It’s a good thing that gay rights don’t ride on your approval.
And another thing. When one finds oneself in a hole, it is best to stop digging.
Robin
Bob, you’re becoming even less coherent.
One might even suspect you were foaming at the mouth.
It’s not making your argument any more convincing.
For the free toaster?
Seriously though, these are excellent questions. Given the extreme level of social stigma attached to homosexuality even in these “enlightened times”, why the hell would anybody deliberately become homosexual? And having done so, why wouldn’t they “switch back” when things became rough?
Maybe – just maybe – it’s because IT’S NOT A FREAKIN’ CHOICE!
Just a thought.
IANAH, but I feel certain that your refusal to approve of them weighs heavily on the hearts and minds of the homosexual community.
Me neither. Appletinis and the worship of Judy Garland. It’s sick! Sick I tell you!
On the bright side, there is that special discount at Ikea…
So, Contumelious Bob, are you ever going to get around to answering the questions that have been put forth to you, or are you just going to keep getting further and further away from the point at hand?
Knowing now would save a lot of people a lot of time, and I’m all about time management.
And your asinine little pissiness has been done much better by Swift. Certain things shouldn’t be tampered with. And babies are children, schmuck.
And even though it’s been pointed out to you previously, I get the feeling that you need it hammered home repeatedly. In that spirit: Nobody chooses to be gay. Just as you did not choose to be straight. Read those two previous sentences until a light begins to dawn. Then read them a few more times just to be sure.
Waste
Is the basic goal of life to reproduce? How do you mean “goal”? This is as confusing to me as your earlier use of the word “duty.”
You seem to be deliberately confusing too separate things: biological drive and moral imperative. Charles Darwin did not come down off Mount Sinai with The Origin of Species inscribed on clay tablets. They are not the Tao-Te-Ching. Competition and reproduction aren’t meant to be recipes for better living, but rather an observation of a neutral biological process. It has no moral weight.
If by “goal” you mean “instinct to reproduce through heterosexual sex,” then you would be wrong in my case. If by “goal” you mean “moral purpose,” then you would be hard-pressed to prove that. I don’t think my purpose is to reproduce, though YMMV.
Is it a “flaw”? In a strictly biological sense, maybe. Then again, as mentioned by me and by another poster, there are ways where even homosexuality could be useful – the Uncle Effect for example.
People who use Darwin as a club in moral debates frequently have the most incredibly simplistic view of the actual biological process involved. From beta wolves to worker ants, nature is full of creatures whose inability to reproduce is an aid to, not a barrier to, the passing down of their genes.
Are you seriously making the argument that morality should be defined by conformity? Have I misunderstood you? Do you believe that “most people do it that way” means “most people should do it that way”?
And just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it wrong.
Explain to this neo-pagan here what exactly makes it wrong. My religion has no injunction against homosexuality. My definition of morality depends on harm caused to others, and there is none in this case.
I agree. But if you’re going to make a half-assed argument confusing biology and morality, I should be allowed to do the same.
My recent study was reported on 365gay.com. It was done by a university. If you have reason to believe that the reporting was bogus, why not email someone at California State University and ask them?
Yup, you’re right. There are websites for gay men to hook up for sex. But there are several problems here.
Firstl, This does not mean that gay men are more promiscuous than straight men. I suspect an awfully large number of heterosexual men would be using similar sites if women were as willing to put out.
Secondly, you’re making a gross generalization. I know straight men and straight women who are more promiscuous than my own boring, old-fashioned self. Making assumptions about a whole group because you happen to find some websites belonging to some of them is bizarre. They are not a representative sample.
Thirdly, your example of the anti-gay-marriage advocate who was using the Internet presents another reason for the hook-up sites: some gay men are so terrified to admit the truth to a world filled with homophobic bigots, that they hide and repress themselves until they can’t anymore, and then they go out for sex. These are the men who list “discreet encounters” in personal ads.
Fourthly, it’s a confusion of the issue. Even if we were all slavering lust-monkeys screwing each other silly at the drop of a hat, it wouldn’t be a moral issue one way or another. There’s no harm involved.
Fifthly, why should the actions of promiscuous gay men be an argument against monogamous gay men (or lesbians, who are suspiciously absent from your tirade) from marrying?
Well, I don’t think the significant issue is homosexuality but rather that many learned that freedom of speech and assembly are fundamental rights in America, for now anyway.
Sure they are. However, there is a very fine line between free assembly and harassment. People with a valid point do not need to physically buttonhole passersby and foist hate literature on them. These people were. The physical buttonholing constitutes harassment, since it doesn’t give people a chance not to listen.
Robin
Fraid not, that constitutes irritation with a POV that you disagree with.
Um, no. I would have been irritated had they merely been there. They were physically grabbing people as they walked past in order to force literature on them.
THAT is what constitutes harassment.
And that is the last I’ll say on that subject.
Robin
Well, ok, I’ll do the talking then. See, when they “physically” grab people, well, that is assault, not harassment. And if they said, well, take this literature or I’ll hit you, well, that would be assault also. Although physically grabbing people is not something you see that often in demonstrations etc, you know, except by the police.