Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

What I'm still trying to work out is the definition of the criteria on which to judge the ideal situation =/

I can get it as an abstract, what would, when thought about, seem like the best, but that doesn't really hold up when the child could do something else entirely.

From what the media presents and how the mainstream populace is presented the image of homosexuality, I can find it very easy for those of more preoccupied minds to come to a logical assumption (which is primarily negative, in this case) about homosexuality and it's place in the modern world. The religion I follow sends a strong message about it, pertaining said people to to damnation alongside people offering themselves to animals and those consumed by lust in a very literal sense. Since many homosexual practices are known to facilitate various contagious diseases (note the fundamental difference between contagious and infectious), most of which are extremely deleterious to mankind as a whole, I am fairly quick in saying that such actions are unacceptable in today's society, and that various resources devoted to the facilitation of single-sex relationships is quite frankly, a waste of time and the said units are better spent in other sectors more important to the maintenance of a working state. I find it ridiculous that politicians would waste time debating over something so trivial (defined in the sense that it applies to a very small aspect of the population) while various other issues in the country are screaming for attention and being downright ignored. I am for people being happy and on equal footings with everybody else, but I am not happy with such communities seeking such equality at a time where there are far more pressing issues to be dealt with.

You may call me ignorant, intolerant or downright stupid. It does not bother me. What bothers me, is that an action that is in simultaneous abhorrence by both nature, science and many mainstream religions is seeking acceptance within a society founded within those values. That, is plain stupid. Nothing is gained by expressing an evolutionary flaw besides unwarranted attention better spent elsewhere.

Very many people debate about these kinds of things because they are more trivial than the more pressing matters. A failing economy is considerably more depressing than talking about the rights of homosexuals, so just cover up the inevitable and debate about what should have already been resolved.

Did you know that between men and women, women can more easily transmit sexual diseases that permeate the mucous membrane? (obviously there are other types of transmission) Due to the physiological make-up of females membrane, they more readily transmit diseases than a man ever could.

As for the comment about the timing of seeking equality... First off, I don't think that any issue really detracts from the main problems today (economy obviously) everything else is secondary right now. Yet the homosexual community has been seeking more equal rights for over 50 years... and I'm pretty sure at some point in there, there wasn't much else going on. However given the conditions that used to exist (and still do in some cases) I think it's only fair that they fight as hard as they want, when they want. People are getting beaten and killed over this, yet you want them to sit on it till things cooldown? They aren't going to fix the banks in a day, so they can devote some time to other projects I think.

As for the nature, science, and mainstream religions. Nature actually exhibits the behavior, Science doesn't care one way or the other, and mainstream religions don't represent everyone.

You have a right to be happy, why not them?

I bolded and numbered these bits, so I may respond to them in particular, as well as so I don't forget what I'm talking about.

1) For the majority of sexually transmitted diseases, the risk of transmission is not significantly greater in homosexual intercourse than in heterosexual intercourse. The increased risk of blood contact really only impacts the transmission of AIDS. One of the major offenders for the myth that homosexuality is a hotbed of disease is that many of the early studies pertaining to the subject lumped drug use in with the 'homosexual lifestyle'. Dirty needles don't care what your orientation is. As well 'deleterious to mankind as a whole' is a semantic nightmare. The actions of a single individual (with notable historical exceptions) do not have a significant impact on the whole of the human race. Even the actions of a group, especially one as statistically small as the alternative community, don't have a significant effect in the short term. And making long term deductions as to the effect a particular group will have on the race in the future is not something I'd care to do without a few Doctorate degrees and a bunch of dedicated sociologists. In what manner are the actions of the alternative community 'deleterious to mankind as a whole'?

"...various resources devoted to the facilitation of single-sex relationships is quite frankly, a waste of time and the said units are better spent in other sectors more important to the maintenance of a working state."
Is the allocation of resources to assist single parents a waste? Divorcees? The terminally ill? Especially the last one, as they're a drain on funds without having much prospect of making up the debt in the future. Shall we only lend assistance to those who pay taxes and don't get it all back? Or who somehow contribute to the 'maintenance of a working state'?

2)No argument here. Then again, I find it ridiculous that we're spending billions in foreign aid and wasting lives to fix other countries when our own is in such sad shape. Someone said something once, and I can't even quote it properly, so I'll paraphrase: "Fix your own damn house, before you give advice to others."

3)Show me a society on this Earth that wasn't first founded in bloodshed. And yet, murder is a crime everywhere. The founding values of a country are not the be-all, end-all of that country. 200 years ago, the issues facing the continental congress were not the issues facing us today. If a country does not adapt and change to match the world around it, we'll wind up looking an awful lot like Pakistan.

As well... who are you, to tell us we shouldn't seek acceptance? The United States was also founded on slavery. Should black people not have sought acceptance, since they were in contrast to outdated and abhorrent concepts?

4)Nothing is gained by expressing an evolutionary flaw besides unwarranted attention better spent elsewhere. Here's where I stopped wanting to be polite. So I'll stop being polite. Who are you to decide what changes in the human race are evolutionary flaws? Isn't it your own religion that says 'judge not, lest ye be judged'?

And finally my own comments, since religion seems tied into this whole thing.

The bible can be quoted to justify atrocity, oppression, hate, benevolence, freedom, love, and nearly anything else. Basing any argument on an intentionally and accidentally mistranslated compilation of dozens of authors that has been systematically edited over centuries, and is interpreted differently by hundreds of different splinter sects just doesn't give you much to stand on.

Ephemeralis, if your only purpose to join the forum was to quick fly in and condemn a lifestyle you don't understand, then feel free to make that your only post. Frankly, I do think you're ignorant, intolerant, and just a little stupid. But I'm glad you don't care, because it's that kind of social blindness that's helping good people like myself and several other members of this forum earn the rights we deserve.

Seeing as you didn't put any effort into visiting the rest of the forum, I'm not surprised that you didn't know the topic you brought up had already been discussed in depth. So there's no point bringing it up again, other than for the purpose of flaming people you don't even know.

I'm sorry you felt you needed to dedicate your first post to an anti-gay rant, but I suppose this way we get forewarning about who you really are.

I've always found it interesting how some people can say things like "My religion says [whatever] is wrong" - which in and of itself is fine so long as it doesn't infringe upon other people not of that religion - and then try to justify it using absolutely far-out and incorrect information.

Homosexuals spread less of almost every kind of STD than heterosexuals (because most STDs have adapted to function on male-to-female or vice versa methods of transit, not same-sex transit), and only spread HIV more because of promiscuity. Not because they're magically more receptive to it. They're humans with the same human anatomy as you and me. Most of them just have more sex partners that heterosexual couples.

Seriously, people need to do their own research with a goal of finding out the truth rather than justifying your religion. Otherwise, most often you wind up justifying your religion with false information. Religious beliefs are fine, but jeez, make sure you have accurate information to back them up if you're going to use them to attack people.

*Edit*



You're aware that thousands of other animal species have homosexual relationships too, right? Do they also go against science and nature? Maybe they're all going to hell too.

Quoted for truth.

Well, I'm glad you guys told him off. And relatively politely, too, *claps*

Fast, I laughed out loud when I saw your last post...no more misunderstandings of acronyms for you, *chuckles*

By the way, the ideal family thing from forever ago, that was an example of a reason someone might choose not to support gay marriage that isn't founded in religion, only reason I brought it up.

Oh sorry, I figured it was the current topic so I just went with it. :oops:

Ooh! Since you brought it back up, can I offer some of the reason why?

One of the big issues is that children take their cues for future relationships from their parents. The relationship between a girl and her father molds the way she'll interact with men for the rest of her life. It's even more dominating for a boy and his mother. Without a strong, good role model of each sex in the child's life, they tend not to develop in a socially optimal way, or will tend to form suboptimal relationships (where optimal relationships produce the least amount of social stress and maximize happiness of all involved parties). Of course, non-traditional families or broken families can still find ways to provide good role models to children. Many, if not most, of them do. But it's easiest for a stable, traditional family.

I wasn't really surprised at the outcry my post caused - I was expecting it really.

I make a line referencing to a religion I follow. Twice, and you immediately draw the 'ignorant, petty minded fool' card. I'm merely stating the facts - in a society predominately religious, and that almost every functioning religion in the world today has homosexuality down listed as a sin or some form of abhorrence/abomination, seeking acceptance within such a society is an utter waste of time and should be clearly evident to many of you that regardless of what is achieved in some lone sector of the world, homosexuality will never be truly accepted within modern society both for many reasons. It may be accepted by the state at some point in time, but it will never be truly accepted by the majority of the populace. It's pointless to try.

I also never made any reference to homosexuality promoting a flat out physical bonus to carrying STDs. It should have been blatantly obvious that I was intending a reference to promiscuity. It should also be obvious just how detrimental such behavior is to mankind as a whole. With every person affected by the disease, there's a chance it could mutate into something much more virulent or even switch it from contagious to infectious, in which case - bye bye large portion of the human race. In this case, it's just a chance - but I think there's enough variables that could snap and cause the demise at the expense of the human race right now, yet another one caused by ourselves isn't really helpful.

There's a myriad of reasons why it's widely viewed as wrong. I don't really care what anybody does in their spare time. My religion condemns it, I do not. Never would I condone of homosexuals being executed or treated unfairly in the justice system. I would stand beside you in protest and take up arms for the cause if need be. I'm not downright attacking you, I'm just placing out the points to demonstrate that I disagree with the lifestyle for various reasons and that I even further disagree with the resources being consumed by the entire process. Check back with me when people aren't starving to death every few seconds in other countries, and we'll talk.

You may note I quoted the above post. You may also note, I didn't waste my time to read it.

People who devote their time to hating people do not deserve to have my time wasted on them.

Again. If the only reason you came to the forum was to show how much you hate half of us, then leave.

Fast, while it may be ignorant somewhat, you should take the time to read it.

He doesn't say that he's personally against it. He says personally he's FOR it.

He was just doing a VERY VERY good job at playing devils advocate. Got quite a few people mad at him.