StarDestroyer.Net BBS

You know... even if the entire worlds populations was exclusively homosexual, it would not automatically mean that the human race would die out. There are other means of procreation than sex... do you think they have sperm banks for fun? Do you think gay men arent allowed to go there? Do you think none of them do?
Besides, were talking about sexual preferrance, homosexuals still can (and indeed some do) have sex with members of the opposite, non-preferred sex in order to procreate. I dont think lesbian women are much less eager to have children than straight ones.

So, would the human race die out? Nope, hardly, we might have a decrase in childbirths but that may actually be a good thing, remember, a lot of places in this world are very overpopulated...

TOTAL HOMOSEXUALITY! THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND!

*ahem*

Ah Azeron you poor sap. I've truly enjoyed your debates. So full of holes yet so determined.

By Azeron
You have probably lived a sheltered life and haven't seen too much of this in your lifetime. I can't even begin to count the number of people I have known who have lost thier sanity by going for this promisous hype. Its bullshit. half of the lesbiens/gays/bis I have known in my life were sexually abused in thier home lifes. another 3rd used sed to be abusive to another as part of thier sexual kick. About 10 -20 percent is what I would consider to be "normal", they are just like "normal" straight people except they have a different preference. (not counting those who had relationship problems with one of thier parents)

And you pulled these numbers out of which brown paper bag?

Next Why would you care whether your partner was bi or not? Is your sexlife so pitiful that you need to get your kicks from a thrid person?

You supreme hyprocrit! You earlier brag about having your own threesome and yet you rag on those who are bi or gay!

From my own experience, the only sex that is truely great is sex with someone you deeply care about, becasue it complements your relationship by intensifyng your commintment to each other, whuch is not something you can do by bringing a 3rd person in the bed.

See above comment.

So I get it you have apoint of view, and anyone that disaggrees with it is intolerent? Boy back in the day tolerence was about respecting other people's rights to different points of views. You are the bigot.

You can have your own misinformed points of view any day and you won't gain any respect for them. I wouldn't go as far as call you a bigot. You more of a hypocrit.

Durandal -- LMAO, That post has to be the "daisy cutter" of rabid pro-homosexual posting. full of contradictions, stupidity. and well I really don;t think ther is a word in the language for the level of false dichotomys.
Purely without any substance. It is rare that I see something so devoid of content and full of flames little intelligence.

where to start, where to start.

"My position is that gay people are people just like everyone else and that their sexuality has no bearing on their personality or background."

"It's not a decision. It's decided at the genomic level. This has been brought to all our attentions repeatedly in this thread, and yet you ignore it. "

You accuse me of sweeping generalizations in one breath, and do it yourself in the next. you are such an idiot. All in one post, how do you do it?

I have a gay friend, and he lives a completely normal, mundane life, doesn't do gay pride parades, and keeps his personal life personal. Looks like your generalization has failed.

hmm, you accuse me taking an example of a few and puttign them on a population as a whole, adn then you do it!!! LMAO. Does the words sophistry and intellectual dishonesty mean anything to you. You say that I said all gays are something or otehr, put the very quote you use, uses words like "half" and "most". Really brillaint. Do you actually write these posts, or do you just take a web page from the rainbow alliance into a random paragraph generator and let it rip?

"eally?! I'd love to see you explain that. I'm not the one saying that homosexuals and bisexuals are all attention-craving, neglected misfits. Where do I ascribe personality traits to a specific group based solely upon the fact that its members are members of that group? Do you even know what bigotry is? Or is it just something you throw around whenever someone tells you how stupid your ideas are? You remind me of deluded teenagers who call everything they don't like "ignorant," without any real grasp of the meaning of the word. All they know is "Duh, ignorant is bad, right?" You seem to think that a bigot is anyone who harshly criticizes your views. By your definition, debate tournaments all throughout the country are filled with bigots! "

"That's right. I want logic and evidence from you, because you're making the claim. My views are irrelevant, but I've outlined them to you anyway, with supporting evidence of a gay person that betrays your stereotype, therefore your stereotype is wrong. The only thing you can conclusively generalize about gay people is that they're gay. They're not all social deviants who were neglected as children. "

This has got to be gold, first you tell me you are making a point, then you tell me you not making any points. Which is it?? LOL this is what you are really saying "My argument is Substantiated" next moment "I refuse to substantiate my argument because I don;t feel like I have to back up my cristisims with anything than insults and insinuations"

Do you really think you are doing anything than shouting out propaganada?

"Your point of view is simply bigoted, and many have told you why, including me. You're taking your negative experiences with gays/bisexuals and holding them up as the standard. I have a gay friend, and he lives a completely normal, mundane life, doesn't do gay pride parades, and keeps his personal life personal. Looks like your generalization has failed. "

Perhaps you haven't noticed that a great deal of this site is deciated to dispelling religiously held beleif by say trekers. Allot of trekkers say that the federation will beat the empire no matter what. You know what there are allot of them hurling insults and putting up idiotic arguments, doesn;t mean that they are right. By your logic Mike is wrong and an anti trek bigot simply becasue there are allot of them. You should rethink your position.

"You prefer to lump gay people all into the limp-wristed, lisped, gay stereotype. Why do I have to explain that stereotypes are inherently flawed notions to you? "

Where did I say that Gays were limp wristed or lisped? I don;t think that I hgave said anything of the sort. I personalyy with my own eyes seen some very masculine bodybuilder gasy men. I have seen gays that you would never think were gay unless they tell you.

"My "bigoted stupidity"? The fact that you can say that with a straight face is sickening. You're sitting here, telling everyone that gay people are all self destructive, even though they can lead perfectly normal lives. What about impotent men? Should we lump them into your "Groups I am Intolerant Of" list? After all, if everyone was impotent, the human race wouldn't reproduce, and some people are born impotent from birth. What about people who choose not to have children? Are they "self destructive," as well? "

I never said that they can't leave perfectly normal lives. I said that it is destructive, but destructiveness depends on the person. But unless there is some medical technology involved or some woman who donates or sells her womb, it results in an neglesct to fundemental imperative to reproduce.

As for your next argument, its a false dichotomoy, the dichontomy I lump together is a dichotomoy of choice not coincidence or circumstance. It is established fact that children that are raped homosexually by a father or by a strangerr are by far more likely to engage in homosexual acts than those that do not.

As for women and men who choose not to reproduce. For people with incurable genetic dieses, I think its a noble gesture of sacrafice to society to help stem the suffering of genetic dieses. I hope that soon that these ailments will be sured with genetice technology, or some other medication.
As for people who are other wise healthy and choose not to, I think thats self destuctive as well. I consider it everyones job to contribute to the continuence of the civilization they choose to reside in, so it may survive and flourish, and that means reproduction. But another main one is negating the darwinian imperative to reporduce. We were made to do it. There is no denying it. Its true and cannot be denied.

There was a book written recently about women who refused to approcreate,(listening to rabid feminism) and towards thier 40's after haveing it all, decided they wanted to have children. But the problem is that the closer you get to the end of your productive cycle, women become epodentially infertile. only about 20% of women over 40 can give birth, and birth defects are more common amoung those that do. (my own mother was fortunate with my little brother and sister bearing them in her mid 40's)

Allot of women who listened to feminists who already had children feel like they were robbed of something very important to them. They feel as if they were mugged by idealogy

"It's not a decision. It's decided at the genomic level. This has been brought to all our attentions repeatedly in this thread, and yet you ignore it. "

Like i said above ther are proof positive instances of homosexuality being the symtpom of being raped as a child. Much like promiscutiy amoung women can sometimes be traced to rape earlier on. I happen to know of that one personnally myself, haveing a distant cousin being raped by her father. She even went around the family trying to spread her legs for anyone who would take her up on the offer (we had to have her commited becasue of that)

I don't think the science is there to declare it geneic, though there are people who based on studies (basically a generalization) have declared it to be true. I don't know, but I can't say they have been able to find a gene put it into a rat and automatically make them gay 100% of the time And many of these studies are just poor science pushed by idealouges

"You remind me of the "scientists" back in the 19th and early 20th centuries that did "research" to "prove" that black people were intellectually inferior to whites. Sure, based on the data, you could make that conclusion, but the data was flawed. Your data (experiences with gays/bisexuals) is not indicative of the whole, so you can't make judgments about the whole based on it. But, that doesn't stop you, Mister "All Bisexuals are Just Trying to Get Attention."

You are the one who has made any sweeping statements regarding genetics and people haveing to be gay and therefore acting a certain way. You are the one with a stereotype asnd bigoted. By your reasoning since homosexually is genetic and if that person somehow has a kid, that kid MUST be gay. thats pretty sweeping, thats pretty unfounded, its pretty sterotypical, in short bigotry.

You are te one saying that gays are bourne defective. I think suicide is generally elf destructive behaviour, Ithink that shooting heroin in your viens is destructive behavior -- all persoanly choice and they are only doing it to themselves, hamring no one else, but destructive behavior.

You say gays are genetic and compare them to stierile men and women insinuating its genetic and defective in thier behavoir, and that they are born that way. Thats truely insulting to tell someone that thier destiny lies in thier genes and ther is no choice whether they shootup heroine , commit suicide or engage in homosexuality. Do you think evolution would allow a gay gene into the the gene pool? it would be a contradiction of Darwinism.
becasue those effected would have dieds out a long time ago on the evolutionairy ladder.

"Who is anyone advising? Someone asked for opinions on homosexuality, not advice for homosexuals. You speak of homosexuals like they're criminals or something. "
{/quote]

You must be the one calling them criminals, I have never said such a thing.

"Don't you get it? The fact that you're making this analogy means that you think gay people are all deficient or inferior because they're gay! That's bigotry! "

I never called them deficent. I said they are simply engaging in self destructive behavior You are the only one saying that they are genetically defiecent and can't help themselves.

"The more I read your tripe, the more I'm disgusted by you."

The more I read your crap, the more I think we need to reform our public school system.

What, not accepting your hasty generalizations is "garbage"? You didn't read a single word I write, did you?

Could I quote you so much to not have read your what you said. I called what it is., barely intelligeable demagougic garbage.

Next of Kin,

thnaks for a reasonable interpitation of my posts.

You right in some regardthat I am a bit hypocritical, In truth, I don;t advocate people having sex with more than 1 person. It wasn't a fun thing for me, an emotional thing. 2 girls and I am doing most of the work. but more than that, hvaing sex with 1 girl I cared about was far more satisfying than 2 i didn't give a dam about.

when anyone asks me, I tell them, you don't need the problems. 1 woman is more than enough. (unless yuou need 4 hands for a backrub lol)

I am not rabidly anything. I think there is a great deal of mush in life you wiggle around in. but somethng are just stupid. Me I am just sticking to girls I can relate to,. Friend firsty lovwr second. hey cheesey but it works for me.

But still I havent heard a good reason why homosexuality is self-destructive. I think its noble of so many guys deemed cute and sensitive by women to take themselves out of the competetion.

*stands up and salutes cute gay men all over the world*

Wouldnt get laid without 'ya! (not that i get much with ya, but at least it makes me think i have a chance... )

good point, I think I addressed that a bit earlier, but my do-gooder side ussually prevails over my evil side.

I just hate seeing people harm themselves for no good reason.

I think that my reasoning has to do with a duality of reasoning.

1) Obligation to the Civilization
2) Obligation to yourself

Society does allot for you, It puts you in school. In my state they insvest about 200k on educational expenses to develope a child to becoming a productive member of scoiety. It provides an army to protect you from invaders, it gives you a police force to protect you from criminals. It gives you a car, food, television, internet, trial by jury, rights, free speech, a job, and countless other things.

People take these things, and think they have no obligation to the society of which provided the enviroemnt in which such things can exist. Its like an entitlement, completely free. Well your right it is free to take in this society, but you have a moral obligation to the society to GIVE BACK. and CONTRIBUTE.

If you don't undrstand why, you should leave and see what its like living in countries where the moral obligation to contribute is much lowerr and see how you like it. (I don't think you will like, but I am glad to see you putting your philosophy to action)

This contribution is also in the form of the continuity of Civilization, which can only occur if people approcreate. To deny this is a slap in the face to all those who have come before, all those that continue to honor the sacrafice and commitment which made all those good things in your life possible.

You know its not really like its a chore or a debt. Children bring with them thier own joy into your life.

In the end there is allot of choice and not allot of choice at teh same time. Only you can decide how much you will up to. The less you give back, the less moral you are, the more of hypocrit you are. "good enough to livce in, but not good enough to make sure others can enjoy it"

2) As for the biological imperative, to yourself -- well, ithose that refuse to belevie there is one to reproduce are self weeded out of the geen pool. Cosial darwinism is so cruel.


Yah all of this is facist, extremely facist really, doesn't make it any less true. life ican look like a cold dark place if you look at it with tinted shades.

Azeron, keep your bigoted comments to yourself.

You know really know nothing about homosexuals or bisexuals, except ridiculous stereotypes.

They don't do this to "get attention", but because they're born that way. Nothing more.

You're making hasty generalizations, such as it's "self-destructive", with no evidence besides your limited personal experiences, which obviously doesn't apply to every gay and bi-sexual out there.

And yes, I think my bisexual girlfriend was cool. So please be quiet.

I'm going to skip over all of your long-winded bullshit, Azeron, and just wipe the slate clean. All the little tangents are gone, and we're going to stick to the meat of the argument.

•You have provided no evidence for your premise "not reproducing is self destruction." You simply assume it to be true, along with assuming that every member of the human race has some overbearing obligation to reproduce because they have a drive to do so. There is a huge difference between a drive to do something and an obligation to do something, and you have failed to demonstrate what is "self destructive" about repressing/ignoring/not experiencing the drive to reproduce.

•You have left the meaning of "self destructive" completely ambiguous. What do you mean? Gay people can live to be 80 years old, just like anyone else. Gay people can also be emotionally stable, just like everyone else. So, what do you mean?

•There is no research linking homosexuality to genetics; this was a mistake on my part.

•There is research which shows that sexuality does not exist in the form of 2 mutually exclusive groups. It is unique to each individual, and it varies widely. The article from the APA can be found here:

http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr01/erotic.html

Azeron, you dumb shit, people are not fulfilling your obligations to society by reproducing like rabbits. There are too fucking many of us already, and you are echoing the sort of simple-minded idiocy that the Roman Catholic church preaches for Africa (eg- "continue breeding children you can't feed, don't learn about contraception or safe sex because promiscuity is worse than AIDS").

Your "logic" is based on the notion that the human race would die out if everyone were homosexual. I have never seen a better example of the black/white fallacy. Tell me: how would society do if everyone were male? It would die out! Does that mean it's wrong to be male? Tell me: how would society do if everyone were a math teacher? The whole system would fall apart! Does that mean it's wrong to be a math teacher?

If you want to contribute to society, go help somebody. Volunteer. Create a great piece of art or better yet, invent something useful. But ranting at homosexuals for not breeding is simply moronic. Your conduct in this post has been not only morally deplorable and hopelessly ignorant, but also monumentally stupid and irretrievably irrational. Everyone say hello to our latest Village Idiot.

Azeron wrote:good point, I think I addressed that a bit earlier, but my do-gooder side ussually prevails over my evil side.

[snip a lot that didnt adress my point]

Yah all of this is facist, extremely facist really, doesn't make it any less true. life ican look like a cold dark place if you look at it with tinted shades.

Hmm, yes, all very interesting... but can you again explain why its self destructive, I must be a bit dense not to get it since:

1) AIDS isnt a homosexual problem any more than cancer is.

2) Even if every single person on this planat was gay, we could still reproduce.

But, hey, since im just a stupid n00b, bathe me in your wisdom, oh glorious one.
Oh, and keep it short and to the point, im dense remeber.

Azeron, are you saying gays like myself do not contribute to society? if so here is a list of gay people that have contributed to society.

Sappho (600 B.C.) Greek Poetess
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
Plato (427-347 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
Alexander The Great (356-323 B.C.) Macedonian King and Military Leader
Wu (140-87 B.C.) Chinese Emperor
Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) Roman Emperor
Richard the Lion Hearted (1157-1199) English King and Crusader
Edward II (1254-1327) English King
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Renaissance Artist, Teacher, Scientist and Inventor
Michelangelo (1475-1564) Italian Renaissance Artist and Sculptor
Montezuma II (1480-1520) Aztec Emperor
Julius III (1487-1555) Catholic Pope
Ieyasu Tokugawa (1542-1616) Japanese Shogun and founder of the Edo Shogunate
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626) British Statesman and Writer
Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) English dramatist and poet
Christina (1626-1689) Swedish Queen
Peter the Great (1672-1725) Russian Czar
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) Prussian King and Military Leader
Madame de Stael (1766-1817) French Writer and Intellectual
Lord Byron (1788-1824) British Poet
Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1875) Danish Poet and Writer
Margaret Fuller (1810-1850) Euro-American Writer and Journalist
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Euro-American Philosopher, Naturalist, and Peace Activist
Walt Whitman (1819-1892) Euro-American Poet
Herman Melville (1819-1891) Euro-American Writer
Chief Crazy Horse (Tashunca witco) (1849-1877) Oglala Sioux Chief
Peter I. Tchaikovsky (1840-1893) Russian Composer
Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Irish Writer and Dramatist
Dame Ethel Smyth (1858-1944) British Composer, Writer, and Activist
Marcel Proust (1871-1922) French Writer
Sergei Diaghileff (1872-1929) Russian Ballet Impresario
Vita Sackville-West (1892-1962) British Writer
Vaslav Nijinsky (1890-1950) Russian Ballet Dancer
Edward Carpenter (1844-1929) British Author and Gay Rights Pioneer
Willa Cather (1873-1947) Euro-American Writer and Critic
Colette (1873-1954) French Writer and Actress
W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965) British Writer and Dramatist
Alice B. Toklas (1877-1967) Euro-American Writer; Stein's Domestic Partner
Gertrude Stein (1874-1946) Euro-American Writer and Art Collector; Toklas' Domestic Partner
Bessie Smith (1894-1937) African-American Blues Singer and Entertainer
E.M. Forster (1879-1970) British Writer
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) British Writer and Publisher
Ernst Rohm (1887-1933) German Nazi and SA Leader
T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) (1888-1935) British Soldier
Jean Cocteau (1889-1963) French Writer and Filmmaker
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) British Economist and Nobel Prize Winner
Cole Porter (1893-1964) Euro-American Composer
Bayard Rustin (1910-87) African-American Civil Rights, Labor Rights, & Peace Activist/Leader
Alan Turing (1912-1954) British Mathematician and Computer Scientist
James Baldwin (1924-1987) African-American Writer and Civil Rights Activist
Truman Capote (1924-1984) Euro-American Author
Tennessee Williams (1914-1983) Euro-American Dramatist
Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987) Belgian-American Writer
Federico Garcia Lorca (1894-1936) Spanish Poet and Dramatist
Christopher Isherwood (1904-1986) British Author
W.H. Auden (1907-1973) British Poet and Writer
Harvey Milk (1930-1978) Euro-American Politician
Audre Lorde (1934-1992) African-American Writer and Activist
Martina Navratilova (1956- ) Czechoslovakian-American Tennis Champion and Activist
Andy Warhol (1930-1987) Euro-American Pop Artist
Frieda Kahlo (1907-1954) Mexican Artist and Activist
Gore Vidal (1925- ) Euro-American Writer
Rudolf Nureyev (1938-1993) Russian dancer
Freddie Mercury (1946-1991) British Singer/songwriter/musician
Elton John (1947 - ) British Singer/songwriter/musican
Janis Ian (1951 - ) Euro-American Singer/songwriter/musician
Nathan Lane (1956 - ) Euro-American Actor
Ellen Degeneres (1958 - ) Euro-American Comedian/actor
Melissa Etheridge (1961 - ) Euro-American Singer/songwriter/musician
k. d. lang (1961 - ) Canadian Singer/songwriter

Here is a list of openly gay politicians who gasp contribute to society

M *Jim Kolbe (R) United States Representative, Arizona [5]
M *Barney Frank (D) United States Representative, Massachusetts [4]
F *Tammy Baldwin (D) United States Representative, Wisconsin [2]

M Michael Guest United States Ambassador to Romania

F Dale McCormick State Treasurer, Maine

F *Sheila James Kuehl (D) State Senator, California [23] Los Angeles
F Susan Walsh Longley (D) State Senator, Maine [11] Knox/Waldo Co.
F Cheryl Ann Jacques (D) State Senator, Massachusetts [Norfolk, Bristol and Middlesex] Needham
M Thomas K. Duane (D) State Senator, New York [27] New York
F Kate Brown (D)@ State Senator, Oregon [7] Portland

M Edward M. Poelstra (R) State Representative, Arizona [14] Tucson
M **Kenneth D. Cheuvront(D) State Representative, Arizona [25] Phoenix
M *Steve May (R) State Representative, Arizona [26] Phoenix
F *Evelyn C. Mantilla (D)@ State Representative, Connecticut [4] Hartford
M *Arthur J. Feltman (D) State Representative, Connecticut [6] Hartford
M *Patrick J. Flaherty (D) State Representative, Connecticut [8] Coventry
F Karla Drenner (D) State Representative, Georgia [66] Avondale Estates
M *Larry McKeon (D) State Representative, Illinois [34] Chicago
M Scott W. Cowger (D) State Representative, Maine [92] Hallowell
M Michael W. Quint (D) State Representative, Maine [33] Portland
F Maggie L. McIntosh (D) State Representative (Majority Leader), Maryland [42] Baltimore
M Jarrett T. Barrios (D) State Representative, Massachusetts [Middlesex 28]
F Elizabeth A. Malia (D) State Representative, Massachusetts [Suffolk 11]
M *Christopher Kolb (D) State Representative, Michigan [53] Washtenaw Co.
M *Scott Dibble (DFL) State Representative, Minnesota [60B] Hennepin Co.
F *Karen J. Clark (DFL) State Representative, Minnesota [61A] Hennepin Co.
M *Tim C. Van Zandt (D) State Representative, Missouri [38] Kansas City
F Christine Kaufmann (D) State Representative, Montana [53] Helena
M McKim W. Mitchell (D) State Representative, New Hampshire [Cheshire 03]
M Raymond C. Buckley (D) State Representative, New Hampshire [Hillsborough 44]
M Nick Panagopolous (D) State Representative, New Hampshire [Hillsborough 47]
M James R. Splaine (D) State Representative, New Hampshire [Rockingham 34]
F Marlene M. DeChane (D) State Representative, New Hampshire [Strafford 06]
M Christopher L. Hughes(D)State Representative, New Hampshire [Strafford 14]
M *David N. Cicilline (D) State Representative, Rhode Island [4] Providence
M *Michael S. Pisaturo (D) State Representative, Rhode Island [21] Cranston
F Nancy C. Hetherington(D)State Representative, Rhode Island [28] Cranston
M **Glen Maxey (D) State Representative, Texas [51] Austin
F *Jackie Biskupski (D) State Representative, Utah [30] Salt Lake City
M *William J. Lippert (D) State Representative, Vermont [Chittenden 6]
M Robert Dostis (D) State Representative, Vermont [Washington-Chittenden 1]
M *Joe McDermott (D) State Representative, Washington [34] Seattle
M *Edward B. Murray (D) State Representative, Washington [43] Olympia

F *Carole V. Migden (D) State Assemblymember, California [13] San Francisco
F *Jackie Goldberg (D) State Assemblymember, California [45] Los Angeles
F *Christine Kehoe (D) State Assemblymember, California [76] San Diego
M *David R. Parks (D) State Assemblymember, Nevada [41] Las Vegas
F Deborah J. Glick (D) State Assemblymember, New York [66] New York
M *Mark Pocan (D) State Assemblymember, Wisconsin [78] Madison

M Neil G. Giuliano (R) Mayor, Tempe, Arizona
M Jim Stork Mayor, Wilton Manors, Florida
F Joanne E. Trapani President (Mayor), Oak Park, Illinois
F Karen Geraghty Mayor, Portland, Maine [2]
F Mary Clare Higgins Mayor, Northampton, Massachusetts
M Gerald Ulrich Mayor, Bunceton, Missouri
M John Shields (D) Mayor, Nyack, New York
M Dan Stewart (R) Mayor, Plattsburgh, New York
M Michael Nelson (D) Mayor, Carrboro, North Carolina

M *James McNamara Deputy Mayor, Bloomington, Indiana

F Susan Leal (D) City/County Treasurer, San Francisco Co., CA

F Kim Painter (D) County Recorder and Registrar, Johnson Co., IA

M Jonathan Cooper (D) County Legislator, Suffolk Co., New York [18]
F Katherine Luz Herrera(D)County Legislator, Tompkins Co., New York [5]

M Tom Ammiano (D) Board of Supervisors (President), San Francisco, CA [9]
M *Mark Leno (D) Board of Supervisors, San Francisco, CA [8]
M Richard S. Gordon Board of Supervisors, San Mateo Co., CA [3]
M Jay Fisette (D) Board of Supervisors (Chair), Arlington Co., VA

M Christopher Swope (D) County Commissioner (Chair Pro-Tem), Ingham Co., Michigan
F Julia Boseman (D) County Commissioner, New Hanover Co., NC
M Gerry Hansen County Commissioner, Pike Co., Pennsylvania

M James R. McGill Borough Council, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania [2]

M Larry Gierer City Commissioner, Oakland Park, Florida
F Kecia Cunningham City Commissioner, Decatur, Georgia [2]
M Seth Chafetz City Commissioner (Mayor Pro Tem), Birmingham, Michigan

F Patricia Pryor (D) Common Council, Ithaca, New York [1]
M Michael Verveer Common Council (President Pro Tem), Madison, Wisconsin [4]
F Judy Olson Common Council, Madison, Wisconsin [6]
M Matt Sloan Common Council, Madison, Wisconsin [13]

M Robert Brennan City Council, Arvin, California
M Kriss Worthington City Council, Berkeley, California [7]
M *Gregory S. Pettis City Council (Mayor Pro Tem), Cathedral City, CA
F Libby Cowan City Council, Costa Mesa, California
M Kevin Dowling City Council (Mayor Pro Tem), Hayward, California
M Dan Baker City Council (Vice Mayor), Long Beach, California [2]
M Danny Wan City Council, Oakland, California [2]
M Ronald Oden (D) City Council, Palm Springs, California
F Toni Atkins City Council, San Diego, California [3]
M Ken Yeager City Council, San Jose, California [6]
M Larry Forester City Council, Signal Hill, California
M Michael J. Noll City Council (Vice Mayor), Signal Hill, California
F Ellen Ward City Council, Signal Hill, California
M Gary Cloutier City Council, Vallejo, California
M John J. Duran City Council, West Hollywood, California
M John Heilman City Council, West Hollywood, California
M *Steve Martin City Council (Mayor Pro Tem), West Hollywood, California
M Jeffrey Prang City Council, West Hollywood, California
M David A. Catania (R) City Council, Washington, District of Columbia [AL]
M Jim Graham (D) City Council, Washington, District of Columbia [1]
F Patty Sheehan City Council, Orlando, Florida [4]
M Gary Resnick City Council, Wilton Manors, FL
M Craig Sherritt City Council, Wilton Manors, Florida
F Cathy Woolard City Council (President), Atlanta, Georgia
F Anne Fauver City Council, Atlanta, Georgia [6]
M Bobby Carnes City Council, East Point, Georgia [A]
M Alex Prince City Council, East Point, Georgia
M Peter E. O`Donnell City Council, Portland, Maine [1]
F Carol A. Gandee City Council, Mount Rainer, Maryland [1]
M Bryan K. Knedler City Council, Mount Rainer, Maryland [2]
M Bruce R. Williams City Council, Takoma Park, Maryland [3]
M Kenneth E. Reeves City Council, Cambridge, Massachusetts
M Michael R. Bardsley City Council (President), Northampton, MA [AL]
M Graig Covey City Council, Ferndale, Michigan
M Robert Lilligren City Council (Vice President), Minneapolis, Minnesota [8]
M Gary Schiff City Council, Minneapolis, Minnesota [9]
M Scott Benson City Council, Minneapolis, Minnesota [11]
M John Schultz City Council, Atlantic City, New Jersey [AL]
F Patti J. Bushee City Council, Santa Fe, New Mexico [1]
M Richard Conti City Council, Albany, New York [6]
F Margarita Lopez (D) City Council, New York, New York [2]
F Christine Quinn (D) City Council, New York, New York [3]
M Philip Reed (D) City Council, New York, New York [8]
M William Schmidt (R) City Council, Peekskill, New York
M Tim O. Mains (D) City Council, Rochester, New York [AL]
M Louis P. Escobar (D) City Council, Toledo, Ohio [AL]
M Scott Meisner City Council, Eugene, Oregon [7]
F Gail Hoover City Council, Allentown, Pennsylvania [AL]
M John Loza (D) City Council (Deputy Mayor Pro Tem), Dallas, Texas [2]
M *Ed Oakley City Council, Dallas, Texas [6]
F Annise D. Parker City Council, Houston, Texas [AL, Position 1]
F Ann Manthei City Council, Castle Rock, Washington
M Curt Pavola City Council, Olympia, Washington [4]
M Jim Moeller City Council, Vancouver, Washington

M Brian Cafferty (D) Town Board, Rosendale, New York

M Stephen J. Zemo (R) Board of Selectman, Ridgefield, Connecticut
F Cheryl L. Andrews Board of Selectmen, Provincetown, Massachusetts

M Mark Sanchez Board of Education, San Francisco, California
F Debra D. Simone Board of Education, West Haven, Connecticut
F Mirian Saez Board of Education, Washington, District of Columbia [AL]
M Al Oertwig Board of Education (Chair), St. Paul, Minnesota
M Timothy Nickerson Board of Education, Nashua, New Hampshire

F Kathryn A. Turner School Board of Trustees, Laguna Beach, CA
M Zeke Zeidler School Board of Trustees, Redondo Beach, CA
M Gary Miller School Board of Trustees, Sacramento, CA
M Mark Loveless School Board of Trustees, Chicago, Illinois
M Dennis Van Avery School Board of Trustees, Minneapolis, MN
M Nellson Jacobs-Moore School Board of Trustees (President), New York, NY [1]
M Brian Ellner School Board of Trustees, New York, NY [2]
M Doug Robinson School Board of Trustees, New York, NY [2]
M Larry Suer School Board of Trustees, New York, NY [3]
M Kevin Allard-Mendelson School Board of Trustees, New York, NY [15]
F Angelica Rovira School Board of Trustees, New York, NY
F Gloria Faley (D) School Board of Trustees, Chapel Hill-Carrboro, NC

M Todd A. Heywood Community College Board of Trustees, Lansing, MI
F Linda Siegle Community College Board of Trustees (Chair), Santa Fe, NM

M Peter D. Rosenstein University Board of Trustees (Vice Chair),
University of the District of Columbia,
Washington, DC

M James Gelin Public Defender, De Kalb County, Georgia

F Roslyn Garfield Town Moderator, Provincetown, Massachusetts

M Bill Chambers Town Clerk, Morristown, New Jersey

F Alba E. Martinez Commissioner of the Department of Human
Services, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

M *Dr. Mitchell Katz Director of the Department of Health, San Francisco, CA

M Wayne Mahlke Community Board, [Queens #4], Corona, New York
M Kyle Merker Community Board (Chairman), [Manhattan #5], New York, NY
M Scott Isebrand (D) Community Board (2nd Vice-Chair), [Manhattan #5], New York, NY
M Brian Landeche Community Board, [Manhattan #5], New York, NY

M Rod Krueger Library Board of Trustees, Minneapolis, MN [AL]

M Dan L. Peterkin Human Relations Commission, Fort Worth, TX [4]

M Tom Radulovich Board Of Directors, Bay Area Rapid Transit
District, San Francisco, California [9]

M Mike Dupree Constable, Dallas Co., Texas [Precinct 5]

F Margo L. Frasier (D) County Sheriff, Travis Co., Texas

F Deborah A. Batts U.S. District Judge, New York (Southern District)

M David A. Mills State Appeals Court Judge, Massachusetts

M Jerold A. Krieger Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles Co., CA
M John Ladner Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles Co., CA
M Robert J. Sandoval Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles Co., CA
F Stephanie Sautner Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles Co., CA
Teri Schwartz Superior Court Judge, Los Angeles Co., CA
M Charles F. Haines Superior Court Judge, San Francisco Co., CA
F Donna J. Hitchens Superior Court Judge, San Francisco Co., CA
M Kevin M. McCarthy Superior Court Judge, San Francisco Co., CA
F Ksenia Tsenin Superior Court Judge, San Francisco Co., CA
F Carol Yaggy Superior Court Judge, San Francisco Co., CA
F Linda E. Giles Superior Court Judge, Suffolk Co., MA

F Janet E. Garrow District Court Judge (Bellevue), King Co., WA

F Jean Rietschel Municipal Court Judge (Seattle), King Co., WA
F Shelley J. Gaylord Municipal Court Judge, Madison, WI

M Scott M. Bernstein (D) Circuit Court Judge (Juvenile Division), Dade Co., FL
M Thomas R. Chiola Circuit Court Judge, Cook Co., IL
F Nancy J. Katz Circuit Court Judge, Cook Co., IL
M Sebastian T. Patti Circuit Court Judge, Cook Co., IL
F Lori M. Wolfson Circuit Court Judge, Cook Co., IL
M David Gernant Circuit Court Judge, Multnomah Co., OR
F Janice R. Wilson Circuit Court Judge, Multnomah Co., OR

M Mark King Leban County Court Judge (Domestic Violence Division), Dade Co., FL
F Victoria S. Sigler County Court Judge (Criminal Division), Dade Co., FL

F Donna Groman Commissioner, Superior Court, Los Angeles Co., CA



So sod off!

Here's my two cents.

I don't care if your gay, a person being gay is no different than being straight to me.

And if you think homosexuallity is not natural you obviously haven't owned many animals. I've owned a leasbian dog, a leasbian chicken, many gay rooster(no they were not fighting, I've raised a lot of chickens and they were not fighting) and a gay guennea chicken.

Alyrium Denryle,

Quite a list but I'm afraid I don't completely understand some of the symbols used in the description:

M *Jim Kolbe (R) United States Representative, Arizona [5]

The "M" means "male" and the "R" means "Republican" (and the "D" for "Democrat"). What is the "[5]" supposed to mean? As well, what is the asterisk for?

I'm just looking for a legend to help those of us who don't fully understand the list. Additionally, are all the names you listed, the ones after your statement "Here is a list of openly gay politicians who gasp contribute to society" a list of people who are currently serving or is it including all those who have served within a certain time period? As well, do you have a link or links for that above information?

XPViking

Theory (Educated guess actually): The rate of intolerance to fault by a program is inversely proportional to the quality of its code. Replace "fault" with "alternative lifestyle", "program" with "person", and "code" with "upbringing and education"

Yes, I actually do jack off to picture of Wesley Crusher, because despite what anyone says, he's very sexy, and I'm bisexual. - User099

The one good thing about Trek.... BOYS IN SPANDEX! Lata and Happy Fragging!

When I first saw posts from Azeron on this thread, I thought it was someone playing at being fascist to get a rise out of people. Now I'm not so sure. . . that degree of stupidity and ignorance indicates a real talent for it.

Anyway, I'm a great believer in lost causes, so here's a shot at the re-education of Azeron (some of this repeats earlier posts - but it bears repeating):

• Bigotry is a matter of considering someone 'inferior' in some way, simply due to their membership in a group, when that membership has NO bearing on the quality in question. Examples of bigotry: "All atheists are immoral" "Most homosexuals are self-destructive". The following is not bigotry, it's a personal insult: "You, Azeron, are an apparent fuckwit who has shown no inclination whatsoever to listen to rational argument, and who persists in spouting bigoted nonsense"
• Obviously Mike gave you, Azeron, too much credit in assuming you were implicitly accepting the fallacious argument "homosexuality is bad, because it is closely linked to promiscuity and high incidence of AIDS, and those two things are bad" (it's fallacious because the link between homosexuality and the rest of the sentence is not defensible). Instead, you seem to be saying "homosexuality is bad, just because I, Azeron, say it is, and because I, Azeron, have known some bisexuals and gays who were really fucked up people" (problem here being "circular reasoning" and "hasty generalisation").
• A generalisation from personal experience is NOT always a fallacy. It depends on the strength of the conclusion being argued, and the proposed utility and applicability of that conclusion. If someone is attempting to claim that a particular statement holds for "all" cases, then a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove it. If they soften their stance to say "most", then a counter-assertion indicating a differing experience of what 'most' members of the category are like is enough to cast doubt on the generalisation. Personal experience is useful for conjecture until some more systematic evidence is available - but relying on it an argument is never a good idea. If your conclusions are contrary to the opinions of others, particularly the research results of scientists, then you better have some good damn data to back up your arguments!
• The development of human sexuality depends on a lot of factors. The exact nature of those factors, and the exact roles they play is still the subject of a lot of research. The gist of it is that genetics has an obvious role (half a chromosome pair for starters), as does the level of different hormones (such as testosterone and oestrogen) during pregnancy. After birth there are lots of ideas about role models and reaction formation and so forth. Regardless, the question of sexuality is NOT something where a person wakes up one morning and decides "You know what, I think I'm going to become gay." I'm not saying people don't do that - there's a lot of weird people out there, after all - but there is a big difference between wanting and/or pretending to be gay - to shock people or whatever - and actually being gay.
• Pseudo-code can be a useful tool. If you want to give shit to programmers, learn what is and how to distinguish it from the real thing. Failure to do so will just make you look like (more of) a dickhead.
• You, Azeron, happen to be straight, and you quite sensibly recognise that a good relationship depends on being friends first, and lovers second. I wholeheartedly agree. However, the second half of that statement (about good relationships being based on friendship rather than sex) is completely and utterly independent of hetero- or homosexuality.
• As for your bullshit about contributing to society by having children. . . Firstly, the world's problem is NOT that it doesn't have enough humans in it! Secondly, the most critical period in a child's psychological development is that first 5 years. In that time period, the parents obviously play a crucial role in shaping that development, and if they fuck it up (as happens all too often), society pays the price later - through the educational system, the prison system, the legal system, and the general damage done by having to design our society to cope with a high incidence of fuckwits. Now, suppose, just suppose, that people with absolutely no desire to have kids were forced to have them. Do you think they'd make good parents? I don't. But suppose, instead, these people were contributing tax payers, and that this allowed higher welfare payments to parents, so that someone who _wants_ kids, and will give them the love and attention they need, as well as learning the appropriate skills that go into good parenting, such that their children grow up well-adjusted human beings, can choose not to work in order to give the described support to their children. Now, don't you think this second scenario (despite the atrocious sentence structure) might work out just a little better for society as a whole? I certainly do.

You probably spouted more meaningless drivel somewhere along the line that you deserve to have your nose rubbed in (Bad Spot!), but that's enough for now.

"I'm going to skip over all of your long-winded bullshit, Azeron, and just wipe the slate clean. All the little tangents are gone, and we're going to stick to the meat of the argument. "

LMAO, I got you on the run and nailed your bigoted self rightous illogical ass to the wall. "No I wanna take back everything I said and start a again!!" Too late, I take this as a concession of defeat. Nothing less.

"•You have left the meaning of "self destructive" completely ambiguous. What do you mean? Gay people can live to be 80 years old, just like anyone else. Gay people can also be emotionally stable, just like everyone else. So, what do you mean?"

Like I said life is real mushy. and ther is quite a bit of wiggle room, but somethings are just self-destructive. Homosexuality is the deinial and failure to live up to the obligations to yourself and the civilization you were brought into. That simple. I am also saying many people are gay becasue of sexual abuse.(thats throughly documented, go to any child abuse website and you will find more than enough evidence to confirm that) Some people are pressured into being gay or acting gay. (yes I can point an example of that, more than 1) Many men and women who are raped in prison turn gay or bi. Some people are psychologically screwed up by a parent or relative, or close friend. Some people see a movie, or want to part of the clic they find appealing. And yes, there are people who wake up and decide that they want to have sex with members of the same sex.

"•There is research which shows that sexuality does not exist in the form of 2 mutually exclusive groups. It is unique to each individual, and it varies widely. The article from the APA can be found here: "

I never said that people can't be sexually attracted to members of the same sex. I will even admit that people can be sexually attracted to sheep or a German Shepard. Is that self destructive? I think so. but you can argue thje oppisite if you like. As for the APA's acceptence of homosexuality, it was considered deviant up until if I recall correctly 1978, where it abruptly changed positions in one of the most politically charged events in its history. Deveience as a psychological illness is relative to a framework of understanding. if you throw out everything wrong with it, you can come to the conclusion that is even more desireable than hetereosexuality. But that would be absurd. Psychology is not a real science, a great deal of it determines on the perspective of the person making the determineration. But to call a political vote on the behalf the APA conclusive, than you are stretching so muc hthat the rubber band breeks.

"•There is no research linking homosexuality to genetics; this was a mistake on my part. "

"tajke back, take back!!! I don;t want to be a bigot anymore!!" Nice of you to admit that you are wrong, but I have not eliminated the possibility of genes having soemthign to do with it. I am just skeptical. But certain levels of horomoes contribute to it, I can't say, but its not really core to the basis of the argument.

"•You have provided no evidence for your premise "not reproducing is self destruction." You simply assume it to be true, along with assuming that every member of the human race has some overbearing obligation to reproduce because they have a drive to do so. There is a huge difference between a drive to do something and an obligation to do something, and you have failed to demonstrate what is "self destructive" about repressing/ignoring/not experiencing the drive to reproduce. "

You call my logic circular? Your logic is even more circular!! my logic at least makes a pit stop at a darwinism, obligation to civilization, obligation to yourself -- yours just goes "if i t feels good, it must be right". I can only imagine what kind of logic you subscribe to, but it isn't one that follows through. There really can't be "proof" in this situation. One can only look at subjective evidence, evaluate it best as you can, and then make a determination, but to preclude before hand any consideration of the ramifactions of this class of actions to the person themself and to society is as Backassward as it gets.

"Azeron, you dumb shit, people are not fulfilling your obligations to society by reproducing like rabbits. There are too fucking many of us already , and you are echoing the sort of simple-minded idiocy that the Roman Catholic church preaches for Africa (eg- "continue breeding children you can't feed, don't learn about contraception or safe sex because promiscuity is worse than AIDS"). "

Hmm Mike what do you call someone who reproduces and says the world is overpopulated? ohh whats that word I am looking for.....hmmm ohh yah I know hypocrit.

Mikw, your hypocrisy aside -- if you want to argue the problems of overpopulation, start a new thread. I personnaly don;t think the world is overpopulated, and would be hapopy to debate the issue there. May i point out that in catholic afriacan countries the aids infection rate is closer to western standards. Its the protestent Afcrican countries where infection rate is out of control. (Islamic countries in africa reportedly have lower instances, but its nearly impossible to get a picture on what its like in thisose countries, co its probably egreeiously under reported.)

But lets keep the cathoolic church out of this. I didn' bring up god or aids. so please don't act as if I did and contribute any such argument to me. I did not call aids a "gsay" problem. I know better than that. Itn south Africa 56 new born baby girls are raped everyday by hetereosexual men because they think its a cure for aids. Definitely a HUMAN problem.

Now I am really disappointed in you mike. Using Terkky like arguments, Just because you want to beleive something, does not make it true.

"our "logic" is based on the notion that the human race would die out if everyone were homosexual. I have never seen a better example of the black/white fallacy. Tell me: how would society do if everyone were male? It would die out! Does that mean it's wrong to be male? Tell me: how would society do if everyone were a math teacher? The whole system would fall apart! Does that mean it's wrong to be a math teacher? "

Another false dichomtimy. Mine is not a dichotmony about industrial about, circumstance or any other bs. Mine is a dichotomoy of personal choice and its effects on yourself and the society as a whole. But if you want to take the Math Dichotomy to ad aburdum, if ther was no math techers , that would definitely bad, if ther everyone was hetereosexual, it wouldn't be bad.

"If you want to contribute to society, go help somebody. Volunteer. Create a great piece of art or better yet, invent something useful. But ranting at homosexuals for not breeding is simply moronic. Your conduct in this post has been not only morally deplorable and hopelessly ignorant, but also monumentally stupid and irretrievably irrational. Everyone say hello to our latest Village Idiot."

Ahh did I upset you when I criticised your code? I'm sorry, it was just so bad I had to say something.

If I am so ignorant, how come you haven;t come up with one shred of evidence or an infalliable piece of logic to contradict me? I have had you on the defensive right from the start, anbd you keep on rehasing words like "ignorance", "bigotry", "village idiot" as if it were some viable argument. It is completely without substance or merit. it based upon "feel goodism"

I invite you mike. Go rigjht for the jugular -- if you can. I am not afraid of an honest debate, but you act as if you are.

Just to clear a few things up about historical figure in your list.

Sappho (600 B.C.) Greek Poetess
Socrates (470-399 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher
Plato (427-347 B.C.) Greek Teacher and Philosopher

though I am not very familiar with sappho, the posts about plato and socrates being gay are at best misleading. Socrates was quotes many times as admiring the bodies of woman, and the use of female prostitutes. reocrds from this time are more inuendo than anything

"Alexander The Great (356-323 B.C.) Macedonian King and Military Leader "

Did you tell that to his herem or to his kids? More rumoer of bisexuality than anything.

Hadrian (76-138 A.D.) Roman Emperor

Deifnitely Bi sexual. didn't have any children. But he was a mass murdering psychopath. So having him on this list is not such a good idea.

You could also point out Emperoer Tiberius. He was a bisexual pedophile amoung other things. But fiscally responsible.

Richard the Lion Hearted (1157-1199) English King and Crusader

Did you tell that to his wife or his kids?
more inuenndo.

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Renaissance Artist, Teacher, Scientist and Inventor
Michelangelo (1475-1564) Italian Renaissance Artist and Sculptor

more bad histroy, more rumor than anything solid.

Peter the Great (1672-1725) Russian Czar
Frederick the Great (1712-1786) Prussian King and Military Leader

They should really reconsider these. Both have quite a few femlae consorts.

M *Barney Frank (D) United States Representative, Massachusetts [4]

So you really want to include someone who is nortotriously corrupt, and turned hie own home into a gay bathhouse?

ther are many people on the list I have questions about, but I don;t know too much on thier personal life. But I noticed you left another name off that list

Bugs Bunny -- Warner brothers. (yes he was declared gay too)

really laughable. If someone is even rumoured to have a gay expeirience or isn;t runnign around womanizing every shick he sees he is automatically gay. I think thiis attitude so desperate to prove soemthign, is a discredit to what you are advocating, and disgrace to historical accuracey and intellectual honesty.

But thats not really the point here. I didn;t say gays didn;t contribute to society, I simply say that they are neglecting a fundemental obligation to the Continuence of the civilization that they live in, and also to the thier own biological imperative to reproduce.

The list of political figures was takenn from a gay political website.

here is the link to follow
http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/GAY.htm

And here is the legend.


KEY
@...Bisexual
*(Red)...Uncle Tom, can not be trusted to be on our side 100% of the time
*(Black)...Will not be returning to this office at the end of their present term




Note: color not copied

I knew you would have questions but hey I included the good with the bad.

Nick,

So much talking, so much mindles ranting. is it difficult for you to come up with a coherent thought.

Where to begin, where to begin -- the beinging of course!!

"Bigotry is a matter of considering someone 'inferior' in some way, simply due to their membership in a group, when that membership has NO bearing on the quality in question. Examples of bigotry: "All atheists are immoral" "Most homosexuals are self-destructive". The following is not bigotry, it's a personal insult: "You, Azeron, are an apparent fuckwit who has shown no inclination whatsoever to listen to rational argument, and who persists in spouting bigoted nonsense" "

First you accuse me of bigotry, which you define as calling someone infereior. Then you say I said that gays are inferior, which i didn't, then you call me me a fuckwit. Boy that mind of yours is one peice of work to put forward a fundementally contradcitory statement. Do you think that insulting someone's intelligence is calling them infereior? So by your definition your a bigot. It was also a personal insult as well.

Bigorty is prejudice of someone based on an uniformed view, perjudice of someone based upon an informed view is not bigotry, its enlightened discreimination. (you know the ability to tell right from wrong, good from bad) I am against a behavior, an idea, not the people who commit them, so I cannot be a biggot. Your constant barrage of unsupported name calling IS bigotry. You have yet to make a case saying that homosexuality is not destructive. I have put forward a basis for it, now refute it. Or is it you don;t want to argue kmerits because your position is without merit.

"Obviously Mike gave you, Azeron, too much credit in assuming you were implicitly accepting the fallacious argument "homosexuality is bad, because it is closely linked to promiscuity and high incidence of AIDS, and those two things are bad" (it's fallacious because the link between homosexuality and the rest of the sentence is not defensible). Instead, you seem to be saying "homosexuality is bad, just because I, Azeron, say it is, and because I, Azeron, have known some bisexuals and gays who were really fucked up people" (problem here being "circular reasoning" and "hasty generalisation"). "

I certinally don;t need you or mike giving me credit for ideas I do not have or share. So please stop it, or stop trying to debate me.

"A generalisation from personal experience is NOT always a fallacy. It depends on the strength of the conclusion being argued, and the proposed utility and applicability of that conclusion. If someone is attempting to claim that a particular statement holds for "all" cases, then a single counter-example is sufficient to disprove it. If they soften their stance to say "most", then a counter-assertion indicating a differing experience of what 'most' members of the category are like is enough to cast doubt on the generalisation. Personal experience is useful for conjecture until some more systematic evidence is available - but relying on it an argument is never a good idea. If your conclusions are contrary to the opinions of others, particularly the research results of scientists, then you better have some good damn data to back up your arguments! "

Ohh I see your side is allowed to generalize, based upon your experice with 1 or 2 gays, but I am not able to generalize my view with myu expeerience with 30 -40 gay/bi/lesbians. Yah thats fair, thats logical. Thats an argument

in other words you are saying
"But its not fair that you have experience dealing with people and what moticvates them" Yah welll life isn't always fair.

My argument however is not really whether gays do bad things or not, its the core of what they are doing, not only to themselves but to others. I only pointed out gays I have met simply to state that it is a choice to be one or not. there is noone holdign a gun to thier head tellign them otherwise.

The development of human sexuality depends on a lot of factors. The exact nature of those factors, and the exact roles they play is still the subject of a lot of research. The gist of it is that genetics has an obvious role (half a chromosome pair for starters), as does the level of different hormones (such as testosterone and oestrogen) during pregnancy. After birth there are lots of ideas about role models and reaction formation and so forth. Regardless, the question of sexuality is NOT something where a person wakes up one morning and decides "You know what, I think I'm going to become gay." I'm not saying people don't do that - there's a lot of weird people out there, after all - but there is a big difference between wanting and/or pretending to be gay - to shock people or whatever - and actually being gay.

I never said otherwise. genetics and horomone levels may indeed have somethign to do with it. But to asay that people are not in control of thier actions is a slur and insult of the highest magnitude.

"Pseudo-code can be a useful tool. If you want to give shit to programmers, learn what is and how to distinguish it from the real thing. Failure to do so will just make you look like (more of) a dickhead. "

My code is pseudo code? with a few additions it will compile, Mikes Won't, not even in a vb compilier.

do you even know how to code?
I have written over a thousand lines this week.
You wouldn't know a real programmer even if they came over and kicked you in the ass.

You, Azeron, happen to be straight, and you quite sensibly recognise that a good relationship depends on being friends first, and lovers second. I wholeheartedly agree. However, the second half of that statement (about good relationships being based on friendship rather than sex) is completely and utterly independent of hetero- or homosexuality.

I never said a homosexual couldn't be in a loving gay relationship. Please don;t put words in my mouth.

As for your bullshit about contributing to society by having children. . . Firstly, the world's problem is NOT that it doesn't have enough humans in it! Secondly, the most critical period in a child's psychological development is that first 5 years. In that time period, the parents obviously play a crucial role in shaping that development, and if they fuck it up (as happens all too often), society pays the price later - through the educational system, the prison system, the legal system, and the general damage done by having to design our society to cope with a high incidence of fuckwits. Now, suppose, just suppose, that people with absolutely no desire to have kids were forced to have them. Do you think they'd make good parents? I don't. But suppose, instead, these people were contributing tax payers, and that this allowed higher welfare payments to parents, so that someone who _wants_ kids, and will give them the love and attention they need, as well as learning the appropriate skills that go into good parenting, such that their children grow up well-adjusted human beings, can choose not to work in order to give the described support to their children. Now, don't you think this second scenario (despite the atrocious sentence structure) might work out just a little better for society as a whole? I certainly do. "

Look if you don;t think there is enough room on this planet for more people, than shoot yourself, and help save the planet. I peroonally think that the planet can sustain far more people on it than are currently on it. One need only travel accross the US or canada to see all the nothingness to know that the USA alone could supporty billions more people. But this is a topic for another thread.

Do I think we should force people to be parents? Of course not. I don't think we should forcethose who fail to recognize thier own reposnibilites to do soemthign against thier will.

And having children is not such a bad idea for retirement. Kids throughout the ages have been the primairy support for the elederly.

Now are you going to say something or are you going to rantr on about nothing.

Alyrium Denryle

Thanks for the honesty, I figured it was from a political website.
I understanf about the good and the bad, but please note thats what you are doing in the future with the post, so as to not to confuse people who might think that its solid historical fact.

like I said before. I don't harbor anything against you, I just don;t think that what you are doing is a good idea. And I think you are going to harm yourself in the long run. I wish you the best of luck in this regard. But I have no choice but to acknowledge what my mind tells me is true.

And I hope you are as honest and foreright with me on any issue you bleeive me to be wrong with as well.


You me, everyone else and yourself no less than to speak to what you beleive to be true.

Thats Western Civ, not the relativism thats dresses up and looks like it

LMAO, I got you on the run and nailed your bigoted self rightous illogical ass to the wall. "No I wanna take back everything I said and start a again!!" Too late, I take this as a concession of defeat. Nothing less.

Think what you wish. I'm not taking anything back; I'm simply putting my arguments against you in a nice, ordered list instead of paragraphs of ranting, full of nitpicks and tangents. There is not one point you made that isn't addressed in that list.

Like I said life is real mushy. and ther is quite a bit of wiggle room, but somethings are just self-destructive.

I asked you to define "self-destructive," not mindlessly repeat your stance, which you seem to love doing.

Homosexuality is the deinial and failure to live up to the obligations to yourself and the civilization you were brought into.

Evidence that the human drive to reproduce is some overbearing, moral imperative?

That simple.

No, it is simple-minded.

I am also saying many people are gay becasue of sexual abuse.(thats throughly documented, go to any child abuse website and you will find more than enough evidence to confirm that) Some people are pressured into being gay or acting gay. (yes I can point an example of that, more than 1) Many men and women who are raped in prison turn gay or bi. Some people are psychologically screwed up by a parent or relative, or close friend. Some people see a movie, or want to part of the clic they find appealing. And yes, there are people who wake up and decide that they want to have sex with members of the same sex.

And, these people are therefore indicative of the entire gay population? All the APA's research which shows human sexuality to be a spectrum of interests rather than 2 discrete groups simply goes out the window? Sexual preference isn't a black-and-white affair.

I never said that people can't be sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

So, you admit that it is possible, then? Great! Your argument is now dead. You have made assumption that our natural drives equate to moral obligations. Well, gay people are naturally attracted to members of the same sex, so they sexually interact with them. It's their moral obligation, according to you.

I will even admit that people can be sexually attracted to sheep or a German Shepard. Is that self destructive? I think so.

What does "self destructive" mean? You still haven't answered this enormously simple question. Self destructive of their body? Mind? Deterioration of the body and/or mind has not been linked to homosexuality, so what do you mean?

but you can argue thje oppisite if you like. As for the APA's acceptence of homosexuality, it was considered deviant up until if I recall correctly 1978, where it abruptly changed positions in one of the most politically charged events in its history.

Your point? Are you saying that the APA only "accepts" homosexuality under political pressure to do so?

Deveience as a psychological illness is relative to a framework of understanding. if you throw out everything wrong with it, you can come to the conclusion that is even more desireable than hetereosexuality.

If everyone in the world was gay, reproduction would still be possible. All it takes is a male, a female and an erection.

But that would be absurd. Psychology is not a real science, a great deal of it determines on the perspective of the person making the determineration. But to call a political vote on the behalf the APA conclusive, than you are stretching so muc hthat the rubber band breeks.

Hypocrite. You parrot psychological studies and anecdotal evidence linking homosexuality to mistreatment as a child, but then you reject psychological evidence that shows human sexuality is not simply two mutually exclusive groups. Make up your mind. Is psychology admissible as evidence to you, or not?

"tajke back, take back!!! I don;t want to be a bigot anymore!!"

A simple correction. Are you sure that you actually went through university? I'm beginning to suspect that you're just some 15 year-old kid by your tone and grammar/punctuation deficiencies.

Nice of you to admit that you are wrong, but I have not eliminated the possibility of genes having soemthign to do with it.

Yes, you have. You said that all homosexuality was the result of parental mistreatment, thus ruling out the possibility of a genetic cause and letting psychological evidence (a branch of science which you declared to be null and void) rule the day.

I am just skeptical. But certain levels of horomoes contribute to it, I can't say, but its not really core to the basis of the argument.

Neither is "homosexuality is self destructive."

You call my logic circular?

No, I say that it is based on an invalid, unproven assumption. You start with the assumption that every organism's biological drive to reproduce equates to some sort of moral responsibility to do so, then you use that assumption to prove that homosexuality is destructive to an organism, even though there's no evidence to support that conclusion other than your previous assumption. It's not circular. "Circular" is too good a title for the bizarre, mangled form of reasoning you seem to prefer.

Your logic is even more circular!! my logic at least makes a pit stop at a darwinism, obligation to civilization, obligation to yourself

You have yet to prove that these obligations exist.

-- yours just goes "if i t feels good, it must be right".

No, mine goes "If it doesn't hurt anyone or violate anyone's rights, there's nothing wrong with it." You have yet to show how homosexuality has any effect on you.

I can only imagine what kind of logic you subscribe to,

It's the kind they teach in science classes and critical thinking courses. The ones that you would have gone through and been required to pass, had you actually gone to a university, as per your claims.

but it isn't one that follows through. There really can't be "proof" in this situation. One can only look at subjective evidence, evaluate it best as you can, and then make a determination, but to preclude before hand any consideration of the ramifactions of this class of actions to the person themself and to society is as Backassward as it gets.

If you admit that there is only subjective evidence, then you admit that it is impossible to draw an objective conclusion from it. Yet, that's precisely what you're doing. However, the ramifications of your reasoning on society have been the following: Nazi Germany. The ramifications of mine? The end of slavery, equal treatment, the outlawing of discrimination, equal opportunity, et cetera. There is no way that a system based purely on Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest can bring about any of these things, because evolution, while a natural process, is simply cruel, and applying it to society leads to lots of pain and suffering.

You are really a piece of work. It truely amazes me how someone can so methodically shield themselves from reality. and logic. I really get a kick at reading this garbage.

Lets start with your more erronenous positions

No, mine goes "If it doesn't hurt anyone or violate anyone's rights, there's nothing wrong with it." You have yet to show how homosexuality has any effect on you.

Do you sincerely beleive that? Do you really think its any differnt, than "feels goodd, must be right?"
So I take if a firend of your was shooting up heroin, and asked your opinion on whether what he was doing was a good idea, would you tell him, "well you aren't hurting anyone, so it must be good" Are you so afraid of reality and making a non-relative stand that you would advise your friend, in all honesty that what he was doing was good and true?

If you think that heroin is indeed good for you, than you would be in the right, but if you thought heroin is a addictive posin that kills you from the inside out, you would be lieing to him to adivse to do so.

Would you call anyone a bigot who said that it was not a good idea?

It's the kind they teach in science classes and critical thinking courses. The ones that you would have gone through and been required to pass, had you actually gone to a university, as per your claims.

Is that the kind of critical thinking they teach you in class? You should ask for your money back.

BTW I didn;t go to a university, I went to a college.

No, I say that it is based on an invalid, unproven assumption. You start with the assumption that every organism's biological drive to reproduce equates to some sort of moral responsibility to do so, then you use that assumption to prove that homosexuality is destructive to an organism, even though there's no evidence to support that conclusion other than your previous assumption. It's not circular. "Circular" is too good a title for the bizarre, mangled form of reasoning you seem to prefer.

No I wouldn't call what you call logic, logic. Its not even circular logic, its not that advanced. I keep on making the same points over and over again, you just seem to refuse to achnowledge that I make them.

Here are my Assertions that I have provided support for numerous times already.

1) you have an obligation to teh Continuation of the society in which you chose to live
2) you have an obligation to yourself to reproduce according to Darwinian logic. It is a basic function to all life as we know it.

Please refute. You say that sexual desires, are not imperatives. Sexual desires are imperatives!! they are irrefutebly a way your body tells you its reasdy, and wants to reproduce. To deny this, is to deny reality. To misdirect it towards homsexual activity is not only self destructive, but against nature itself, becasue it builds in a psychological desire to have sex with what cannot reproduce. (well in that current configuration) Thats truth, irrefutable. No amount of whinning is going to change that.

A simple correction. Are you sure that you actually went through university? I'm beginning to suspect that you're just some 15 year-old kid by your tone and grammar/punctuation deficiencies.

Hey don;t trhow stones from glass houses. As for your correction, its a major change in premise. And I don;t think you fully realize the consqeuences of taking a sdie of any particular nature/nurture position. Its not a small point. it only shows that you have wishy washy position that is only goverened by emotion of what you want reality to be like NOT logic or consdieration for the welfare of the actual people involved. letting them bury thier heads with your approval in the sand is not helping them.

Yes, you have. You said that all homosexuality was the result of parental mistreatment, thus ruling out the possibility of a genetic cause and letting psychological evidence (a branch of science which you declared to be null and void) rule the day.

How can you quote myu paragraph a just a few lines up and then completly misquote the meaning of that I said. They should really work on critical reading skills for you. In life, things that are bad, are ussually to the layman very obvious. If homosexuality was good or just another way, it would have always been considered so. Not so right after a political/idealogical takeover.

Hypocrite. You parrot psychological studies and anecdotal evidence linking homosexuality to mistreatment as a child, but then you reject psychological evidence that shows human sexuality is not simply two mutually exclusive groups. Make up your mind. Is psychology admissible as evidence to you, or not?

Have I aggreed that bisexcuality exists? Yes. So I have already admmited to this. Do I think its pertinient that people can have bad desires to this discussion no.

So, you admit that it is possible, then? Great! Your argument is now dead. You have made assumption that our natural drives equate to moral obligations. Well, gay people are naturally attracted to members of the same sex, so they sexually interact with them. It's their moral obligation, according to you.

you really should ask for that money back from that proffesor you took that class under.

Just because you have a desire doesn't make a good or productive one. You can in fact desire something extremely harmful to yourself. Does that make it good no. You have to reason out whats going on and decide. As for sexual desire, it can be misdirected, just as any other emotion. Ever get angry at someone, and take it out on somoene that has only done good for you?

Evidence that the human drive to reproduce is some overbearing, moral imperative?

if you don't think humans have a imperative to reproduce, than you you reject both science and logic. There is nothing more to it.

If you admit that there is only subjective evidence, then you admit that it is impossible to draw an objective conclusion from it. Yet, that's precisely what you're doing. However, the ramifications of your reasoning on society have been the following: Nazi Germany. The ramifications of mine? The end of slavery, equal treatment, the outlawing of discrimination, equal opportunity, et cetera. There is no way that a system based purely on Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest can bring about any of these things, because evolution, while a natural process, is simply cruel, and applying it to society leads to lots of pain and suffering.

just because the evidence is subjective, doesn;t mean you can;t draw a conclusion from it. Its best to realize the subjectivity of the evidence, and then put as objective conclusion on it as possible. (good or bad)

Somehow I don't think adivisng people to have children and give back to the society they CHOOSE to live in makes me a nazi. It is the responsibility of every citizen to the continuation of the civilization. If you don;t think you want t ocontribute, go find a civilization that doesn't mind dieing off.

You think that your ideas lead to tolerence? you think that denying reality, and justifing any action that falls into you categorey of "feel goodism" will end slavery. You remind me of uncvle toms. You know the slave who accepted the perversion of slavery and failed to call it what it is. You are part of the problem. You eschew equal and fair treatment because the basis of your judgements are emotional and are devoid of objective analysis of relaity. How the hell can you come to a conclusion thats just or right when you deny yourself the ability to see something for what it is? You can't

You call relaity harsh, and want to protect people from it. You are only fooling yourself. You cannot change what is by wishing it away the cold hard facts of the matter.

You know what, once you stop looking at reality with such disdain, you will see its not such a bad thing. You just have to accept who are, and what you are, and not deny the responsibilities that emerge out of it. everything else is just BS.

Do you sincerely beleive that? Do you really think its any differnt, than "feels goodd, must be right?"
So I take if a firend of your was shooting up heroin, and asked your opinion on whether what he was doing was a good idea, would you tell him, "well you aren't hurting anyone, so it must be good" Are you so afraid of reality and making a non-relative stand that you would advise your friend, in all honesty that what he was doing was good and true?

Your example is somewhat flawed heroine and all drug use has effectson more than just the user. I has an impact on thier family and thier frinds

How can you quote myu paragraph a just a few lines up and then completly misquote the meaning of that I said. They should really work on critical reading skills for you. In life, things that are bad, are ussually to the layman very obvious. If homosexuality was good or just another way, it would have always been considered so. Not so right after a political/idealogical takeover.


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

It was until the christians took over Europe. Most historical hatred of homosexuals comes from the old testament of the bible, the book of leviticus to be exact. When the christians took over they carried that hatred over into the roman catholic church.