Originally Posted by garysher

I agree with that. But it doesn't alter what I said earlier about accepting vs. condoning, where I was referring to a behaviour rather than a person.

In a free society we have to accept that people will behave in ways with which we disagree. But that doesn't mean we have to condone that behaviour.

For example, I accept that some people want to smoke cigarettes, and should be free to do so, but I could never condone that behaviour.

I accept that some people may want to walk around naked, but I couldn't condone that behaviour in public places.

This doesn't mean that smokers or nudists are "less than human".

Has the penny dropped?

Originally Posted by tristanrobin

Actually, in the USA, all homosexual sexual acts (oral sex, anal sex, and manual manipulation are all considered 'sodomy') were illegal in the U.S. Many states had done away with them, but those laws weren't deemed unconstitutional until Lawrence vs. Texas. in 2003.

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Holy heck, Batman! Gary, it sounds like we are on the same page. Isn't that much more pleasant than insulting others; and responding to insults?

Originally Posted by fxashun

And nowhere have a said that homosexual people should be victims of attack. I really don't know why you are bringing this up. But then again, I don't think registered sex offenders should be victimized and that if we are gonna have "hate crime" laws as "protection", I don't see why they can't be included as well. Once you complete your penalty to society, you should be eligible for all protections offered to any other targeted member of society.

Originally Posted by garysher

Tell that to the others!

This ISN't a convent nutty!

I'm sure we can all withstand a little "bounce" and live to tell the tale.

It's all part of the cut and thrust of human interaction ya know.

Originally Posted by Gadgetory

No-one likes to admit to their prejudice because prejudice is considered a negative thing

I have no problem admitting I have prejudices...

lets look at homphobia

Homophobia (from Greek ὁμο homo(sexual), "same, equal" + φοβία (phobia), "fear") is a non-clinical term[3][4] used to describe the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.[5][6] It can also mean hatred, hostility, disapproval of, or prejudice towards homosexuals, or homosexual behavior or cultures.[7] Homophobic is the adjective form of this term used to describe the qualities of these characteristics while homophobe is the noun form given as a title to individuals with "homophobic" characteristics.

Straight from wiki I see. Okay..Here's a nice link.
Gay: Homophobia

I think you display disapproval and prejudice towards homosexuals therefore you are a homphobic. You al believe they should be discriominated against and not alloowed to marry the person of their choosing. So indeed you are a homophobe.

And I disagree. I say they are biologically abnormal in that they have a sexual urge that points them in direction that is sterile and not supported by human physiology as the heterosexual example. They should not be allowed to call the union a marriage for that reason. If that is homophobic, then so be it. But under the Websters definition that I provided, I hardly find that view irrational, therefore it's not homophobic.
But if you feel that I am a homophobe, you are welcome to do so.

I think ist perfectly natural to be apprehensive of things different to yourself but this is not a reason to deny people anything..that is your own personal issue.

Actually until recently it was the worlds issue since homosexuality was pretty much universally denigrated.

Biology says we have sex not simply because we'd like to reproduce but because it feels good. Its one of the tings that differentiates us from other animals the fact you've trouble grasping this is your own issue.

I totally grasp that rationality. What you fail to grasp is that as with our other systems that are adapted for certain urges, we have systems adapted for our sexual ones. Homosexuality is against our bodies organs evolves for sex. We can CHOOSE to exploit our bodies in any number of ways and we have abnormal humans that are innately compelled to defy our bodily physiology.

Heterosexuals have sex for pure pleasure..why should homosexuals.

Because we talking about heterosexuality as an orientation. Before sex is even in the picture. The same gender attraction is abnormal. No sex necessary to come to that conclusion.
I don't have to actually stick my penis in a car tailpipe to come to the conclusion that any urge that compels me to have sex with a car is abnormal.
http://blackroses.textfiles.com/sex/sex-cars.faq

Teh desire to reproduce is not limited to ones sexual orientation ..gays do want to repoduce and use artifical means as do heterosexuals who cannot conceive to achieve this aim or adopt children. To say that its not normal for gays but normal for straights is purely illogical and shows a prejudice.

No, I think the fact that gays still want to reproduce shows just how abnormal they really are. Why would a person with a sexual orientation that results in a sterile union still want to reproduce? That furthers the argument that the orientation is abnormal. Your argument is illogical since artificial means are not needed for heterosexual couples, unless they choose to or they have a defect....Unless they have a defect....Unless they have a defect...Homosexuality is like a disordered hetero couple in this way.

You don't understand biology or think of it only in very simplitic basic terms...emancipate your mind from its limits. Why is it normal for straight to have sex for pure pleasure and not gays.

It's not. But ANY sex between gays is for pleasure. ANY pedophillic sex is for pleasure. ANY zoophilic sex is for pleasure. But the instinct that leads to the urge to have said unnatural sex is abnormal. There should not be an urge to attempt any of those those sexual acts.

Of course the pleasure is heightened when you have sex with people you actually care about but thats an emotional issue as opposed to a biological one. Please show me where human beings are not designmed biologically to have sex becaus eit feels good. Show me where it is written in any book of science sex is only for procreation.

That is limiting the argument to fit your narrow view. Show me a unbiased link that normalizes homosexuality from a physiologic, biologic, and procreative standpoint that can eliminate the other sexual urges. Sex is NOT only for procreation. But there is no reason/purpose/cause for a person to be attracted to the same gender. Sex is just a manifestation of the abnormal attraction.

Kleptomania is an abnormal urge, the theft is just the manifestation of the abnormality. They are expected to control that abnormal urge. I wonder why there is no term for the kleptophobe?

Again you forget that in oursoecuity the urges that are behing zoophilia nd pedeophilia are superceded by the desire to treat animals humanely and to protect the rights of children.

That is cultural and differs according to time and region. I don't use arguments that depend on legal or consent in my supporting my arguments. Legal and cultural should be considerations AFTER natural concerns, not before.

Surely you are not arguing that a 2 year old can consent to sex with an adult. So in our society it is deemed the child cannot give consent rightly or wrongly until that child reaches a certain age once the child has reached that age they can consent to sex but only with other people over a certain age. Please try and remember this when you reply if you do because you keep mentioning other sexual urges as if they are the same and the same legal rules apply to them and they very clearly don't and the reason why has been explained sever al times. If you've nothing kenw to add to discount what I have stated several times now then leave it be and move along.


Nor am I arguing that a 9 year old can. But according to a thread here, 11 year olds can, and schools should pass out contraception to them without parental knowledge. Bullshit. That's still pedophilia. That's why I specifically said "according to how you label it" in my post. Why is consenting to sex with an adult biologically and physically different than with another child?

There you go speaking for other again. How do you know what a gay person feels??? How can you speak for them. It isn't bullshit to say they wish to marry. Prove to me its bullshit..prove to me that gay people are incapable of having a loving partnership and that partnership is not worthy of legal protection. Please go right ahead..btw I already know you can't prove either thing but it'll be interesting to see you try.

I never said that gay people aren't capable of a loving relationship. But then again, I can't say the same for the other orientations from their point of view. But if the attraction is abnormal in the first place, does that really matter? I don't have to prove any love if the relationship is an unnatural condition in the first place.

I don't have to prove love for a sign post is unnatural since I have no business with an attraction to the sign post in the first place.

TYhere are all sorts of things that exist in our world that you may not understand but that doesn't make any human less or deserving of less or to be left out..there is nothing you can say to justify it and i believe you know it which is why you resist the label homophobe.

I have never resisted the label, only ask you to provide your definition. If you have a definition that satisfies your label, I showed you my defition that satisfies mine. It looks like we might have to agree to disagree.

Because if you admit it then you are a homophobe and no-one wants to be prejudice or to be seen as one..

AS you can see, even the term homophobe is clouded as to an exact definition. So it looks like a POV thing.

I have news for you the majority of people on this board as far as I can tell already think you are homophobe you just keep proving them right.

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

Now that is proper debating etiquette! I thank you also for the facts that I did not have; as I mostly (as I think many of us are) approach this subject from my own personal viewpoints.
Although, I do disagree with yours (and many others) view that "hate crimes" are something that offer protection. I believe that classifying a crime in this category is based on an obvious bias towards the victim; as demonstrated by the perpetrator.
Now, I agree in principle with your idea that once a criminal pays his debt to society; they should be eligible for all rights enjoyed by the rest of society. I think the kink in the system as applies to sex offenders is that psychiatrists and psychologists cannot seem to agree on how ( and if at all) sex offenders can ever be rehabilitated. The rest is simply our basic human trait of trust. Can anyone tell me that would feel comfortable knowing that there is a janitor (or any other job holder) at their child's pre-school that was a previous sex offender? Where is your trust; if you don't feel comfortable?
I could go on for the other classes of criminals, such as drug offenders; and others, but I have a dinner date. I will pick up on this later.

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

You are correct, Gary; but all I ask is that people debate on a debate forum- you can exchange all the insults you wish over PM and even e-mail.

Originally Posted by garysher

Originally Posted by nuttyjoe

If it stuck to the point; I would most heartily agree with you. But the personal insults take away from the issues that people are trying to make. That is why I asked that these be kept between people, and not take away from the issue. Don't worry yourself over my bravery, Gary. I'm brave (and honest) enough to admit to myself and publicy to all of you that I was a homophobe of the highest order. And also polite enough to thank Tristan and FX for their refuting of a post of mine with some facts; and also that they felt no need to insult when they did so. That's what I mean by proper debate etiquette.