Why Condone Fruitless Deviant Behavior? - Page 2

..but leftwood.

you mention earlier that other relationships with problems..or w/e-could have just as easily been homos.( because they were dysfunctional..and so on.)


Its not so much that it could be psychosis-its that they project themselves to the extent of which is uncomprable. This isnt like the kid rebel down the street who gets his ears gauged to defy his parents...its the kid down the street who takes more direct and less "commonly understood" route in expressing his anxst-agression..w/e.

He doesnt just defy a member of the human race--he defys the very existence of such a thing.

..as would a serial killer.

with regard to the obtuse serial killer analogy, it is being phased out of the genetic disposiition of the hominid. the aggressive instinct is slowly distanceing itself from the sexual one. it was common among our primitive ancestors to forcefully take a mate. this is no longer applicable on the large scale. those who still closley asssociate the aggressive with the sexual are slowly losing ground in an emotionally more enlightened breeding field. homosexuality, on the other hand, has been an increasing trend in recent western culture, particularly in larger, overpopulated cities. This can be explained, possibly, as a genetic disposition inherent in a minority percentage of the species that is activated by the environmantal cue of overpopulation. interestingly enough, the greek and roman urbal populations were too great for the size of their cities as well.

im not comparing homosexuality..to murder.


Im comparing a serial killers psyche to a homosexuals.

though i agree-that until we "find a purpose". Or place for these homosexuals...then i suppose our opinions are obsolete.

But because they serve no "anatomical purpose which could be viewed as beneficial to the survival of our race(human)..than it would be most foolish to support such a thing.

Supporting love, and kindness, and w/e it was we were talking about earlier---is not derived solely from "homosexuality". Homosexuality is a fruitless existence..

i dont mean the content of charactor-of which the homo may have in some way, but the homosexual preference and tendency itself.

So there is no question-that the homosexual act itself is fruitless and perverted.(perverted as in a misuse or debase of a being.)

You dont tolerate an existence..simply because it exists. ( as can be shown with a "serial killer" ).

But both are niether beneficial to the human species.

love is fine...but love of what?

homo"sexuality".-its sex..not love. Why must Homos limit their "love" to other homos, if "homosexuality" is a sexual trait?

Why not love another - (someone maybe of the opposite gender) the same as you would love someone of the same gender?

Because if love had anything to do with it...this would be possible.
But again, given it's sex...it becomes another thing.

again i ask-"love of what?"


flip the argument. Why not love somone the same gender as much as you love another of the opposite gender? Because the opposite does not require alterations in the psychological/and sexual preference.

You dont need to consult your sexual tendency before you say "its ok to love this person".

but homos do...


You can ask heteros to be more open towards homos---but it was homos that limit their loving relations to those of the same sex..

quote:

---

you mention earlier that other relationships with problems..or w/e-could have just as easily been homos.( because they were dysfunctional..and so on.)

---

I'm not sure what you are saying, but both homo and hetero hold dysfunction and cannot be unequally judged by it.

quote:

---

Its not so much that it could be psychosis-its that they project themselves to the extent of which is uncomprable.

---

Project themselves? Uncomprable? Your making assumptions about why any are gay to begin with. As for the flagrant and flamboyant homosexuals, especially males, there could be many reasons for such behavior, including desires for attention like any drama queen I've ever met.

Some people are just annoying, gay or straight.

quote:

---

He doesnt just defy a member of the human race--he defys the very existence of such a thing.

---

What? Uh no, gay people since the beggining remember, and we are all still here and still growing in numbers. People who stay single would fall in that category and would disagree about being compared to a serial killer too.

quote:

---

But because they serve no "anatomical purpose which could be viewed as beneficial to the survival of our race(human)..than it would be most foolish to support such a thing.

---

Our race has many needs, we are social creatures, they don't have to be breeders to be useful, and many gay people do have kids. They just have to be useful and socially there, especially for others of like minds, just like straights tend to be with straights.

And if people weren't so afraid of them, they could play even more useful roles, especially as parents who can no longer have a child of their own without outside help, just like millions of straight infertile couples who are having relationships that will never bare children, evil isn't it.

quote:

---

Supporting love, and kindness, and w/e it was we were talking about earlier---is not derived solely from "homosexuality". Homosexuality is a fruitless existence..

---

Not derived soley, which does not matter, but derived from and within, which makes it fruitful right there. If again you are referring to children, I'll reiterate by saying that plenty of straight couples can't or have decided never to have children, this does not make their existance fruitless, geez.

quote:

---

So there is no question-that the homosexual act itself is fruitless and perverted.(perverted as in a misuse or debase of a being.)

---

No, no more perverted or fruitless than masturbation and birth controlled sex, don't be rediculous, there is much question to your assertion. The only debasing occuring towards homosexuality is homophobic reactions to it.

quote:

---

You dont tolerate an existence..simply because it exists. ( as can be shown with a "serial killer" ).

But both are niether beneficial to the human species.

---

You don't tolerate the existance of a blantantly harmful way of life, like spree killing.

Homosexuality is a form of union like any other, a staple in a social society allowing for companionship, partnership, support and love. Which we all need and so serves the same purpose straight people do. As well as still being a functioning member of society. The sexuality is not the meaning of the person, nor their worth towards the benefit of our survival, nor their ability to procreate. (Which they still can and often do)

quote:

---

love is fine...but love of what?

homo"sexuality".-its sex..not love. Why must Homos limit their "love" to other homos, if "homosexuality" is a sexual trait?

Why not love another - (someone maybe of the opposite gender) the same as you would love someone of the same gender?

Because if love had anything to do with it...this would be possible.
But again, given it's sex...it becomes another thing.

again i ask-"love of what?"

---

Sex and love are not the same thing, are you suggesting that homo's don't love straight people, especially family, as for being in a relationship, would you be in a relationship with a gay man as a straight man? Are you just being closed minded about who you love and have sexual preferrence for? These questions do go both ways you know.

Love of others, I have already answered this. This is why its not a problem, if they were killers rather than lovers it would be a problem, but in general they are not, no more than straights are all killers just because Ted Bundy was straight.

quote:

---

flip the argument. Why not love somone the same gender as much as you love another of the opposite gender? Because the opposite does not require alterations in the psychological/and sexual preference.

You dont need to consult your sexual tendency before you say "its ok to love this person".

but homos do...


You can ask heteros to be more open towards homos---but it was homos that limit their loving relations to those of the same sex..

---

No, that is assinine. Homos do not limit their loving relationships, where do you even get the notion. Homo's tend to be more open and loving in a cross gender fashion than heteros, especially in males.

Untolerant straights are the close minded ones, gay people don't bitch at straight people for being straight, or love them less, as a whole. There are specific cases where abuse has turned a person from ever having sex with member or a certain sex I'm sure.

Straights have a harder time loving and accepting gays, not the other way around, the logic and facts in that statement are erroneous. The entire point of the conversation is that people, I'm guessing straight, are questioning why homosexuality should even be allowed. Which is absurd.

..

hows about you try and understand...


leftwood-


":straights tend to be with straights."
---------------------------------------------

then.. no "straight"(natural/constant) children should be take in by homosexuals until say, a pubescent stage-wherein the child could than choose their own sexual preference?
-------------------------------------------------------------

" just like millions of straight infertile couples who are having relationships that will never bare children, evil isn't it. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
uhm-yeah you really didnt understand my point on this one^

by comparing homo and hetero..hetero is beneficial. Homo is not. Not in their "sentimental attachment" type forms(mixed with love..etc..)..- but in that form alone-"Homosexual"..and hetero sexualSEX LEFTWOOD...SEX!

again i will ask..love of what? it seems that homos have chosen to not bear traditional children...and yet desire one of their own(if infact this was this case) Those "hetero sexual" prefered people..who desire a child..physically are not able to bear one. They are both opposites and were at one time quite capable of having offspring.


go back..and read my previous post.


"QUOTE:" ...psht.

:" The only debasing occuring towards homosexuality is homophobic reactions to it."


you should take your own advice..

Ofcourse this is correct. but i suppose we could swip swap it huh? maybe say-the only debasing occuring toward homophobes is..homosexuality. An argument can just as easily go both ways leftwood..


Your point are soooO inadequate.(at least given the context of the argument.) Why waste such time writing..this ^.

please -do read my previous post.

given sex is different from love..

Than love does not require sex.

Than why..oh why-implore homoSEXuality mixed with love..makes homoSEXuality...ok?

ask it agAIN. flip it...

heteroSEXuality is somewhat..a BENEFICIAL and reproductive cycle.. SEx..sex...and more sex leftwood. think about it.

you claim love and sex are two different things-and i wouldnt disagree with you at all on that. But tell me what makes homosexuality ok?




heres just one more thing incase..


Love doesnt require sex. One can be implemented into another-but are both two completely different things.

You can bring sex into love and bring love to sex..
But when speaking of homosexuality-love can only be implemented. and homosexuality alone would be..fruitless.

so again i will ask-why cant we have love..implemented with a fruitful sexual-relation?(fruitful meaning a result of any sexual intentions.)

Some gays want children...why? Its the love and idea. They clearly push sexual instinct aside when considering a child. For they know..it is vain-useless-fruitless- and pointless to even consider such a "perversion" (forgive the word. Not to be taken evillcruel, cynical or homophobic). and it doesnt fulfill their desire(at the time) which is strongly driven by love.

heteros are gifted because of their ability to implement love and sex harmonically. Because its common for their pieces to work and create that of which homosex just couldnt do.

People who are homosexual..are just as good or bad as anyone else.-but their homosexuality..ultimately becomes a perversion...and cripples them.

homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality. they are flip sides to the same coin, if you will. both are evolutionarily necessary to the continuation of the species. one promotes procreation, whereas the other promotes conservation. both are quite necessary to a species attempting to survive in an environment with limited resources. homosexuality is an intelligent, advanced form of interspecies population control. would one prefer we run off cliffs in mass suicide like lemmings when our populations threaten the precarious resource ratio?

quote:

---

But tell me what makes homosexuality ok?

---

What makes it not?

Its ok because...

1. It does exist (and we don't know why, but we don't know why we exist either), and it exists under the condition that it is not a willful criminal or harmful act, nor a detraction from the ability to function in society, nor threatens procreation due to homosexuals physical ability to procreate, as they do.

2. And as such it is a God given governement protected free willed right.

3. It is a form of consentual sex which highly desired and possibly at times necessary for healthy loving relationships. Meaning that sex holds more value than simply procreation, and a persons body is theirs to please with whom they please, consentually.

Whats not ok about homsexuality, bigotry and irrational fear or the idea that heteros can force their "chosen" lifestyle on others. Given that it is not a harmful act, quite the opposite, then it is not deserving of such a classification or treatment.

quote:

---

but i suppose we could swip swap it huh? maybe say-the only debasing occuring toward homophobes is..homosexuality. An argument can just as easily go both ways leftwood..

---

No, an irrational reaction does not take precidence over innocuous existing reality. Just because some people fear the dark does not mean there should be no darkness... or clowns (though clowns in the darkness should be illegal ).

quote:

---

but their homosexuality..ultimately becomes a perversion...and cripples them.

---

Explain yourself, give an example. The only crippling effect (including death) I've seen on homos is ignorant, fearful, hateful heteros.

"No, an irrational reaction does not take precidence over innocuous existing reality. Just because some people fear the dark does not mean there should be no darkness... or clowns (though clowns in the darkness should be illegal )."
------------------

i retract the term homophobes..and replace it with hetero. Realizing that homo exists solely because of hetero..

-i was only humoring you by using your word for words..

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

"Explain yourself, give an example. The only crippling effect (including death) I've seen on homos is ignorant, fearful, hateful heteros."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---

They become limited only by themselves..quite conciously i would say. For instance, when a gay couple wants a child. The concept comes from a loving "partnership" the two share. Now the homosexuality has nothing to do with a desire for a child..it is love.(or it is, whatever it is). and as you said, because people require certain..things aside from basic necessity and survival, homosexuality is undoubtably a trait these two partners share.

If a child is desired -put away of homosexuals..homosexuality...shouldnt that child be void of direct homosexual influence(especially if it was a younger child-or any child without a concious sexual preference)?


.understanding that there are kids who arent in the "best" environment as far as parenting goes(in hetero)..-but sexual preference wouldnt be so--imposed. especially a "deviant, fruitless...act. Such as homosexuality-(it in itself ofcourse)


i mean-you claim its love..which certainly it is. But love of what?

is that necessarily a "good thing"?


i dont believe that im a homophobe-but apparently i am because i do fear "homosexuality". Not so much the individuals it can be found in..but the act in itself.

It might be because i dont understand it..because i dont honestly know what its like to want to engage in..sexual acts with a person of the same sex...

or it might be because im concerned about the rest of existence...as well as those who are gay. Seemingly enveloped in this "highly unnatural.." ..w/e it is. Im just ..terribly concerned.-

but i would also like to add, that homosexuality might not be ok...because it is not healthy.

health promotes survival of even the most unnfit of existences.

and homosexuality in itself...does not do so. Much like any illness..or sickness..(unhealthy

Love..yes.
compassion
empathy...these things exist and help others to coexist. But homosexuality in itself..does not.-it is unhealthy.

quote:

---

because it is not healthy.

---

What is unhealthy about it, how does it affect physiological health negatively, emotional? How?

What is unhealty is to such a view for no good reason. Why do YOU feel this way? What information are you basing your assertion off of?

Is it speculative or a proven diffinitive with visible evidence to back it?

Do you even realize that you have an unfounded bias negative opinion coloring your argument?

This study says that engaging in a homosexual lifestyle decreases life expectancy.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1417935/posts

..
leftwood.

are you not aware..also( i know if i have one..you sure aspoo doo.) that you have an unfounded bias negative opinion coloring your argument?

homosexuality is proven unhealthy..

as i've pointed out most rationally and logically.-please..do look again. It isnt very difficult to realize that homosexuality in itself does not promote..survival. Which is what keeps existence...existing.

i promise you..if there were any way around this truth..i would have been most glad to move past it. But given..that staement is true..-i cannot overlook it.

i've given you reasons. evidence..examples. Sufficient ones at that.

You have given no reasonable indication why homosexuality is unhealty.

As for this study, does it factor in a life of oppression? That creates lowered life expectancy, hmmm, go figure.

Human existance demands procreation, homosexuals procreate, Ekimup, your point is moot.

Healthy sexual relationships are a part of everday life promoting survival, if these people are either unable or unwilling to derive sexual pleasure from the opposite sex, and there are others needing and wanting the same, that promotes and avenue for a healthy loving relationship, sexual satisfaction and companionship and therefore survival.

Not to mention once again, a perfectly productive part of society when not oppressed by bigotry and unscientific claims of fact.

We weren't born with wings but we fly anyway. Limitation based on gossip is unhealthy and stagnant.

homosexuals do not procreate..they do not concieve "offspring"..

Heterosexuals give birth to those who will later "choose" (whether conciously or subconciously) to be attracted, sexually,..to the same sex.

there is a balance...hetero life mates tend to flourish and be the basis..of other flourishing, and existing human beings.

This seemingly natural ability..promotes survival--of even the most "unfit"...including homosexuals. Do tell me if either of two people-within a homosexual relationship..can pass on eachothers DNA withinin a single being. (can concieve a child of their own) ..can actually "procreate".

no..they cannot. So ---the idea..is "moot".

homosexuality in itself does not promote good health. heck-it doesnt even promote existence!


if this is not reasonable enough. I suppose i could continue saying the same thing over and over.. but i sincerely hope you will understand.

Love -wonderful!
compassion..empathy..faith.trust...BEAUTIFUL..healthy and everlasting.

They not only promote the existence of the individual..but others in which the individual encounters.

If you love something..unhealthy--than this means it is unhealthy..including the love for it.

"Love of what" i asked..

It seems its the love a deviant..fruitless existence.


Sufficient?


..oh- who said wings were required to fly?

quote:

---

homosexuals do not procreate..they do not concieve "offspring"..

---

Yes, they do. They either get artificially insemination or use a surrogate donor or carrier. It happens all the time for straight infertile heteros just like anyone else, including homos.

Homosexuals are still quite capable of having sex with the opposite gender, especially for the specific purpose of baring children, which many, even famous, do.

Apparently you are not aware of this.

quote:

---

Heterosexuals give birth to those who will later "choose" (whether conciously or subconciously) to be attracted, sexually,..to the same sex.

---

Gay people are the last people on earth who try impose sexual preferrence on others, this is where blind hypocricy derived from insecure delusions create entirely outrageous claims of "bad" gay behavior that is actually exactly what an individual is doing when making the claims of gays.

Most would say that they wouldn't wish a child to be gay for anything in this society.

YOU are showing intolerance to gays, gays are not showing intolerance to heteros, but they may be showing intolerance to the unfounded intolerance.

quote:

---

hetero life mates tend to flourish and be the basis..of other flourishing, and existing human beings.

---

There is always a balance, gays may be part of it. Heteros produce homos as well as flat out societal scum and trash. Your statement is a pro hetero propagandic baseless claim, and defeated by the fact that heteros are the origin of homos.

You have decided you know gays are wrong, a defect or whatever terminology you prefer.

I'm saying you have no way of knowing to assert such a claim. If thats the way you feel, then fine, I just hope you honestly know why you "feel" that way.

quote:

---

Do tell me if either of two people-within a homosexual relationship..can pass on eachothers DNA withinin a single being. (can concieve a child of their own) ..can actually "procreate".

no..they cannot. So ---the idea..is "moot".

---

That is not necessary for procreation and survival and therefor irrelevant.

quote:

---

homosexuality in itself does not promote good health. heck-it doesnt even promote existence!

---

Sexual preferrence does not determine health.

quote:

---

if this is not reasonable enough. I suppose i could continue saying the same thing over and over.. but i sincerely hope you will understand.

---

You have given no reason. You have made baseless assumptions of what is supposed to be. You claim to know the intention of nature yet you do not know why gays even exist.

And all you have said against it is that is is unhealthy, yet you give no reason why.

quote:

---

If you love something..unhealthy--than this means it is unhealthy..including the love for it.

---

Where is it unhealthy, not just because you repeat it as such.

quote:

---

It seems its the love a deviant..fruitless existence.

---

masturbation is a homosexual act, did you know that? Its also a form of adultery. Just as fruitless by your standards.

A deviation is not a derogatory term either, deviations are changes, changes are natural and part of progress and evolution, your closed minded ways defy the complexities of realty and common sense.

Untill a distinguishable difference from gays is made from any one else in the form of criminal or harmful behavior, there is no reason to question their rights as free willed human beings.

quote:

---

Sufficient?

---

Hardly.

quote:

---

..oh- who said wings were required to fly?

---

Who said homosexuals aren't meant to exist?

Or that it is unhealthy to be such?