The sad thing is that if I actually believed Balerion's comments I would be even more against gays than I am now. I have tried to associate being gay with a biological disorder trying to relate to how they are justified in being gay. If Balerion really knows gay people and this is not true and in turn this makes me a bigot for thinking that way, then I would think I should have more bigotry against them for being gay despite their natural desires to be with the opposite sex. Then I wouldn't care less about them being able to get married. Lets face it they are not going to be able to deal with gay people outside of congress forever they are going to have to give in in order to get rid of them, it sounds like they should just break out the tear gas.
Yes, a lot of people have tried to claim that. A similar effort was made back in the 1940's to try to justify discrimination against blacks; they were inferior to whites biologically (or so some claimed) and thus laws against interbreeding were sensible to prevent "tainting" the genetic pool. You do realize there are gay people inside Congress, right? No one is going to "get rid" of gays any more than they "got rid" of blacks, women, Italians, Irish, Muslims etc.
In that case it seems like straight people should just stop having sex with gays, and then we could breed them out (they wouldn't be able to reproduce on their own) and they shouldn't be able to have sperm donated to them. I wouldn't want my "boy's" being raised by gay people. I thought a difference in their biology would be a reason to not discriminate against them. Thanks you guys for enlightening me on how much of them just being sicko's they actually are. I really see no reason why they shouldn't be discriminated against in that case that it isn't due to a biological defect.
Well, if being gay isn't a biological disorder and thinking that it is makes me a bigot even though I thought that justified them to be legitimately gay, then I would think that accepting that they just choose to be gay despite their natural desires then they really shouldn't have these unnatural rights. There is no way to know that they can be trusted morally. It would no longer be an issue of people just being the way that they are that they cannot help and be an issue of a group of people that choose to be unnatural. It would be like saying that I should accept that someone can be a good parent that would then sleep with anything that walks despite their natural desires and that would make a good parent.
I've always associated 'bigot' with 'stupid'. I see nothing to change my mind. Homosexuality occurs quite often in nature. So the only thing unnatural is your cultural indoctrination.
So then you don't agree with everyone else here in the forum that says that being gay doesn't have to do with a difference in biology?
Gays tend to not breed. If your belief held true there would now be no more gays; they would be evolved out. Looks like there's a hole in your theory. Good thing there are laws against people like you, then. Nor is there any way to know if you can be trusted morally. Uh, no. Straight and gay people have no inherent claim on morality. Plenty of straight men are pedophiles; plenty of gay men volunteer at homeless shelters, donate money to charity, adopt children that otherwise would live in orphanages etc.
I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion, but then, I can't figure out how you reach all of your conclusions.
Well it just so happens that my "cultural indoctrination" that has lead me to believe that being gay is not a biological disorder comes from this thread, before that I thought it was because they had the wrong hormones and that is why people where gay, but then I was accused of being a bigot for having this opinion. With that being said, then I thought that yes, I should be a bigot then on this issue since I had previously justified people being gay for having the wrong hormones that they could not help. If they have the same biology that I do then it would seem that they choose to be gay even though they are not attracted to the same sex sexually, so then I say no they shouldn't have any extra rights. Why couldn't I just live with a friend and claim marriage benefits even though we are not packing the fudge? Why would they deserve more than I would when they are just being sexually promiscuous?
"Disorder" 'Wrong Hormones" "Packing the fudge" "Sexually promiscuous". Everything you're saying betrays a stereotyped cultural indoctrination which has no basis in nature but has every basis in unreasoned knee-jerking Homosexuality occurs in animals in nature. How then can it be unnatural?
It is hard to tell a male and female animal apart without looking at their sexual organs. I would imagine that animals would have the same difficulties. It would be unnatural in humans, for lack of a better word, and humans are not animals even though it seems that some want to act like them. Mainly because I would feel disgusted being gay myself, and this is a very common view among a lot of people. I have a strong desire to be with women and no desire to be with men in that way. I have a natural reluctance against being with someone of the same sex that is common among a lot of people. This really seems like a dumb question. Maybe if you all where not so gay you would know this stuff, I really don't see how someone could not know something like this and not be gay. I really am starting to wonder if gay people even realize this and that is why it is a typical response to this type of question. This is really no other explanation for this type of ignorance.
That's fairly ridiculous. You know this how? Because your parents told you so? So your feelings are relevant in what way? You're giving really dumb, stereotyped, unthinking answers. Just the way you were brought up.
Okay, that's the stupidest thing I've ever read on this forum. You keep topping yourself, man. Did you even get out of middle school? But we are animals. We're subject to all of the same things every other species is, from bodily functions to natural selection. So how does this translate to gays being unworthy of rights? How does this translate to them being wrong? I don't like sardines, but I don't claim that people who do are backwards or genetically flawed in some way. Do you think black people deserve equal rights? I agree. Your ignorance is literally stunning, and there is no excuse for it. I'm surprised you have the wherewithal to turn your computer on, let alone the mental dexterity to log in to your ISP and get all the way to sciforums.
It's just as hard for people to tell male and female people apart without looking at their sex organs as it is for animals to tell male and female apart without looking at their sex organs. Just because you can't tell a male baboon from a female baboon doesn't mean it's hard for them. In older more conservative people true. Most younger people just plain don't care. Other people being gay is much more of a non-issue even if they wouldn't want to do it themselves. True of about 98% of the people out there. I have a natural reluctance against cleaning the house. That's pretty common too. It would be absurd to argue that therefore cleaning is disgusting, unnatural and should be avoided. Do you actually know any gay people? Because it doesn't sound like you do. It sounds like you got all your information on them from the media in the 1980's.
Yes I do think they deserve equal rights, they where born that way so then they cannot help it. They cannot help from being black. Sometimes I wish I was black so I could reap some of the benefits of being black. Like a collage fund, or filling a job with no black people. I just don't think gays should have more rights than I do because of their sexual perversions. But, I think you guys cannot realize this because you are all so gay, so then you do not even realize that it is sexual perversions. If it was a genetic disorder then it would be different. But sense apparently gay people do not feel the same way and have come out of the closet that they do not naturally feel an attraction to the same sex and not the opposite sex, then they do not deserve any more rights than I do in any way shape or form.
But there is no way to know if they can be trusted morally, and many people feel an aversion to them. By your standards, that means that they are unnatural. They shouldn't. They should have the SAME rights. Calling people "gay" doesn't work if they don't find it an insult. It has a genetic component, yes. Agreed. They just deserve the same rights.
I fail to see your connection here. Being black doesn't mean that they have to have morality issues. Being gay without a genetic cause would mean that it is just a group of people that practice sexual immorality. If instead you said gangs should have rights for living together then that would be a different story. Exactly, I wouldn't be able to have marriage benefits for living with someone of the same sex so why should they? That would seem like they would have more rights than I do. The only difference is that they would be practicing sexual immorality. Why wouldn't two straight guys be able to have the same benefits as two gay people? Then I guess you would be a bigot like myself, welcome to the club. We should start a protest for bigot rights! You should be proud of being a bigot. Then we also need homophobic rights, and have homophobe pride! I cannot help being a bigot and a homophobe cause I was born that way.
?? Sexual immorality? You mean like straight couples who have oral sex? How do you know you can trust them? And besides, many people feel an aversion to blacks. By your argument that means they are not natural. Why should you trust someone unnatural? You can marry the person you love. They should have the same rights as you. Nope. You can also marry the person you love. So do you. I bet you got a blowjob or masturbated at some point in your life. They can!
My first girl friend was a hardcore christian, and she only believed in giving oral sex. Then when we ended up actually having sex she became very uneasy about it so I thought I would give her some room to think about it and then she left me for someone else within a week. So you strike a good point, maybe they cannot be trusted. I actually thought I was going to end up getting married to this girl as we had talked about it. That is just your twisted version of it, people of all races are gay. I don't see why you are trying to turn this into a race issue. There is not a set of hormones that would then make you not like black people. The big difference here would be that prejudice against blacks would be a cultural response and prejudice against gays can be a built in response. That is a myth, straight males do not get a choice in marring the person they love and I was denied this right. I don't see that as being sexually immoral. It is normal. The idea that it wasn't moral was like the same thing as pretending to see nothing wrong with gay people being together. I don't think any government would be able to afford it. The only reason why I think the government is considering the issue is because gays are such a minority.
