[T-Sonar.0]

Lpringle posted:

I guess you have a point since it is something you are born with, but it is still gross. They are able to get help with that as they should.

I'm going to assume you're a troll since you made a thread in the GD asking if people are gay with just "Are you?" as your OP. But I still wanna hear your explanation for this: What exactly is disgusting about 2 people of the same gender being in love?

[shauntp]

T-Sonar.0 posted:

I'm going to assume you're a troll since you made a thread in the GD asking if people are gay with just "Are you?" as your OP. But I still wanna hear your explanation for this: What exactly is disgusting about 2 people of the same gender being in love?

From the quote he put underneath, I think he was referring to the pedophile thing.

[Levithan]

Unless they actually do go around molesting kids, I don't see why they'd need help.

[deaded38]

st0rmforce posted:

I'm not entirely sure, but I think he means that some people don't want to be seen as homophobic, so they treat gay people nicer than they treat everybody else.

Sorry, this is pretty much what I meant.

[Disgruntled]

Levithan posted:

Unless they actually do go around molesting kids, I don't see why they'd need help.

If you guys are going to talk about pedophilia, could you make a separate thread for it? People might get the wrong idea and get all worked up.

[Levithan]

There was a separate thread for it, dunno where it went.

[VenomousBeetle]

T-Sonar.0 posted:

What exactly is disgusting about 2 people of the same gender being in love?

Probably isn't really, I think it's the image of 2 hairy men fucking like crazy and jizzing in each others pubes that people are referring to as gross

[Disgruntled]

Levithan posted:

There was a separate thread for it, dunno where it went.

Well, unless you manage to find it, a new thread might be called for. Seems like a topic worthy of debate on its own.

[Zeke129]

VenomousBeetle posted:

Probably isn't really, I think it's the image of 2 hairy men fucking like crazy and jizzing in each others pubes that people are referring to as gross

Because women don't have body hair or pubes

[Rad McCool]

Zeke129 posted:

Because women don't have body hair or pubes

Straight men do. Gays don't. :)

[znk666]

VenomousBeetle posted:

Probably isn't really, I think it's the image of 2 hairy men fucking like crazy and jizzing in each others pubes that people are referring to as gross

Why do they have to be hairy?

[Seith]

VenomousBeetle posted:

Probably isn't really, I think it's the image of 2 hairy men fucking like crazy and jizzing in each others pubes that people are referring to as gross

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosex...n_ancient_Rome

You're saying this as if that perception (sex with another male is disgusting) is something you are genetically born with. You are disgusted because of how society perceives homosexuality nowadays. This is just sex; 2 males having anal intercourse, or a female and a guy blowing each other off.

My point is that, if this world was free of judgement, we could be seeing this "disgusting" behavior happening a lot more often.


EDIT:

It seems I have quoted the wrong person. Take this as a general statement.

[Mr._N]

znk666 posted:

Why do they have to be hairy?

The stereotypical gay in the 80s was very hairy.

[Clementine]

People do judge people based on their love interests, however they should judge the character of their love interests, not the gender.

[Crimor]

Rad McCool posted:

Straight men do. Gays don't. :)

My beard is longer than your dick    Going by the average length of swedes   

[carcarcargo]

VenomousBeetle posted:

Probably isn't really, I think it's the image of 2 hairy men fucking like crazy and jizzing in each others pubes that people are referring to as gross

Sex with women isn't any more pleasant.

[Seith]

carcarcargo posted:

Sex with women isn't any more pleasant.

I beg to differ.

[Sobotnik]

Seith posted:

I beg to differ.

I find the idea of sexual intercourse itself repulsive.

[Mr._N]

Sex (whether it be homo or hetero) can be a very beautiful thing, especially between two people in love.

On the other hand, when you really think about it, the act of sex seems, not necessarily repulsive, but rather arbitrary and odd. I mean, really, you have to insert your organ inside the female's organ repeatedly until fluid comes out because for some reason it feels good and to reproduce? If you weren't human, wouldn't that sound strange?

[Deathblow896]

Gays whether or not they are born like that. I can't say, but should they be treated like a person with leprosy. No. People should be treated as people, but I will state this now. I don't believe in it. Fell free to criticize and blah blah blah, but that's my opinion. But I mean I don't see straight couples running around and publicly displaying their "affection" for one another. At least not in my neighborhood. So why should gays? I mean a little civility here and there is it too much to ask for?

[CatFodder]

Deathblow896 posted:

Gays whether or not they are born like that. I can't say, but should they be treated like a person with leprosy. No. People should be treated as people, but I will state this now. I don't believe in it. Fell free to criticize and blah blah blah, but that's my opinion. But I mean I don't see straight couples running around and publicly displaying their "affection" for one another.

You must live a pretty sheltered life then.

[carcarcargo]

Deathblow896 posted:

Gays whether or not they are born like that. I can't say, but should they be treated like a person with leprosy. No. People should be treated as people, but I will state this now. I don't believe in it. Fell free to criticize and blah blah blah, but that's my opinion. But I mean I don't see straight couples running around and publicly displaying their "affection" for one another. At least not in my neighborhood. So why should gays? I mean a little civility here and there is it too much to ask for?

I've seen more straight people publicly display their affection than I ever have gays. Straights are usually far more open about it since straight relationships are not usually frowned upon.

[Sobotnik]

Deathblow896 posted:

Gays whether or not they are born like that. I can't say, but should they be treated like a person with leprosy. No. People should be treated as people, but I will state this now. I don't believe in it. Fell free to criticize and blah blah blah, but that's my opinion. But I mean I don't see straight couples running around and publicly displaying their "affection" for one another. At least not in my neighborhood. So why should gays? I mean a little civility here and there is it too much to ask for?

If gay people can't show affection in public then why can straight people show theirs?

I see people kissing or holding hands in public all the time, but if its between two members of the same sex then good lord it's a public outrage!

[Mr. Creeper]

Sobotnik posted:

If gay people can't show affection in public then why can straight people show theirs?

I see people kissing or holding hands in public all the time, but if its between two members of the same sex then good lord it's a public outrage!

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

[strayebyrd]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

you can fly through the sky in a metal tube at ridiculous speeds, send messages via an worldwide connection of computers, and you're trying to pull the 'natural' argument? Seriously? Considering you said 'lower humans' I'm pretty sure you're either trolling or insane though so I won't take the bait any more.

[Seith]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

As if the faith of the Earth is determined by either butt-fucking or ramming two vaginas into each other.

Homosexuality existed before humans could breathe air. And yet... the Earth still is kickin'.

[Sobotnik]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

The naturalistic argument is bullshit. I am a proponent of progress, and staying with so called "nature" is not the way forwards.

You are just a misinformed reactionary. Furthermore, if that was such an abomination of nature, explain why this would be such an issue for you? What is your problem with it?

[Mr. Creeper]

Sobotnik posted:

The naturalistic argument is bullshit. I am a proponent of progress, and staying with nature is not the way forwards.

You are just a misinformed reactionary. Furthermore, if that was such an abomination of nature, explain why this would be such an issue for you? What is your problem with it?

Seith posted:

As if the faith of the Earth is determined by either butt-fucking or ramming two vaginas into each other.

Homosexuality existed before humans could breathe air. And yet... the Earth still is kickin'.

strayebyrd posted:

you can fly through the sky in a metal tube at ridiculous speeds, send messages via an worldwide connection of computers, and you're trying to pull the 'natural' argument? Seriously? Considering you said 'lower humans' I'm pretty sure you're either trolling or insane though so I won't take the bait any more.

It is obvious that my argument is correct. Your arguments are based off of fallacy and ignorance. My argument is based off of facts and proper logic. The problem is that you all are just stuck in your ignorance and cannot see the light of my knowledge.

[umm wtf]

Nobody is dening that in biological terms only man + woman = baby, but the fact is it doesn't fucking matter that it's not "natural". Like strayebyrd said, are you going to stop using the internet, or stop using cars? No. Because those things don't matter in the slightest, and the human race isn't going to just stop because of them.

[Sobotnik]

Mr. Creeper posted:

It is obvious that my argument is correct. Your arguments are based off of fallacy and ignorance. My argument is based off of facts and proper logic. The problem is that you all are just stuck in your ignorance and cannot see the light of my knowledge.

Explain why Asexuals exist then.

[Levithan]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

If anyone is an abomination of nature, it's you breeders, purposefully spewing out babies and overpopulating the Earth. Our unnatural manipulation of plant genetics has allowed us to get this far, but it is only a matter of time until we fall into a dark age as MOTHER NATURE clears us out. I'm doing my part, are you doing yours?

[carcarcargo]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance. Men and women are to be joined to create a balance (at least for you lower humans).

If you don't think it makes a balance in nature, let me ask you this why would a man have a penis and a woman a vagina? If men were meant to be with other men, wouldn't men be born with both a vagina and a penis? Also if women were meant to be with other women wouldn't they have both genitals?

The answer is obvious, women were meant for men. To say so otherwise is total ignorance.

I'm sorry but there are a lot of things we aren't 'meant' to do, it's like saying we shouldn't use planes since according to nature we aren't allowed to fly.

[milkandcooki]

Mr. Creeper posted:

It is obvious that my argument is correct. Your arguments are based off of fallacy and ignorance. My argument is based off of facts and proper logic. The problem is that you all are just stuck in your ignorance and cannot see the light of my knowledge.

Fact: homosexuality exists in nature, yet no
species have gone extinct from it and never will.

[umm wtf]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Gay people are a abomination of nature, they throw nature out of balance.

And people like this don't?

The world is already dangerously overpopulated, there are 1.5 million homeless children in america alone, now try to tell me it's because I don't find women attractive that nature is out of balance?

[Mr. Creeper]

umm wtf posted:

And people like this don't?

The world is already dangerously overpopulated, there are 1.5 million homeless children in america alone, now try to tell me it's because I don't find women attractive that nature is out of balance?

The world is not dangerously overpopulated, also there are far less than that according to the Horizons for homeless children. Your argument is flawed you can't stand against mine.

[strayebyrd]

Mr. Creeper posted:

The world is not dangerously overpopulated, also there are far less than that according to the Horizons for homeless children. Your argument is flawed you can't stand against mine.

you don't have an argument, you just have biased fallacy about 'nature' when it's already been established several times in the thread before this that the nature argument is bullshit considering the amount of homosexuality in nature and the fact that humanity has transcended the need for a nature argument

[carcarcargo]

Mr. Creeper posted:

The world is not dangerously overpopulated, also there are far less than that according to the Horizons for homeless children. Your argument is flawed you can't stand against mine.

In third world countries it is very much over populated, why do you think China has been taking extreme measures to keep it's population down?

[Mr. Creeper]

strayebyrd posted:

you don't have an argument, you just have biased fallacy about 'nature' when it's already been established several times in the thread before this that the nature argument is bullshit considering the amount of homosexuality in nature and the fact that humanity has transcended the need for a nature argument

Theres a deeper context to my argument, if you studied or had any sense of decent reading comprehension you could tell my argument is 100% valid anything you have read before reading my argument is a lie if it does not agree with what i have stated.

[strayebyrd]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Theres a deeper context to my argument, if you studied or had any sense of decent reading comprehension you could tell my argument is 100% valid anything you have read before reading my argument is a lie if it does not agree with what i have stated.

no there isn't a deeper context to your argument, you're either just dumb or trolling at this stage because all you've said is 'GAY BAD BECAUSE NATURE' and ignored the fact that homosexuality occurs all the time in nature. This argument has been going on for two threads now, your side has been devalued over and over, the fact that you cling so self-righteously to it shows that you have some sort of superiority complex and shouldn't be engaging in debate in the first place.

[T-Sonar.0]

Mr. Creeper posted:

Theres a deeper context to my argument, if you studied or had any sense of decent reading comprehension you could tell my argument is 100% valid anything you have read before reading my argument is a lie if it does not agree with what i have stated.

Because I'm unaware of the statistics of the 6.8 billion people that currently inhabit the Earth, I'm going to use the US as an example.

Currently, there are 311,591,917 people in the United States of America. Of that 311,591,917, two fucking percent, yes, 2%, are homosexual. That's about 6,232,000 people. How can you fucking say that those 6 million ruin the balance of nature? That doesn't make any sense.