Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Repeating misinformation? Can you point out what misinformation I'm repeating exactly?
Sure.
For a start, you claimed this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
an overwhelming number of boys who are sexually assaulted by other men, will tend to become homosexual.
There is no reputable research that supports this misinformation. In fact research clearly shows it is false. For example, the 2009 Wilson and Widom longitudinal study of over 900 people who were sexually abused as children:
"We also found no connections between childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect and romantic cohabitation with a same-sexpartner. These results were consistent for men and women and support the conclusions of Bell et al. (1981) that earlyparenting experiences, positive or negative, play little direct role in the development of sexual orientation"
(Wilson & Widom, 2009)
"Despite almost a century of psychoanalytic and psychological speculation, there is no substantive evidence to support the suggestion that the nature of parenting or early childhood experiences play any role in the formation of a person’s fundamental heterosexual or homosexual orientation. It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment."
The problem is, homosexuality might work to a certain extent in a primal uncivilized world, but it does not function well in a civilized world.
My argument is simply that, regardless of how tolerant people are of homosexuality. Its very existence is a problem. And we would simply be better off without it. There is no reason to even argue that point. It is simply true.
So if by minimizing or eliminating homosexuality, we can bring up the quality of life far more than by simply tolerating homosexuality. Then which path should we choose?
Your argument is based upon the fact that homosexuals already exist, and therefore by trying to get rid of homosexuals, we are doing harm to the homosexuals who already exist. My argument is that, we should minimize whatever harm that is done to the current homosexuals, but then we should strive to get rid of the disorder altogether.
Someone was talking before about, if homosexuality is genetic, then would it be OK for mothers to abort babies that would have turned out to be gay?
If homosexuality is largely because of hormone levels in utero, then what if they could give mothers shots when they are pregnant to prevent homosexuality? Would that be a good thing or a bad thing?
I think both are good, because I'm irreligious and I'm simply out for bettering the human condition. I really don't care if people are getting their feelings hurt.
You are missing my point. Why is it that we have separate shower facilities anyway? Why is it that there are restrooms for men and restrooms for women?
It is because people do not want others gawking at them while they bath or use the restroom. Girls don't want guys checking them out while they are sitting in the stalls. And guys don't want other guys checking them out while they are sitting in the stalls either.
When you throw homosexuality into the mix, it necessitates everyone to only have individual bathrooms, so that they can feel secure.
I tell them all the time how I feel about homosexuality. I mean, my view doesn't come out of hate, it comes out of pity. I pity homosexuals. I think they have ****ty lives, that are inherently inferior to heterosexual lives. A person being wealthy and powerful doesn't mean anything. All that matters is that people are happy. And homosexuals force themselves into a situation, where they must miss out on a huge part of the human experience. And because of the negatives associated with homosexuality, I think a great bulk of them carry around a heavy burden of guilt.
Almost every gay person I have ever met, might like being gay to the extent that they are attracted to people of the same sex and can't see themselves any other way. But they most certainly would have rathered just been born straight.
Lets get this straight, every real improvement in this things was not opposed by organized churches. In fact, you should be thanking religion for those things, if you weren't so biased to see.
You need to read a little about Christianity before you go blaming it for wars, discrimination, or slavery. Christians may have done those things, but not because of Christianity.
You should be thanking Christianity. For Christianity destroyed slavery. Christians were not allowed to enslave other Christians. And thus, once Africans became Christians, it was immoral to keep them as slaves. Do you think the anti-slavery folks were atheists? No, the people who were opposed to slavery were not only Christians, but they believed in Christianity in what they saw as its purest forms. These people were evangelicals to the max. What is it about atheism that supposedly would have been militantly anti-slavery? A large part about Christianity is sort of the moral imperative. If there is something immoral going on, you are compelled to stop it. With atheism, that moral imperative simply doesn't exist.
Martin Luther King Jr. was a religious man. Had he not be a reverend, I don't think people would have even cared what he had to say.
You find me where at exactly that Jesus spoke up against morality, or against colored people, or anything of the sort, and I'll be shocked. I'm talking Jesus here, New Testament.
And whatever supposed moral improvements have been made despite objections from Christianity, may not actually be improvements at all. Do you really think people are behaving more morally now than 50 years ago? Is allowing women to murder their babies even over the objections of the father, supposed to be proof of an improvement of morality? Is allowing child molesters, rapists, and murderers to walk to the streets because the criminal justice system is becoming more and more soft on crime, proof of an improvement in morality? Is the fact that the number of children raised in fatherless homes is exploding, proof of an improvement in morality? Is the vastly increasing rate of sexually transmitted diseases proof? Is the epidemic of drug use proof? Is the ever-increasing rate of suicide proof?
Where is your damn proof? Just because you declare something to be progress or an improvement, doesn't make it so. I see what you call "progress" to be a complete and total destruction of civilization.
You just don't like Christianity because it says two men having sex with each other is a sin, and you can't stand it. Get over yourself.
You are just repeating yourself once again...I responded the first time, and calling me a fool and a hater is not going to motivate me to respond again....Deal with it.
Anyway...homophobia is slightly different than rascism in some ways.
Homosexual civil rights were never stripped away from them in the same fashion as the civil rights of the African American population.
Heterosexual men might get nervous around homosexuals for the same reason married women get nervous around single men. That's not wrong...
I'm not nervous around Homosexual males and females , but I can understand why other people are " they can't separate the man or woman " from their's sexual acts of Homosexual Anal Sex or Oral Sex.
emotionally immature maybe...but not really wrong.
I'm not emotional Inmature , because I can separate the person from the act " however I still find the ACT disgusting " but not the PERSON.
It can be highly hurtful to avoid members of a different race, because they are a different race though...and unlike with homosexuality, there's regularly no reason for it.
You can not avoid Homosexual and People Of A Different Race Out Here In CALIFORNIA......LOL
So, socially, they're different.
Everybody is different in California " Buddy"
As far as employment/rights/being treated equally as everyone else by the law, there should be absolutely no difference between these two.
Since when were Homosexual discriminated against in the State of California , and please don't be a Weakling And Say Homosexual Marriage , because listen carefully " Domestic Partnership" and "Homosexual Marriage" here in California Carry The Exact Same Level Of Civil Rights...because neither one is going to have the Federal Benifits and Civil Rights attached Making Them Equal TO HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE..
There is still rascism...but at least people are afraid to be proud of it, due to the large percentage of the population who view the title "rascist" as pretty similar in terms of the persons' morality, to the title "pedophile." Nobody is proud of being a rascist...except isolated communities.
Not so "racist" are just slick and sophisicated these days...
Lots and lots of people are regularly proud of being disgusted by homosexuals, being nervous around them, or even hating them...and their intolerance is widely encouraged.
Your type call me a Homophobian but I'm not " I'm not disgusted with Homosexuals because I could care less about what they are doing behind closed doors..GOD even gives them the CIVIL RIGHTS To Live A Morale Lifestyle (Or) a Lifestyle of Sin , everybody chooses their's own Pathway In Life....Understand...
While it is not wrong to be nervous around homosexuals...It is more of something neutral, and definitely not something to be proud of.
I would change that statement to Homosexual Acts...
That is quite shameful that people are proud of that. Ideally being nervous around homosexuals would be like saying, "I never learned to drive." It's not something evil, but it's a weakness, and not something proud of. It shows a slight degree of emotionally immaturity.
Are you proud Of Homosexuals Acts , well I'm Not And I'm Not Nervous on the OTHER HAND...
Hatred is different from that nervousness though. Hatred is taught or learned, not an innate quality.
So again...it's because they're stupid.
And if you think that I'm Homophobia you are stupid (to)....
A gay guy tried to hit on me one night - and he's lucky I didn't punch his lights out. A Gay guy hit on you............. oooohhhh call the marines............ get over yourself!
Homophobia is NOT wrong. And I don't want homosexuals looking at my kids in the park either. Homophobia is not only wrong but disgusting and the sign of a very weak mind.
Homosexuals are not as good as their advocates (media included) portray them.
Homosexuals are no different to any one else..... there are good and bad Homosexuals as there are good and bad Heterosexuals and there are many Homosexuals who are much better than many Heterosexuals in morals, honesty and intelligence.
Homosexuals are no different to any one else..... there are good and bad Homosexuals as there are good and bad Heterosexuals and there are many Homosexuals who are much better than many Heterosexuals in morals, honesty and intelligence.
I'm pretty sure statistically there are more immoral homosexuals since their life style is predicated on unnatural and antisocial desires.
A gay guy tried to hit on me one night - and he's lucky I didn't punch his lights out.
Homophobia is NOT wrong. And I don't want homosexuals looking at my kids in the park either.
Homosexuals are not as good as their advocates (media included) portray them.
Your not a Homophobe, you just see through the BS because your eyes are open to the real world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
