Surely you can not think that homosexuality is some sort of rebellion.
Using the word 'gay' as a slur
- Thread starter Doran
- Start date
Surely you can not think that homosexuality is some sort of rebellion.
Fail.
I think I need to wash my brain in sulfuric acid to cleanse it of the unsubstantiated utter nonsense you've spouted.
Last edited:
Lots of irrational prejudice is old. That doesn't make it right. Should we return to a feudal society on the basis that an extreme division in class was long held to be part of the natural order of things? The same goes for slavery, too, for much the same reasons.
As for long held, try ancient Greece and Rome.
What makes you an idiot is when you fail to see the raging hypocrisy in your own beliefs.
Arhh you see, you're looking at the argument from a totally different point of view to me. I did not mean it in quite the way you have taken it. What I meant to say was that I believe it is against the natural order of evolution. Now, computers, cars, space ships ...whatever are just manifestations of the advancement of human civilisation. Our understanding, society and thus science and technology evolves. Which I guess you could say allows us to mess with the natural order of things, which,few people have many issues with, within reason.
I consider homosexuality as outside the limits of the natural order of human life, of what nature intended if you will. People have evolved a certain way, to perform certain things and to procreate a certain way. You could complicate this by dissecting it all and calling me a hypocrite I'm sure, but I don't really care.
I realise that many people could say there is hypocrisy in what I say, well maybe, maybe not, I guess that depends on your understanding of the situation. But at the end of the day, I don't really have to justify my argument. Lets just say, that the natural order argument is used because I do believe in that my way of thinking is the correct one. But don't take it quite so literally, I don't subscribe to wearing grass, rejecting all 'unnatural' technological inventions and such. You're just pulling me up on that to nitpick. And you know full well I don't think that.
I'm sure there are lots of people that think as you do, and I'm also sure there are lots of people (probably more at a guess) that think the way I do. Do you believe that because you have embraced such ideas that you are somehow more intelligent, or enlightened than those who do not?
Last edited:
So there you have it, nature is homophobic. You do realise homosexuality isn't a lifestyle choice (ergo it is entirely natural)? Do you view handicapped people with the same abhorrence you do homosexuals? Or do they slot nicely into your extremely selective view of evolution?
Last edited:
Actually I tend to believe in survival of the fittest. But if you asked me if I would still feel the same way if it was a member of my own family afflicted ...then on the one hand I would ...but I would not want to throw them to the wolves, and leave them to their fate so to speak. So I would be torn in that respect. I do have some 'selective' beliefs, you are correct there, but why is that so wrong? ...they are my beliefs to hold, as are yours.
Actually I am not convinced that it is entirely natural, I do tend towards thinking a lot of it is a lifestyle choice, as bizarre and ignorant as that may sound to you.
Your entire belief structure is fallacious, you use fragments of information about evolution to try and justify what you believe, there is no consistency. Not to mention this survival of the fittest ********, when was the last time you had to fight for your life against another species in the wilds of the english countryside? Never? Human survival is not based on the fittest, or the most physically strong, the weakest people can live for years. Once again, displaying the inconsisteny in your beliefs, which for some reason you seem to be proud of.
Last edited:
Last time a chav tried to take my wallet, so about 2 years ago I suppose. Although I feel like I might have to at anypoint these days. After all, Her Majestys finest are more interested in fining people for speeding or taking people to court for thinking the wrong thing that actually protecting us.
You never answered my question though, about you and those in agreement with you being more intelligent and enlightened beings than me, with my "fallacious" belief structure.
I just know, somehow ...that you are going to level my comment about 'thinking the wrong thing' in my opening lines of this post as hypocrital and supportive of your argument. Well, now you see, the thing that you are no doubt going to miss here is that I am not advocating that people should not be able to think and believe whatever they want I am just stating my thoughts on a subject. Although I apparently live in a hole, hold "fallacious" beliefs and am an ignoramus for doing so. Interesting really how the 'tollerent' and 'free thinking' people of society like to brand those who do not agree with them as such.
Last edited:
The deeply flawed nature of your logic is a good pointer to level of intelligence.
P.S I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but when they enter a debate with whimsical and nonsensical rhetoric and expect to be taken seriously, then it starts to grate. Especially when those beliefs view peoples sexuality, (which is essentially as natural as someones eye colour) as something to be abhorred and eradicated.
P.S I have no problem with people disagreeing with me, but when they enter a debate with whimsical and nonsensical rhetoric and expect to be taken seriously, then it starts to grate. Especially when those beliefs view peoples sexuality, (which is essentially as natural as someones eye colour) as something to be abhorred and eradicated.
Last edited:
well if you were to find it offensive that i call my mates chinks then
i) You are taking what i said out of context. I am arguing that using a word in a non-derogatory or jokingly-derogatary way is not immoral and should not be taking as offensive. And because you are not chinese you cannot come out and say that the word chink is offensive because no chinese person is taking offense to that particular use of it.
ii) That is the point im trying to make. There were some people saying that if you use the word gay to mean rubbish or naff you are offending them and gay people. Yet no gay person has said they find it offensive.
Thats not what my point is. I apologise if im not being clear but ill try and explain how i feel using your analogy:
If man A makes a sexist joke and another man B says "Hey, you cant say that, its offensive." but at the same time a woman near by says "hahahaha funny joke" then the man B is trying to speak for the woman/women. It is illogical for the man B to take offense to the joke, for he cannot see it from the 'subjects' point of view and if he could he would, like the woman, see it was funny. Man B is making an assumption about women, which is more offensive to women than man A's joke (as it was said in jest).
now if man A makes a sexist joke and the woman says "Hey, you cant say that, its offensive" THEN man B can step in and help the woman and voice his concern.
In the first scenario the man B was defending the woman even though she wasnt offended. So it makes no sense for him to be offended by the joke.
Now hermaphrodites, thats a whole other ball game (pun again), and is far too complex to even start lol
well the thread seems to have taken the direction that it is now discussing whether or not using 'gay' to mean 'rubbish' or 'naff'.
sure this is derogatary, though not directly to gay people. It is not meant to be offensive to them and anyone whos not gay and is taking offense to it is being over sensitive about the evolution of language.
(I also personally think a gay person taking offense might be a bit over sensitive, but still they have a right to say if they feel offended or not and people can react to that when/if it happens.)
...phew
Last edited:
You do realise that I could level exactly the same argument at you though. We all know about the 'birds and the bees' and how it all works. We all know that this is necessary for the survival and evolution of the human race. So now tell me, how does homosexuality possibly fit into that in any logical or none whimsical way? ...it is fairly logical to me, man and woman works ...man and man or woman and woman does not. This is why there are 2 genders.
If we just mix it all up and say anything goes. We end up with ...well chaos really. We are designed by evolution to work a certain way, maybe some geneticists can engineer a way around that at some point. But right now, it isn't there.
Count yourself lucky though, at least I'm not coming at it from a religious point of view and swearing blind that some great deity made us all.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Jan 2008
- Posts
- 4,123
Is used often on this forum.
If I were gay, I would find this offensive.
I think the word should be considered an expletive and not allowed on a family forum.
Thoughts?
(apart from calling the thread/idea gay?)
You will soon come to understand that this place is a breeding ground for ignorants, bigots and racists.
Jesus H. Christ.
Evolution is not goal based, animals aren't aspiring to be humans. Evolution is the adaptation of a species to survive the best it can in it's environment. Seeing as homosexuality occurs naturally, and that numbers are growing and surviving :O you don't have a leg to stand on. You also seem to hold this underlying idea that the entire species will evolve the same way, and that for some reason the entire population of earth are going to become homosexuals and we're all going to die.
Also, seeing as humans do not live in a world where they have to rely on their physical strength in order to survive the day, you arguement is once again, moot. If you cared that much about the natural evolution of the human race, you'd go to papua new guinea and live life 'as nature intended', but as such you are a raging hypocrite. Your entire view of evolution is one that you would apply to the animal kingdom, yet humans operate in a vastly different way.
Not to mention;
Gay people still hold the ability to procreate.
Last edited:
I think Moeks is confusing lifestyle choice with the realms of evolution, which he also clearly doesn't really understand.
Evolution doesn't design anything, random mutations and survival of the fittest as a concept determines existance. Without survival of the fittest, sure, chaos... but with it, extremely fragile, but balanced eco systems.
Evolution doesn't design anything, random mutations and survival of the fittest as a concept determines existance. Without survival of the fittest, sure, chaos... but with it, extremely fragile, but balanced eco systems.
Last edited:
Well as a life style choice I think it is morally and ethically wrong. I have my own moral code, a way to conduct myself so to speak. Homosexuality goes against that.
Now I firmly believe that people should be able to choose their lifestyle pretty freely. I do not have to like or agree with their choices though and I am free to say so if I wish, provided I do not start harassing people and such.
It is curious how it's starting to look like it's me on the defensive here and it's me that holds 'out of the ordinary' views that must be legitimised to people. Actually it's the other way around though, it's just no one else has stepped forward to say so yet. My views are as old as the hills, remember, there was a time, not so long ago I might add, that it was illegal. Only in 1967 was the committing of homosexual acts made legal in England and Wales. It was punishable by death in the 19th century.
Thank you, someone steps forward and says it. My point, which seems to have gone ignored has been that this 'oh so tolerant, free thinking' bunch are actually far from it when it comes to people disagreeing with them and holding totally different views. You see it everywhere these days, all the time there is someone preaching tolerance and acceptance ...yet at the same time they are shooting down anyone who disagrees with them and branding them as fallacious and hypocritical. Pot calling the kettle black I say.
Now I firmly believe that people should be able to choose their lifestyle pretty freely. I do not have to like or agree with their choices though and I am free to say so if I wish, provided I do not start harassing people and such.
It is curious how it's starting to look like it's me on the defensive here and it's me that holds 'out of the ordinary' views that must be legitimised to people. Actually it's the other way around though, it's just no one else has stepped forward to say so yet. My views are as old as the hills, remember, there was a time, not so long ago I might add, that it was illegal. Only in 1967 was the committing of homosexual acts made legal in England and Wales. It was punishable by death in the 19th century.
Oh to be as tolerant of others as you people.
Thank you, someone steps forward and says it. My point, which seems to have gone ignored has been that this 'oh so tolerant, free thinking' bunch are actually far from it when it comes to people disagreeing with them and holding totally different views. You see it everywhere these days, all the time there is someone preaching tolerance and acceptance ...yet at the same time they are shooting down anyone who disagrees with them and branding them as fallacious and hypocritical. Pot calling the kettle black I say.
Last edited:
Oh to be as tolerant of others as you people.
Burn all the gays I say!
Yeah maybe we should be more tolerant of his utter intolerance? Heck maybe we should tolerate everyone's views regardless of their basis or detriment to other members of society. Nazism anyone?
And once again, people do not CHOOSE to be gay.