and general public portrayal of homosexuality. I think it's almost promoted these days.
Last edited:
No, and that was my point. It's natural, but it isn't right. That's why I used it as an example to support my line of argument that "natural" and "right" don't mean the same thing.
I have two lines of counter-argument, depending on what you believe about homosexuality:
i) You believe it's not a choice, that it's someone inherent in some people.
This is a logical conclusion, given that some people have had homosexual desires and some have had homosex even when and where it has been highly illegal, even punished by death. In such circumstance, or even in far lesser circumstances, there are no benefits to choosing homosexuality and some or many drawbacks, so no-one would choose it.
If it's not a choice, then it doesn't matter how it's portrayed in the media, as it isn't going to affect anyone.
[EDIT: Badly phrased. I meant that positive portrayal of it in the media wouldn't matter.]
ii) You believe it is a choice.
Why would anyone choose it? Even here and now, but particularly when it could get them jailed or killed.
I think your argument is then essentially that the British media's portrayal of it nowadays is bad because it creates more homosexuals...but that's only a bad thing if homosexuality is a bad thing (or so many people become homosexual that it affects the birth rate so much that the country is in danger, which I don't think anyone thinks is plausible).
It's only a circus because that's what sells. The nature of "bread and circuses" may change over the centuries, but it's still about basic essentials and entertainment.
Slightly off topic but I just noticed that your location states "Just to the left of my PC" ...I wonder if it's somehow subconsciously symbolic that I actually sit 'just to the right of my pc' ...really I do, and I did not set that up with any kind of political thought in mind, at least not consciously.
Anyway, I'm going to go to bed and ponder that one. I can't believe I've stayed up until 05:40 debating homosexuality.
...really I do, and I did not set that up with any kind of political thought in mind, at least not consciously.Anyway, I'm going to go to bed and ponder that one. I can't believe I've stayed up until 05:40 debating homosexuality.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
i have no ill feelings towards gay ppl, but the fact is that it isn't going to help your dna continue which is our function. but its a mans right to do as he wishes with his own toger.
freedom is more important, unless the human race starts to die out!
(it could happen if george micheal & elton john release an album symultaniously)
freedom is more important, unless the human race starts to die out!
(it could happen if george micheal & elton john release an album symultaniously)
Slightly off topic but I just noticed that your location states "Just to the left of my PC" ...I wonder if it's somehow subconsciously symbolic that I actually sit 'just to the right of my pc'
Anyway, I'm going to go to bed and ponder that one. I can't believe I've stayed up until 05:40 debating homosexuality.
I have good reasons for it being this way:
i) I keep my drinks to the left of my desk, probably because my mouse takes up the space to the right. Ever since I knocked half a pint of fizzy lemonade over my open PC while it was running, I've been a bit careful about such things.
ii) Having my PC on my right makes it much easier to change discs without getting out of my chair, as I'm right-handed (which you probably realised from where my mouse is).
Are you left handed?
Perhaps they are the same person with cunning disguises!
I don't think a person's function is just to reproduce.
Homosexual people can reproduce anyway. It doesn't actually require sex. We get the idea that artificial insemination is very difficult and that it requires modern drugs, modern equipment and a lab. All those things are for is to increase the chance of conception in cases where conception is very unlikely to occur (which is why the people are using AI). You can do it at home with a needle-less syringe and the chance of conception is the same as with heterosex.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,936
- Location
- Manchester.
it can be done via artifical methods, but if i was able to have sex with my male mates i wouldnt bother as much with women.
while a gay person still obviously can have children, if u dont need girls for sex it isnt as likely that u will meet women with what u consider to be good motherly attributes. that is part of a mans role. to have best kids possible
i am not saying the only reason to exist is to have perfect child with perfect mother but it is how we have come to be, animals with healthier kids dna survives.
by being gay u r unable to make this selection as well as a hetro, u would need to use your brain. (not that it would be hard, eg jolie vs goody) buti would get a boner at jolie regardless.
i am not saying gay is bad , as if required u could have a child and one likely just as good, some gay men have better taste in women than straght men, but in the same vein it isnt advantageous.
what is 100% bad is people forcing their view. it aint good or bad, causes no harm, has no benefit, do as you wish but it isnt "natural" (cant take that from me
)
If you are going to complain about people using gay as an insult then you probably shouldn't use Christ as an insult as it makes you look like a hypocrit.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,606
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Its so stupid how a word takes on a new meaning.
I remember writing lyrics to a song around 1985 that went -
'It seems like only yesterday,We were so happy and I life was gay'
and even at that point in time it meant life was great.
It had been used by the gay community for years but it wasn't prominent but 2 years later gay = homosexual.
I had to change gay into OK before it was sent off.
I remember writing lyrics to a song around 1985 that went -
'It seems like only yesterday,We were so happy and I life was gay'
and even at that point in time it meant life was great.
It had been used by the gay community for years but it wasn't prominent but 2 years later gay = homosexual.
I had to change gay into OK before it was sent off.