Please please please share this to the world!!! The words of a teen brought up by a lesbian mother!! This is sooooooooo important!!! Watch: 5KeepITReal5 'me and my gay parents'
Have you read Romans chapter 1? Homosexuality is wrong. I don't hate you because your gay. I hate the sin. I can only encourage you to seek the truth. God can change the heart and open your eyes.
@OpenEye73 The bible brings homosexuality in three places. 1. The book of Levi, which besides homosexuality has laws against common accept diets, farming tech, and clothing. Unless you are eating Kosher food, wearing fabric made from 1 material and the rest of levi, deu, etc.. please stop cherry picking. 2. the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which most xians don't understand the true meaning. The story is about inhospitably, not homosexuality.
@OpenEye73 3. is the from the Book of Paul, which he talked about homosexuality in the form of sex slavery. Which young boys were being forced sexually by rich men. Usually married men.
This is dated, so hopefully by now you have seen why you needn't vote Republican at all.
The Democrats are not the best choice...but I will NOT be voting Republican in November, much less ever in my life.
Since the election of Obama, it has been a nonstop fear and bigotry machine, motivated by the intense need to keep the wealth with the top 2 - 15% of the socio-economic scale.
Dude, vote republican. If you believe in those things you say you believe in, then why would you vote democrat? There's democrats out there that don't like the idea of gay marriage roanoke . com /news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-71457
@rbd510 I read it. Now I know that homosexuality is a sin. But I learned much more! It is ok to rape your daughters or to offer them foe rape or to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the same thing I do. I love the bible. I'm out killing my ugly neighbour. See you!
I really disagree. Many Republican politicians favor many of the rights that are very important to you and your family. I am a Republican and a Mormon. I support the right for gays to serve openly in the military, if the military feels that this policy won't interfere with combat and troop moral. I support civil unions and oppose a federal marriage amendment. I support state bans on same-sex marriage, and I favor banning adoptions to those who are not in a commited relationship. RNC is big tent.
John, banning adoptions to those who are not in a committed relationship? You do realize that single parent adoption is legal in all 50 states? Single parents have been adopting kids since the 70s. How in the world does it help children in foster care or foreign orphanages if you limit the pool of adoptive parents? That just seems crazy to me. Why deny children a loving home?
Single parent adoption is not legal in all 50 states. Georgia and Arkansas are states that I can think of that only permit married couples the right to adopt. I don't support banning same-sex couple adoptions, but statistics show that children raised in single-parent households are more likely to get involved in 'trouble' than those who are raised in traditional households, or even in orphanages and foster homes. It is very rare for children to go unadopted and the pool is currently limited.
John, your facts are wrong. Single parent adoption is legal in all 50 states. Unmarried *couples* cannot adopt in some states (Arkansas is one of them), but a single individual can adopt, and many do. Single parent adoption actually comprises about 33% of foster care adoptions. As for your comment about is being rare for children not to be adopted, what universe are you living in? Children age out of foster care all the time. There are about 129,000 children waiting for adoptive families.
And, John, if you wish to see the faces of all those children waiting for permanent homes, I suggest you check out AdoptUsKids[dot]org. It is sobering and sad to how many children are in need of loving homes. A foster home, an institution, or a group home is no substitute for a forever family.
And furthermore, the day the Republicans stop hating gays is the day they cease to be Republicans. I live in a conservative area, and I assure you, the most dedicated gay haters are also the most dedicated warhawks, and that is no coincidence. They believe the Iraq War is a holy war, God's will. CoughSarahPalincough. That is their basis, regardless of what they say. The Republican Party as is will die without homophobia.
You contradict yourself in the video description. You say Republicans are small government. Hilarious. Well, libs are big government, but so are cons. The Patriot Act, war in general, and Iraq especially, the Religious Right, wiretapping without oversight, et al. Yeah, small government indeed.
If Republicans were more accepting of gays and encouraged them into thier party, I think a lot of gays would go right, particulary on economic issues. As of now it really is stupid for a gay persons or people close to or in support to vote rep. God or no god they represent to most intolerent corners of society, and are more loyal to them.
Being a Republican and voting Republican are two very different experiences. Under the current Christianist-controlled GOP party, I'm not welcome; however, I can espouse the basic non-social tenets of the Republican party without voting for any of its leaders.
I agree, but I guess you know the catch. A lot of gay people will see the merits in the economic side but not the social side of Rep. I vote LibDem here in the UK and Im not keen on the leader. I'll also vote Brown if it looks as if the Tories will win, and I hate Brown! The catch of course is that the social side does dominate any parties actions in office and you'd be daft to think the Reps (or tories here) actually care about anyone except the rich, powerful and thier way of life..
You ARE NOT a Christian...You're a hell bound sinner headed for fire....Quit waving your Christian flag...just live life to the fullest...enjoy sin...rape your husband ,,,teach the kids to be gay...hope you get saved one day...but until then....enjoy your chocolate road with your husband...damn sick pervert!!!
You christians have always been hostile to anyone who isn't christian. I am christian but i belive the gays have the right to get married and be together. The bible was written by humans during the times when gays were locked up and treated as criminals. If you don't see the connection then you must be so self-richous that your dick can show off powerpoint slides
@RetardedPenguin1000 so why do people still take guidance from a book that was written when the world was flat, you were killed or enslaved for having different beliefs, and gays were an abomination to the god that you believe in. Should we really be giving this book to our children to read? (its ok for abraham to kill his son if god tells him to) or is it ok to read only if you tear out the bad pages... i dont understand why people think they need to be christians to believe in a higher power.
If I were living to please you, then I would be hurt by your words; however, I'm living to please God which renders your thoughts and opinions completely irrelevant to me.
For all you Log Cabin fags who think your beloved party is going to accept you, think again. The nomination of Sarah Palin pretty much proves that. Before the party you pledge allegience to, you are dirt, so take what is yours. Vote Democrat.
your sick dude. you label yourself Christian and openly say you're gay. God said he would spew people like you from his mouth. You are not a Christian. You are not "Christ-like". I pray that you will see your fault before it's too late.
Are you Christ-Like? Have you ever sinned in the mind, hear or body? I am so sick of Evangelical/Southern Christian America. They use the bible in a primitive way and even so find ways to use literacy to justify their actions and values. God is far from literal and primitive. No need to reply, I don't want you hissing me with bible verses. I am done now, go dwell in your cave.
Maybe the maker of this video is unaware that the Republicans he loves so much (well, the Republicans have provided such great role models for gays, such as Larry Craig) would be happy to have him reduced to second class citizenship, some would even KILL him. I have one word for gays who set aside themselves to support the Republican party: weak.
The maker of this video (that would be me) understands the difference between being a Republican and voting for a Republican. I believe in the basic non-social tenets of the Republican party, not the Christianist-hijacked GOP that we have had for the past 20 years.
Who would be better off, a child raised by unhappily married man an woman, or a child raised by a loving gay couple? Millions of children are growing up in homes of hate and violence. The sexual orientation of the parents should be the least of concerns, when children living with biological mother and father are suffering a living hell. A narrow-minded, Bible-beating right winger would, of course, disagree with the above mentioned facts. Yes, I said facts, because common sense is not an opinion.
PS - Law of the land for a christian is what the bible teaches... Not picking out what you like in the bible and discarding others like the Pharisees in Jesus' day.
It is Adam and Eve... Not Adam and Steve. Certain things just do not go together and we certainly were not created for same sex relations... It just doesn't make any since...
Who says that all life must be exclusively heterosexual? What is the point of invalidating homosexuality when it's been proven by science that it's just as natural as heterosexuality? If two men meet, fall in love, and marry, they go together. Where is it written in the school of life that it takes a man and a woman to compliment each other?
Well BeatBuddy, as it is clearly stated in the Christian bible that it does not go together period. Why do you think men have an external sex organ and woman have an internal one? Science points to natural reproduction. If two people of the same sex in the garden of Eden (However much love they had)the human race would not have continued. Alot of people have been blinded in this time seeing as Satan comes as an angel of light. But look to the bible for the answers not your own heart.
First of the all, the Bible is not an authoritative text on homosexuality; and its authors lacked the knowledge and understanding that is at our disposal today. We turn to SCIENCE, and science does not confirm what the Bible allegedly says. If you really take a look at these texts, you will see that the Bible isn't clear on the subject, except in Leviticus, and Christians are not bound by its rules. Use the Bible as a defense and you will err.
I don't know about compliments, but it does take a man and a woman to reproduce and keep the species from disappearing from existnce. Sure, there have been many cases of animals that have homosexual relations, but keep in mind, animals have much smaller brains than the human species. They probably treat these homosexual activities like a social act, such as grooming or play fighting. And the animals that do this are of a very small minority. Almost all others act in the male/female relationship.
The citing of animal homosexuality is not geared to justify homosexuality on moral grounds, but to dispel the myth that it's unnatural. The fear that the human race will become extinct has no solid backing. It's predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is contageous or communicable and that people will turn gay if given the chance. The world population has doubled since 1940 and threatens the survival of the human species. It's heterosexuals who need to slow down.
TheWhite, I grew up in Cocoa Beach Fl amoung Scientist , that worked for the space Program, so I like to keep on top of things, and one research that was done shows that nature has its own birth control, and when the population starts to overflow , more homosexuals are born. Isnt nature great?
I'm not far from the Cathedral in the Pines, which offers a scenic, breathtaking view of the Monadnock region in southern New Hampshire. But inside this gorgeous splendor is a world of merciless cruelty, where animals, insects, and microbes ruthlessly prey on one another. So my particular view of nature tends to be ambivalent. Tigers are beautiful, but I wouldn't venture to kiss one.
A dark, rusted urn covered by a thin gilded layer of gold. This earth is truly about survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten. Beneath all the beauty is the dark earth and the fires which fuel it. Almost as if the good needs the evil to survive. And if you think that a tiger is bad, I've seen specials on National Geographic about a parasitic bug that can travel up a urnine stream of a man leaning over the edge of a boat to piss. It is in the Amazon, ofcourse. Most of these creatures are.
Yes, nature is one, big, complex machine. It weeds out the weaker species and builds upon the strongest, and makes sure we have enough beings while not having too many that would make living a difficult. Atheist ot Theist, you'd have to agree that nature is almost a supernatural entity. However, it does not really take a scientist to figure out that if there is one homosexual in a group of 100, and that 100 becomes 1000, that one would become 10. It ain't rocket science.
Agreed. From a logical perspective, homosexuality is completely illogical and overall pointless. Same sex relations can never reproduce, which makes the process completely unecessary and absurd. In a way, one could compare it to something so disgusting as beastiality. Sure, a human and an animal could..ya know.., but they can never reproduce. If not, and the process is unnatural, should it be allowed? Simple: No.
Thank you. Nice to see someone of intelligence online instead of the usual masses fixated on remaining within the mainstream ideas of today's fragile society. You have a good head on your shoulders.
So what if they can't reproduce? How does that invalidate gay relationships? How does that address specific needs we all have? People hunger for some connection, a need for intimacy, a desire for permanent commitment in which sexuality is basic. Dismissing relationships simply because they don't reproduce is reducing sexuality to a mere perfunctory level. What is illogical is condemning basic human proclivites just because they don't result in progeny.
I don't know about calling homosexuality a "basic human proclivity", maybe in 1 out of 100 people, but basic? I think not. However, your are very right. Humans are a strictly a social species. Extended time without seperate human stimuli usually results in psychiatric problems. But, relationships themselves are defined on two levels. There is the intemency of family and friends, and that of physical participants. Mating and relationships usually go hand in hand.
However, as far as physical limitations go, a same sex relationship is restrained to the fact that they cannot have reproductive value. In this way, same sex relationships seems bound more to feelings of lust and pleasure than actual purpose. While seperate sex is often done for recreation, it also is the key to our survival. Now, BeatBuddy, if I may ask a personal question of you: I assume you are homosexual, by comments above. Why do so many want marriage?
Why do so many want marriage? Because your reduction of homosexual unions to just lust and pleasure is dead wrong. If heterosexuals choose not to have children, or are infertile, you could apply the same logic to them. It's inherent in human nature, that even after a period of libidinous escapades, to want something deeper and more meaningful.
I have never felt such feelings, so I am not one to comment. However, marriage has been strictly a religious sanctimony for thousands of years, dating before Christianity and into the ploytheistic religions. Why, if in so many religions in which is stated, and not necessarily in this wording, that man should not lie with man, that they deserve marriage. We're not talking about freedom, marriage has always been a strictly male/female ceremony in almost all religions.
To me it sounds like nothing more than a case of wanting something they can't have. Becuase the gov't has said homosexual marriage isn't allowed, homosexuals want it more. Like if you gave a child a gift, but said he could not open it, he would only want to open it more. If marriage was simply given to them, many would probably not care. But because they have been told they cannot, they want it. Sounds rather childish, I think.
SCOTUS, the judicial branch of the government, has ruled in Loving vs Virginia, and later in Skinner vs Oklahoma, that marriage is a basic fundamental right. In Griswold vs Connecticut, SCOTUS ruled that having children is not a prerequisite for the legalization of marriage. There are those who cry special rights, but this is silly on its face. By its own definition, a right cannot be special; it's for everybody. I thought the desire to marry was a mark of maturity, not childishness.
Not at all what I said. I said it what childish that it seems many of these arguments are based off of the desire to have what one cannot have. Marriage completely falls off the idea of "childish." Say if gay marriage were legal all along, but they could not care for children. The topic of gay marriage would have no support, but because they are limited to not raise children, everone would be protesting this. It is strictly a matter of what they do not have, but want because they cannot have it.
Nonsense, whereas they can't make children through intercourse, they can adopt. Many gays have children through marriages while they were in denial. My sister is a case in point; she and her partner are raising a wonderful boy in Vermont. Plus, the childless argument is an excuse that holds no weight. Heterosexual couples who are elderly, infertile, or choose not to have children gain lots of support. This is because people know that the need for legalized companionship has deeper motives.
Well, regardless of that, I have a question for you, or rather, your sister: When raising this child, will they raise him in the homosexual lfestyle? Of course it is unlikely that he will become homosexual through their teachings, but then again, children pick up many things simply from who they grow up with. He may think because he has two moms, that everyone has to and that boys go with boys and girls with girls. How will they raise him?
What teachings are you talking about? There are no outlooks on life that are embraced by all homosexuals. He's being raised to be tolerant of the differences of others. BTW, there is no single homosexual lifestyle, anymore than there is a heterosexual lifestyle. The gay farmer in Iowa does not live the same lifestyle as the broker on Wall Street. You can't raise someone to be gay any more than I can be brought up to be right-handed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I wasn't speaking of any particular teachings or teachings that may seem as taboo to straight families. I was just saying that children pick things up, almost instinctivly, from their parental figures. Like you said, everyone could have a different way of living or thinking. But, if a child is raised in say, a woman/woman relationship, children would perhaps intuitavely grasp the idea of homosexuality as the norm, and may actually concieve that as the way things are supposed to be.
Indeed, this relates to gay people who grew up in times when homosexuality was a taboo subject. It was more than mere intuition, however, that they knew that they better not divulge their true feelings.
While I remain firm on my views of homosexuality, no one should have to grow up beliving they themselves are a sin. Growing up believing everything you feel is evil can lead to seriously damaging psychological effects.
Just wondering, and I'm not saying this is you, but do you know who keeps negatively rating all my comments? They're my opinions and nothing more. Even if I read something I completely disagree with, I don't mark them as negative. It just seems rude.
What does that mean being firm on homosexuality? The entire western condemnation of homosexuality is rooted in an ancient are barbaric superstition that cannot be advanced by any rational means whatsoever. If you are down on homosexuaity on any level, you are prey to the collective subliminal programming of your culture.
Subliminal? What? I'm not talking about Western views, I'm talking about MY views, MY opinions. I do not use religion as reason, because alot of religious texts can and have been disproven, and not just in Christianity. And because the Constitution has given us the right to believe in God or not, judging homosexuals through religion would defy that document and turn our Democracy into a Theocracy. I judge through my own ideology of science, and view homosexuality as an offset of nature.
You may very well be right that homosexuality is nature's way of regulating the species, and you may not. The point is, I founded these opinions by my own judgement, and not by anything that the media tells me. Most of public messages are for homosexuality, not against it. What you basically say to me is:
"If you disagree with me or homosexuality at all, you are the product of brain-washing subliminal messages that your culture has put you through." What does that make you?
It means a total rejection of what I've been taught, by examing and questioning beliefs that were inculcated in me. I came to the conclusion that conventional wisdom makes no sense at all.
Use any secular argument, but regardless of what form it may take, it can all be traced to religious dogma. Secular antigay arguments are akin to creation/ID; it's religion in disguise.
People think they have formed their own opinions; they are preordained, like the color of their eyes. ---Andre Gide
It is pretty clear why you are an Atheist. You believe all reasoning against what you believe to be true, namely homosexuality or complete sexual, racial and cultural freedom, can be traced to a religious idea. While you may believe what you wish, it sounds more to me like you believe all evil and injustice can be traced to religion. Religion has always, in the majority cases, meant to instill good in a person. Religion is not evil, it is the blackness of man's heart that corrupts the message.
I don't know what you mean by complete sexual freedom. Could you be referring to anarchy? Homosexuality has nothing to do with it, and why people presume that would be an interesting phenomenon to examine. I never said that all evil and injustice can be traced to religion; I said that all injustices and evils perpetrated on the basis of homosexual orientation are tracable to it. Further, when looking at history, I don't believe it has made man better; I believe it has made him worse.
Clearly BeatBuddy is not seeing it, along with countless other that deny the HIPOCRACY behind the sentence "Gay Christian"... Really stating that "if you put your trust in the Bible you will err" as seen on page 5 or what ever by you, SAYS you clearly do not follow bibles council. And turning to "Science" is how everyone has gone wrong. You cannot put your trust in humans to direct their steps. And if you are a christian truthfully then you would have FULL confidence in it's divine inspiration.
You have it backwards. It's turning to the Bible as the ultimate authority is where you have gone wrong. Homophobia is a construct of Christianity and without this religion the entire issue wouldn't even exist. It would be unintelligible. The Bible is so rife with inconsistencies, lack of clarity, contradictions, and outright falsehoods that only a fool would trust in it.
South Africa too? What happened to the good old days of the Dutch envelopment of that region? Long and gone with the 1970s I suppose. But I would gladly testify to them, and I would not be alone. The only reason the movement has gained so much head way is because of fickle youths who've joined the movement, simply because that is what is "in" at the moment. Noticed the jump in the "Green" movement? Just because of some people who act like they want to help, but really just want to fit in. Weak.
The inclusion of gay marriage in South Africa is in concordance with that nation's constitution. It's the only constitution in the world that specifically mentions sexual orientation. Your analysis of the situation I find to be sheer conjecture, with a dose of wishful thinking included. It was the Supreme Court that ruled in behalf of gay marriage, not the lawmakers. There are no strong arguments against gay marriage, and I've heard them all.
Gay marriage was not always strictly male/female. There were Mediterranean cults before the Roman Empire that sanctioned gay marriage. Roman males were allowed to marry each other, providing they were patricians. Gay unions were sanctioned among the Tasmanians, but they have become extinct. Throughout North America, gay marriages were sanctioned by the natives and held to have special qualities. Besides, the appeal to tradition is not a good argument.
I'm sure that this was just a mistake, but you say "Gay marriage was not strictly male/female", stating the quite obvious. I just thought that I'd let you know. And, by the way, it seems that several of these groups you mention fall within a very limited minority throughout the ages. You even call these Mediterranean groups "cults." A cult usually evolves around a paganistic or idol worship, so naming a cult that you may feel aid your argument actually does the opposite.
I never said that, but it has always been negatively viewed upon by larger nations. Your Mediterrean cults, these extinct sects that believed the same; I'm sure that as long as simple man has existed, while most were attracted to the male/female relationship, there were a few that did otherwise. The Greeks did it as well, but it bordered on homosexuality and child molestation. I'm not saying the two are the same, so you know. But, just because it has history, doesn't give it purpose.
A large portion of the population believes that homosexuality was always considered wrong. This is not true, but every ounce of history, no matter how obscure, no matter how esoteric, serves some purpose. Nations with massive populations, such as Japan and China as examples, had no problems with homosexuality until the Christian influence was felt. The entire condemnation of homosexuality is rooted in the age-old, barbaric Abrahamic tradition, and for reasons that are entirely superstitious.
China was far more advanced than many give credit for. Dating back a ways, they had Chinese Empresses, women actually ruling the kingdom, while much of the world had always believed men were superior. It is true that much homophobic ideas come from both Islamic and Christian preferences, mainly from the Bible and Quran. But take this into mind: Billions of Christians and Muslims followed these homosexual hating ways only because someone else wrote them in the "holy" book.
Besides the point of religion, I began this conversation with comments of science and logic, which we've debated for quite some time. Religion is a tricky subject. While some may see past the words written by man that are intended as the actual words of God, or Allah, or Johovah, the majority take everything in the Bible to heart, every written word, passage and message. I don't question homosexuality through religious ideals and long believed stereotypes, but through logic.
The "logic" used against homosexuals, or rather, the "secular reasonings", are nothing more than the extension of the ambiance of prejudice established by religion. Gay acts were sinful, a distortion of "God's intentions", a falling from grace. When the behavioral sciences began to develop, prejudice took on a new form; it became a mental illness. That belief has blown through the roof. All evidence shows its innate; now it's a "biological defect." Prejudice is a chameleon.
Indeed, it takes on all forms, any color and shape and can live in any environment. Keep in mind mental retardation was once treated as if those who suffered through it were damned, sins against god. In Layman's terms, Demons. Now, they are "God's special angels" to many and are treated with the utmost care. Strangely, negative views have yet to change about homosexuality, in which "evil" often comes up. I may not agree with or understand homosexuality, but I very much deny it being evil.
Indeed. The collective homophobia is the product of a superstitious era. Justinian, after Constantinople was rocked by earthquakes, attributed them to homosexual acts, as warning of what allegedly befell Sodom. Yet if you look at the Justinian Code, it is rife with nonsensical laws. Further, the Church leaders had the power to exploit the illiteracy of virtually the entire population. They did, to secure their own power, which persisted for centuries, and the public adopted their views.
You know what they say: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," nothing could be more true. Many of these "men of God" who apparently spent their lives doing The Almighty's bidding were only stealing from the poor, uneducated masses and filling their minds with prejudice nonsense. And if anyone questioned them were said to be against God and were executed. One of the oldest examples of scare tactics. Despite myself being Catholic, I recognize fully the Vatican's often corrupted former ways.
The Catholic Church, before the Protestants split and made a further confusing mess of the religion, used to sell "tickets" into Heaven. If someone sinned, just give the Church a bag of gold, and you would recieve a notice saying you were absolved and a shoe-in for the Pearly Gates. Obviously seeing through the scams, early Protestants remained quiet for their own lives. Lucky enough Mr. Martin Luther came along and they managed to seperate from the heavily corrupted church.
Some years ago there was a member of the lunatic, extremely conservative John Birch Society who tried to ban everything from the schools he disagreed with. The rationale was that anything that suggested cultural change was the product of communist infiltration. While he expounded love of God and country, I wrote a letter to the editor, charging the JBS of being more like the Pharisees than Jesus. Yet, lots of ppl fell for his demagoguery, and he was elected to public office.
Even if a dictator ran under the religious vote in a country that practically ran on religion, odds are he'd win. Times, settings and elections change, people do not.
Off topic now, have you seen the reports of Russia and Georgia fighting? Looks like the U.S. has yet another obligation to aid a misiscule country in need from one of our former worst enemies turned allies. Should we give up our neutrality to Russia for this tiny separist nation? What do you think?
Yes, I have seen the reports, but I'm disgusted with and don't trust the American media. Corporate interests control the networks and they manipulate in behalf of their own interests. I alway feel that something important is not being said.
Very true. I am an American, but I don't deny the fact that as long as America can survive, there must be war for us to profit from. FOX always over does every single story like it's an action movie, and CNN is the most explicit example of extreme liberalism. Look in any newspaper or watch any news station; the U.S, is good, the other guys are bad. If a criminal is ever reported, he is always an ruthless monster, and the police are the selfless, valiant heroes. It's so black and white.
Media research groups, non-partisan, from around the world recently concluded that Fox is the least reliable for accuracy. Of course, you won't see anyone on Fox make mention of it.
Ha ha ha. Very true. I'd be willing to bet that they'd just ignore it altogether, almost as if it never happened. But then again, if they did publically realize this, they in turn would be calling themselves and their peers unreliable. Not a very good career move, I'd say.
The dynamics that make heterosexual friendships and family ties work are the same for homosexuals. The only difference, and it's a superficial one, is the object of sexual attraction.
That is simply just another POINT I was bringing out. If the population of straight people were gay and gay people straight... OMG this world would be at an end in 100 years or so if this system lasts that long....
That comment is based on the premise that homosexuality is contagious or communicable, that people would turn gay if given the chance. Homosexuality is inborn, the way nature has gone with some people. Even if the entire world turned gay, the species would still go on due to the survival instinct. Further, the last thing we have to worry about is the human race gone extinct through sex. High tech weapons can easily take care of that.
Would you go so far as to say that homosexuality is genetic, BeatBuddy?
And from what I'm reading, it sounds to me that you'd rather resort to technologically engineered human births, like cloning and artifical inseminations, than the real thing if in the highly unlikely circumstances arose that the world had "gone gay"? Would you rather have a world of homosexuality and artifical births than one without homosexuality and the actual process? Would you really go that far to prove a point?
Homosexuality is nature based. Where else would it come from? Technology shouldn't engineer for or against homosexuality; it should leave it alone. Genetic engineering has its promising hopes, but it also has its dangers. It can be instrumental in the battling against disease, or it can be exploited to produce stages of intelligence, or in other words, setting up a new kind of slavery. Read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; it's a scary place.
So it's alright to engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples, but it is not alright if that same scientific technology is used to study homosexuality to analyze how it works and see if it can be predetermined? Your argument is beginning to seem one sided. And as for where you say it is nature based, that doesn't specify whether you believe it is genetic or not. I think everything can be explained, studied and altered on a genetic scale.
The hidden, but predictable goal of this prejudiced culture is to find the root causes of homosexuality and hence, eliminate it. The very question of what causes homosexuality reeks with prejudice. It's founded on the false premise that only homosexuality needs to be explained, whereas heterosexuality does not, in other words, something that is wrong with you. It's like geneticists asking how people got to be black and leaving it at that. I may seem one-sided, that is, free of prejudice.
And what is the problem with trying to eliminate it? I'm not talking about a homosexual genocide, but if we found a way to predetermine it and perhaps turn it into a heterosexuality, don't you think that is what would be best? You can argue all you want what you believe is right, but don't you think it would be the best thing, for the parents and the unborn child?
What is best for parents, the child, and society at large is the elimination of every vestige of prejudice, not through suppression, but through free and open discussion. The elimination of homosexuality is wrong because it would only exacerbate the homophobia problem. Further, homosexuality has a bonding tendency. If more ppl had some homosexuality in them, and fully accepted it, the world would be a much better place. You can't cure antiSemitism by killing off the Jews.
Comparing homosexuals to the Jews isn't just. They have recieved torment and ridicule for the last 6000 years. The gays may recieve some of that in history, and even now, but no one has ever tried to inradicate them all. During WWII, in some circumstances, there were homosexual guards at the concentration camps that raped the prisoners, and it was much more tolerated than the "Jewish problem." No group can compare themselves to what the Jews have gone through. That's not my opnion, that's fact.
Comparing the plights of Jews and gays are almost identical. Neither were Jews persecuted for 6,000 years. Anti-semitism is a Christian construct. Jews at least had the comfort of family during hard times. Gays didn't even have that.
How many times have you seen graffiti such as "kill fags?" How many times have you heard people say gays should be rounded up, put on an island, and nuked? These are the voices of fear speaking. BTW, prison camps also had Jewish collaborators.
The Romans had plenty of problems with Judaism before Christ was born and taught his ways. It defied their ideals and thier polytheistic gods, and defiance had a zero toleration policy with them. And I don't recall the homosexuals ever being slaves to tyrannical Egyptians, forced to build monumentous pyramids and self glorified idols for the crazed African kings. And when they were tired or dead, they would simply be thrown away. I don't recall the murder of every first born gay son either.
The Jews were the most insubordinate people in the empire. However, collective antisemitism would not have taken hold if it were not for Christianity. Otherwise, the Roman contempt for the Jews would have died with the crumbling of the empire.
Your comparison of gays to Jews is specious. For 1800 gay people were murdered brutally just because they were found out, whether they engaged in acts or not. Jews were not murdered randomly, but intermittently.
And furthermore, finding a way to eliminate homosexuality completely would not exacerbate "homophobia", is the sense you used the word, but it would end it. It is awful hard to hate something that is not there. And why would people waste their time protesting and jeering a group that no longer exists? Like I said before, I'm not suggesting genocide, but if we found a "cure" for it, a way to eliminate whatever causes this, why not take it? We have the drive and the technology. We just need time.
Rubbish. It would solve nothing. The motives to find out the causes of homosexuality are rooted in fear, bigotry, intolerance, and anxiety. Furthermore, gay men are far better at bonding with other men. Their emotions are more lax, and according to a university study, make better fathers because they are less inhibited about investing their emotions. Once straight men accept the rewards that gays offer, finding what causes of homosexuality becomes irrelevant and senseless.
The world that you dream of, where all of mankind get along with one another, and exists no bigotry, discrimination or hate, is nothing more than a dream. A eutopia such as that will never come because it contradicts man's born nature. You, being surrounded by such diversity and taught to except it, are much more excepting. But much of man is uneducated and is born with the fear of what is different from him. If ever such a world were created, you will surely not live long enough to see it.
It's okay to have that dream. Many of the greatest minds in history had it. People today, it seems, more than ever, are aware that human nature makes us fearful of the unknown, in the same way my cat hides from guests. Realizing this is the first step toward conquering this fear.
Maybe you would be the one to lead them there. To even have hope of change in a world where man is always fearful of it may be foolhardy, but it is also noble. I am not one necessarily against it, but rapid change may have a harsh impact on the delicate social struture of society. I do realize change is always happening, and ultimately inevitable, but it has to be taken slow. I hope by the time I die we will have created a way for man to become superhuman. Science allows anything to be possible.
Visionaries tend to be frustrated people because it takes other similar-minded visionaries to understand them. The masses of people are philistinea and can't see anything beyond what convention has ordained for them.
There are two kinds of people in this world. The leaders and idealists, which are the minority, and the majority of followers and place seekers. In alot of ways, people are like paper and paint. The majority are paper, blank and filled with no originality or ideas. The paint are the leaders which spread their color, flavor and ideas onto the blank paper. It is sad, but certainly true, that most people are born with little vision, and the people who are often struggle with the majority populus.
The most gifted minded people often end up the most angry and tormented because of society's one sidedness and ignorance. If I were one of such a great mind, one that is widely known anyway, I don't know if I could really have much faith at all in the majority population. They'd rather listen and follow the man with the biggest wallet over the man with the biggest heart or mind. And it isn't likely to get any better any time soon, either.
Extraordinary people are often frustrated because it takes other extraordinary people to understand them, as when Stravinsky's Rite of Spring saw its debut. For a savage attack on philistinism, I recommend the novels of Sinclair Lewis.
(1) TheWhiteSuit, you have said "engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples", and also "if we found a way to predetermine it and perhaps turn it into a heterosexuality". You have a problem with "unnatural scientific processes" regarding birthing of children (btw do u also believe this process should be denied to straight couple who can't have kids or just the gay ones?) yet..
...yet you do not have a problem with turning un-born babies from gay to straight (if found a way) when they obviously were meant to NATURALLY be gay in the first place. You are fine with one unnatural scientific processes of turning gays straight but annoyed by the other.
Have to go with you here. When people raise the origins of homosexuality, they don't see the prejudice lurking beneath. It's predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is not supposed to be, and that something went wrong. If we asked about the causes of heterosexuality, people would give a blank stare, or look baffled and perplexed. Asking what makes people gay is like asking how people got to be black, with the underlining assumption that we are all supposed to be white.
Not exactly. Skin pigmentation is more easily explained than what makes someone a homsexual. I'm sure you know how one can become dark skinned or light skinned, so I won't go into details. And asking the masses anything usually results in one unanimous answer based on what is popular. People always jump on the support train for a subject like gay marriage, because they don't want to seem like the "bad guy". And when such a controversial topic comes up, they try and steer away because it raises
further questions that may make that person look like a liar or a fool. No one wants to go into details of a subject they feel may jeopardise their future careers. 9 out of 10 times, the public opinion will be the one that tries to avoid controversy and remains on the ideals of the popular society.
We can go back to Greek mythology, when it was believed that people became black because Apollo pulled the sun too close to Africa with his chariot and left permanent burns on its inhabitants. Again, the presumption that white is beyond explanation.
That skin pigmentation is easily explained is of very recent vintage. Until recently, and even today in some areas, it was presumed that black people by definition were made of inferior clay. It was held that black people were humanoid "monkeys" with inferior intelligence. When something is deemed inferior, be it race or sexual orientation, the question always arises as to what causes it.
The first question of parents, after finding out their child is gay, may be "how did this happen?". They want to know what caused it with the hope of prevent it from happing again and "fixing" their current child by sending them to therapy. But some straights, who know homosexuality is not a choice, are curious to know about homosexuality. Also, some parents of gay children who are more accepting may be, as expected, curious to know what science has to say about homosexuality.
It depends on the person, but society as a whole has deemed gay people inferior as blacks once were and so the majority of the time the question of what caused is surrounded by prejudice.
Agreed. Society has played the guilt trip on most parents, even up to the point where the parents themselves try to keep the news of their gay children in the closets. Some parents can't handle this guilt and throw their children out of the home as a means of appeasing themselves. One of the dire consequences of homophobia.
No, I don't have a problem with these procedures whatsoever. Science and technology is the future. BeatBuddy was just commenting that even if the world were all gay, it would not matter because we have the devices and technology to continue the species without a reproductive service. To me, it sounded like he would prefer the world if it were all gay, and that he'd rather babies be "born" from an insemination than the real thing. That is just what I heard. These processes are our future.
(1)BeatBuddy said "Even if the entire world turned gay, the species would still go on due to the survival instinct". He also said "Technology shouldn't engineer for or against homosexuality; it should leave it alone. Genetic engineering has its promising hopes.." when he first talked about genetic engineering he was not talking about engineer births -- YOU are the one who brought up that topic not him.
(2)He was just saying that if someone is born gay so what, let them be. "it sounded like he would prefer the world if it were all gay" -- no he was just making a point. And no I did not get the impression he wants everyone to be gay (that would never happen) after all BeatBuddy is a straight man himself who has a homosexual sister.
(3)But YOU sure as hell want ALL people to not be gay through unnatural scientific processes as you did say "what is the problem with trying to eliminate it?" (which I find extremely insulting) but at the same time you said "engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples" which gave me the impression you disagree with engineer births of children via ANOTHER unnatural scientific process. I was just pointing out your contradiction.
You are citing out of context. If you're going to hold up gay men to that standard, then doesn't it stand to reason that we must obey all of the other 613 abominations as well? Why are you selective? And why is lesbian sex not included among these abominations?
If only the Republicans would lose power, you would have rights you refuse to even dream of. Are you fully aware that they hate your guts? Or are you that weak minded that you would prop up those who would gladly see you killed over those who are indifferent for better or for worse?
As a liberal atheist, I welcome the fact that some gays are conservative and theist. The strenght of the gay movement lies in its diversity. Too many times I have seen gay people pinned down as one type of human being.
I hear ya man. I believe in the basic tenets of conservatism too, and would love to have a real conservative party to vote for. Unfortunately, the GOP has been hijacked by batshit crazy social conservatives, who are more concerned with moral proselytizing than giving the country real leadership. The GOP no longer cares about limiting government powers, individual liberty, and its conservative values. If only the Democrats offered any better alternatives...
I have been reading lot's of comments on youtube, and it saddens me that Christians are getting more and more alike to other religions fundamentalists...
twisting like maggots on putrid meat...
Your answers to those comments, that didnt even deserve an answer, are full of strenght.
Cheers, a republican who finally realizes it is against their interests to vote for republicans! So why do you call yourself a republican?
AntiYouist 6 months ago
LOL CHRISTIAN AND GAy, LOL GAY M8
yournewfarther 9 months ago
Please please please share this to the world!!! The words of a teen brought up by a lesbian mother!! This is sooooooooo important!!! Watch: 5KeepITReal5 'me and my gay parents'
gyqz 1 year ago
Could have voted for Guiliani.
Stophocles 1 year ago
Have you read Romans chapter 1? Homosexuality is wrong. I don't hate you because your gay. I hate the sin. I can only encourage you to seek the truth. God can change the heart and open your eyes.
OpenEye73 1 year ago
@OpenEye73 The bible brings homosexuality in three places. 1. The book of Levi, which besides homosexuality has laws against common accept diets, farming tech, and clothing. Unless you are eating Kosher food, wearing fabric made from 1 material and the rest of levi, deu, etc.. please stop cherry picking. 2. the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which most xians don't understand the true meaning. The story is about inhospitably, not homosexuality.
Boudiga 1 year ago
@OpenEye73 3. is the from the Book of Paul, which he talked about homosexuality in the form of sex slavery. Which young boys were being forced sexually by rich men. Usually married men.
Boudiga 1 year ago
This is dated, so hopefully by now you have seen why you needn't vote Republican at all.
The Democrats are not the best choice...but I will NOT be voting Republican in November, much less ever in my life.
Since the election of Obama, it has been a nonstop fear and bigotry machine, motivated by the intense need to keep the wealth with the top 2 - 15% of the socio-economic scale.
They hate the poor, dude. It is abundantly clear.
liberatethelemons 1 year ago
Dude, vote republican. If you believe in those things you say you believe in, then why would you vote democrat? There's democrats out there that don't like the idea of gay marriage roanoke . com /news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-71457
naomiscooldad 1 year ago
Read the bible!!! Sinner!
rbd510 1 year ago
@rbd510 I read it. Now I know that homosexuality is a sin. But I learned much more! It is ok to rape your daughters or to offer them foe rape or to kill anyone who doesn't believe in the same thing I do. I love the bible. I'm out killing my ugly neighbour. See you!
EPR89 1 year ago
@rbd510 use yoru brain
god isnt real
idaman12345 1 year ago
@idaman12345
You're a FAKE!
rbd510 1 year ago
@rbd510 why? because i speak the truth?
idaman12345 1 year ago
Homosexuality is a sin..WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU.
You actually think god is proud of you or something?
Dude grow up...read the bible..
campbellmarty36 2 years ago
@campbellmarty36 wtf is wrong with you
the bible was written by man not some god
idaman12345 1 year ago
Amen.
BufordStone 2 years ago
I really disagree. Many Republican politicians favor many of the rights that are very important to you and your family. I am a Republican and a Mormon. I support the right for gays to serve openly in the military, if the military feels that this policy won't interfere with combat and troop moral. I support civil unions and oppose a federal marriage amendment. I support state bans on same-sex marriage, and I favor banning adoptions to those who are not in a commited relationship. RNC is big tent.
JohnRhysMusician 2 years ago
John, banning adoptions to those who are not in a committed relationship? You do realize that single parent adoption is legal in all 50 states? Single parents have been adopting kids since the 70s. How in the world does it help children in foster care or foreign orphanages if you limit the pool of adoptive parents? That just seems crazy to me. Why deny children a loving home?
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
Single parent adoption is not legal in all 50 states. Georgia and Arkansas are states that I can think of that only permit married couples the right to adopt. I don't support banning same-sex couple adoptions, but statistics show that children raised in single-parent households are more likely to get involved in 'trouble' than those who are raised in traditional households, or even in orphanages and foster homes. It is very rare for children to go unadopted and the pool is currently limited.
JohnRhysMusician 2 years ago
John, your facts are wrong. Single parent adoption is legal in all 50 states. Unmarried *couples* cannot adopt in some states (Arkansas is one of them), but a single individual can adopt, and many do. Single parent adoption actually comprises about 33% of foster care adoptions. As for your comment about is being rare for children not to be adopted, what universe are you living in? Children age out of foster care all the time. There are about 129,000 children waiting for adoptive families.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
And, John, if you wish to see the faces of all those children waiting for permanent homes, I suggest you check out AdoptUsKids[dot]org. It is sobering and sad to how many children are in need of loving homes. A foster home, an institution, or a group home is no substitute for a forever family.
rainbowheartgirl 2 years ago
And furthermore, the day the Republicans stop hating gays is the day they cease to be Republicans. I live in a conservative area, and I assure you, the most dedicated gay haters are also the most dedicated warhawks, and that is no coincidence. They believe the Iraq War is a holy war, God's will. CoughSarahPalincough. That is their basis, regardless of what they say. The Republican Party as is will die without homophobia.
Dacadvid 3 years ago
You contradict yourself in the video description. You say Republicans are small government. Hilarious. Well, libs are big government, but so are cons. The Patriot Act, war in general, and Iraq especially, the Religious Right, wiretapping without oversight, et al. Yeah, small government indeed.
Dacadvid 3 years ago
You are too kind; however, no need to apologize.
dschandl 3 years ago
If Republicans were more accepting of gays and encouraged them into thier party, I think a lot of gays would go right, particulary on economic issues. As of now it really is stupid for a gay persons or people close to or in support to vote rep. God or no god they represent to most intolerent corners of society, and are more loyal to them.
JustB3N 3 years ago
Being a Republican and voting Republican are two very different experiences. Under the current Christianist-controlled GOP party, I'm not welcome; however, I can espouse the basic non-social tenets of the Republican party without voting for any of its leaders.
dschandl 3 years ago
I agree, but I guess you know the catch. A lot of gay people will see the merits in the economic side but not the social side of Rep. I vote LibDem here in the UK and Im not keen on the leader. I'll also vote Brown if it looks as if the Tories will win, and I hate Brown! The catch of course is that the social side does dominate any parties actions in office and you'd be daft to think the Reps (or tories here) actually care about anyone except the rich, powerful and thier way of life..
JustB3N 3 years ago
Christianity is also openly opposed to you and your family so you should just keep shooting yourself in the foot
Foto1976 3 years ago
I'm Agnostic, and even so I still have to disagree with you. If you look into it, Christianity is very split on the issue.
yaoifanboy90 3 years ago
??????????????????????????????????????????
Richcool79 3 years ago
You ARE NOT a Christian...You're a hell bound sinner headed for fire....Quit waving your Christian flag...just live life to the fullest...enjoy sin...rape your husband ,,,teach the kids to be gay...hope you get saved one day...but until then....enjoy your chocolate road with your husband...damn sick pervert!!!
campbellmarty36 3 years ago
You christians have always been hostile to anyone who isn't christian. I am christian but i belive the gays have the right to get married and be together. The bible was written by humans during the times when gays were locked up and treated as criminals. If you don't see the connection then you must be so self-richous that your dick can show off powerpoint slides
RetardedPenguin1000 3 years ago
well said....and the powerpoint slide comment made me chuckle for quite some time.
dschandl 3 years ago
@RetardedPenguin1000 so why do people still take guidance from a book that was written when the world was flat, you were killed or enslaved for having different beliefs, and gays were an abomination to the god that you believe in. Should we really be giving this book to our children to read? (its ok for abraham to kill his son if god tells him to) or is it ok to read only if you tear out the bad pages... i dont understand why people think they need to be christians to believe in a higher power.
tuneology 1 year ago
If I were living to please you, then I would be hurt by your words; however, I'm living to please God which renders your thoughts and opinions completely irrelevant to me.
dschandl 3 years ago
For all you Log Cabin fags who think your beloved party is going to accept you, think again. The nomination of Sarah Palin pretty much proves that. Before the party you pledge allegience to, you are dirt, so take what is yours. Vote Democrat.
Dacadvid 3 years ago
It is clear your intelligence is far superior to mine, Your word choice and sentence structure reveal quite a command of the English language.
Let me try to speak in your realm of understanding: Being a Republican and voting Republican are not always congruent.
dschandl 3 years ago
@Dacadvid - Hopefully someday this man's children don't find this written about their daddy[s], the men who are lovingly raising them. Shame.
liberatethelemons 1 year ago
So because thou art lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew thee out of my mouth. Rev. 3:16
you, being gay and "christian" are in a sence hot and cold.
ironblood45 3 years ago
Well said, and also, Paul repeatedly says homosexuality is a sin.
Dacadvid 3 years ago
your life is a sin
kittymunch22 3 years ago
Promotes extreme as in Islamic Fundamentals?
hluiscp 3 years ago
your sick dude. you label yourself Christian and openly say you're gay. God said he would spew people like you from his mouth. You are not a Christian. You are not "Christ-like". I pray that you will see your fault before it's too late.
ironblood45 3 years ago
"God said he would spew people like you from his mouth."
Really? Please cite the verse.
rhiteeoe 3 years ago
WOW he owned you...nice mega fail man.
campbellmarty36 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
god dose not exist FOOL!
kittymunch22 3 years ago
Are you Christ-Like? Have you ever sinned in the mind, hear or body? I am so sick of Evangelical/Southern Christian America. They use the bible in a primitive way and even so find ways to use literacy to justify their actions and values. God is far from literal and primitive. No need to reply, I don't want you hissing me with bible verses. I am done now, go dwell in your cave.
hluiscp 3 years ago
Maybe the maker of this video is unaware that the Republicans he loves so much (well, the Republicans have provided such great role models for gays, such as Larry Craig) would be happy to have him reduced to second class citizenship, some would even KILL him. I have one word for gays who set aside themselves to support the Republican party: weak.
Dacadvid 3 years ago
The maker of this video (that would be me) understands the difference between being a Republican and voting for a Republican. I believe in the basic non-social tenets of the Republican party, not the Christianist-hijacked GOP that we have had for the past 20 years.
dschandl 3 years ago
Who would be better off, a child raised by unhappily married man an woman, or a child raised by a loving gay couple? Millions of children are growing up in homes of hate and violence. The sexual orientation of the parents should be the least of concerns, when children living with biological mother and father are suffering a living hell. A narrow-minded, Bible-beating right winger would, of course, disagree with the above mentioned facts. Yes, I said facts, because common sense is not an opinion.
thursdaysrecords 3 years ago 6
PPS - Lesbian is GAY also... It doesn't just mean men. Please apply all statement made to men AND women please. Thank you
scooby16G 3 years ago
PS - Law of the land for a christian is what the bible teaches... Not picking out what you like in the bible and discarding others like the Pharisees in Jesus' day.
scooby16G 3 years ago
Or what many conservative Republicans do today.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
It is Adam and Eve... Not Adam and Steve. Certain things just do not go together and we certainly were not created for same sex relations... It just doesn't make any since...
scooby16G 3 years ago
Who says that all life must be exclusively heterosexual? What is the point of invalidating homosexuality when it's been proven by science that it's just as natural as heterosexuality? If two men meet, fall in love, and marry, they go together. Where is it written in the school of life that it takes a man and a woman to compliment each other?
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Well BeatBuddy, as it is clearly stated in the Christian bible that it does not go together period. Why do you think men have an external sex organ and woman have an internal one? Science points to natural reproduction. If two people of the same sex in the garden of Eden (However much love they had)the human race would not have continued. Alot of people have been blinded in this time seeing as Satan comes as an angel of light. But look to the bible for the answers not your own heart.
scooby16G 3 years ago
First of the all, the Bible is not an authoritative text on homosexuality; and its authors lacked the knowledge and understanding that is at our disposal today. We turn to SCIENCE, and science does not confirm what the Bible allegedly says. If you really take a look at these texts, you will see that the Bible isn't clear on the subject, except in Leviticus, and Christians are not bound by its rules. Use the Bible as a defense and you will err.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I don't know about compliments, but it does take a man and a woman to reproduce and keep the species from disappearing from existnce. Sure, there have been many cases of animals that have homosexual relations, but keep in mind, animals have much smaller brains than the human species. They probably treat these homosexual activities like a social act, such as grooming or play fighting. And the animals that do this are of a very small minority. Almost all others act in the male/female relationship.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The citing of animal homosexuality is not geared to justify homosexuality on moral grounds, but to dispel the myth that it's unnatural. The fear that the human race will become extinct has no solid backing. It's predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is contageous or communicable and that people will turn gay if given the chance. The world population has doubled since 1940 and threatens the survival of the human species. It's heterosexuals who need to slow down.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
TheWhite, I grew up in Cocoa Beach Fl amoung Scientist , that worked for the space Program, so I like to keep on top of things, and one research that was done shows that nature has its own birth control, and when the population starts to overflow , more homosexuals are born. Isnt nature great?
Clemburke1111 3 years ago
"Isnt nature great? "
Not when leeches dig inside you or when you develope a tapeworm. :)
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Christ, you went from logical and responsive to morbid and dark. Plus, there are ailments of the Amazon ten times worse than a tapeworm.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
I'm not far from the Cathedral in the Pines, which offers a scenic, breathtaking view of the Monadnock region in southern New Hampshire. But inside this gorgeous splendor is a world of merciless cruelty, where animals, insects, and microbes ruthlessly prey on one another. So my particular view of nature tends to be ambivalent. Tigers are beautiful, but I wouldn't venture to kiss one.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
A dark, rusted urn covered by a thin gilded layer of gold. This earth is truly about survival of the fittest, eat or be eaten. Beneath all the beauty is the dark earth and the fires which fuel it. Almost as if the good needs the evil to survive. And if you think that a tiger is bad, I've seen specials on National Geographic about a parasitic bug that can travel up a urnine stream of a man leaning over the edge of a boat to piss. It is in the Amazon, ofcourse. Most of these creatures are.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Yes, nature is one, big, complex machine. It weeds out the weaker species and builds upon the strongest, and makes sure we have enough beings while not having too many that would make living a difficult. Atheist ot Theist, you'd have to agree that nature is almost a supernatural entity. However, it does not really take a scientist to figure out that if there is one homosexual in a group of 100, and that 100 becomes 1000, that one would become 10. It ain't rocket science.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Agreed. From a logical perspective, homosexuality is completely illogical and overall pointless. Same sex relations can never reproduce, which makes the process completely unecessary and absurd. In a way, one could compare it to something so disgusting as beastiality. Sure, a human and an animal could..ya know.., but they can never reproduce. If not, and the process is unnatural, should it be allowed? Simple: No.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Case in point. Well put!
scooby16G 3 years ago
Thank you. Nice to see someone of intelligence online instead of the usual masses fixated on remaining within the mainstream ideas of today's fragile society. You have a good head on your shoulders.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Thank you!!!
scooby16G 3 years ago
So what if they can't reproduce? How does that invalidate gay relationships? How does that address specific needs we all have? People hunger for some connection, a need for intimacy, a desire for permanent commitment in which sexuality is basic. Dismissing relationships simply because they don't reproduce is reducing sexuality to a mere perfunctory level. What is illogical is condemning basic human proclivites just because they don't result in progeny.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I don't know about calling homosexuality a "basic human proclivity", maybe in 1 out of 100 people, but basic? I think not. However, your are very right. Humans are a strictly a social species. Extended time without seperate human stimuli usually results in psychiatric problems. But, relationships themselves are defined on two levels. There is the intemency of family and friends, and that of physical participants. Mating and relationships usually go hand in hand.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
However, as far as physical limitations go, a same sex relationship is restrained to the fact that they cannot have reproductive value. In this way, same sex relationships seems bound more to feelings of lust and pleasure than actual purpose. While seperate sex is often done for recreation, it also is the key to our survival. Now, BeatBuddy, if I may ask a personal question of you: I assume you are homosexual, by comments above. Why do so many want marriage?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Why do so many want marriage? Because your reduction of homosexual unions to just lust and pleasure is dead wrong. If heterosexuals choose not to have children, or are infertile, you could apply the same logic to them. It's inherent in human nature, that even after a period of libidinous escapades, to want something deeper and more meaningful.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
I have never felt such feelings, so I am not one to comment. However, marriage has been strictly a religious sanctimony for thousands of years, dating before Christianity and into the ploytheistic religions. Why, if in so many religions in which is stated, and not necessarily in this wording, that man should not lie with man, that they deserve marriage. We're not talking about freedom, marriage has always been a strictly male/female ceremony in almost all religions.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
To me it sounds like nothing more than a case of wanting something they can't have. Becuase the gov't has said homosexual marriage isn't allowed, homosexuals want it more. Like if you gave a child a gift, but said he could not open it, he would only want to open it more. If marriage was simply given to them, many would probably not care. But because they have been told they cannot, they want it. Sounds rather childish, I think.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
SCOTUS, the judicial branch of the government, has ruled in Loving vs Virginia, and later in Skinner vs Oklahoma, that marriage is a basic fundamental right. In Griswold vs Connecticut, SCOTUS ruled that having children is not a prerequisite for the legalization of marriage. There are those who cry special rights, but this is silly on its face. By its own definition, a right cannot be special; it's for everybody. I thought the desire to marry was a mark of maturity, not childishness.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Not at all what I said. I said it what childish that it seems many of these arguments are based off of the desire to have what one cannot have. Marriage completely falls off the idea of "childish." Say if gay marriage were legal all along, but they could not care for children. The topic of gay marriage would have no support, but because they are limited to not raise children, everone would be protesting this. It is strictly a matter of what they do not have, but want because they cannot have it.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Nonsense, whereas they can't make children through intercourse, they can adopt. Many gays have children through marriages while they were in denial. My sister is a case in point; she and her partner are raising a wonderful boy in Vermont. Plus, the childless argument is an excuse that holds no weight. Heterosexual couples who are elderly, infertile, or choose not to have children gain lots of support. This is because people know that the need for legalized companionship has deeper motives.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
Well, regardless of that, I have a question for you, or rather, your sister: When raising this child, will they raise him in the homosexual lfestyle? Of course it is unlikely that he will become homosexual through their teachings, but then again, children pick up many things simply from who they grow up with. He may think because he has two moms, that everyone has to and that boys go with boys and girls with girls. How will they raise him?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
What teachings are you talking about? There are no outlooks on life that are embraced by all homosexuals. He's being raised to be tolerant of the differences of others. BTW, there is no single homosexual lifestyle, anymore than there is a heterosexual lifestyle. The gay farmer in Iowa does not live the same lifestyle as the broker on Wall Street. You can't raise someone to be gay any more than I can be brought up to be right-handed.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I wasn't speaking of any particular teachings or teachings that may seem as taboo to straight families. I was just saying that children pick things up, almost instinctivly, from their parental figures. Like you said, everyone could have a different way of living or thinking. But, if a child is raised in say, a woman/woman relationship, children would perhaps intuitavely grasp the idea of homosexuality as the norm, and may actually concieve that as the way things are supposed to be.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Indeed, this relates to gay people who grew up in times when homosexuality was a taboo subject. It was more than mere intuition, however, that they knew that they better not divulge their true feelings.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
While I remain firm on my views of homosexuality, no one should have to grow up beliving they themselves are a sin. Growing up believing everything you feel is evil can lead to seriously damaging psychological effects.
Just wondering, and I'm not saying this is you, but do you know who keeps negatively rating all my comments? They're my opinions and nothing more. Even if I read something I completely disagree with, I don't mark them as negative. It just seems rude.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
I have no idea about the rating of your comments.
What does that mean being firm on homosexuality? The entire western condemnation of homosexuality is rooted in an ancient are barbaric superstition that cannot be advanced by any rational means whatsoever. If you are down on homosexuaity on any level, you are prey to the collective subliminal programming of your culture.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
Subliminal? What? I'm not talking about Western views, I'm talking about MY views, MY opinions. I do not use religion as reason, because alot of religious texts can and have been disproven, and not just in Christianity. And because the Constitution has given us the right to believe in God or not, judging homosexuals through religion would defy that document and turn our Democracy into a Theocracy. I judge through my own ideology of science, and view homosexuality as an offset of nature.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
You may very well be right that homosexuality is nature's way of regulating the species, and you may not. The point is, I founded these opinions by my own judgement, and not by anything that the media tells me. Most of public messages are for homosexuality, not against it. What you basically say to me is:
"If you disagree with me or homosexuality at all, you are the product of brain-washing subliminal messages that your culture has put you through." What does that make you?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
It means a total rejection of what I've been taught, by examing and questioning beliefs that were inculcated in me. I came to the conclusion that conventional wisdom makes no sense at all.
Use any secular argument, but regardless of what form it may take, it can all be traced to religious dogma. Secular antigay arguments are akin to creation/ID; it's religion in disguise.
People think they have formed their own opinions; they are preordained, like the color of their eyes. ---Andre Gide
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
It is pretty clear why you are an Atheist. You believe all reasoning against what you believe to be true, namely homosexuality or complete sexual, racial and cultural freedom, can be traced to a religious idea. While you may believe what you wish, it sounds more to me like you believe all evil and injustice can be traced to religion. Religion has always, in the majority cases, meant to instill good in a person. Religion is not evil, it is the blackness of man's heart that corrupts the message.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Several of my comments pertaining to this seem to be disappearing...
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
I don't know what you mean by complete sexual freedom. Could you be referring to anarchy? Homosexuality has nothing to do with it, and why people presume that would be an interesting phenomenon to examine. I never said that all evil and injustice can be traced to religion; I said that all injustices and evils perpetrated on the basis of homosexual orientation are tracable to it. Further, when looking at history, I don't believe it has made man better; I believe it has made him worse.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
Clearly BeatBuddy is not seeing it, along with countless other that deny the HIPOCRACY behind the sentence "Gay Christian"... Really stating that "if you put your trust in the Bible you will err" as seen on page 5 or what ever by you, SAYS you clearly do not follow bibles council. And turning to "Science" is how everyone has gone wrong. You cannot put your trust in humans to direct their steps. And if you are a christian truthfully then you would have FULL confidence in it's divine inspiration.
scooby16G 3 years ago
You have it backwards. It's turning to the Bible as the ultimate authority is where you have gone wrong. Homophobia is a construct of Christianity and without this religion the entire issue wouldn't even exist. It would be unintelligible. The Bible is so rife with inconsistencies, lack of clarity, contradictions, and outright falsehoods that only a fool would trust in it.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
I agree 1010%... And I see that a lot of others agree too but do not want to hear it...
scooby16G 3 years ago
Gays can't have marriage? Tell that to the citizens of Canada, Belgium, Holland, Spain, and South Africa. It will come to the USA sooner or later.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
South Africa too? What happened to the good old days of the Dutch envelopment of that region? Long and gone with the 1970s I suppose. But I would gladly testify to them, and I would not be alone. The only reason the movement has gained so much head way is because of fickle youths who've joined the movement, simply because that is what is "in" at the moment. Noticed the jump in the "Green" movement? Just because of some people who act like they want to help, but really just want to fit in. Weak.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The inclusion of gay marriage in South Africa is in concordance with that nation's constitution. It's the only constitution in the world that specifically mentions sexual orientation. Your analysis of the situation I find to be sheer conjecture, with a dose of wishful thinking included. It was the Supreme Court that ruled in behalf of gay marriage, not the lawmakers. There are no strong arguments against gay marriage, and I've heard them all.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
Gay marriage was not always strictly male/female. There were Mediterranean cults before the Roman Empire that sanctioned gay marriage. Roman males were allowed to marry each other, providing they were patricians. Gay unions were sanctioned among the Tasmanians, but they have become extinct. Throughout North America, gay marriages were sanctioned by the natives and held to have special qualities. Besides, the appeal to tradition is not a good argument.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
I'm sure that this was just a mistake, but you say "Gay marriage was not strictly male/female", stating the quite obvious. I just thought that I'd let you know. And, by the way, it seems that several of these groups you mention fall within a very limited minority throughout the ages. You even call these Mediterranean groups "cults." A cult usually evolves around a paganistic or idol worship, so naming a cult that you may feel aid your argument actually does the opposite.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
No, it doesn't. It simply means that same-sex marriage is not a relatively new idea.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
I never said that, but it has always been negatively viewed upon by larger nations. Your Mediterrean cults, these extinct sects that believed the same; I'm sure that as long as simple man has existed, while most were attracted to the male/female relationship, there were a few that did otherwise. The Greeks did it as well, but it bordered on homosexuality and child molestation. I'm not saying the two are the same, so you know. But, just because it has history, doesn't give it purpose.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
A large portion of the population believes that homosexuality was always considered wrong. This is not true, but every ounce of history, no matter how obscure, no matter how esoteric, serves some purpose. Nations with massive populations, such as Japan and China as examples, had no problems with homosexuality until the Christian influence was felt. The entire condemnation of homosexuality is rooted in the age-old, barbaric Abrahamic tradition, and for reasons that are entirely superstitious.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
China was far more advanced than many give credit for. Dating back a ways, they had Chinese Empresses, women actually ruling the kingdom, while much of the world had always believed men were superior. It is true that much homophobic ideas come from both Islamic and Christian preferences, mainly from the Bible and Quran. But take this into mind: Billions of Christians and Muslims followed these homosexual hating ways only because someone else wrote them in the "holy" book.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Besides the point of religion, I began this conversation with comments of science and logic, which we've debated for quite some time. Religion is a tricky subject. While some may see past the words written by man that are intended as the actual words of God, or Allah, or Johovah, the majority take everything in the Bible to heart, every written word, passage and message. I don't question homosexuality through religious ideals and long believed stereotypes, but through logic.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The "logic" used against homosexuals, or rather, the "secular reasonings", are nothing more than the extension of the ambiance of prejudice established by religion. Gay acts were sinful, a distortion of "God's intentions", a falling from grace. When the behavioral sciences began to develop, prejudice took on a new form; it became a mental illness. That belief has blown through the roof. All evidence shows its innate; now it's a "biological defect." Prejudice is a chameleon.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 4
Indeed, it takes on all forms, any color and shape and can live in any environment. Keep in mind mental retardation was once treated as if those who suffered through it were damned, sins against god. In Layman's terms, Demons. Now, they are "God's special angels" to many and are treated with the utmost care. Strangely, negative views have yet to change about homosexuality, in which "evil" often comes up. I may not agree with or understand homosexuality, but I very much deny it being evil.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Indeed. The collective homophobia is the product of a superstitious era. Justinian, after Constantinople was rocked by earthquakes, attributed them to homosexual acts, as warning of what allegedly befell Sodom. Yet if you look at the Justinian Code, it is rife with nonsensical laws. Further, the Church leaders had the power to exploit the illiteracy of virtually the entire population. They did, to secure their own power, which persisted for centuries, and the public adopted their views.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 4
You know what they say: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," nothing could be more true. Many of these "men of God" who apparently spent their lives doing The Almighty's bidding were only stealing from the poor, uneducated masses and filling their minds with prejudice nonsense. And if anyone questioned them were said to be against God and were executed. One of the oldest examples of scare tactics. Despite myself being Catholic, I recognize fully the Vatican's often corrupted former ways.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The Catholic Church, before the Protestants split and made a further confusing mess of the religion, used to sell "tickets" into Heaven. If someone sinned, just give the Church a bag of gold, and you would recieve a notice saying you were absolved and a shoe-in for the Pearly Gates. Obviously seeing through the scams, early Protestants remained quiet for their own lives. Lucky enough Mr. Martin Luther came along and they managed to seperate from the heavily corrupted church.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Some years ago there was a member of the lunatic, extremely conservative John Birch Society who tried to ban everything from the schools he disagreed with. The rationale was that anything that suggested cultural change was the product of communist infiltration. While he expounded love of God and country, I wrote a letter to the editor, charging the JBS of being more like the Pharisees than Jesus. Yet, lots of ppl fell for his demagoguery, and he was elected to public office.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Even if a dictator ran under the religious vote in a country that practically ran on religion, odds are he'd win. Times, settings and elections change, people do not.
Off topic now, have you seen the reports of Russia and Georgia fighting? Looks like the U.S. has yet another obligation to aid a misiscule country in need from one of our former worst enemies turned allies. Should we give up our neutrality to Russia for this tiny separist nation? What do you think?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Yes, I have seen the reports, but I'm disgusted with and don't trust the American media. Corporate interests control the networks and they manipulate in behalf of their own interests. I alway feel that something important is not being said.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Very true. I am an American, but I don't deny the fact that as long as America can survive, there must be war for us to profit from. FOX always over does every single story like it's an action movie, and CNN is the most explicit example of extreme liberalism. Look in any newspaper or watch any news station; the U.S, is good, the other guys are bad. If a criminal is ever reported, he is always an ruthless monster, and the police are the selfless, valiant heroes. It's so black and white.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Media research groups, non-partisan, from around the world recently concluded that Fox is the least reliable for accuracy. Of course, you won't see anyone on Fox make mention of it.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Ha ha ha. Very true. I'd be willing to bet that they'd just ignore it altogether, almost as if it never happened. But then again, if they did publically realize this, they in turn would be calling themselves and their peers unreliable. Not a very good career move, I'd say.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The dynamics that make heterosexual friendships and family ties work are the same for homosexuals. The only difference, and it's a superficial one, is the object of sexual attraction.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
Correct. Like I said, there are two tiers of intemacy. Physical attraction happens in every physical relationship, it is basically a given.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
That is simply just another POINT I was bringing out. If the population of straight people were gay and gay people straight... OMG this world would be at an end in 100 years or so if this system lasts that long....
scooby16G 3 years ago
That comment is based on the premise that homosexuality is contagious or communicable, that people would turn gay if given the chance. Homosexuality is inborn, the way nature has gone with some people. Even if the entire world turned gay, the species would still go on due to the survival instinct. Further, the last thing we have to worry about is the human race gone extinct through sex. High tech weapons can easily take care of that.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
Would you go so far as to say that homosexuality is genetic, BeatBuddy?
And from what I'm reading, it sounds to me that you'd rather resort to technologically engineered human births, like cloning and artifical inseminations, than the real thing if in the highly unlikely circumstances arose that the world had "gone gay"? Would you rather have a world of homosexuality and artifical births than one without homosexuality and the actual process? Would you really go that far to prove a point?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Homosexuality is nature based. Where else would it come from? Technology shouldn't engineer for or against homosexuality; it should leave it alone. Genetic engineering has its promising hopes, but it also has its dangers. It can be instrumental in the battling against disease, or it can be exploited to produce stages of intelligence, or in other words, setting up a new kind of slavery. Read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World; it's a scary place.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
So it's alright to engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples, but it is not alright if that same scientific technology is used to study homosexuality to analyze how it works and see if it can be predetermined? Your argument is beginning to seem one sided. And as for where you say it is nature based, that doesn't specify whether you believe it is genetic or not. I think everything can be explained, studied and altered on a genetic scale.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The hidden, but predictable goal of this prejudiced culture is to find the root causes of homosexuality and hence, eliminate it. The very question of what causes homosexuality reeks with prejudice. It's founded on the false premise that only homosexuality needs to be explained, whereas heterosexuality does not, in other words, something that is wrong with you. It's like geneticists asking how people got to be black and leaving it at that. I may seem one-sided, that is, free of prejudice.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
And what is the problem with trying to eliminate it? I'm not talking about a homosexual genocide, but if we found a way to predetermine it and perhaps turn it into a heterosexuality, don't you think that is what would be best? You can argue all you want what you believe is right, but don't you think it would be the best thing, for the parents and the unborn child?
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
What is best for parents, the child, and society at large is the elimination of every vestige of prejudice, not through suppression, but through free and open discussion. The elimination of homosexuality is wrong because it would only exacerbate the homophobia problem. Further, homosexuality has a bonding tendency. If more ppl had some homosexuality in them, and fully accepted it, the world would be a much better place. You can't cure antiSemitism by killing off the Jews.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
Comparing homosexuals to the Jews isn't just. They have recieved torment and ridicule for the last 6000 years. The gays may recieve some of that in history, and even now, but no one has ever tried to inradicate them all. During WWII, in some circumstances, there were homosexual guards at the concentration camps that raped the prisoners, and it was much more tolerated than the "Jewish problem." No group can compare themselves to what the Jews have gone through. That's not my opnion, that's fact.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Comparing the plights of Jews and gays are almost identical. Neither were Jews persecuted for 6,000 years. Anti-semitism is a Christian construct. Jews at least had the comfort of family during hard times. Gays didn't even have that.
How many times have you seen graffiti such as "kill fags?" How many times have you heard people say gays should be rounded up, put on an island, and nuked? These are the voices of fear speaking. BTW, prison camps also had Jewish collaborators.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
The Romans had plenty of problems with Judaism before Christ was born and taught his ways. It defied their ideals and thier polytheistic gods, and defiance had a zero toleration policy with them. And I don't recall the homosexuals ever being slaves to tyrannical Egyptians, forced to build monumentous pyramids and self glorified idols for the crazed African kings. And when they were tired or dead, they would simply be thrown away. I don't recall the murder of every first born gay son either.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
The Jews were the most insubordinate people in the empire. However, collective antisemitism would not have taken hold if it were not for Christianity. Otherwise, the Roman contempt for the Jews would have died with the crumbling of the empire.
Your comparison of gays to Jews is specious. For 1800 gay people were murdered brutally just because they were found out, whether they engaged in acts or not. Jews were not murdered randomly, but intermittently.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
And furthermore, finding a way to eliminate homosexuality completely would not exacerbate "homophobia", is the sense you used the word, but it would end it. It is awful hard to hate something that is not there. And why would people waste their time protesting and jeering a group that no longer exists? Like I said before, I'm not suggesting genocide, but if we found a "cure" for it, a way to eliminate whatever causes this, why not take it? We have the drive and the technology. We just need time.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Rubbish. It would solve nothing. The motives to find out the causes of homosexuality are rooted in fear, bigotry, intolerance, and anxiety. Furthermore, gay men are far better at bonding with other men. Their emotions are more lax, and according to a university study, make better fathers because they are less inhibited about investing their emotions. Once straight men accept the rewards that gays offer, finding what causes of homosexuality becomes irrelevant and senseless.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 5
The world that you dream of, where all of mankind get along with one another, and exists no bigotry, discrimination or hate, is nothing more than a dream. A eutopia such as that will never come because it contradicts man's born nature. You, being surrounded by such diversity and taught to except it, are much more excepting. But much of man is uneducated and is born with the fear of what is different from him. If ever such a world were created, you will surely not live long enough to see it.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
It's okay to have that dream. Many of the greatest minds in history had it. People today, it seems, more than ever, are aware that human nature makes us fearful of the unknown, in the same way my cat hides from guests. Realizing this is the first step toward conquering this fear.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
Maybe you would be the one to lead them there. To even have hope of change in a world where man is always fearful of it may be foolhardy, but it is also noble. I am not one necessarily against it, but rapid change may have a harsh impact on the delicate social struture of society. I do realize change is always happening, and ultimately inevitable, but it has to be taken slow. I hope by the time I die we will have created a way for man to become superhuman. Science allows anything to be possible.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Visionaries tend to be frustrated people because it takes other similar-minded visionaries to understand them. The masses of people are philistinea and can't see anything beyond what convention has ordained for them.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
There are two kinds of people in this world. The leaders and idealists, which are the minority, and the majority of followers and place seekers. In alot of ways, people are like paper and paint. The majority are paper, blank and filled with no originality or ideas. The paint are the leaders which spread their color, flavor and ideas onto the blank paper. It is sad, but certainly true, that most people are born with little vision, and the people who are often struggle with the majority populus.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Agreed, and many of the famous literati agree with it, people as diverse as Nietzche, Herman Hesse, Jack Kerouac, and Sinclair Lewis.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
The most gifted minded people often end up the most angry and tormented because of society's one sidedness and ignorance. If I were one of such a great mind, one that is widely known anyway, I don't know if I could really have much faith at all in the majority population. They'd rather listen and follow the man with the biggest wallet over the man with the biggest heart or mind. And it isn't likely to get any better any time soon, either.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Extraordinary people are often frustrated because it takes other extraordinary people to understand them, as when Stravinsky's Rite of Spring saw its debut. For a savage attack on philistinism, I recommend the novels of Sinclair Lewis.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
(1) TheWhiteSuit, you have said "engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples", and also "if we found a way to predetermine it and perhaps turn it into a heterosexuality". You have a problem with "unnatural scientific processes" regarding birthing of children (btw do u also believe this process should be denied to straight couple who can't have kids or just the gay ones?) yet..
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
...yet you do not have a problem with turning un-born babies from gay to straight (if found a way) when they obviously were meant to NATURALLY be gay in the first place. You are fine with one unnatural scientific processes of turning gays straight but annoyed by the other.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
Have to go with you here. When people raise the origins of homosexuality, they don't see the prejudice lurking beneath. It's predicated on the assumption that homosexuality is not supposed to be, and that something went wrong. If we asked about the causes of heterosexuality, people would give a blank stare, or look baffled and perplexed. Asking what makes people gay is like asking how people got to be black, with the underlining assumption that we are all supposed to be white.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
Not exactly. Skin pigmentation is more easily explained than what makes someone a homsexual. I'm sure you know how one can become dark skinned or light skinned, so I won't go into details. And asking the masses anything usually results in one unanimous answer based on what is popular. People always jump on the support train for a subject like gay marriage, because they don't want to seem like the "bad guy". And when such a controversial topic comes up, they try and steer away because it raises
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
Cont...
further questions that may make that person look like a liar or a fool. No one wants to go into details of a subject they feel may jeopardise their future careers. 9 out of 10 times, the public opinion will be the one that tries to avoid controversy and remains on the ideals of the popular society.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
We can go back to Greek mythology, when it was believed that people became black because Apollo pulled the sun too close to Africa with his chariot and left permanent burns on its inhabitants. Again, the presumption that white is beyond explanation.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
That skin pigmentation is easily explained is of very recent vintage. Until recently, and even today in some areas, it was presumed that black people by definition were made of inferior clay. It was held that black people were humanoid "monkeys" with inferior intelligence. When something is deemed inferior, be it race or sexual orientation, the question always arises as to what causes it.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
The first question of parents, after finding out their child is gay, may be "how did this happen?". They want to know what caused it with the hope of prevent it from happing again and "fixing" their current child by sending them to therapy. But some straights, who know homosexuality is not a choice, are curious to know about homosexuality. Also, some parents of gay children who are more accepting may be, as expected, curious to know what science has to say about homosexuality.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 2
It depends on the person, but society as a whole has deemed gay people inferior as blacks once were and so the majority of the time the question of what caused is surrounded by prejudice.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago 3
*question of what caused it is surrounded by prejudice.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
Agreed. Society has played the guilt trip on most parents, even up to the point where the parents themselves try to keep the news of their gay children in the closets. Some parents can't handle this guilt and throw their children out of the home as a means of appeasing themselves. One of the dire consequences of homophobia.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 3
No, I don't have a problem with these procedures whatsoever. Science and technology is the future. BeatBuddy was just commenting that even if the world were all gay, it would not matter because we have the devices and technology to continue the species without a reproductive service. To me, it sounded like he would prefer the world if it were all gay, and that he'd rather babies be "born" from an insemination than the real thing. That is just what I heard. These processes are our future.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago
If everybody suddenly turned gay, homophobia would be wiped out in a flash.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
(1)BeatBuddy said "Even if the entire world turned gay, the species would still go on due to the survival instinct". He also said "Technology shouldn't engineer for or against homosexuality; it should leave it alone. Genetic engineering has its promising hopes.." when he first talked about genetic engineering he was not talking about engineer births -- YOU are the one who brought up that topic not him.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(2)He was just saying that if someone is born gay so what, let them be. "it sounded like he would prefer the world if it were all gay" -- no he was just making a point. And no I did not get the impression he wants everyone to be gay (that would never happen) after all BeatBuddy is a straight man himself who has a homosexual sister.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
(3)But YOU sure as hell want ALL people to not be gay through unnatural scientific processes as you did say "what is the problem with trying to eliminate it?" (which I find extremely insulting) but at the same time you said "engineer births of children in unnatural scientific processes for homosexual couples" which gave me the impression you disagree with engineer births of children via ANOTHER unnatural scientific process. I was just pointing out your contradiction.
xxxjppjxxx 3 years ago
Actually, if all men turned gay, I could have all these women to myself. LOL (just kidding)
BeatBuddy 3 years ago 2
Heh heh heh. So that was your plan all along, eh? A high intelligence usually comes with a good sense of humor.
TheWhiteSuit 3 years ago 2
I agree.
hluiscp 3 years ago
But... Those are just my comments
scooby16G 3 years ago
Is it just me or are a lot of people missing the "man shall not lie down with man" part out of the Holy Bible...
scooby16G 3 years ago
You are citing out of context. If you're going to hold up gay men to that standard, then doesn't it stand to reason that we must obey all of the other 613 abominations as well? Why are you selective? And why is lesbian sex not included among these abominations?
BTW, the Bible is not the law of the land.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
If only the Republicans would lose power, you would have rights you refuse to even dream of. Are you fully aware that they hate your guts? Or are you that weak minded that you would prop up those who would gladly see you killed over those who are indifferent for better or for worse?
Dacadvid 3 years ago
Gay AND Republican...SCARY!
Someone needs to burn those Log Cabins down....
Tuxster3 3 years ago 2
Don't forget the Christian.
Don't forget the parenting.
You are too funny, this made my day...I will chuckle all week about this.
dschandl 3 years ago
Your welcome!
Tuxster3 3 years ago
As a liberal atheist, I welcome the fact that some gays are conservative and theist. The strenght of the gay movement lies in its diversity. Too many times I have seen gay people pinned down as one type of human being.
BeatBuddy 3 years ago
I hear ya man. I believe in the basic tenets of conservatism too, and would love to have a real conservative party to vote for. Unfortunately, the GOP has been hijacked by batshit crazy social conservatives, who are more concerned with moral proselytizing than giving the country real leadership. The GOP no longer cares about limiting government powers, individual liberty, and its conservative values. If only the Democrats offered any better alternatives...
sirhumphrey01 3 years ago 3
I have been reading lot's of comments on youtube, and it saddens me that Christians are getting more and more alike to other religions fundamentalists...
twisting like maggots on putrid meat...
Your answers to those comments, that didnt even deserve an answer, are full of strenght.
Keep the courage and the faith!
naldric 3 years ago 3