'Gay' baby triggers row

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Bicnarok
This is a crazy world we live in

Posters of a rosy, puffy cheeked newborn baby have provoked controversy in Italy because the infant is shown wearing a wristband name-tag with the word "homosexual" written on it.

The add says "sexual orientation is not a choice"

News links


Link Link A

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/img/2007/world/2510_gaybaby_a.jpg

inimalist
lol, go propoganda

its a pretty bold advertising campaign. I am reminded of the anti-drunk driving advertisiements, while the message is good, the whole point is a blatant emotional grab rather than a real understanding.

Devil King
Why is it crazy?

from the first link:



How the hell is this new born being exploited? Is he going to show up for his first day of high school and the whole class is going to point at him and shout "hey! it's that gay baby"?

The only thing being exploited is the outrage by people who are ignorantly assuming that the add is one step away from being kiddie porn because it involves homosexuality and a baby.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Wait, it doesn't involve gay kiddie porn? Nvm.

Devil King
Well, if it isn't about that, and it's not about being born gay, what's it about?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Devil King
Well, if it isn't about that, and it's not about being born gay, what's it about?
Advocating turning newborns into homosexuals through repeated exposure to Teletubbies and SpongeBob.

Devil King
Yeah, but this is Italy. Everything they say sounds pretty gay.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.gatorswearjeanshorts.net/TheGuido.jpg

Mairuzu
Are they all super saiyan?

Devil King
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.gatorswearjeanshorts.net/TheGuido.jpg

Oh god. They all look exactly the same. How boring would it be to be gay in Italy?

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
Oh god. They all look exactly the same. How boring would it be to be gay in Italy?

They're not gay, but just "Italians".

Mairuzu
Wow...

Devil King
Originally posted by Robtard
They're not gay, but just "Italians".

So they're like those guys on growing up gotti? Talk about stupid. I'm not saying it's because they're Italian, but those guys are bright as bricks.

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
So they're like those guys on growing up gotti? Talk about stupid. I'm not saying it's because they're Italian, but those guys are bright as bricks.

Never seen that show, but I can imagine the "stupid factor" of those goombahs. I've been to Italy/Italian Clubs in 1999, all the dudes looked the same... back then though, they had buzz cuts they'd slick forward with a 10W40 like grease, pencil thin sideburns and they'd wear skin tight pants/shirts.

Dexter_Morgan
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.gatorswearjeanshorts.net/TheGuido.jpg

It disturbs me you have bookmarked this link from when Robtard posted it previously. It disturbed me he had such a liking for it also.

Robtard
Originally posted by Dexter_Morgan
It disturbs me you have bookmarked this link from when Robtard posted it previously. It disturbed me he had such a liking for it also.

Dumbass... he posted it, I bookmarked it; we both do like it though. I guess one of of three isn't that bad.

Dexter_Morgan
Originally posted by Robtard
Dumbass... he posted it, I bookmarked it; we both do like it though. I guess one of of three isn't that bad.

Stress

smile

SelphieT
I don't see anything wrong with that poster.

It's just simply trying to prove a point.

Syren
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
http://www.gatorswearjeanshorts.net/TheGuido.jpg

They all have head hard-ons and they all pluck their eyebrows. My goodness.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Dexter_Morgan
It disturbs me you have bookmarked this link from when Robtard posted it previously. It disturbed me he had such a liking for it also.
You're a ****ing tool.

Type "guido" into Google Image search.

OH SNAP LOLZ

WHIRLY GET THE F*CK OFF OF KMC

dadudemon
Originally posted by Mairuzu
Are they all super saiyan?




laughing laughing laughing

I was thinking the same thing.

Critic
Originally posted by Devil King
So they're like those guys on growing up gotti? Talk about stupid. I'm not saying it's because they're Italian, but those guys are bright as bricks.

I don't think it's fair to judge intelligence by appearance.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Critic
I don't think it's fair to judge intelligence by appearance.
In this case, it is.

Devil King
Originally posted by Critic
I don't think it's fair to judge intelligence by appearance.

Nor appearance by intelligence.

Critic
Originally posted by Devil King
Nor appearance by intelligence.

Acceptance serves as an amazingly effective emotion. I just thought I'd state the obvious, that's all.

~Forever*Alone~
wow, i thought cloning was illegal...

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, go propoganda

its a pretty bold advertising campaign. I am reminded of the anti-drunk driving advertisiements, while the message is good, the whole point is a blatant emotional grab rather than a real understanding.

That's a very good way of putting it.

SpearofDestiny
Italians are hott, seeing as how I look guido-ish, I'd have to defend my overdone-counterparts big grin

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Italians are hott, seeing as how I look guido-ish, I'd have to defend my overdone-counterparts big grin
And perhaps they'll jump to defend their oversexed counterpart.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Devil King
Oh god. They all look exactly the same. How boring would it be to be gay in Italy? I know, it's considered a stereotype, but you gays all look the same to me.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Bardock42
I know, it's considered a stereotype, but you gays all look the same to me.
Damn Chinamen.

Captain King
I say we take that add and counter it.

"Sexual Orientation is not a choice.

But then, neither is murder."


I have nothing moraly against homosexuality, I do however have something moraly against using children for left-wing propaganda when children are stasticaly killed moreso by left-wing people.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Originally posted by Captain King
I say we take that add and counter it.

"Sexual Orientation is not a choice.

But then, neither is murder."


I have nothing moraly against homosexuality, I do however have something moraly against using children for left-wing propaganda when children are stasticaly killed moreso by left-wing people.
Well, the thread is going to implode now. Of course, I suspect that this is your intent.

Devil King
Originally posted by Captain King
I say we take that add and counter it.

"Sexual Orientation is not a choice.

But then, neither is murder."


I have nothing moraly against homosexuality, I do however have something moraly against using children for left-wing propaganda when children are stasticaly killed moreso by left-wing people.

I'd say the playing feild is pretty even.

thumbs_up

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Run. Run far, far away.

Bicnarok

Captain King

Adam_PoE
Like secondary sexual characteristics, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is in place before birth, and discovered during adolesence.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Sexuality is an immutable characteristic that is in place before birth, and discovered during adolescence.

Sex may take place between the legs, but sexual orientation, i.e. an enduring emotional, physical, and psychological attraction to members of a particular sex, takes place between the ears.


Thanks for that...sooo, who in here needed to know that that didn't already know?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for that...sooo, who in here needed to know that that didn't already know?

Every "being gay is a choice" ranting asshat in here.

Adam_PoE
Do not conflate sexual orientation with sex.

Sex takes place between the legs, but sexual orientation, i.e. an enduring emotional, physical, psychological attraction to members of a particular sex; takes place between the ears.

Like secondary sexual characteristics, sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic that is in place before birth, and discovered during adolescence.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Every "being gay is a choice" ranting asshat in here.

I didn't read all of the posts....too much to read.

Yeah...it is both. It is both a choice and you are born with it. It can be one or the other as well...there is not generalization that fits all.

In other words, not all are born gay...not all "turn gay" they were to begin with. In fact, I bet there are some that think they are gay who are not gay...they are just confused about their sexuality..I would say the same for some straight people....it is really really too variable to make a blanket statement.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't read all of the posts....too much to read.

Yeah...it is both. It is both a choice and you are born with it. It can be one or the other as well...there is not generalization that fits all.

In other words, not all are born gay...not all "turn gay" they were to begin with. In fact, I bet there are some that think they are gay who are not gay...they are just confused about their sexuality..I would say the same for some straight people....it is really really too variable to make a blanket statement.

Of cource there are the rare exceptions of people, but I disagree. As A general rule, I think people can/do choose who they have sex with, but people don't choose who they want (attracted to) to have sex with.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Of cource there are the rare exceptions of people, but I disagree. As A general rule, I think people can/do choose who they have sex with, but people don't choose who they want (attracted to) to have sex with.

I thought that Adam Poe, who is I think is a great guy, was saying that regardless, everyone is either born gay or straight.

I was disagreeing and saying that it varies from person to person.

Generally, though, I would say at the very least, a slim majority of homosexuals are born homosexuals...at the very least.

So yeah, I agree with your statement.

inimalist
I think gay and straight are artificial constructs.

My interest would be to see what affect there is of living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum.

My personal views are a little less easy to articulate, but I'd say even a continuum is not really expressive enough. I'd say that each individual has a "schema" containing important qualities of the individuals they are attracted to... but now I'm rambling.

People are attracted to things smile

Kevy2007
To the anti Italy spoofers in the first page. You are a bunch of stupid Yank/brit c unts. Y'know that.

I see you didn't say anything about Inter Milan or the Vatican too. Savage asshats

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I thought that Adam Poe, who is I think is a great guy, was saying that regardless, everyone is either born gay or straight.

I was disagreeing and saying that it varies from person to person.

Generally, though, I would say at the very least, a slim majority of homosexuals are born homosexuals...at the very least.

So yeah, I agree with your statement.

I'm saying that the vast majority of homosexuals, were born homosexual, ie born with the predisposition to be attracted to members of the same sex.

There's a good chance there are certain "gays" out there who were 'turned" gay by life events, especially during childhood and vice-versa with "straights", but I don't think that is a considerable percentage.

I don't think you choose physical & emotional attractions to people. I like women with bigger asses, I prefer brunettes over blondes and green eyes totally do it for me... I didn't choose these attractions, they just are.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
I think gay and straight are artificial constructs.

My interest would be to see what affect there is of living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum.
My personal views are a little less easy to articulate, but I'd say even a continuum is not really expressive enough. I'd say that each individual has a "schema" containing important qualities of the individuals they are attracted to... but now I'm rambling.

People are attracted to things smile

yeah...WTF does that shit mean? Explain that to the little man.

Devil King
Originally posted by Kevy2007
To the anti Italy spoofers in the first page. You are a bunch of stupid Yank/brit c unts. Y'know that.

I see you didn't say anything about Inter Milan or the Vatican too. Savage asshats


I take it you have that generic club kid look about you then.

Oh, and it's pretty gay to use words like Spoofers and Yanks.

Kevy2007
Ha ha ha ha

ye Poof

Robtard
Originally posted by Devil King
I take it you have that generic club kid look about you then.

Oh, and it's pretty gay to use words like Spoofers and Yanks.

Under "Interest/Hobbies", he has "dance clubs"... yeah. Probably one of those glow-stick twirling kids.

Kevy2007
At least I go to nite clubs while u stay here on the computer 24/7 in your parents basement. Sad wanker

Devil King
Originally posted by Kevy2007
At least I go to nite clubs while u stay here on the computer 24/7 in your parents basement. Sad wanker

and do what? Dance until the X kicks in, then spend the rest of the night in the corner, having your head massaged?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Good-bye, sock.

Kevy2007
Tiocfaidh ar la ye wanker

Robtard
Originally posted by Kevy2007
At least I go to nite clubs while u stay here on the computer 24/7 in your parents basement. Sad wanker

I don't go to nightclubs, because I'm 34 and I did that shit 10-15 years ago, it got old... so blow your little whistle while twirling your glow in the dark bracelets around, clubber-boy. *play generic club beats*

inimalist
Originally posted by dadudemon
yeah...WTF does that shit mean? Explain that to the little man.

lol

first off, i messed up the wording. Dualistic should be "bi-polar", which im sure explains everything wink

A bi-polar system is one where things can either be on or off. Binary code is bi-polar, somethins is either a 1 or a 0. The even more technical term, I believe, is "Boolean". So, with regards to the topic, I am saying that even conceptualizing sexuality as a 0/1 type system, where people are either this or that, may affect the way that people develop sexually. Basically, as we grow up, we feel that it is important to fall into one of the two categories, and thus, we do.

The second part refers to the idea, which as far as I know was first put forward by Kinsey, that sexuality, with regards to hetero or homosexuality, is a continuum. This means that there are infinite places along an axis, with 100% hetero at one end and 100% homo at the other, where people can fall. A conceptualization of sexuality in this way might influence people to not have such a static preconcieved notion of what their sexuality is; this ambiguity being determined by their culture.

Of course this is entirely suppositional. I have seen no evidence at all that would really support my thoughts. The existance of "bi-sexuality" somewhat affects my criticism of modern society as "boolean" with regard to sexuality. I am also supposing that people are naturally not either homo or hetero. Blah, I don't know how much to write, since I'm not sure how much you are interested in my personal sexual philosophy.

Haha, my biggest problem with this whole conversation is that, were you to ask me about my sexuality, there are many more important characteristics I could give you rather than whether I want my partner to have a penis or a vagina. That seems like such an irrelevant distinction, although it is the most important consideration when determining your own sexuality...

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't go to nightclubs, because I'm 34 and I did that shit 10-15 years ago, it got old... so blow your little whistle while twirling your glow in the dark bracelets around, clubber-boy. *play generic club beats*

boy....you really got him....

So I guess that means that you are in your mom's basement right now with no plans for the weekend?

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Lulz.

[email protected] will burn

that babys goin 2 hell

Kevy2007
That's hasn't got me at all because since he told me he's 34 and spends his miserable time on a social forum. he's a sad wanker with no life

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
boy....you really got him....

So I guess that means that you are in your mom's basement right now with no plans for the weekend?

I don't mind you busting my balls; I am seriously curious as to why you do bust my balls though? Lately, whenever I 'zing' an idiot for acting like an idiot, you have something to add towards me. Why is that?

Robtard
Originally posted by Kevy2007
That's hasn't got me at all because since he told me he's 34 and spends his miserable time on a social forum. he's a sad wanker with no life

You're right, because "social forums" are only for people of what ever age you happen to be. Twirl away, clubbyy!

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
Blah, I don't know how much to write, since I'm not sure how much you are interested in my personal sexual philosophy.

at least it shows that you've applied a little critical thinking. I, however, do not agree that a subconscious choice is made out of social obligation.

inimalist
Originally posted by Devil King
at least it shows that you've applied a little critical thinking. I, however, do not agree that a subconscious choice is made out of social obligation.

I agree with you actually. My thoughts are not that sexuality is a choice, but that the definition of sexuality as being an "either/or" type proposition is misleading and may, for instance, cause men who are not normally attracted to men to completely ignore said attraction. My thought is that people are by nature "bi-sexual" to some degree, though I would even say that term is misleading.

dadudemon
Originally posted by inimalist
lol

first off, i messed up the wording. Dualistic should be "bi-polar", which im sure explains everything wink

A bi-polar system is one where things can either be on or off. Binary code is bi-polar, somethins is either a 1 or a 0. The even more technical term, I believe, is "Boolean". So, with regards to the topic, I am saying that even conceptualizing sexuality as a 0/1 type system, where people are either this or that, may affect the way that people develop sexually. Basically, as we grow up, we feel that it is important to fall into one of the two categories, and thus, we do.

The second part refers to the idea, which as far as I know was first put forward by Kinsey, that sexuality, with regards to hetero or homosexuality, is a continuum. This means that there are infinite places along an axis, with 100% hetero at one end and 100% homo at the other, where people can fall. A conceptualization of sexuality in this way might influence people to not have such a static preconcieved notion of what their sexuality is; this ambiguity being determined by their culture.

Of course this is entirely suppositional. I have seen no evidence at all that would really support my thoughts. The existance of "bi-sexuality" somewhat affects my criticism of modern society as "boolean" with regard to sexuality. I am also supposing that people are naturally not either homo or hetero. Blah, I don't know how much to write, since I'm not sure how much you are interested in my personal sexual philosophy.

Haha, my biggest problem with this whole conversation is that, were you to ask me about my sexuality, there are many more important characteristics I could give you rather than whether I want my partner to have a penis or a vagina. That seems like such an irrelevant distinction, although it is the most important consideration when determining your own sexuality...

What about furthering the species? Don't you think that we are inherently programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex with just a few exceptions? (i.e. homosexuals)

Which brings me to another point....people hate things that are not normal. What happens when a significant portion of humans become homosexual?...eventually, most people will not be so stupid about homosexuals.

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
the definition of sexuality as being an "either/or" type proposition is misleading

Go on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What happens when a significant portion of humans become homosexual?

Too late.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
What about furthering the species? Don't you think that we are inherently programmed to be attracted to the opposite sex with just a few exceptions? (i.e. homosexuals)

Which brings me to another point....people hate things that are not normal. What happens when a significant portion of humans become homosexual?...eventually, most people will not be so stupid about homosexuals. Considering that only a small percentage of the population is homosexual (comparatively speaking), I'd say that is a safe bet.

Not sure more people will "become" homosexual.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I don't mind you busting my balls; I am seriously curious as to why you do bust my balls though? Lately, whenever I 'zing' an idiot for acting like an idiot, you have something to add towards me. Why is that?

Because you "zing back" with the best of them. Makes me laugh when I pwn you and it makes me laugh harder when you make me look like an idiot...I wouldn't do it with someone who was a newb...it would make me feel bad.

Soooo...uhh....watcha doin' this weekend? Gonna bate in the basement again?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because you "zing back" with the best of them. Makes me laugh when I pwn you and it makes me laugh harder when you make me look like an idiot...I wouldn't do it with someone who was a newb...it would make me feel bad.

Soooo...uhh....watcha doin' this weekend? Gonna bate in the basement again?
Oh okay, thanks for answering, was just curious.

Nope, unfortunately neither my mother or I have a basement.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering that only a small percentage of the population is homosexual (comparatively speaking), I'd say that is a safe bet.

Not sure more people will "become" homosexual.

okay...okay.....more people are born that are or become homosexual...better?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
okay...okay.....more people are born that are or become homosexual...better?

Again, I don't think more homosxuals are being born (or become for that matter). I think more homosexuals are 'coming out', because it is more acceptable to be gay now, than it was 20-30-40+ years ago.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Again, I don't think more homosxuals are being born (or become for that matter). I think more homosexuals are 'coming out', because it is more acceptable to be gay now, than it was 20-30-40+ years ago.

Damn you bardock...I mean....Robtard!!!

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Damn you bardock...I mean....Robtard!!!

Insults like that are "over the line!"

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Insults like that are "over the line!"


My bad...I didn't mean to call you, you.

So yeah....more people will start "coming out" as more and more people start to admit homosexuality. This may turn into a domino effect where in 100-200 years, we will not reproduce and half of all humans are homosexual.........right? (Artificial reproduction.)

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
My bad...I didn't mean to call you, you.

So yeah....more people will start "coming out" as more and more people start to admit homosexuality. This may turn into a domino effect where in 100-200 years, we will not reproduce and half of all humans are homosexual.........right? (Artificial reproduction.)






I would think twice before you go with the "Bardock42 & Robtard are the same person/socking" angle... you'll make you're out to be an even bigger idiot. Just some advice.

Domino affect? Do you honestly think straight people turn gay? Eg, there's straight people just waiting to turn gay and marry the same sex, if/when gay marriages become accepted?

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
My bad...I didn't mean to call you, you.

So yeah....more people will start "coming out" as more and more people start to admit homosexuality. This may turn into a domino effect where in 100-200 years, we will not reproduce and half of all humans are homosexual.........right? (Artificial reproduction.)

I don't think that's going to happen.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
I would think twice before you go with the "Bardock42 & Robtard are the same person/socking" angle... you'll make you're out to be an even bigger idiot. Just some advice.

Domino affect? Do you honestly think straight people turn gay?

I can't help it if you are confusing my stupid little mind so much that it is hard to tell you apart from Bardock42. confused


Domino effect....as in more and more people stop suppressing their homosexuality because they are no longer afraid of society...that's what I mean, bardo.....I mean... Robtard.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I can't help it if you are confusing my stupid little mind so much that it is hard to tell you apart from Bardock42. confused


Domino effect....as in more and more people stop suppressing their homosexuality because they are no longer afraid of society...that's what I mean, bardo.....I mean... Robtard.

Okay, be the idiot if you like.

What does that have to do with affecting birth rates? People in the closet are still gay and homosexuals can still reproduce. I find it immensely improbable that he majority of people are homosexual and just having babies because they're scared to come out.

If anything, if will be similar to certain aprts of San Francisco, were for the most part, gays can openly be gay. I don't think kids will be choosing gay or straight as both acceptable/equal options.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
What does that have to do with affecting birth rates? People in the closet are still gay and homosexuals can still reproduce. I find it immensely improbably that he majority of people are homosexual and just having babies because they're scared to come out.

If anything, if will be similar to certain aprts of San Francisco, were for the most part, gays can openly be gay. I don't think kids will be choosing gay or straight as both acceptable/equal options.

I didn't mention birth rates....I alluded to the fact that people will not have babies in the future....they will be made in the microwave along side your popcorn bag. JEEZ!!! (Though I am being a smart ass...you should get my point.)



arpts???..."arp" resolves IP addresses to NetBIOS names...so what is arpts??? (Note the elegant Bardock42ishness that the dadudemon is emulating.)

Some gays are annoying to me because some people are attention whores...*cough* chris crocker *cough*....on the whole, I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture...

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I didn't mention birth rates....I alluded to the fact that people will not have babies in the future....they will be made in the microwave along side your popcorn bag. JEEZ!!! (Though I am being a smart ass...you should get my point.)



arpts???..."arp" resolves IP addresses to NetBIOS names...so what is arpts??? (Note the elegant Bardock42ishness that the dadudemon is emulating.)

Some gays are annoying to me because some people are attention whores...*cough* chris crocker *cough*....on the whole, I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture...

So what "domino affect of homosexuality" were you referring to then... stop dancing. Also, how is it a "fact" that people will not reproduce in the future?

What annoys you, the "gay" aspect or the "attention whore" aspect, because attention whoring isn't sexual orientation specific. Modern culture only? Gays have been around since man has been around, logically thinking, I think homosexuality is just a part of it all.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture...

How so?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
So what "domino affect of homosexuality" were you referring to then... stop dancing. Also, how is it a "fact" that people will not reproduce in the future?

What annoys you, the "gay" aspect or the "attention whore" aspect, because attention whoring isn't sexual orientation specific. Modern culture only? Gays have been around since man has been around, logically thinking, I think homosexuality is just a part of it all.

I am not dancing around it...you are just an idiot. no expression

I have been to the future and back...obviously. roll eyes (sarcastic)

The average human will not reproduce...babies will be grown. The poor will have no choice but to cling to the antiquated rituals of copulation with the intent of offspring. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Attention whores...specifically. Not gays being attention whores...NFL Football players are annoying doing it, actors and actresses are annoying doing it, regular everyday people are annoying doing it. How ever, the "gay man attention whore" persona seems to be the persona that several gay men THINK they have to be, which is annoying, depending on how it is done. As long as they are not jerks and asinine about it, I love it and they are good company when the shit hits the fan.

This is my personal experience and now amount of "super logics" will change those experiences.

Originally posted by Devil King
How so?

I will answer your question with another question. How do you THINK homosexuality is essential to modern society?

Anyone can answer that, BTW. Any answer you receive, Devil King, will be the answer I intended.

Since hundreds of people do not scour over these forums each day, I don't think my point will be made quite as clear as I would like.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not dancing around it...you are just an idiot. no expression

I have been to the future and back...obviously. roll eyes (sarcastic)

The average human will not reproduce...babies will be grown. The poor will have no choice but to cling to the antiquated rituals of copulation with the intent of offspring. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Attention whores...specifically. Not gays being attention whores...NFL Football players are annoying doing it, actors and actresses are annoying doing it, regular everyday people are annoying doing it. How ever, the "gay man attention whore" persona seems to be the persona that several gay men THINK they have to be, which is annoying, depending on how it is done. As long as they are not jerks and asinine about it, I love it and they are good company when the shit hits the fan.

This is my personal experience and now amount of "super logics" will change those experiences.



I will answer your question with another question. How do you THINK homosexuality is essential to modern society?

Anyone can answer that, BTW. Any answer you receive, Devil King, will be the answer I intended.

Since hundreds of people do not scour over these forums each day, I don't think my point will be made quite as clear as I would like.

Idiotic...

...and even more idiotic. You make a statement, he asks a question about it; you ask him to answer it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Idiotic...

...and even more idiotic. You make a statement, he asks a question about it; you ask him to answer it.

And even more idiotic than that...you call something idiotic without refuting why it is idiotic...hmm....you must've been in the basement too long when you made that post.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
And even more idiotic than that...you call something idiotic without refuting why it is idiotic...hmm....you must've been in the basement too long when you made that post.

It speaks for itself... you make claims, when questioned of said claims, you dance and make further asinine claims, repeat/regurgitate. Oh, I did refute why it's idiotic, can't you read, I spelled it out clearly what you did with DK.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
It speaks for itself... you make claims, when questioned of said claims, you dance and make further asinine claims, repeat/regurgitate. Oh, I did refute why it's idiotic, can't you read, I spelled it out clearly what you did with DK.

You'd think that with all that time in the basement that you would have more time to actually make a legit refute.

*sigh* oh well...stick with the "OMG liek yur and idi0t, d00d" and claim I am too stupid to see you pwned me.



On a side note....you got any hot pockets down there?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
You'd think that with all that time in the basement that you would have more time to actually make a legit refute.

*sigh* oh well...stick with the "OMG liek yur and idi0t, d00d" and claim I am too stupid to see you pwned me.

On a side note....you got any hot pockets down there?

Funny, I'm not the one who says "pwned", shit like ""OMG liek yur and idi0t, d00d", or makes any such claims, Michael Flatley.

Edit: I see you're pulling the same exact crap with Bardock in the 'Mex-Lawn' thread, "insufferable", is correct, he pegged you dead to rights.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
How do you THINK homosexuality is essential to modern society?

Anyone can answer that, BTW. Any answer you receive, Devil King, will be the answer I intended.

I think homosexuality is essential to modern society, because there are homosexuals. At least social tolerance/acceptance is essential to homosexuals. It's a matter of fact for society; it's a reality for homosexuals; and the interaction of the two is essential for expanding tolerance/acceptance of differences for both American society and understanding of other cultures.

But the existence of homosexuals, or the lack of human homosexuals, wouldn't bring down human culture.

But why do you want me to answer the question for you?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
I think homosexuality is essential to modern society, because there are homosexuals. At least social tolerance/acceptance is essential to homosexuals. It's a matter of fact for society; it's a reality for homosexuals; and the interaction of the two is essential for expanding tolerance/acceptance of differences for both American society and understanding of other cultures.

But the existence of homosexuals, or the lack of human homosexuals, wouldn't bring down human culture.

But why do you want me to answer the question for you?

I was trying to indicate that everyone may have a different reason and any reason is a good reason because it is a reason to the individual and individuality is one of the key points of homosexuality...that we are all individuals and should have the right to express ourselves the way we want to.

Robtard
So why do you think they're "essential"?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
So why do you think they're "essential"?

Because it is another form of diversification and acceptance of diversification and acceptance OF that diversification is another way humans can better themselves i.e. less violence and persecution of others....HENCE it being essential for modern culture (In my book.) You could say that I am a hippie in a way because I like it when people love each other...

however, that was not the point that I really intended to make...my REAL point was already made. (sort of.)

I love you Robtard...babies?

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
I was trying to indicate that everyone may have a different reason and any reason is a good reason because it is a reason to the individual and individuality is one of the key points of homosexuality...that we are all individuals and should have the right to express ourselves the way we want to.

Individuality?

Is that a nice way of saying all homosexuals are attention whores?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it is another form of diversification and acceptance of diversification and acceptance OF that diversification is another way humans can better themselves i.e. less violence and persecution of others....HENCE it being essential for modern culture (In my book.) You could say that I am a hippie in a way because I like it when people love each other...

however, that was not the point that I really intended to make...my REAL point was already made. (sort of.)

I love you Robtard...babies?

That doesn't explain the "essential" aspect of it, now does it. You're just saying "it's good to have diversity", that has nothing to do with it being essential, i.e. 'of the utmost importance.' If homosexuality didn't exist, would we be worse off or even doomed somehow, the answer to that may explain your "essential" claim.

By your own admission, you're not good looking, sorry; I want good looking babies.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
Individuality?

Is that a nice way of saying all homosexuals are attention whores?

Nope, you are looking too far into things...why are you trying to victimize yourself?..ATTENTION WHORE!!! mad

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't explain the "essential" aspect of it, now does it. You're just saying "it's good to have diversity", that has nothing to do with it being essential, i.e. 'of the utmost importance.' If homosexuality didn't exist, would we be worse off or even doomed somehow, the answer to that may explain your "essential" claim.

By your own admission, you're not good looking, sorry; I want good looking babies.

Your definition of essential, in this context, differs from my definition of essential. I feel that homosexuality is one of the things that IS essential for the progression of the human race. Can we survive without it? Yes...we could probably survive even better without homosexuality.

Do you not get my point or are you just wanting to argue about something that I will never concede?

I have always believed that developing a more tolerant society and a more understanding society was ESSENTIAL for humanity to progress. Do you think that we will progress faster if humans continue to hold their prejudices and discriminations.

Looking back, survival wasn't the best choice of words...however, your being an ass for nitpicking at it.


Also, I have never seen a picture of you...how could I ever know what our babies would look like?

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Your definition of essential, in this context, differs from my definition of essential. I feel that homosexuality is one of the things that IS essential for the progression of the human race. Can we survive without it? Yes...we could probably survive even better without homosexuality.

Do you not get my point or are you just wanting to argue about something that I will never concede?

I have always believed that developing a more tolerant society and a more understanding society was ESSENTIAL for humanity to progress. Do you think that we will progress faster if humans continue to hold their prejudices and discriminations.

Looking back, survival wasn't the best choice of words...however, your being an ass for nitpicking at it.


Also, I have never seen a picture of you...how could I ever know what our babies would look like?

My bad, I was using the definition dictated by the English language, if you're making up your own definition to the word, then okay, it (or any word) can fit your purposes. It's an odd practice though.

Do you get my point, I'm not trying to make you "concede" to anything. You made a statement, I asked questions about it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
My bad, I was using the definition dictated by the English language, if you're making up your own definition to the word, then okay, it (or any word) can fit your purposes. It's an odd practice though.

Do you get my point, I'm not trying to make you "concede" to anything. You made a statement, I asked questions about it.

Sorry...nope, there is a text book definition and then the context in which that definition is used. I am accurate in stating the following:

Toleration and acceptance are essential to the development of a civil society.

Since I cannot go back and edit my post, I want to replace "survival" with progression....which is NOT the same. That is what I meant and since I type in a hurry, I do not always express my meanings/thoughts perfectly.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
Nope, you are looking too far into things...why are you trying to victimize yourself?..ATTENTION WHORE!!! mad

I wasn't the one who said it
ahem, cough*Chris Crocker*cough

EDIT: Better? Apparently, unlike the term essential, 'better' really only has one definition.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Sorry...nope, there is a text book definition and then the context in which that definition is used. I am accurate in stating the following:

Toleration and acceptance are essential to the development of a civil society.

Since I cannot go back and edit my post, I want to replace "survival" with progression....which is NOT the same. That is what I meant and since I type in a hurry, I do not always express my meanings/thoughts perfectly.


"I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture..."

That's what you stated, your claims of "it's good to have diversity/be accepting" do not substantiate "essential", in either "text book" or "context" definitions.

Just stick with your definition of the word, then it can work any which way you want.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
"I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture..."

That's what you stated, your claims of "it's good to have diversity/be accepting" do not substantiate "essential", in either "text book" or "context" definitions.

Just stick with your definition of the word, then it can work any which way you want.

Oh that's what I said? Then by all means that sounds great!!! How is it that hard to understand that it really IS essential to modern culture? (BTW, I should go back and read my posts before I decide that I didn't post things right. I should stop being so trusting to things people say that I posted.)

I think you should leave the definition and use of words up to other people who have a better handle on the English language.

here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential

Devil King
It's hard to understand because you won't tell us why you think it's "essential", what ever the definition.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh that's what I said? Then by all means that sounds great!!! How is it that hard to understand that it really IS essential to modern culture? (BTW, I should go back and read my posts before I decide that I didn't post things right. I should stop being so trusting to things people say that I posted.)

I think you should leave the definition and use of words up to other people who have a better handle on the English language.

here you go:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/essential
On page 4:
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think homosexuals are an essential element of modern culture...

Yes, it is in fact a direct quote (of yours). If it's that easy to understand, then you should have no trouble explaining/justifying your claim, right?

Funny, I used the definition found in Websters, I even quoted (see below) from the dictionary in one of my above post/responses to you. Besides, I'm not the one who says things like "my definition of the word..." as a debating tactic.

Originally posted by Robtard
That doesn't explain the "essential" aspect of it, now does it. You're just saying "it's good to have diversity", that has nothing to do with it being essential, i.e. 'of the utmost importance.' If homosexuality didn't exist, would we be worse off or even doomed somehow, the answer to that may explain your "essential" claim.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, it is in fact a direct quote (of yours). If it's that easy to understand, then you should have no trouble explaining/justifying your claim, right.

Funny, I used the definition found in Websters, I even quoted from the dictionary in one of my about post/responses to you.


aaaaaand that still doesn't change the fact that I used essential correctly. Why do you want to nitpick something that is obviously true? do you think homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated at all in modern society AND homosexuality and its acceptance would cause humanity to digress?

I think I understand what you are trying to get at...you are saying that I am thinking that homosexuality is the only thing that should be accepted for the betterment of modern culture, right? In that case, yes, you would be right, however, I am viewing homosexuality as simply individuality and it being part of that pie...the pie being individuality...yes indeed, if you may, homosexuality is just one of may essential elements.


But, I didn't say quintessential...now did I? Had I said quintessential, I could see your point.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
aaaaaand that still doesn't change the fact that I used essential correctly. Why do you want to nitpick something that is obviously true? do you think homosexuality shouldn't be tolerated at all in modern society AND homosexuality and its acceptance would cause humanity to digress?

I think I understand what you are trying to get at...you are saying that I am thinking that homosexuality is the only thing that should be accepted for the betterment of modern culture, right? In that case, yes, you would be right, however, I am viewing homosexuality as simply individuality and it being part of that pie...the pie being individuality...yes indeed, if you may, homosexuality is just one of may essential elements.


But, I didn't say quintessential...now did I? Had I said quintessential, I could see your point.

You do realize that your very own dictionary/definition post doesn't support your usage of the word, right?

Anyhow, to answer your question... I don't think homosexuality is essential, which is the reason I wouldn't make the claim you made. I think homosexuality is and always was a part of humanity (as stated several post ago). If humanity were able to somehow stop gays from being born, I don't think humanity would be destroyed. Would there be a loss, most likely, humanity would go on though.

No, that isn't what I was trying to get at, you said "Homosexuality is essential", I merely asked you to substantiate that position.

Bardock42
Wait a second. That's a left advertisement?

I got it all wrong.

On a different note:

Originally posted by dadudemon
yeah...WTF does that shit mean? Explain that to the little man.

Didn't you say that you studied some physics and work in IT now? Because, this is so basic even I understood it.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Robtard
You do realize that your very own dictionary/definition post doesn't support your usage of the word, right?

Anyhow, to answer your question... I don't think homosexuality is essential, which is the reason I wouldn't make the claim you made. I think homosexuality is and always was a part of humanity (as stated several post ago). If humanity were able to somehow stop gays from being born, I don't think humanity would be destroyed. Would there be a loss, most likely, humanity would go on though.

No, that isn't what I was trying to get at, you said "Homosexuality is essential", I merely asked you to substantiate that position.

Give it up...I already gave you the word you are looking for...in other words, you failed at being bored for today.

Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note:



Didn't you say that you studied some physics and work in IT now? Because, this is so basic even I understood it.

"living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum."

"0/1 type dualistic entity" is jargon...Binary code does not equate to "0/1 type dualsitic entity" in my logical brain. How often do you hear IT techs say type "living in a society that view sexuality as a 0/1 dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behavior exists on a continuum"?

After he explained it as it being appropriately called "bipolar" it made perfect sense.

I literally thought that there were two specific types in his first version, they being referred to as type 0 and type 1.

But if you wish....


OMG, liek you are such teh coolies...I wish I culd b as smrt as u!!!!

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon


"living in a society that views sexuality as a 0/1 type dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behaviour exists on a continuum."

"0/1 type dualistic entity" is jargon...Binary code does not equate to "0/1 type dualsitic entity" in my logical brain. How often do you hear IT techs say type "living in a society that view sexuality as a 0/1 dualistic entity versus living in one that supposes that sexual behavior exists on a continuum"?

After he explained it as it being appropriately called "bipolar" it made perfect sense.

I literally thought that there were two specific types in his first version, they being referred to as type 0 and type 1.

But if you wish....


OMG, liek you are such teh coolies...I wish I culd b as smrt as u!!!!

Dualistic is actually the correct word. Bi-polar might have helped you (as you make up words yourself), but dualistic was what he meant. And it was amazingly clear what he meant too, I am wondering how you (who claims to be so intelligent) could not understand it. It baffles me. And I don't really think that you being IT specialist matters much, but for someone claiming to grasp higher physics, that was more than trivial.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Dualistic is actually the correct word. Bi-polar might have helped you (as you make up words yourself), but dualistic was what he meant. And it was amazingly clear what he meant too, I am wondering how you (who claims to be so intelligent) could not understand it. It baffles me. And I don't really think that you being IT specialist matters much, but for someone claiming to grasp higher physics, that was more than trivial.

Do you feel better now?

It was NOT clear. He was using jargon. look up the definition for jargon. Again, I literally thought that he was using psychology terms by posting 0/1. I honestly thought that there were two types being referred to in this first group...type 0 and type 1...and I thought that these types had two separate definitions but they could be grouped into one...which didn't make sense so I asked him to explain it to me.

You, who is the purveyor of everything correct, should know that one person could perform higher mathematics but certain simple things escape their mind.

Why don't you get back to me when you aren't so arrogant? You claim that it was easy to understand but it actually wasn't. It is not commonly used so common sense wouldn't work...it wasn't a colloquialism so it wouldn't make sense either.

Is it really that hard to understand that not everyone can understand everything I have never claimed higher intelligence...you claimed that. Nice try though!!! big grin

Devil King
So, do we know why dudemon thinks homosexuality is essential to human society, yet?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do you feel better now?

It was NOT clear. He was using jargon. look up the definition for jargon. Again, I literally thought that he was using psychology terms by posting 0/1. I honestly thought that there were two types being referred to in this first group...type 0 and type 1...and I thought that these types had two separate definitions but they could be grouped into one...which didn't make sense so I asked him to explain it to me.

You, who is the purveyor of everything correct, should know that one person could perform higher mathematics but certain simple things escape their mind.

Why don't you get back to me when you aren't so arrogant? You claim that it was easy to understand but it actually wasn't. It is not commonly used so common sense wouldn't work...it wasn't a colloquialism so it wouldn't make sense either.

Is it really that hard to understand that not everyone can understand everything I have never claimed higher intelligence...you claimed that. Nice try though!!! big grin

You do try to become the major moron of KMC, right? I can't explain your attitude any other way.

Oh well, I probably just overestimated you. I apologize, it won't happen again.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
So, do we know why dudemon thinks homosexuality is essential to human society, yet?

Careful, Bardock42 might make fun of you because I already "clearly" defined that in my posts.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You do try to become the major moron of KMC, right? I can't explain your attitude any other way.

Oh well, I probably just overestimated you. I apologize, it won't happen again.

lowest score 144 highest score 170+ (Off the scale...duh!)

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
lowest score 144 highest score 170+ (Off the scale...duh!)

And behaving like Forrest Gump when he's asleep. Yeah, I will go with my impression over your numbers.


And no, you idiot, you didn't define it, nor explain what you specifically meant. You are just dancing around the matter at hand.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
And no, you idiot, you didn't define it, nor explain what you specifically meant. You are just dancing around the matter at hand.

Yes I did. I clearly defined it. Any idiot can clearly see what I meant after reading my subsequent posts.

As the purveyor of all that is correct, you certainly don't understand things when they are defined clearly.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
Careful, Bardock42 might make fun of you because I already "clearly" defined that in my posts.

Call me an idiot then. Can you quote it for me?

Bardock42

dadudemon

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
No.


You are right, I am such failure. What should I do to make myself better?

I don't think homosexuals are essential to society. That is such a lame and stupid thought. Diversity tolerance in no way reflects the betterment of human society.

We should start impaling them, again, in the a**holes with red hot pikes. Society was much better back then and humans were much more civilized.

Ohhhhh, so you mean homosexuals are a useful part in furthering your moral notions.

Why didn't you say so right away. I agree.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
Call me an idiot then. Can you quote it for me?

Sorry I missed your post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Because it is another form of diversification and acceptance of diversification and acceptance OF that diversification is another way humans can better themselves i.e. less violence and persecution of others....HENCE it being essential for modern culture

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have always believed that developing a more tolerant society and a more understanding society was ESSENTIAL for humanity to progress.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Toleration and acceptance are essential to the development of a civil society.

Does that help?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ohhhhh, so you mean homosexuals are a useful part in furthering your moral notions.

Why didn't you say so right away. I agree.

Oh brother....gonna play the old "morals are not objective and universal" card? Sure, you can do that all day...but I will not take part in it because my morals have and always will be subjective...

You know., us idiots have to have a proverbial meter stick for measuring societal norms.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon

Oh brother....gonna play the old "morals are not objective and universal" card? Sure, you can do that all day...but I will not take part in it because my morals have and always will be subjective...

You know., us idiots have to have a proverbial meter stick for measuring societal norms.

N-no, actually I am not...though they are of course. I just agreed with you.


Though I still feel essential is the wrong word.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
N-no, actually I am not...though they are of course. I just agreed with you.


Though I still feel essential is the wrong word.

Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.


Anyway, there is a strange feeling I have right now...I can't explain it...am I always supposed to feel like this when Bardock42 actually agrees with someone?

Also, I hope that I didn't offend you on a personal level...this, to me, is supposed to be entertainment and if I saw you in real life, I would buy you a drink or something...I offended Schecter one time so I want to make clear that I totally and honestly don't think you are an idiot.

I don't take personal shots at my intellectual capacity personal either...I take it as point you are trying to make.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
Does that help?

Yes.

But, isn't all of that what I said?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.


Anyway, there is a strange feeling I have right now...I can't explain it...am I always supposed to feel like this when Bardock42 actually agrees with someone?

Also, I hope that I didn't offend you on a personal level...this, to me, is supposed to be entertainment and if I saw you in real life, I would buy you a drink or something...I offended Schecter one time so I want to make clear that I totally and honestly don't think you are an idiot.

I don't take personal shots at my intellectual capacity personal either...I take it as point you are trying to make. Well, thank you for the disclaimer and do not worry I am not offended...annoyed is more likely though.

As for you disagreeing, it doesn't really matter, as you just pointed out you didn't mean that homosexuals are essential to modern culture, but that their existance furthers tolerance. They are not essential to modern life, modern life could exist without them, that's the point.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
Yes.

But, isn't all of that what I said?

*Looks back over your posts*

Yup...sort of...I was saying the same things for just a slightly different reason...I think that it is essential for us to progress...as in, less war, better technology through cooperation, etc...did you mean that as well?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, thank you for the disclaimer and do not worry I am not offended...annoyed is more likely though.

As for you disagreeing, it doesn't really matter, as you just pointed out you didn't mean that homosexuals are essential to modern culture, but that their existance furthers tolerance. They are not essential to modern life, modern life could exist without them, that's the point.

I did clearly define my objectives with my statement which negates your interpretation of my meaning. I clearly indicated that humans can survive just fine without homosexuals and in fact, we probably could survive even better without them(i.e. reproduction)...I was referring to our progression into being a "higher" species. (Like Vulcans, from Star Trek.)

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
I did clearly define my objectives with my statement which negates your interpretation of my meaning. I clearly indicated that humans can survive just fine without homosexuals and in fact, we probably could survive even better without them(i.e. reproduction)...I was referring to our progression into being a "higher" species. (Like Vulcans, from Star Trek.) Yes, that is essentially (see, word used correctly) what I said. Your sentence was wrong. The usage of essential incorrect.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
You forgot a verb, Bardock.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You forgot a verb, Bardock. Nah, it got carried forth from the previous sentence. It made the post more poetic.

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
*Looks back over your posts*

Yup...sort of...I was saying the same things for just a slightly different reason...I think that it is essential for us to progress...as in, less war, better technology through cooperation, etc...did you mean that as well?

It is. But what is said is that interaction is beneficial.

And you can't really muddy the waters with talk of essential v. quintessential. The fact that homosexuals exist is beneficial to mutual understanding through adversity and understanding. But, to define homosexuals as essential is like saying that humanity requires homosexuals to acheive understanding and acceptance. This is not the case. Although I have a feeling you understand that homosexuality, as an example, is interchangable with any number of other minority groups.

Zeal Ex Nihilo
Homosexuals exist to provide clues in creating the ultimate nonviolent weapon: the gay bomb.

Until that time, however, they serve an alternative purpose: someone we can band together against so we don't fight each other.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
It is. But what is said is that interaction is beneficial.

And you can't really muddy the waters with talk of essential v. quintessential. The fact that homosexuals exist is beneficial to mutual understanding through adversity and understanding. But, to define homosexuals as essential is like saying that humanity requires homosexuals to acheive understanding and acceptance. This is not the case. Although I have a feeling you understand that homosexuality, as an example, is interchangable with any number of other minority groups.

EXACTLY!! I stated that already. See below.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, I disagree. I think you dudes are wanting essential to mean quintessential...which it doesn't. More than one thing can be essential for the same objective...in this instance...religious toleration and coexistence would be ANOTHER essential item for the success of modern society...by my meter stick.

Robtard
Edit:

inimalist
lol, from way back on page 4

Originally posted by Devil King


Originally posted by myself
the definition of sexuality as being an "either/or" type proposition is misleading

Go on.


hmmm...

As a society, we have some predetermined ways of classifying types of sexual behaviour. When it comes to gender preferance, we seem to want to say that an individual is either fully homosexual or fully heterosexual. I know bisexual individuals exist (I bet you will have lots of trouble figuring out where I fit after reading this...) but lets be honest, the discourse surrounding "sexuality" really never approaches them.

Because it is so important to sexual identity in our culture (and, admittedly in almost all cultures, which is a point against my argument) to know whether you are hetero or homo (in fact, it is the distinction we use when discussing "sexuality"wink, it will force people to, even if subconsciously, "take sides".

I know what that sounds like, and I am not arguing that gender preferance is a choice. I wouldn't be so bold to assume that it is an inborn quality of an individual, but I would assume it develops much like other personality characteristics through childhood and puberty, and like other personality characteristics, it is not really something that is "controllable".

My assumption is that people are born with no sexuality (re: at the time of conception, there is no sexual preference in any way "built" into the fetus). Of course I am willing to be changed from this position, and evolution probably does predispose to wanting to procreate, but (and not to just bring everything back to the brain) even things like our ability to see horizontal lines can be changed given the environment we are reared in.

I believe that people develop things that they are attracted to. I am willing to say that men are probably predisposed to develop female features and characteristics as the "things" that they find attractive, but by no means is that necessary.

So, I'll try to summarize and conclude....

People are born as something that could be described as sexually plastic. As they develop a sexuality, certain characteristics of people become the things that they are attracted to. Assumedly, these things will either be more male characteristics or more female characteristics. Because we live in a society where the definition of sexuality is specifically related to gender preferance, people will "choose" (I use that term very loosely) to live a hetero or homo sexual lifestyle.

I could keep going and redefine term after term, but I think thats a really basic outline of my thoughts. If anything is unclear, I'll explain it more. LOL, I dont know how "true" all this is, but it is how I interpret the world smile

Devil King
Originally posted by dadudemon
EXACTLY!! I stated that already. See below.

Which is why the use of the term essential, or quintessential, is incorrect. Just as long as you let that go, I think the pages of useless argument can end.

Originally posted by inimalist



hmmm...

As a society, we have some predetermined ways of classifying types of sexual behaviour. When it comes to gender preferance, we seem to want to say that an individual is either fully homosexual or fully heterosexual. I know bisexual individuals exist (I bet you will have lots of trouble figuring out where I fit after reading this...) but lets be honest, the discourse surrounding "sexuality" really never approaches them.

Because it is so important to sexual identity in our culture (and, admittedly in almost all cultures, which is a point against my argument) to know whether you are hetero or homo (in fact, it is the distinction we use when discussing "sexuality"wink, it will force people to, even if subconsciously, "take sides".

I know what that sounds like, and I am not arguing that gender preferance is a choice. I wouldn't be so bold to assume that it is an inborn quality of an individual, but I would assume it develops much like other personality characteristics through childhood and puberty, and like other personality characteristics, it is not really something that is "controllable".

My assumption is that people are born with no sexuality (re: at the time of conception, there is no sexual preference in any way "built" into the fetus). Of course I am willing to be changed from this position, and evolution probably does predispose to wanting to procreate, but (and not to just bring everything back to the brain) even things like our ability to see horizontal lines can be changed given the environment we are reared in.

I believe that people develop things that they are attracted to. I am willing to say that men are probably predisposed to develop female features and characteristics as the "things" that they find attractive, but by no means is that necessary.

So, I'll try to summarize and conclude....

People are born as something that could be described as sexually plastic. As they develop a sexuality, certain characteristics of people become the things that they are attracted to. Assumedly, these things will either be more male characteristics or more female characteristics. Because we live in a society where the definition of sexuality is specifically related to gender preferance, people will "choose" (I use that term very loosely) to live a hetero or homo sexual lifestyle.

I could keep going and redefine term after term, but I think thats a really basic outline of my thoughts. If anything is unclear, I'll explain it more. LOL, I dont know how "true" all this is, but it is how I interpret the world smile

I find that well thought out. (Like I'm a judge) I'm still in the genetic category, however.

But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings. Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Devil King
Which is why the use of the term essential, or quintessential, is incorrect. Just as long as you let that go, I think the pages of useless argument can end.

I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

1. There can be more than one essential item relative to a specific objective...everyone else is wrong about my use of the word essential...

For example...why is there 8 essential amino acids classified...if essential can be used only for one item for one specific objective, then that should be wrong by everyone's logic...right?

Of course, everyone seems to know the English language better than I do and quintessential is definitely not the word the are thinking of. big grin


Second, I would also like to see the same data...because that would prove my sexual orientation classification list right in more than one way. (In other words, people are gay for more than just physical reasons.) Though I may not have needed a test to tell me what people have told me about their homosexuality, already. We will see.

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon

Of course, everyone seems to know the English language better than I do and quintessential is definitely not the word the are thinking of. big grin

Alert the news stations!!!

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Alert the news stations!!!

OMG!!!! Sarcasm FTW (For the win.)

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
OMG!!!! Sarcasm FTW (For the win.)

My, my, and it took you just 5 days to accept that it is stupid to make up your own meaning for abbreviations.

inimalist
Originally posted by Devil King
I find that well thought out. (Like I'm a judge) I'm still in the genetic category, however.

But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings.

lol, I'm always a fan of more research...

The stuff you brought up (anatomical brain differences, fingerprints) are very strong indicators of it being genetic. I could muddle around with how much of a role "predisposition" plays in development, but that would be generally conceding the point.

I agree with the "gay men act like females" sentntiment. It is pretty retarded. I guess that sort of leaves the door open for discussing "gay culture", but I can't imagine a world where the actions of people at a gay pride parade are found to be entirely genetic.

Originally posted by Devil King
Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits.

oh wow, what an ambitious proposition...

We would need something that worked really well as an indicator of homosexuality.

A response to this from my view would be something like: Many people who are either heterosexual or homosexual will show many traits that are associated with the "opposite" sexuality. This, imho, is because people are not 100% hetero or homo, but choose the title that best describes the model of an individual that they are attracted to (so even someone who is only 51% homosexual would conclude, based on social cues, that they are a "homosexual"wink.

However, if there is a strong genetic component that is also associated with things like fingerprints or neuroanatonomy, then there could be a checklist of traits, and one could make inferences about the gender of the "model sexual partner" of an individual based on how many of these traits they showed.

An interesting point that is sort of a continuation of that logic is that, for any sexual preference, there could be an associated list of traits, and theoretically, one could "construct" the idea partner for someone based on which traits they displayed.

Devil King
Originally posted by inimalist
lol, I'm always a fan of more research...

The stuff you brought up (anatomical brain differences, fingerprints) are very strong indicators of it being genetic. I could muddle around with how much of a role "predisposition" plays in development, but that would be generally conceding the point.

I agree with the "gay men act like females" sentntiment. It is pretty retarded. I guess that sort of leaves the door open for discussing "gay culture", but I can't imagine a world where the actions of people at a gay pride parade are found to be entirely genetic.

I think that the behavior we've seen on display at the pride parades are overwhelmingly the result of society telling little gay boys that they have more in common with girls than they do with other boys. It's like girls wanting to play sports. Some girls, who are told by society that they shouldn't want to play baseball or football, are hardcore sports fanatics. While some boys, like myself, preferred to play in my imagination, rather than pick up a football. (I loved to play baseball though. Not watch, just play)

Another strongly held finding is that of the homosexual brain responding to the pheremones of another male to which it's attracted. I've read that's the body influencing itself; but I have a hard time understanding how, on anything other than a genetic level, the brain could condition itself to respond to male pheremones, if being inherently attracted to female pheremones is what the male brain's natural function would be.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Devil King
But one thing I would like to see happen is more research. As I understand it, many of the studys have found physical differences in the homosexual participants and the heterosexual participants. Finger prints, regional differences in the brain, etc. (I've never been very comfortable that the genetic differences in homosexuals lend themselves to being similar in development and function to those of females; it's like a stereotype that gay men act like women because they're somehow genetically closer to females.) But, I'd like to see the results of a study that builds on those findings. Perhaps take a study group, discern which in the group has those distinct characteristics and see how many of them are actually homosexual. Despite that not sounding very conclusive, I'd like to know how many of the heterosexual participants share those "homosexual" traits. Genetic difference studies don't seem to be very revealing for now. However, a lot of biological hormone studies involving prenatal hormone exposure have shown some major differences. The finger length thing is thought to be the result of hormonal exposure in the womb. I can't remember exactly what digit ratio they were measuring, but I remember it being positive in 31% of homosexuals as compared to 18% of heterosexuals. The brain difference studies are running into problems of being inconsistently replicated. A lot of the neatest and most relevant research imo is going into the reactions of the brains of homosexuals to certain hormones and chemicals. There seems to be a difference, but since this research is relatively new it's hard to say anything conclusive. Ultimately I think the twin studies say the most. For homosexuals with twins only 28% of non-fraternal twins were also gay and 52% of identical twins were also gay. It seems to be a strong indicator of a biological (whether genetic or hormonal) disposition in sexual orientation.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
My, my, and it took you just 5 days to accept that it is stupid to make up your own meaning for abbreviations.

note how I define the acronym each and every time.

Bardock42, I was making up leet speak on teh interwebz before you stopped pissing in your bed.

I was saying "Fut the wuck" long before "For the win" was used on teh interwebz. My version never caught on so it became the primary leet acronym for FTW.

Are you done being leetishly cool now?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
note how I define the acronym each and every time.

Bardock42, I was making up leet speak on teh interwebz before you stopped pissing in your bed.

I was saying "Fut the wuck" long before "For the win" was used on teh interwebz. My version never caught on so it became the primary leet acronym for FTW.

Are you done being leetishly cool now?

You are not that intelligent at all, are you? I mean, really, between us two....you are mentally handicapped, right?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
You are not that intelligent at all, are you? I mean, really, between us two....you are mentally handicapped, right?

Do fries come with those bullshit burgers?

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Do fries come with those bullshit burgers? Are you trying to say that you are not ready to admit it, yet?

That's okay, we know, man, we know, you can come clean.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Bardock42
Are you trying to say that you are not ready to admit it, yet?

That's okay, we know, man, we know, you can come clean.

Admit what? That you fail?

Okay okay....I admit it, you fail, Bardock42.

Happy now? confused

inimalist
Originally posted by Nellinator
For homosexuals with twins only 28% of non-fraternal twins were also gay and 52% of identical twins were also gay. It seems to be a strong indicator of a biological (whether genetic or hormonal) disposition in sexual orientation.

holy shit

Bardock42
Originally posted by dadudemon
Admit what? That you fail?

Okay okay....I admit it, you fail, Bardock42.

Happy now? confused
No, not exactly. I just want to help you. You need help...you do.

Though, I must admit, helping you become a less ridiculous person might limit me being annoyed with you. It is, at least in part, selfish.

Robtard
Originally posted by dadudemon
note how I define the acronym each and every time.

Bardock42, I was making up leet speak on teh interwebz before you stopped pissing in your bed.

I was saying "Fut the wuck" long before "For the win" was used on teh interwebz. My version never caught on so it became the primary leet acronym for FTW.

Are you done being leetishly cool now?

You entrepreneur, you... Al Gore better watch it, you might usurp him and claim the rights to 'inventing the Internet'.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.