Am I a close-minded bigot?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yamahaXS
somehow i think the comic book discussion is jumped into this thread....

i had that thread killed until Fausto1 revived it. !


j/k Fausto!

Hehehe, well you tried.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

 

[jackpot]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

EDIT: As for "Straight" people who do not have kids, you have to look why they don't or haven't. Can't get any? Won't get any? Unable to reproduce? Too poor to support a kid? After you get past all the exceptions...yea what they're doing is wrong from a biological standpoint (So you know of many people who choose to never have kids because they don't want kids? That's probably as common as the gay population, or maybe less).

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

Anything going against human nature is wrong?

 

[BooneRebel]

Good luck, Jackpot. I've tried the basic biological facts argument, but no one here seems to be listening.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

I fail to see how to see how sex without the biological ability to produce a baby is wrong. Wrong in what sense? That would mean that anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom would all be "wrong" too.

But like I said this has been covered here and in the "Gay Comic Book Hero" thread. I'd hate to encourage a circular discussion any more than possible.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: GaardAnything going against human nature is wrong?

No. Beware the use of abolutes in any argument. There will nearly (see my cautious use of the word -->) always be an exception to the use of the words "anything", "nothing", "all", or "none".

 

[Beau]

The defining poll. Find out if you are a bigot here.




Someone had to do it.

 

[flavio]

Good luck, Jackpot. I've tried the basic biological facts argument, but no one here seems to be listening.

Listening? Bullsh!t, every one of your points was addressed.

So how are you feeling about the poll results?

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavioI fail to see how to see how sex without the biological ability to produce a baby is wrong. Wrong in what sense? That would mean that anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom would all be "wrong" too.

It's interesting that you would lump all of these into the same category. By the same token, do we need comic books for: anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: flavioI fail to see how to see how sex without the biological ability to produce a baby is wrong. Wrong in what sense? That would mean that anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom would all be "wrong" too.

It's interesting that you would lump all of these into the same category. By the same token, do we need comic books for: anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom?

I think there are some of those already. The comic book store up the street has an adult section but I'm not up to checking just now.

 

[Jzero]

do we need comic books for: anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom?

Do we need comic books at all?

 

[jackpot]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

Anything going against human nature is wrong?

ugh, if you can imagine that the only reason we are on this earth (for just one minute now) is to live and reproduce, you can understand my viewpoint. Can gays do great things from a society standpoint? Ofcourse they can, and many do because of traits they adopted while putting up with criticism. I'm not using the word "wrong" to say anything moral (which should be obvious if u read my first post). I'm using wrong to say that, because their lifestyle includes no offspring, they're going against their main objective in having their blood live on.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Good luck, Jackpot. I've tried the basic biological facts argument, but no one here seems to be listening.

It's not that nobody's listening, it's just a matter of agreeing. For me personally, I'm not quite understanding you. Harmful because of sterility? It just seems to me that you're trying very hard to justify you're feelings. Why try to justify the way you feel? Why not just say, "Homosexuality disgusts me"?

Me, personally, find it repugnant to think of one man having sex with another. That doesn't make me a bad person. It just means that I don't share the same feelings as someone who isn't disgusted with it. However, I don't try to stand here and say things about sterility, bloodlines, HIV, etc, etc.

 

[jackpot]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

I fail to see how to see how sex without the biological ability to produce a baby is wrong. Wrong in what sense? That would mean that anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom would all be "wrong" too.

But like I said this has been covered here and in the "Gay Comic Book Hero" thread. I'd hate to encourage a circular discussion any more than possible.

What are you sh*t bopping for examples now? If this anal/oral sex arguement was in line with my views, then I would think all men should do is screw as many women as he can eveyrday of his life. There's work, love and a million other things to do in life. I'm saying that at some point in time, having kids should be ONE of them, not all of them and none of the others. The fact that oral and anal sex is related to sex is insignificant. We're talking sex meaning willingness to reproduce not pleasurable sex, which gays and striaghts have alike.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

Anything going against human nature is wrong?

ugh, if you can imagine that the only reason we are on this earth (for just one minute now) is to live and reproduce, you can understand my viewpoint. Can gays do great things from a society standpoint? Ofcourse they can, and many do because of traits they adopted while putting up with criticism. I'm not using the word "wrong" to say anything moral (which should be obvious if u read my first post). I'm using wrong to say that, because their lifestyle includes no offspring, they're going against their main objective in having their blood live on.

If not morally wrong and only "unable to reproduce" than I think you just used poor choice in wording for clarity. Sure gays don't reproduce for the most part. I think the human race will be just fine without them doing so. In fact it would probably be good if heterosexuals quit reproducing so damn much.

 

[flavio]

What are you sh*t bopping for examples now? If this anal/oral sex arguement was in line with my views, then I would think all men should do is screw as many women as he can eveyrday of his life. There's work, love and a million other things to do in life. I'm saying that at some point in time, having kids should be ONE of them, not all of them and none of the others. The fact that oral and anal sex is related to sex is insignificant. We're talking sex meaning willingness to reproduce not pleasurable sex, which gays and striaghts have alike.

You want everyone to reproduce? Sh!t! There's not enough people on the planet for you?

 

[jackpot]

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: jackpot

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: jackpot
I can't argue effectively that gay's are hurting society or are bad in some way. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

This has been discussed at length already. So anyone who does not make babies is a bad person?

Before you answer please review what has already been covered if you don't mind.

I will read the rest of the thread if you read my post. I said I couldn't say gays were bad in some way. I then said what they did was wrong because it's against human nature. The problem is some of you guys are so bent up on morals and ethics you ignore basic biological facts...

Anything going against human nature is wrong?

ugh, if you can imagine that the only reason we are on this earth (for just one minute now) is to live and reproduce, you can understand my viewpoint. Can gays do great things from a society standpoint? Ofcourse they can, and many do because of traits they adopted while putting up with criticism. I'm not using the word "wrong" to say anything moral (which should be obvious if u read my first post). I'm using wrong to say that, because their lifestyle includes no offspring, they're going against their main objective in having their blood live on.

If not morally wrong and only "unable to reproduce" than I think you just used poor choice in wording for clarity. Sure gays don't reproduce for the most part. I think the human race will be just fine without them doing so. In fact it would probably be good if heterosexuals quit reproducing so damn much.

No arguement from me there. The human race will be fine as long as gays aren't the majority of the population (meaning less a chance of our race to survive). I can't find one word to describe what I'm thinking. Wrong brings up moral issues, bad brings up a hateful bias. I think you know what I mean though.

As for justifying my hatred for gays. Not really. I'm a pretty easy-going person I think. It's more like me justifying being heterosexual. Don't think I'm pondering being gay, but when you have either one way or another, you have to think why your way (heterosexual) is a better alternative than the other (homosexual).

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: Jzero

do we need comic books for: anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom?

Do we need comic books at all?

In a word: yes. Supremely hot, large-breasted women with a tendency toward skimpy costumes who possess the ability to kick ass without falling out of the aforementioned costumes are extremely hard to find in real life.

 

[flavio]

but when you have either one way or another, you have to think why your way (heterosexual) is a better alternative than the other (homosexual).

How about I'm attracted to the opposite sex so that's better for me, they are attracted to the same sex so that's better for them?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: jackpot
. I do think, however, how they are is wrong for the simple reason that human beings are supposted to be physically attracted to the opposite sex so they can make offspring. Whether it's his or her decision or not, they will not continue their blood line, which is our main biological objective.

Then explain all that same-sex sex in prison. Not saying some of it not rape but the majority is consentual. How's that old saying go "your only limited by your options" or something like that.

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: BooneRebel
Good luck, Jackpot. I've tried the basic biological facts argument, but no one here seems to be listening.

It's not that nobody's listening, it's just a matter of agreeing. For me personally, I'm not quite understanding you. Harmful because of sterility? It just seems to me that you're trying very hard to justify you're feelings. Why try to justify the way you feel? Why not just say, "Homosexuality disgusts me"?

Me, personally, find it repugnant to think of one man having sex with another. That doesn't make me a bad person. It just means that I don't share the same feelings as someone who isn't disgusted with it. However, I don't try to stand here and say things about sterility, bloodlines, HIV, etc, etc.

I have said that homosexuality disgusts me. That's my opinion. The idea of wiping man feces off of any part of me is revolting. However, when asked to expound on my 'opinions', I've added that it's unnatural and unhealthy. When asked by the 'pro-ho' population to explain my reasoning (because they are ignoring the obvious), I've expounded on sterility, bloodlines, HIV, etc., etc., etc. because "It's just wrong" isn't accepted as an answer. As Jackpot has mentioned, I don't see what the big deal is out of saying that it's out of whack biologically.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Fausto1

Originally posted by: Jzero

do we need comic books for: anal sex between a man and a woman, oral sex of any sort, sex between an infertile couple, and sex with a condom?

Do we need comic books at all?

In a word: yes. Supremely hot, large-breasted women with a tendency toward skimpy costumes who possess the ability to kick ass without falling out of the aforementioned costumes are extremely hard to find in real life.

Something like this?

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: flavio

but when you have either one way or another, you have to think why your way (heterosexual) is a better alternative than the other (homosexual).

How about I'm attracted to the opposite sex so that's better for me, they are attracted to the same sex so that's better for them?

How about I'm attracted to the opposite sex so that's better for humanity, they are attracted to the same sex so that's better for population control. Natural selection taking place...

 

[Jzero]

I don't see what the big deal is out of saying that it's out of whack biologically.

My only gripe about saying that is that I'm not sure that it's a correct statement. Unfortunately, I'm not a biologist, I just date one. There are many seemingly useless or detrimental biological anomalies that end up being somehow beneficial in the grander scale. If I had the appropriate knowledge and vocabulary to exand, I would, but unfortunately, I do not.