Gay? Nay!

[dirka dirka]

Actually, you've given me nothing other than "A chat room on IRC" Give me a specific chat room, and I'll go prove you wrong if that is what it really takes.
I've already said those details. Repeating myself is getting very annoying.

Please Dirka, you're grasping at straws. Your original argument was that it is offensive to gay people. It being offensive to one idiotic individual for no reason at all doesn't support that conclusion at all.
That wasn't my original argument at all. My argument has been and still is that it may be offensive. You can't judge if it is or not.

It IS possible for one individual to feel offended, but not for a rational reason.
You're not gay. Saying that every single one of them will not be offended is something you can not do. The entire subject, gay rights, should offend them.

Except that the list was made by gay activists :dry:

Whats the age old idiom? The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Just cause its an idiom, doesn't mean its always true.
I seriously don't care who made the list. There are no, to my knowledge, activists here.

[KBHoleN1]

The entire subject, gay rights, should offend them.
WHAT????

A discussion of my rights doesn't offend me, it empowers and interests me. I speak about my freedom of speech, and my freedom of religion. The right for someone to be homosexual is NO different. It is a right that if anything MUST be discussed, otherwise progress on the subject is never made. You are suggesting that just in case one person might be offended by something they SHOULD be concerned about deeply, that we should ignore the elephant in the corner? Ridiculous.

[dirka dirka]

WHAT????

A discussion of my rights doesn't offend me, it empowers and interests me. I speak about my freedom of speech, and my freedom of religion. The right for someone to be homosexual is NO different. It is a right that if anything MUST be discussed, otherwise progress on the subject is never made. You are suggesting that just in case one person might be offended by something they SHOULD be concerned about deeply, that we should ignore the elephant in the corner? Ridiculous.
If your rights were in question, it would definitly offend you. Gay rights are in question by many, and this should be offending to them.

[Northwind]

If your rights were in question, it would definitly offend you. Gay rights are in question by many, and this should be offending to them.
This has honestly passed the point of being annoying and entered into the realm of being physically painful for me to read any more of this.

Why don't I just ignore him already?

Why?
Why?
Why?

[Warcow]

I've already said those details. Repeating myself is getting very annoying. No you haven't at all actually, you never gave a specific room or anything. You neglected to give any real details at all, which is why I'm nearly 100% sure you're lying.


That wasn't my original argument at all. My argument has been and still is that it may be offensive. You can't judge if it is or not.
Haha, I'm going to go quote your old posts when I get back from class to show you how false this is.


You're not gay. Saying that every single one of them will not be offended is something you can not do. The entire subject, gay rights, should offend them. I have always said that it is not offensive to the group as a whole that being gay people. There is no reason for it to be offensive, the mere idea of this being offensive to a gay person is ridiculous. Face it Dirka, you've got nothing.


Just cause its an idiom, doesn't mean its always true.
I seriously don't care who made the list. There are no, to my knowledge, activists here.
I support gay rights, I guess I'm an activist. I'm not gay, but I still fully support them. The fact that you are saying that a list made BY gay people, that criticizes people who argue against gay rights, could possibly be offensive to gay people is not only incredibly stupid, it's borderline demented.

[dirka dirka]

This has honestly passed the point of being annoying and entered into the realm of being physically painful for me to read any more of this.

Why don't I just ignore him already?

Why?
Why?
Why?
Either argue against what I have to say, ignore me, or simply don't post about what I say.


I tell ya one thing. If my rights were in question, I'd definitly be offended.

[dirka dirka]

No you haven't at all actually, you never gave a specific room or anything. You neglected to give any real details at all, which is why I'm nearly 100% sure you're lying.
I definitly did give those details.


I have always said that it is not offensive to the group as a whole that being gay people. There is no reason for it to be offensive, the mere idea of this being offensive to a gay person is ridiculous. Face it Dirka, you've got nothing.
... how is the idea of a group's rights being in question not offensive?

I support gay rights, I guess I'm an activist. I'm not gay, but I still fully support them. The fact that you are saying that a list made BY gay people, that criticizes people who argue against gay rights, could possibly be offensive to gay people is not only incredibly stupid, it's borderline demented.
So just cause you support gay rights, means you're an activist? Sorry, not true.

[Warcow]

This has honestly passed the point of being annoying and entered into the realm of being physically painful for me to read any more of this.

Why don't I just ignore him already?

Why?
Why?
Why?

It's like a car accident, it's horrifying, but you can't peel your eyes away from staring at it. You just have to watch to see if he will continue on his downward spiral, there is nothing you can do to help it :p

[KBHoleN1]

What is there to be offended about? You say that they should be offended, but I have to wonder if you know what offensive means. It should CONCERN them, it should INTEREST them, but those do not mean it is offensive. By your logic, discussing what I ate for dinner should offend me, simply because I am involved in the subject.

And Northwind has been trying to argue with you, you just don't seem to listen. I have ignored the whole Warcow/dirka argument because it seems silly and overdone after 18 pages. I am trying to end this as quickly as possible, but you are not cooperating. Explain what you mean by "it should offend them." Why?

[Warcow]

I definitly did give those details.

Really? Quote them then :rolleyes:


... how is the idea of a group's rights being in question not offensive? The original argument that the list criticizes IS offensive! The fact that people make retorts against a ridiculous argument isn't! If you're offended by one side of the argument, and then someone comes and shows why that side of the argument is insane, you aren't going to be offended by that as well. That lacks any kind of logic.

Dirka, you are NOT right here. Look how many people have called you an idiot, how many have laughed at you . . . Not one person is supporting you, shouldn't that tell you something?


So just cause you support gay rights, means you're an activist? Sorry, not true.

I advocate human-rights to anyone who says otherwise . . . that makes me active enough. Sure I've never been in a picket line, but I'll vote against anything that impedes on those rights.

[dirka dirka]

What is there to be offended about? You say that they should be offended, but I have to wonder if you know what offensive means. It should CONCERN them, it should INTEREST them, but those do not mean it is offensive. By your logic, discussing what I ate for dinner should offend me, simply because I am involved in the subject.
Not at all. The question more or less is "Should gay people have the same rights as straight people?" Now, there are two sides to this argument. One of the sides says yes and one of the sides says no. The side that says No makes the entire argument offensive, because their side is a derivative of the original question.

And Northwind has been trying to argue with you, you just don't seem to listen. I have ignored the whole Warcow/dirka argument because it seems silly and overdone after 18 pages. I am trying to end this as quickly as possible, but you are not cooperating. Explain what you mean by "it should offend them." Why?
Really? I actually didn't see north trying to argue here, although I have been reading little of anybody's posts other than Warcow.

[dirka dirka]

Really? Quote them then :rolleyes:
No thank you. Go back. It was.. like, the second post after I started with the IRC thing.


The original argument that the list criticizes IS offensive! The fact that people make retorts against a ridiculous argument isn't! If you're offended by one side of the argument, and then someone comes and shows why that side of the argument is insane, you aren't going to be offended by that as well. That lacks any kind of logic.
I NEVER said that the fact that people argue against the offensive side is offensive. I've said many times exactly what I mean. The fact that there is an offensive side obviously means the argument is offernsive.

Dirka, you are NOT right here. Look how many people have called you an idiot, how many have laughed at you . . . Not one person is supporting you, shouldn't that tell you something?
It should tell me they arn't fully understanding what I'm saying. More or less, what I am saying is a+a=2a. Its simple logic.

I advocate human-rights to anyone who says otherwise . . . that makes me active enough. Sure I've never been in a picket line, but I'll vote against anything that impedes on those rights.
Uhmkay.

[Hellblazer]

Holy canoli! 18 pages of debate!? Why not just admit that dirk has somewhat of a point, because he does! It is, though very slightly, offensive to gay people.

[dirka dirka]

Holy canoli! 18 pages of debate!? Why not just admit that dirk has somewhat of a point, because he does! It is, though very slightly, offensive to gay people.
Thank you. However slightly it may be, this is exactly what I'm trying to say.

[Wizzy`]

Both of them have valid points...They just like arguing :D

[Hellblazer]

Both of them have valid points...They just like arguing :D
Well, no matter what Warcow says, even though he's about 97% right, there's still that 3% that offends gays. So there. That should end it.

...But sadly it won't...

[KBHoleN1]

Ok, fine I concede. If I were gay AND a complete idiot, I would be offended when I read this.

[dirka dirka]

Ok, fine I concede. If I were gay, I might be offended when I read this.
fixed it for ya

[Hellblazer]

KBH. You shouldn't have negged me on the first page. You know better. I didn't know what I was talking about because I got pwned by the real meaning of the list.

[Xenon]

This has honestly passed the point of being annoying and entered into the realm of being physically painful for me to read any more of this.

Why don't I just ignore him already?

Why?
Why?
Why?

IT'S ADDICTING THATS WHY AND IT'S GETTING SO ANNOYING IT'S FUN, THAT'S WHY.

Sorry just thought I would answer in caps.

[KBHoleN1]

KBH. You shouldn't have negged me on the first page. You know better. I didn't know what I was talking about because I got pwned by the real meaning of the list.
So you negged me back? You didn't understand what was going on, several people told you you missed the point, but you continued to call the thread stupid and pointless. And as I told you in my pm, I negged you more for the Bush comment than anything. You show your ignorance by using this opportunity to take a shot at Bush. This thread had nothing to do with Bush whatsoever, but you felt it necessary to blame it on Bush. You are an idiot who deserves more negs than I can give you, simply because you whined about it.

[dirka dirka]

Anyway, I'm definitly done. Warcow can deny the point all he wants. However, its evident that others understand what I am saying.

[Xenon]

What is with all the arguing? Damn.

They say good brains think alike and I see 1 clever one and 1 argumentative one doesn't work.

[Warcow]

This argument is bordering on insane.

The rest of us reasonable people understand that there is absolutely no way, an intelligent, logical, gay male or female would find this offensive in any way.

What Learz did was not offensive, not unless you're an uninformed, right-wing, bible thumping retard, and you believe completely in idiotic reasons that conform to no logical patterns.

The previous time I argued with Dirka for this long, he saw the point, and realized he was wrong . . . This time, no such luck. I guess I was wrong, and there really is no improvement :(

[Hellblazer]

So you negged me back? You didn't understand what was going on, several people told you you missed the point, but you continued to call the thread stupid and pointless. And as I told you in my pm, I negged you more for the Bush comment than anything. You show your ignorance by using this opportunity to take a shot at Bush. This thread had nothing to do with Bush whatsoever, but you felt it necessary to blame it on Bush. You are an idiot who deserves more negs than I can give you, simply because you whined about it.
That's just your narrow-minded view of the post. read it and understand it more. I was targetting Bush's FOLLOWERS! Besides, that was the first page and I had no idea what was going on and neither did dirka and a few others. Geez, man. THINK!

[Warcow]

However, its evident that others understand what I am saying.

Other people? I'll give you Hellblazer, who admitted I'm 97% right, you might have a 3% chance of having said something true.

The rest of the people have shot you down, time after time . . .

[Twelve]

,

I thought your post was great. The only exception I was make here, though is the idea that people "choose to be gay." Why in the world would anyone choose an existance in which they are marginalized by society, (often) rejected by their own families, denied basic civil rights, and run the risk of assault by homophobes?


Look at history, North. People have always suffered for things that they choose to believe in. Suffering doesn't automatically mean that what they stand for is right. A fair look at history will show that people have suffered and died for very conflicting ideals.

12

[dirka dirka]

Other people? I'll give you Hellblazer, who admitted I'm 97% right, you might have a 3% chance of having said something true.

The rest of the people have shot you down, time after time . . .
The thing is. My argument exists in the preface of it being a small percent. Your argument exited in the preface of not even one in the whole.

I know for sure 3 people agree with me. One of which you'd find in the highest regard.


Anyway. You called me a lair to attempt to trash an argument of mine. This cuts me deap, Warcow. I'm really not sure what to make of it.

[KBHoleN1]

That's just your narrow-minded view of the post. read it and understand it more. I was targetting Bush's FOLLOWERS! Besides, that was the first page and I had no idea what was going on and neither did dirka and a few others. Geez, man. THINK!
You said that all of Bush's followers are gay-haters, or that all gay-haters support Bush, then call me narrowminded? Oh my God!!!! That is why I negged you, because you associated the opinions of a few with the opinions of half the country. You stereotyped Bush's followers (WHICH I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF) and called us all gay-haters. In light of my arguments in this thread I think I just proved you wrong. Your post was offensive to me because you insenuated (sp?) that I was a gay-hater simply because I followed Bush. You are ignorant. Your neg was well deserved, then you returned a crybaby rep to me telling me I was stupid. Amazing.

[green97sierra]

against my better judgement which is SREAMING at me that this is a futile argument and dirka just refuses to admit when he has found himself in a hole, i find myself having to take part.

dirka, in response to my post, you stated that you were not offended.

ok, you are not offended...

lemme quote it real quick...

I never said I was offended.

WHAT THE HELL IS YOUR PROBLEM THEN!?

you didn't find it funny. ok. MOVE ON! now, admittedly i didn't read the entire thread, but i read enough. i never ONCE saw a single gay person come on here and state that the list directly offended them. hell, i challange you to FIND a gay person who finds this list offensive.

once again, i'll post a quick example of people stating they were offended by something that was not intended to be offensive.

i give you.... the taco bell chihuahua.

members of a major hispanic rights group (the latin-american version of the NAACP, cant think of their name at the moment) state that the taco bell chihuahua is a negative, and offensive sterio-type set forth by the pepsi-co coorporation, whether intentionally or not, to hold back the latin american community by forcing them into a type-cast.

now, i challange you to go out into your community, city, school, mall, grocery store, anyplace, and find one 'working-class' citizen that finds that goddamned dog offensive.

but, that being aside, at least it was a few latin-americans saying that the taco bell chihuahua was offensive to the latin-american community.

by your own admission you are neither A) gay, nor B) offended. sit down and shut up already! let them fight their own fight. they don't need your help. once again, if you found it funny, LAUGH! but dont tell someone when or when not they are offended, especially if you are not a member of their sexuality, race, religion, social standard, ect.

[Hellblazer]

You said that all of Bush's followers are gay-haters, or that all gay-haters support Bush, then call me narrowminded? Oh my God!!!! That is why I negged you, because you associated the opinions of a few with the opinions of half the country. You stereotyped Bush's followers (WHICH I HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF) and called us all gay-haters. In light of my arguments in this thread I think I just proved you wrong. Your post was offensive to me because you insenuated (sp?) that I was a gay-hater simply because I followed Bush. You are ignorant. Your neg was well deserved, then you returned a crybaby rep to me telling me I was stupid. Amazing.
There's the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you see why I negged yo back now, along with the reasons in my most recent PM. I can see why you're upset that I insulted the stupid guy in the White House you follow. That's why I'm upset! Just beacause you support Bush doesn't mean you have to neg everyone that doesn't like him. Geez, face facts that not everyone likes Bush.
Edit: And yes, I'll admit that my stereotype wat probably uncalled for and dumb, but that was, as you have pointed out, from my lack of understanding of the list.

[dirka dirka]

green97sierra... what you said is only valid if you assume that I only respond to and talk about subjects I care about. This, obviously, isn't the case. I don't care about this at all. However, the fact that rights are in question, show that my rights might also sooner or later be in question, and thats generally alarming.

[Shiny Flors]

If your rights were in question, it would definitly offend you. Gay rights are in question by many, and this should be offending to them.

Two parts, 1 statement, 1 question:

1. People in America gave up some rights when the Patriot Act was passed. People give up rights when they decide to follow the laws of a government. So rights are being taken away from Americans everyday and the loss of these rights is debated everyday. People are not offended by the discussion of the loss of these rights. Example, gun control.

2. Is being able to choose which gender to marry a right? Gay couples are not banned fom being together. If that was the case I would agree rights are being taken away from a minority. My question is how does marriage constitute a right? To me, marriage is first a choice and then a commitment, between two people to spend their lives together. Gay couples can choose to make a choice and a commitment to each other. That right is not being taken away. It is not the piece of paper that makes a man and woman married but the commitment they make to each other.

[Hellblazer]

Alright: I've had it with this thread. Attention Realist or some other mod. This thread is just crazy. Why don't you lock it?

[russian]

There's the problem. Thanks for clearing that up. I hope you see why I negged yo back now, along with the reasons in my most recent PM. I can see why you're upset that I insulted the stupid guy in the White House you follow. That's why I'm upset! Just beacause you support Bush doesn't mean you have to neg everyone that doesn't like him. Geez, face facts that not everyone likes Bush.

Er um uh. Dude. Like wtf?

You are a smart guy but in this case, KB>j00

Reason why. You miss the point, or at least your repsonse seems to make you sound like you do.

PS. I chimed in cuz, I support the Prez, Voted for him, and I support rights for gays.

[dirka dirka]

Two parts, 1 statement, 1 question:

1. People in America gave up some rights when the Patriot Act was passed. People give up rights when they decide to follow the laws of a government. So rights are being taken away from Americans everyday and the loss of these rights is debated everyday. People are not offended by the discussion of the loss of these rights. Example, gun control.
Valid enough. Although, I care less when they arn't singling out a group. A general law isn't really hurting my rights, but protecting my freedom.

2. Is being able to choose which gender to marry a right? Gay couples are not banned fom being together. If that was the case I would agree rights are being taken away from a minority. My question is how does marriage constitute a right? To me, marriage is first a choice and then a commitment, between two people to spend their lives together. Gay couples can choose to make a choice and a commitment to each other. That right is not being taken away. It is not the piece of paper that makes a man and woman married but the commitment they make to each other.
This totally has nothing to do with my argument. I am arguing under the assumption that marriage is a right, because thats the obvious argument that the other side is making. I'm not arguing for or against it, just with it cause it wasn't in question if its actually a right or not.

[green97sierra]

green97sierra... what you said is only valid if you assume that I only respond to and talk about subjects I care about. This, obviously, isn't the case. I don't care about this at all. However, the fact that rights are in question, show that my rights might also sooner or later be in question, and thats generally alarming.
then why dont you make a thread and post about the patriot act which DOES directly affect your civil rights? instead you are posting about the rights in question for a group that you are not a part of. you ARE a member of america, and the patriot act DOES directly affect YOUR rights and civil liberties. post and comment about that.

and if you don't care, why post? you obviously DO care about this post. and you are STILL 'missing' your own 'boat', at least from what i see. the list was not intended to oppress homosexuals and to narrow their rights. the list was, as i stated before, intended to point out the catch-22's of every argument that a 'gay-basher' has against homosexuality. the list does not, in ANY point, comment on gay rights, or rights of any person whatsoever.

[Shiny Flors]

The second point has nothing to do with your arguement but a related topic. It was in no means an attack on you. Since gay rights were brought up I wondered how marriage is a right? I think debate is good and from other people's debates you can draw a conclusion. Since the topic fit into this thread I posted it here instead of making a new thread.

[dirka dirka]

then why dont you make a thread and post about the patriot act which DOES directly affect your civil rights? instead you are posting about the rights in question for a group that you are not a part of. you ARE a member of america, and the patriot act DOES directly affect YOUR rights and civil liberties. post and comment about that.

and if you don't care, why post? you obviously DO care about this post. and you are STILL 'missing' your own 'boat', at least from what i see. the list was not intended to oppress homosexuals and to narrow their rights. the list was, as i stated before, intended to point out the catch-22's of every argument that a 'gay-basher' has against homosexuality. the list does not, in ANY point, comment on gay rights, or rights of any person whatsoever.
... you're confusing caring and posting. BTW, you're the one missing the boat, because nobody has said.. since the first page, anything about that list and if its intended to be bad.

[dirka dirka]

The second point has nothing to do with your arguement but a related topic. It was in no means an attack on you. Since gay rights were brought up I wondered how marriage is a right? I think debate is good and from other people's debates you can draw a conclusion. Since the topic fit into this thread I posted it here instead of making a new thread.
Definitly a good debate. Although, then we get into basic human rights... john locke's stuff. I'm not sure anybody could say marriage is a right, cause its not something that is.. ya know.. its binded into culture, but it isnt really a human right.

[Hellblazer]

... you're confusing caring and posting. BTW, you're the one missing the boat, because nobody has said.. since the first page, anything about that list and if its intended to be bad.
And everybody's posts that didn't understand the list on the first page are gettin' negged.:p

[Shiny Flors]

Definitly a good debate. Although, then we get into basic human rights... john locke's stuff. I'm not sure anybody could say marriage is a right, cause its not something that is.. ya know.. its binded into culture, but it isnt really a human right.

If it isn't a human right or a constitutional right why do some gay people claim it is?

[Warcow]

The thing is. My argument exists in the preface of it being a small percent. Your argument exited in the preface of not even one in the whole.
Seriously, Warcow, I don't think you get it. It may be a list of all the extremes of arguments that arn't valid. Its still not funny. It still is offending to those who are gay.
You are talking about gay people in general, always have been. Don't try to twist it now so that it fits.

I know for sure 3 people agree with me. One of which you'd find in the highest regard.
Who would that be? They must have pm'd you their support then, because every single person I have talked to has been appalled by the sheer ridiculousness of your claim.


Anyway. You called me a lair to attempt to trash an argument of mine. This cuts me deap, Warcow. I'm really not sure what to make of it. Of course I'm calling your blufff! You have me no proof for something that is supposed to have completely ruined my claim. Until you offer some proof of that, how on earth do you expect me to believe it as true?

[dirka dirka]

If it isn't a human right or a constitutional right why do some gay people claim it is?
Yea. I definitly think this is a good debate to have. Hmmm, it needs its own thread though, this one is full of garbage now. I like this though

And everybody's posts that didn't understand the list on the first page are gettin' negged.:p
lol, even I didnt understand what was going on at the first page... rightfully so, although, looking back... lol

be back in like a half hour

[Hellblazer]

Yea. I definitly think this is a good debate to have. Hmmm, it needs its own thread though, this one is full of garbage now. I like this though


lol, even I didnt understand what was going on at the first page... rightfully so, although, looking back... lol

be back in like a half hour
*gasp* I stopped the arguing!

[dirka dirka]

Who would that be? They must have pm'd you their support then, because every single person I have talked to has been appalled by the sheer ridiculousness of your claim.
One did, and two are in this thread supporting me.


Of course I'm calling your blufff! You have me no proof for something that is supposed to have completely ruined my claim. Until you offer some proof of that, how on earth do you expect me to believe it as true?
No. Its not calling my bluff or anything like that. Its calling me a blatant liar, when in reality there was better ways to debate my findings than saying I am a liar. I'm not a liar, Warcow.

[KBHoleN1]

I want to spell this out for everyone. Hellblazer admitted he had a lack of understanding, but he doesn't understand why I negged him. I explained why I negged him, because he bashed Bush and his followers using stereotypes and prejudices, the same things we are discussing in the thread. So what does he do? He gets mad I called him for his ignorance, negs me back, and calls me an idiot for not understanding what happened. Apparently I am supposed to excuse his idiocy and ignorance because he didn't know any better, and accept the fact that he can say whatever he wants regardless of how stupid or unfounded it is.

Hellblazer, you are an idiot. Deal with it. You stereotyped an entire group of people and offended them with that stereotype (if you still havent' gotten the point, that is what this thread is about, just with a different group of people). You spent this entire thread claiming that a message designed to advocate gay rights might offend gay people, and then turn around and ignore the feelings of of a group of people much larger than the homosexual population in America, considering that it took a majority of the country to vote him into office, twice. You said that I should "accept the fact not everyone like Bush." Did I ever say you had to? I think I actually argued FOR the right to an opinion in this thread. Here's a novel idea: you could try READING THE THREAD and finding that out for yourself.

You're an idiot, I still don't think you understand how stereotypical you are being or how narrowninded (irnoically, you through that last insult at me in one of your pms, telling me I didn't fully understand the situation). I understand quite well that you are an idiot. I disagreed with dirka in this thread, but he actually had an argument to present, so I listened. You however are spouting bullshit with every word. You have contradicted yourslef more times than I can count, insulted me just as many times, and all because you were an idiot in the first place. Here is your last few pms to me, take a minute and bask in your idiocy:
You know, that was kind of the point. You didn't catch on, but kept rambling on any way, calling the thread stupid and pointless. You were the one who needed to read. And I negged you more for the Bush comment than anything. This thread had nothing to do with Bush, and your Bush-bashing was true ignorance.
*Ahem* Dirk and ent and a few others got folled too. I came to my senses by about page 3 or 4. I simply stated, due to my lack of understanding, that the only people that don't like gays support Bush because he doesn't like gays. Seriously, the neg was uncalled for.
That's why I negged you, that right there. That's stereotypical, prejudiced, and overall a stupid comment. Not all Bush followers hold the same opinion, and not all that hold that opinion are Bush followers. This was your chance to call Bush an idiot and you took it, regardless of its truth. The fact that you think all gay-haters are Bush supporters is why I neggeed you. You have a lot to learn about the way things work in the real world. If it was your lack of understanding, then I hope my neg woke you up and you understand now. That is what the rep system is meant for, I disapproved of your post and I told you so. Your return crybaby rep is pitiful. Grow up.

Oh shutup. Ok, I didn't understand. Big deal! And wow I don't like Bush. Get over it. I had freedom of speech and a lack of understanding. So I spoke what came immediately to my head. So, no, you didn't think enough about the situation at hand. That's why I negged yo back.

And FYI - you did little to contribute to this thread, I believe the better sense of all the posters has stopped the arguing for now, but way to jump in and take credit anyway.

[Hellblazer]

*sigh* That didn't last long. Though, nothing gold can stay.

Edit: Wow, KBH. You really could have just said I was an idiot and I would have accepted it. making a giant post telling everyone I'm an idiot and am the only one that is lacking any experience about this thread goes a tad too far. So I'll act as if that were never said and just pay attention to the fact that I'm an idiot.
You're right, I'm wrong. Get used to it!

[Warcow]

One did, and two are in this thread supporting me.
Point out your "support" not the ones that PM'd you, the ones you claim are here.

No. Its not calling my bluff or anything like that. Its calling me a blatant liar, when in reality there was better ways to debate my findings than saying I am a liar. I'm not a liar, Warcow.
Then prove it! Give me some proof that what you said isn't a complete fabrication. The fact that you didn't when we are in such an intense argument tells me you made it up!

[dirka dirka]

Point out your "support" not the ones that PM'd you, the ones you claim are here.
Wizzy... Hellblazer... this is where you say hellblazer still is in favor of you. Doesn't matter, my argument only required a quantum of reality.

Then prove it! Give me some proof that what you said isn't a complete fabrication. The fact that you didn't when we are in such an intense argument tells me you made it up!
I told you where I did it. You can do it for yourself. There is no other proof.


Now, truly, I'm done. I'd like to debate this marriage right with shiny... gotta do some research first though.

[Shiny Flors]

Anyone want to fight with me?

*punches wall*

[KBHoleN1]

*sigh* That didn't last long. Though, nothing gold can stay.

Edit: Wow, KBH. You really could have just said I was an idiot and I would have accepted it. making a giant post telling everyone I'm an idiot and am the only one that is lacking any experience about this thread goes a tad too far. So I'll act as if that were never said and just pay attention to the fact that I'm an idiot.
You're right, I'm wrong. Get used to it!
You are the one who whined about, you continued the conversation. I have a problem letting someone call me an idiot for something they did, and dropping a public argument when I know I'm right. I tried to explain why I negged you, but you still didn't get it. Whatever ... *walks away* I'm done.

[green97sierra]

... you're confusing caring and posting. BTW, you're the one missing the boat, because nobody has said.. since the first page, anything about that list and if its intended to be bad.
ok, then why dont you comment on my valid argument? you care about your own rights and when they come into question. this thread has NOTHING to do with you. i completely agree that gay men and women should have every right given to heterosexual men and women, INCLUDING marriage, the right to adopt, the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to use the same drinking fountains as the rest of us, ect.

and i AM an activist about it. do i stand at the federal building with a poster that says, "they're here, they're queere, get used to it!"? (i am allowed to use this slogan because gay men and women have used it themselves during demonstrations and my intent is not to gay-bash) no. but with every oppertuinity to do so, i have voted FOR gay rights since i was 18. that is being active, no matter HOW you try to slice it.

and how have i missed the boat?

No. Seriously, Warcow, I don't think you get it. It may be a list of all the extremes of arguments that arn't valid. Its still not funny. It still is offending to those who are gay. Its still invalid.

I'm sorry, are you gay? Not to my knowledge. So how do you know if its offensive to them?

Just because it isn't making fun of them, doesn't mean it isn't offensive.

Its not that anybody doesn't see the point. The point isn't funny. Why keep bringing up old arguments, valid or invalid, jokingly or not? I seriously don't get it. It apears I'm alone it not getting it though.

No. Seriously, you don't know who is and who isn't offended. How do you know some guest read that first post, is a gay person, and realized society will always have arguments against them, so in turn ended their own life. I seriously don't get how anybody finds this funny.

... skipping ahead a few pages...

Nonono. The topic is not the over-exaggerated points. [allow me to interject here that the topic WAS supposed to be the over-exaggerated points, you just twisted it into what you wanted it to be so you didn't look like a f**ktard] The topic is gay people, in general, if they are just as moral and normal as straight people. The obvious rightful argument is they are normal, they just have a different sexual preference. Bringing up the topic, brings up the original question, which is invalid.

Not true. If 99.999% of gay people agree that post, which isn't supporting them but is insulting those against them, is not insulting then there is still a percentage that finds it insulting.

should i keep going? you are hinting back to the list in EVERY SINGLE PAGE!!! every once in a while you and whomever go off on a slight tangent, but it all goes back to the argument, "is this list offensive". i will agree with you that some homosexual people might take offense to this list, AT FIRST! however, upon reading it and truly understanding the list, comprehending it's meaning AND intent, you'll find a very few amount of homosexuals who will find this list offensive.

it wasnt till recently that you turned the thread into an argument of rights, trying to come up with something that might, in some way, shape, or form, prove that you aren't a f**ktard. you have yet to proove yourself to not be a f**ktard in my eyes.

anyways, i'm off to do a field study. i'll post the results here when i am done.

[russian]

The list at the beginning of this thread is in the form of Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal

Swift caught hell over MP because many people did not get what he was saying.

But, in the end, history has judged A Modest Proposal as the classic form of how to use satire to advance a cause or argument by discussing the merits of the arguments opposite. Some say that MP is the greatest example of irony in the history of the English language.

So for those who don't get it (it being the list at the start of this thread), then you would have scorned Swift as many did in his day. For those of you who do get it, then the list at the beginning is ironical and history is on your side by judging this form to be a suitable manner for ironically and satirically advancing an idea.

[dirka dirka]

ok, then why dont you comment on my valid argument? you care about your own rights and when they come into question. this thread has NOTHING to do with you. i completely agree that gay men and women should have every right given to heterosexual men and women, INCLUDING marriage, the right to adopt, the right to vote, the right to drive, the right to use the same drinking fountains as the rest of us, ect.
God.. I've already went through this. The fact that they limit one group's rights, means they could limit any group's rights. I still don't care. However, its valid enough to talk about.

and how have i missed the boat?
... should I go quote all of your posts? Kinda dumb, it points nothing out, other than that I posted. I in fact said I missed the "joke" part of the thread in the start, I've said this many times. I'm talking about a different boat now.


i will agree with you that some homosexual people might take offense to this list, AT FIRST! however, upon reading it and truly understanding the list, comprehending it's meaning AND intent, you'll find a very few amount of homosexuals who will find this list offensive.
Good, so you agree, some may still find it offensive, inherently through the overall topic.

it wasnt till recently that you turned the thread into an argument of rights, trying to come up with something that might, in some way, shape, or form, prove that you aren't a f**ktard. you have yet to proove yourself to not be a f**ktard in my eyes.
... you know, staring out swear words doesn't count, it says so in the rules, you can still get in trouble... lolz. No, actually, what happened was I admitted I was wrong in the first place not getting the joke, then I realized a deeper thing, inherently the question of rights. This is the boat you missed, the inherent truth that someone is actually arguing those points.

[green97sierra]

if your only intent was to start a debate on rights and if your rights are in jeapordy, then you should start a NEW thread with a NEW topic and NOT try to steer this thread off in a seperate direction. once again, by your own admission, the origional topic of this thread is NOT to talk about rights of everyone on a whole, but the rights of gay/homosexual men and women. i apologize if my lack of familiarity with 'mind-expanding' substances did not allow me to see your 'deeper meaning'. but if you wanted to start talking about another topic, you should open up another thread.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Well, you've got me there. I certainly did not mean to imply that homosexuality is a clearcut choice. But I believe that anything not specifically determined by physiological traits (such as eye color) is at least a partial "choice" for lack of a better word. It is a touchy subject, and I realize it can be argued much more than this futile attempt. I do not know how to explain my view, so I will leave it at that.

Bet I could find some proof that homosexuality can be determined by some difference in the brain from heterosexuals, genetic or not, that would prove that it isn't physically a choice at all.

EDIT: Scratch that, if there were any definite proof, this debate would be moot... But I bet I can find evidence leaning towards the conclusion.

[dirka dirka]

if your only intent was to start a debate on rights and if your rights are in jeapordy, then you should start a NEW thread with a NEW topic and NOT try to steer this thread off in a seperate direction. once again, by your own admission, the origional topic of this thread is NOT to talk about rights of everyone on a whole, but the rights of gay/homosexual men and women. i apologize if my lack of familiarity with 'mind-expanding' substances did not allow me to see your 'deeper meaning'. but if you wanted to start talking about another topic, you should open up another thread.
That was not my intent at all.. this topic is in honor of gay rights. Gay rights is a touchy subject, cause some idiots deny their rights. Now, the fact that they get denied rights, means I might, and that is the only reason I care slightly enough to post here. I truly don't care about their rights in general.

... this topic would die, its a joke, people laugh, its over... why not bring in a little more insight and debate? Truly, I'm still concerned, not for the gay's rights, but for the future of my rights.

Edit: Also, do you think I meant to go into an 8 page debate over semantics? Warcow just denies that in some small way, they can be offended. In actuality, in some small way, they definitly could get offended. I would rather debate on rights in general, and governments and/or people taking rights away. Thats why I like Shiny's topic, of what rights do we really have.. and if marriage is one.

[Shiny Flors]

Bet I could find some proof that homosexuality can be determined by some difference in the brain from heterosexuals, genetic or not, that would prove that it isn't physically a choice at all.

EDIT: Scratch that, if there were any definite proof, this debate would be moot... But I bet I can find evidence leaning towards the conclusion.


Here is the best article I have found explaining the "gay gene." The one that doesn't exist I mean.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

[inked]

I thought the word "Therapy" was funny. (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, the website)

EDIT: What is "Normal"?
Fifty years ago, researcher C.D. King offered a very useful definition of "normal." The practical wisdom of that definition is still apparent. Normality, he said, is "that which functions according to its design."

As clinicians, we have witnessed the intense suffering caused by homosexuality, which many of our members see as a "failure to function according to design." Homosexuality distorts the natural bond of friendship that would naturally unite persons of the same sex. It threatens the continuity of traditional male-female marriage--a bond which is naturally anchored by the complementarity of the sexes, and has long been considered essential for the protection of children.

In males, homosexuality it is associated with poor relationship with father; difficulty individuating from mother; a sense of masculine deficit; and a persistent belief of having been different from, and misunderstood by, same-sex childhood peers. In adulthood we also see a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors and a documented higher level of psychiatric complaints.


Under "Our Purpose" they striaght up say homosexuality is wrong. I think they might be biased, however I honestly did not read the article you posted due to my lack of time.

[Lonely Tylenol]

http://www.genuinejeff.com/researchdata.htm

This also includes a brief mention of the Hamer study that suggests the interstitial hyperthalamus 3 is twice as large in straight men as it is in gay men, which suggests that there is a genetic influence involved in sexual inclinations.

This is of course not definite proof of a "gay gene", but it does provide evidence leaning to the conclusion that homosexuality is affected by genetics in some way or another.

Want more? Or is a "pro-gay" link too biased for you?

Just ask and you shall recieve.

[Shiny Flors]

That website is pro-gay LT,

From your website,
"Laura Allen and Roger Gorski report that in autopsy studies they found a brain structure called the anterior commissure to be 34 percent larger in homosexual males than in heterosexual males...She said one weakness in the study is that 24 of the homosexual male brains came from men who died of AIDS, a disease that may affect brain tissue."


"The anterior hypothalmus of the brain participates in the regulation of male-typical sexual behavior. ..., INAH 3 was more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the women. It was also, however, more than twice as large in the heterosexual men as in the homosexual men. "

What this says to me is the brain shrinks in homosexual males similar to the size of females because that part of the brain is not being used just like it is not used in females. When a portion of the brain is not used, it shrink like the article I quoted said, "What All Neuroscientists Know: The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players. Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."
A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different." You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing."

So while some people offer this as proof that being gay is genetic, you are born that way, I translate it as a person making a choice about a lifestyle and living their life that way. Since they are not using the INAH 3 part of the brain that is responsible for male-typical behavior, it shrinks.

I have to go home now, I'll check this thread out on Monday.

[Jeffery]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_re_us/sodomy_case;_ylt=ArL1fSVY17TJtfJmBoc9V0Os0NUE;_ylu =X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY-

See, it's no more wrong to be gay and have sex with kids than it is to be straight and have sex with kids.

[Hellblazer]

You are the one who whined about, you continued the conversation. I have a problem letting someone call me an idiot for something they did, and dropping a public argument when I know I'm right. I tried to explain why I negged you, but you still didn't get it. Whatever ... *walks away* I'm done.
Ok, no. I do get the fact that I started the whole argument up and that I was being too stereotypical to Bush supporters. I'll fix my original statement by saying that a portion of Bush supproters are against gays. There. I'm done too. *walks away*