First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
The Old Homosexuality/Bisexuality as Choice debate..
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

''Because it isn't'' Well let's create a what if situation, what if a homophobe christian fanatic is reading this very forum topic, and on this he/she bases the decision to either bomb the local gay bar or not to, would it still make this topic completely irrelivant?
Now let's go a level lower, what if this debate influences the view some people have on homosexuality? Every debate on what is good, what is beautifull, what is true and what is pure, is always worth having. Just because we are not able to give the final answer does not mean we should simply refrain from having it.
So yes, it does matter what I think, and it does matter what you think.

Now it is good that you agree that it is important to understand fellow human beings, and what that information means to you.
And actually, recent studies has shown us that babies already partially know on what is ''good'' to do and what is ''bad'' to do. Nevertheless education does play a huge role.

Now to say i'm going through a phase is ofcourse quite an insult, I've been an atheist since I was 14 and started thinking rationally. Now my feelings on the subject actually are irrational, I do see religion as a danger, and I do wish it to be gone soon.
Now I don't understand your remark of false justification, but I honestly want to leave it at that because in my experience theist have a very thwarted meaning of justice.

And yes according to my ideology murder could be acceptable, but the truth is I am a pacifist, and against any form of the death penalty or violence. However since society is constantly changing (slavery or sunday workers for example, still haven't gotten an awnser) and so are our moral values, then there might be a point that humanity thinks that murder is okay (if we don't already, deathpenalty/war).
But for now, I say no, it is not okay untill prooven without doubt otherwise.


This thread may influence one's view on homosexuality. However if this thread serves as a determining factor of whether homosexuality is genetically induced or not, that's ridiculously detrimental. Are you a psychologist? No. You're merely a homosexual presenting your biased perspective on how you became a homosexual. It's illogical to take biased perspectives into account when -determining- scientific theories, especially when they've got no justification besides their personal anecdotes. Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer.

Your admittance for the contradiction in your ideology simply proves that you are being biased. Hence my stance remains adamant, homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Period.


Ohh my, did you just accuse me of being a homosexual? This is just amazing, not one single statement of mine had anything to do with my own sexual preferences (I'm straight by the way nice to meet you), yet you already judge me.
And not only that, but you claim that I am biased, so I feel no I have no choice but to tell you about myself in order to clear up the great missunderstanding you have about me.
I am a atheist (perhaps anti-theist is more deserving) and a humanist (also I'm still straight), so me being biased towards science or this subject is in my eyes impossible, I gain nothing if homosexuality is either a choice or genetically induced. Except for the fact that I have made my fellow human beings a little more happy. (excluding the insane homophobic community of course, but honestly they don't really want to be happy since they got their happy go go afterlife ahead of them right?)

And now that we finally come to the statement you made without backing any proof (proof that would stand in an actual court, so quoting a 3000 year old book isn't going to get you anywhere buddy), how in a psychological or biological way is homosexuality immoral? And why should a society wich is based on individuality not accept this private and individual practice?

Ohh and my ideology doesn't contradict itself in any way, for my ideology is based on the ever changing foundations of our moral system.

And I must request of you, since you've done this twice now, do not try any of your pathetic attempts of psychology on me.
And saying your stance remains adamant doesn't actually make it adamant, well except it your own opinion of course.

Once again I shall remind you, why should a secular society hear any of the arguments religion make on a private and individual topic?
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

You claimed here that "Psychology is a science, not a subjective philosophy. There's only one answer". Not only that you didn't empirically establish what exactly is this "subjective philosophy", because that doesn't exist in our cultural lexigram when you just made it up. You also intentionally ignored psychology as a whole here, simply because while it identifies you with narcissism, it doesn't support your biased opinion on homosexuality.

Finally, you're the one who turned your back away from pragmatism when scientific rigours didn't support your entitlement claim on homosexuality. So don't you dare try to suggest that I should treat you with "common courtesy", when yourself lacking self-respect, integrity, dignity, and not to mention compassion for fellow human beings. Homosexuals and pragmatists included.


While I admit that it was an empty adjective, it doesn't really divert what I was implying. You're unintentionally turning this discussion into a bickering of trivial semantics. I don't blame you, because it's natural, but I'm just going to give you useful advice that it doesn't make your argument any stronger. Like I said, psychology is a science. It only has one answer. Hence "debating" science over the Crunchyroll forums is pointless, because science isn't something to "debate" about, but rather, something to hypothesise and research on (let alone the CR forums). Two opposing stances will never reach an agreement or conclusion with insufficient amount of evidence present to this day.

As for your second link, I hope you are aware of the foundations of logic. Accusing me of being "narcissistic" isn't justifying your stance. If you want to promote healthy discussion, rather than attacking myself personally, you should attack the content of my posts. Please take good note of this.

And finally, you're pointing fingers again.

Belittling science, belittling internet debate, belittling others, all the while you didn't uphold yourself to your own standards of "common courtesy". That's narcissism and passive aggressiveness through yourself being pathologically mendacious. Your Christian cultural psychology of immorality and untrustworthy is quite unmistakable.
Posted 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:

Ohh my, did you just accuse me of being a homosexual? This is just amazing, not one single statement of mine had anything to do with my own sexual preferences (I'm straight by the way nice to meet you), yet you already judge me.
And not only that, but you claim that I am biased, so I feel no I have no choice but to tell you about myself in order to clear up the great missunderstanding you have about me.
I am a atheist (perhaps anti-theist is more deserving) and a humanist (also I'm still straight), so me being biased towards science or this subject is in my eyes impossible, I gain nothing if homosexuality is either a choice or genetically induced. Except for the fact that I have made my fellow human beings a little more happy. (excluding the insane homophobic community of course, but honestly they don't really want to be happy since they got their happy go go afterlife ahead of them right?)

And now that we finally come to the statement you made without backing any proof (proof that would stand in an actual court, so quoting a 3000 year old book isn't going to get you anywhere buddy), how in a psychological or biological way is homosexuality immoral? And why should a society wich is based on individuality not accept this private and individual practice?

Ohh and my ideology doesn't contradict itself in any way, for my ideology is based on the ever changing foundations of our moral system.

And I must request of you, since you've done this twice now, do not try any of your pathetic attempts of psychology on me.
And saying your stance remains adamant doesn't actually make it adamant, well except it your own opinion of course.

Once again I shall remind you, why should a secular society hear any of the arguments religion make on a private and individual topic?


Apologies on assuming that you were a homosexual. That's a mistake on my part. However that doesn't influence the point I made, as it remains applicable to anyone supporting homosexuality.

(I won't use the Bible for a reference because you insist so)

As for your request for a biological or psychological proof that homosexuality is immoral, if you were aware, morality is not something that can be "proven" through science. I know you were joking, so I'll let you go on that, but the morals I'm speaking from are the set morals followed for centuries throughout history. I'm quite aware that morals change and develop, but a spontaneous "flipping upside-down" of our society's morals is completely unacceptable. Hence as a response to your request, I ask for a reason of why you consider murder immoral. Because that will answer my question pretty well, considering "murder" is a subject that you hold exception to and sympathise with my train of thought. Empathy is a great way to convey points, and I'm glad that your biased exception allows a link of conveyance.

As for your last statement -- it's not simply religion. Morality and religion go side by side, but they're not exactly the same thing.
Posted 3/15/12 , edited 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

Belittling science, belittling internet debate, belittling others, all the while you didn't uphold yourself to your own standards of "common courtesy". That's narcissism and passive aggressiveness through yourself being pathologically mendacious. Your Christian cultural psychology of immorality and untrustworthy is quite unmistakable.


That's what they all say. I'm sad to tell you this, but your post holds no epistemic value. You're just attempting to insult me, whilst having nothing to consider. That's what I consider narcissism and active aggressiveness.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Ohh my, did you just accuse me of being a homosexual? This is just amazing, not one single statement of mine had anything to do with my own sexual preferences (I'm straight by the way nice to meet you), yet you already judge me.
And not only that, but you claim that I am biased, so I feel no I have no choice but to tell you about myself in order to clear up the great missunderstanding you have about me.
I am a atheist (perhaps anti-theist is more deserving) and a humanist (also I'm still straight), so me being biased towards science or this subject is in my eyes impossible, I gain nothing if homosexuality is either a choice or genetically induced. Except for the fact that I have made my fellow human beings a little more happy. (excluding the insane homophobic community of course, but honestly they don't really want to be happy since they got their happy go go afterlife ahead of them right?)

And now that we finally come to the statement you made without backing any proof (proof that would stand in an actual court, so quoting a 3000 year old book isn't going to get you anywhere buddy), how in a psychological or biological way is homosexuality immoral? And why should a society wich is based on individuality not accept this private and individual practice?

Ohh and my ideology doesn't contradict itself in any way, for my ideology is based on the ever changing foundations of our moral system.

And I must request of you, since you've done this twice now, do not try any of your pathetic attempts of psychology on me.
And saying your stance remains adamant doesn't actually make it adamant, well except it your own opinion of course.

Once again I shall remind you, why should a secular society hear any of the arguments religion make on a private and individual topic?


Apologies on assuming that you were a homosexual. That's a mistake on my part. However that doesn't influence the point I made, as it remains applicable to anyone supporting homosexuality.

(I won't use the Bible for a reference because you insist so)

As for your request for a biological or psychological proof that homosexuality is immoral, if you were aware, morality is not something that can be "proven" through science. I know you were joking, so I'll let you go on that, but the morals I'm speaking from are the set morals followed for centuries throughout history. I'm quite aware that morals change and develop, but a spontaneous "flipping upside-down" of our society's morals is completely unacceptable. Hence as a response to your request, I ask for a reason of why you consider murder immoral. Because that will answer my question pretty well, considering "murder" is a subject that you hold exception to and sympathise with my train of thought. Empathy is a great way to convey points, and I'm glad that your biased exception allows a link of conveyance.

As for your last statement -- it's not simply religion. Morality and religion go side by side, but they're not exactly the same thing.


First of, I thank you for and accept your apology.

Morality of course cannot be prooven through science, but we can use other means, and those do not have to be religious even.
Let's use philisophy, and my favorite one there is Spinoza, this is what he said about morality, goodness and evil, wich I myself follow:

1. By good, I understand that which we certainly know is useful to us.
2. By evil, on the contrary I understand that which we certainly know hinders us from possessing anything that is good

The positive thing about these standards of morality can survive the power of time.
Something that is usefull to us, such as for example surgery will always be good (sure mistakes are made but that's not the point now).
While genocide will always be bad, because it certainly hinders us (including those being murderd) from possessing anything that is good.

Now throughout history our morals have flipped around quite often, allow me to give you examples:
Slavery, in the old testament it was promoted, but in less than the spawn of a century is dissapeared, and we all agree that that is a good thing, also in Spinoza's standards.
Violence, this method has always been accepted through humanity's history, but Ghandi was one of the first who rejected it and a large part of Indian society followed him.
Women rights, for millenia women have been considerd property, they were mainly sex slaves, means of trade (even now).
But starting the mid 19th century, and continueing today in other countries, those morals were flipped around, and again it is a good thing it has.

Now I shall give you my reason for why I find murder to be one of the most evil things to do (if not most).
As I've already told I am an atheist, even further than that I am also a nihilist, that might leave you wonder why I have a code of morals at all. But those things give me my conviction, they give me my empathy, and they give me happiness.
Why murder is bad? The easiest reason, this is our only life, no second chance, no after life, no souls/spirits or whatnot. Our ONLY life, and it should go on as long as possible, and under no circumstance should it be abrupted by others.

Religion and morality do not go hand in hand. Instinct and empathy go hand in hand with morality.

It might suprise you, but before we had the 10 commandments humanity didn't kill/rape/pillage/steal all day long, or didn't know that was wrong. The jews would never have reached mount Sinai without their knowledge abour morality.

Morality is in us because humanity wont survive as individuals, we need empathy because without it we would not be able to work together and achieve great accomplishments.

Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:



Apologies on assuming that you were a homosexual. That's a mistake on my part. However that doesn't influence the point I made, as it remains applicable to anyone supporting homosexuality.

(I won't use the Bible for a reference because you insist so)

As for your request for a biological or psychological proof that homosexuality is immoral, if you were aware, morality is not something that can be "proven" through science. I know you were joking, so I'll let you go on that, but the morals I'm speaking from are the set morals followed for centuries throughout history. I'm quite aware that morals change and develop, but a spontaneous "flipping upside-down" of our society's morals is completely unacceptable. Hence as a response to your request, I ask for a reason of why you consider murder immoral. Because that will answer my question pretty well, considering "murder" is a subject that you hold exception to and sympathise with my train of thought. Empathy is a great way to convey points, and I'm glad that your biased exception allows a link of conveyance.

As for your last statement -- it's not simply religion. Morality and religion go side by side, but they're not exactly the same thing.
Wrong, when moral questions can and should be answer through scientific rigours.

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.
In fact, I've proven here how monotheistic religious dogmas had failed in term of moral consistency. Therefore morality and religious dogmas don't go side by side, when the fact is it had been -as you would put it- "flipping upside-down" in the name of God.


lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Belittling science, belittling internet debate, belittling others, all the while you didn't uphold yourself to your own standards of "common courtesy". That's narcissism and passive aggressiveness through yourself being pathologically mendacious. Your Christian cultural psychology of immorality and untrustworthy is quite unmistakable.


That's what they all say. I'm sad to tell you this, but your post holds no epistemic value. You're just attempting to insult me, whilst having nothing to consider. That's what I consider narcissism and active aggressiveness.
There's no such empirical lexigram as "active aggressiveness", you just made that up again. You're being pathologically mendacious.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:


lIlIlIIlI wrote:



Apologies on assuming that you were a homosexual. That's a mistake on my part. However that doesn't influence the point I made, as it remains applicable to anyone supporting homosexuality.

(I won't use the Bible for a reference because you insist so)

As for your request for a biological or psychological proof that homosexuality is immoral, if you were aware, morality is not something that can be "proven" through science. I know you were joking, so I'll let you go on that, but the morals I'm speaking from are the set morals followed for centuries throughout history. I'm quite aware that morals change and develop, but a spontaneous "flipping upside-down" of our society's morals is completely unacceptable. Hence as a response to your request, I ask for a reason of why you consider murder immoral. Because that will answer my question pretty well, considering "murder" is a subject that you hold exception to and sympathise with my train of thought. Empathy is a great way to convey points, and I'm glad that your biased exception allows a link of conveyance.

As for your last statement -- it's not simply religion. Morality and religion go side by side, but they're not exactly the same thing.
Wrong, when moral questions can and should be answer through scientific rigours.

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions
Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values and setting out what constitutes a good life.
In fact, I've proven here how monotheistic religious dogmas had failed in term of moral consistency. Therefore morality and religious dogmas don't go side by side, when the fact is it had been -as you would put it- "flipping upside-down" in the name of God.


lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Belittling science, belittling internet debate, belittling others, all the while you didn't uphold yourself to your own standards of "common courtesy". That's narcissism and passive aggressiveness through yourself being pathologically mendacious. Your Christian cultural psychology of immorality and untrustworthy is quite unmistakable.


That's what they all say. I'm sad to tell you this, but your post holds no epistemic value. You're just attempting to insult me, whilst having nothing to consider. That's what I consider narcissism and active aggressiveness.
There's no such empirical lexigram as "active aggressiveness", you just made that up again. You're being pathologically mendacious.


Ohh my, thank you so much for sharing that link from Sam Harris, I never knew he had such a video. I myself am currently completely obsessed with Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins and (recently passed away and a person who inspires me incredibly) Christopher Hitchens.

Thanks again, and I will try to obtain as much information from him as possible!
Posted 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:


I'm quite aware of the philosophical and logical applications you can use to determine morality. However morality is such a flexible and subjective topic that without a concrete foundation, anyone can forever question anything to be either moral or immoral. Therefore what are the concrete foundations? The morals that were followed and valued throughout history (which were of course, influenced by religion) are what I believe the be the practical foundations of morality.

--Again, I do not debate on interpretations of the Bible.

Although I love logical thinking, when it comes to topics of moral concern such as homosexuality, it's beyond explainable. It's just I simply find it horrific that an increasing trend of homosexuality is coming to society, rendering more people to be sent to hell. Hence partly why I find it disgusting and immoral.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

There's no such empirical lexigram as "active aggressiveness", you just made that up again. You're being pathologically mendacious.


First you said "cultural lexigram" and now you say "empirical lexigram". What are you trying to imply? A point? I searched those two string of words on Google and there were no results. Are you purposely trying to be ironic? "Active aggressiveness" was a parody of you calling me "passively aggressive", but as far as I'm concerned active aggressiveness makes a fair bit of sense.

Google search: "active aggressiveness" About 1,880 results (0.10 seconds).
Google search: "empirical lexigram" No results found for "empirical lexigram".
Google search: "cultural lexigram" No results found for "cultural lexigram".

You're being pathologically mendacious.

--

As for the other part of your post, you're going to have to play scizzors-paper-rock with Amersfoot to decide who I'm going to discuss with. It's the same topic.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12


I'm quite aware of the philosophical and logical applications you can use to determine morality. However morality is such a flexible and subjective topic that without a concrete foundation, anyone can forever question anything to be either moral or immoral. Therefore what are the concrete foundations? The morals that were followed and valued throughout history (which were of course, influenced by religion) are what I believe the be the practical foundations of morality.

--Again, I do not debate on interpretations of the Bible.

Although I love logical thinking, when it comes to topics of moral concern such as homosexuality, it's beyond explainable. It's just I simply find it horrific that an increasing trend of homosexuality is coming to society, rendering more people to be sent to hell. Hence partly why I find it disgusting and immoral.

Exactely! Morality is something very very very flexible and subjective. And it barely has a concrete foundation. (perhaps empathy)
Everyone can, and everyone should always question morality, is our current moral system good or bad? Is what I am doing good or bad. Is what that guy over there is doing good or bad? Always and forever keep questioning.
Because only then, we can prevent atrocities such as genocide or other horrible crimes.

And of course religion has influenced our sets of morals, but those morals have changed too. I would repeat myself if I said slavery again, many religions sponsored slavery, yet we don't practice it any more.
My point is that the age of something should not determine is value, old morals are fun and all, but they become out dated, and so will our own set of morals be out dated one day. And it's probably a good thing, because if they would not, there wouldn't be any progress.

Now I think that it is impossible to proove that homosexuality is wrong, simply because there is no real harm done, not to you, not to me, not to the homosexuals in question. The only reason you don't want to accept it is because a 2000 year old book saying that one male should not lay with another male. It doesn't even give a reason why it's bad, it only says it is. Please don't take that as truth, question it, always question it.
Posted 3/15/12 , edited 3/15/12

amersfoort wrote:

Exactely! Morality is something very very very flexible and subjective. And it barely has a concrete foundation. (perhaps empathy)
Everyone can, and everyone should always question morality, is our current moral system good or bad? Is what I am doing good or bad. Is what that guy over there is doing good or bad? Always and forever keep questioning.
Because only then, we can prevent atrocities such as genocide or other horrible crimes.

And of course religion has influenced our sets of morals, but those morals have changed too. I would repeat myself if I said slavery again, many religions sponsored slavery, yet we don't practice it any more.
My point is that the age of something should not determine is value, old morals are fun and all, but they become out dated, and so will our own set of morals be out dated one day. And it's probably a good thing, because if they would not, there wouldn't be any progress.

Now I think that it is impossible to proove that homosexuality is wrong, simply because there is no real harm done, not to you, not to me, not to the homosexuals in question. The only reason you don't want to accept it is because a 2000 year old book saying that one male should not lay with another male. It doesn't even give a reason why it's bad, it only says it is. Please don't take that as truth, question it, always question it.


Well I perfectly understand your point of view. It's just I find it horrifying that Christians socialise with non-Christians, knowing that they will go to hell. Being a (self-proclaimed) empathist, I know that it's completely impossible to convince or convey my point. Which is where I find human psychology unfortunate. So -- being tired myself, I'm going to drop this topic. Thank you for discussing with me.

Edit: Accidentally posted in the wrong topic. Anyway, same thing.
6268 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / The Netherlands
Offline
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


amersfoort wrote:

Exactely! Morality is something very very very flexible and subjective. And it barely has a concrete foundation. (perhaps empathy)
Everyone can, and everyone should always question morality, is our current moral system good or bad? Is what I am doing good or bad. Is what that guy over there is doing good or bad? Always and forever keep questioning.
Because only then, we can prevent atrocities such as genocide or other horrible crimes.

And of course religion has influenced our sets of morals, but those morals have changed too. I would repeat myself if I said slavery again, many religions sponsored slavery, yet we don't practice it any more.
My point is that the age of something should not determine is value, old morals are fun and all, but they become out dated, and so will our own set of morals be out dated one day. And it's probably a good thing, because if they would not, there wouldn't be any progress.

Now I think that it is impossible to proove that homosexuality is wrong, simply because there is no real harm done, not to you, not to me, not to the homosexuals in question. The only reason you don't want to accept it is because a 2000 year old book saying that one male should not lay with another male. It doesn't even give a reason why it's bad, it only says it is. Please don't take that as truth, question it, always question it.


Well I perfectly understand your point of view. It's just I find it horrifying that Christians socialise with non-Christians, knowing that they will go to hell. Being a (self-proclaimed) empathist, I know that it's completely impossible to convince or convey my point. Which is where I find human psychology unfortunate. So -- being tired myself, I'm going to drop this topic. Thank you for discussing with me.

Edit: Accidentally posted in the wrong topic. Anyway, same thing.


And thank you as well for discussing with me.
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

There's no such empirical lexigram as "active aggressiveness", you just made that up again. You're being pathologically mendacious.


First you said "cultural lexigram" and now you say "empirical lexigram". What are you trying to imply? A point? I searched those two string of words on Google and there were no results. Are you purposely trying to be ironic? "Active aggressiveness" was a parody of you calling me "passively aggressive", but as far as I'm concerned active aggressiveness makes a fair bit of sense.

Google search: "active aggressiveness" About 1,880 results (0.10 seconds).
Google search: "empirical lexigram" No results found for "empirical lexigram".
Google search: "cultural lexigram" No results found for "cultural lexigram".

You're being pathologically mendacious.


--

As for the other part of your post, you're going to have to play scizzors-paper-rock with Amersfoot to decide who I'm going to discuss with. It's the same topic.
Google search? Don't you know that your own Google search is censoring out your internet through "filter bubble"? No wonder your conservative Christian worldview/"common sense" is so small.

Eli Pariser: Beware online "filter bubbles"
As web companies strive to tailor their services (including news and search results) to our personal tastes, there's a dangerous unintended consequence: We get trapped in a "filter bubble" and don't get exposed to information that could challenge or broaden our worldview. Eli Pariser argues powerfully that this will ultimately prove to be bad for us and bad for democracy.
You're so scared, you need to live inside a bubble so that you can ignore just how scare you are.

And when you ignored psychology, you've nothing practical, moral, or scientific to offer according to pragmatism.
280 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 3/19/12 , edited 3/19/12
Lala thinks it's strange how people care if it's a choice or not. Does it matter? It doesn't change that homosexuals will be homosexual anyway! Lala thinks the true matter is whether it is okay or not! Respectfully, it is not okay. On a dignity basis of being born a human being, it is not okay to commit homosexual acts! To be homosexual is to neglect dignity! It is like insulting your own heritage!
46621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M & F / The Cheat...
Offline
Posted 3/19/12

LalaSatalin wrote:

Lala thinks it's strange how people care if it's a choice or not. Does it matter? It doesn't change that homosexuals will be homosexual anyway! Lala thinks the true matter is whether it is okay or not! Respectfully, it is not okay. On a dignity basis of being born a human being, it is not okay to commit homosexual acts! To be homosexual is to neglect dignity! It is like insulting your own heritage!
I find this to be hugely contradictory of your own statements. The whole purpose of pointing out whether homosexuality is a choice or not is to criminalize and de-legitimize homosexuality as natural for people who are gay. If no one pointed it out, gay people and people who accept and tolerate homosexuality fully would not bring up the issue at all.

But then this: "it doesn't change that homosexuals will be homosexual anyway!" is basically saying being gay is unchangeable, hence they are born that way. So you shouldn't be pointing it out either, it's not an issue for you. But everything you said after that glaringly says it is an issue. Your words are completely inconsistent

First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.