 |
|
|
|
| 3955 Posts / 48M |
 |
: |
30yrs |
: |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 
quote:
you mention earlier that other relationships with problems..or w/e-could have just as easily been homos.( because they were dysfunctional..and so on.)
I'm not sure what you are saying, but both homo and hetero hold dysfunction and cannot be unequally judged by it.
quote:
Its not so much that it could be psychosis-its that they project themselves to the extent of which is uncomprable.
Project themselves? Uncomprable? Your making assumptions about why any are gay to begin with. As for the flagrant and flamboyant homosexuals, especially males, there could be many reasons for such behavior, including desires for attention like any drama queen I've ever met.
Some people are just annoying, gay or straight.
quote:
He doesnt just defy a member of the human race--he defys the very existence of such a thing.
What? Uh no, gay people since the beggining remember, and we are all still here and still growing in numbers. People who stay single would fall in that category and would disagree about being compared to a serial killer too.
quote:
But because they serve no "anatomical purpose which could be viewed as beneficial to the survival of our race(human)..than it would be most foolish to support such a thing.
Our race has many needs, we are social creatures, they don't have to be breeders to be useful, and many gay people do have kids. They just have to be useful and socially there, especially for others of like minds, just like straights tend to be with straights.
And if people weren't so afraid of them, they could play even more useful roles, especially as parents who can no longer have a child of their own without outside help, just like millions of straight infertile couples who are having relationships that will never bare children, evil isn't it.
quote:
Supporting love, and kindness, and w/e it was we were talking about earlier---is not derived solely from "homosexuality". Homosexuality is a fruitless existence..
Not derived soley, which does not matter, but derived from and within, which makes it fruitful right there. If again you are referring to children, I'll reiterate by saying that plenty of straight couples can't or have decided never to have children, this does not make their existance fruitless, geez.
quote:
So there is no question-that the homosexual act itself is fruitless and perverted.(perverted as in a misuse or debase of a being.)
No, no more perverted or fruitless than masturbation and birth controlled sex, don't be rediculous, there is much question to your assertion. The only debasing occuring towards homosexuality is homophobic reactions to it.
quote:
You dont tolerate an existence..simply because it exists. ( as can be shown with a "serial killer" ).
But both are niether beneficial to the human species.
You don't tolerate the existance of a blantantly harmful way of life, like spree killing.
Homosexuality is a form of union like any other, a staple in a social society allowing for companionship, partnership, support and love. Which we all need and so serves the same purpose straight people do. As well as still being a functioning member of society. The sexuality is not the meaning of the person, nor their worth towards the benefit of our survival, nor their ability to procreate. (Which they still can and often do)
quote:
love is fine...but love of what?
homo"sexuality".-its sex..not love. Why must Homos limit their "love" to other homos, if "homosexuality" is a sexual trait?
Why not love another - (someone maybe of the opposite gender) the same as you would love someone of the same gender?
Because if love had anything to do with it...this would be possible.
But again, given it's sex...it becomes another thing.
again i ask-"love of what?"
Sex and love are not the same thing, are you suggesting that homo's don't love straight people, especially family, as for being in a relationship, would you be in a relationship with a gay man as a straight man? Are you just being closed minded about who you love and have sexual preferrence for? These questions do go both ways you know.
Love of others, I have already answered this. This is why its not a problem, if they were killers rather than lovers it would be a problem, but in general they are not, no more than straights are all killers just because Ted Bundy was straight.
quote:
flip the argument. Why not love somone the same gender as much as you love another of the opposite gender? Because the opposite does not require alterations in the psychological/and sexual preference.
You dont need to consult your sexual tendency before you say "its ok to love this person".
but homos do...
You can ask heteros to be more open towards homos---but it was homos that limit their loving relations to those of the same sex..
No, that is assinine. Homos do not limit their loving relationships, where do you even get the notion. Homo's tend to be more open and loving in a cross gender fashion than heteros, especially in males.
Untolerant straights are the close minded ones, gay people don't bitch at straight people for being straight, or love them less, as a whole. There are specific cases where abuse has turned a person from ever having sex with member or a certain sex I'm sure.
Straights have a harder time loving and accepting gays, not the other way around, the logic and facts in that statement are erroneous. The entire point of the conversation is that people, I'm guessing straight, are questioning why homosexuality should even be allowed. Which is absurd.
"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is Not Ignorance, It is the ILLUSION of Knowledge. Stephen Hawking"
|
|
|
|
SEX LEFTWOOD...SEX! 
). and it doesnt fulfill their desire(at the time) which is strongly driven by love. 
). 
