homophobia

[Colin]

We live in a country where we are able to express our views freely.

 

It is called free speech,so why should we condemn someone who has a different opinion to what we want to hear.

 

The gay community is definately a dictatorship .they want everything there way or no way !

 

Man & Women is normal, but same sex couples are not .

 

Should GAYS be treated diffferently, OF COURSE NOT ,but there is a time & place for everything. Somethings are correct & others not .

 

You sad sad person. There are over 400 different species of mammal that exhibit homosexual behaviour. Also, male black swans have been known to pair for life. They even steal eggs from other nests to raise young (the young of the mail pairs are statistically more likely to survive to adulthood by the way). So to say homosexuality is not normal is just showing that you have no clue at all about nature.

 

Why is Urabug a 'sad sad person'? Is it because he/she/it.... expressed a reasonable opinion that is contrary to your own or, is it because it is YOU who has no clue about nature.

Quoting aberrations (deviations from the norm) in other species as justification for homosexual acts is invalid and is just a smoke screen that only demonstrates your lack of understanding.

Lets dumb it down a bit..

Propagation of most species requires two components ie male+female. Male on male / female on female is extremely unlikely to achieve the same results (offspring) and, if these acts were 'normal' it would be goodbye species?

Also, how would you react if two homosexual males/females stole your child in order that they can raise it as their own?

If they did it to one of mine then, statistically speaking, they would be very UNLIKELY to make it to adulthood..

 

FWIW;

I do not believe that "The gay community is definately a dictatorship .they want everything there way or no way !" but, on the other hand, I do not believe in positive discrimination either.

Neither do I believe in calling them 'Gay'. I prefer to call them homosexuals and use the word 'gay' for other things.

Don't attack them, don't defend them, just let them get on with it.

[Colin]

But isn't it a fact that some children, whilst 'sexually mature', might not ....

 

That was my point. Nature doesn't recognise a persons age. Different people will reach sexual maturity at (slightly) different times in their lives and, as far as nature is concerned, are ready to breed.

Being considered 'socially' mature enough before you can 'legally' engage in sex is, basically, going against nature.

Whilst I agree that we have to have 'laws' to prevent the exploitation of the 'socially immature', a 'blanket ban' (no pun intended) just doesn't seem to cut it.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Why is Urabug a 'sad sad person'? Is it because he/she/it.... expressed a reasonable opinion that is contrary to your own or, is it because it is YOU who has no clue about nature.

 

Urabug wasn't expressing a reasonable opinion though. It's clearly expressed in a homophobic & bigoted tone.

 

We live in a country where we are able to express our views freely.

 

It is called free speech,so why should we condemn someone who has a different opinion to what we want to hear.

 

The gay community is definately a dictatorship. They want everything there way or no way !

 

This infers that Urabug believes we, as a society, should be free to condemn homosexuality and that the homosexual community are in some way unreasonable in wanting equal rights as other sexualities. Urabug then followed that up with this particular gem.

 

Man & Women is normal, but same sex couples are not.

 

Should GAYS be treated diffferently, OF COURSE NOT, but there is a time & place for everything. Somethings are correct & others not.

 

Charming.

 

Quoting aberrations (deviations from the norm) in other species as justification for homosexual acts is invalid and is just a smoke screen that only demonstrates your lack of understanding.

 

No, it point out that homosexual behaviour isn't uncommon in other species. Some people - I say people, I mean morons - claim homosexual behaviour is a 'lifestyle choice', rather than say, someone's natural state. The fact that there are many recorded incidents of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans rather destroys that somewhat blinkered premise. For instance, the Bonobo Chimpanzee - one of the primate species most closely related to ours - is a highly social animal, which has been regularly observed in the wild exhibiting homosexual activity, both between males and females.

 

Further, no-one is claiming homosexual behaviour in animals is a 'justification for homosexual acts' and quite honestly, I'm astounded that you would be so jaw-droppingly stupid to suggest as such. You're being a twat. Stop it.

 

 

Lets dumb it down a bit..

 

You've already achieved that. Spectacularly so.

 

Propagation of most species requires two components ie male+female. Male on male / female on female is extremely unlikely to achieve the same results (offspring) and, if these acts were 'normal' it would be goodbye species?

 

No-one said that. You're inferring something completely different. Basically, you've added two and two and come up with twenty-two there. Homosexuality cannot by definition be normal, as the vast majority of the 7 billion people waling the planet are not homosexual, otherwise our species would die out. I don't know of many homosexuals who would classify their sexual preference as 'normal'. Doesn't make it some sort of immoral activity though, does it?

 

Also, how would you react if two homosexual males/females stole your child in order that they can raise it as their own?

If they did it to one of mine then, statistically speaking, they would be very UNLIKELY to make it to adulthood..

 

Yes, because gay people go around stealing children to raise as their own. Do you realise how stupid you sound? Where are you statistics to prove that gay parents are unable to raise children to adulthood anyway? We should probably inform the adoption agencies, artificial insemination fertility clinics, or potential surrogate mothers. Don't leave your child with the gays! They get distracted by shopping, singing show-tunes and the like and the next thing you know they're on the news with a dead baby.

 

For the sake of the gene pool you immediately have yourself castrated, in order to limit the amount of stupid you might inflict on future generations.

 

FWIW; I do not believe that "The gay community is definately a dictatorship .they want everything there way or no way !" but, on the other hand, I do not believe in positive discrimination either.

Neither do I believe in calling them 'Gay'. I prefer to call them homosexuals and use the word 'gay' for other things.

Don't attack them, don't defend them, just let them get on with it.

 

Could you please add to that 'Don't talk offensively moronic, complete & utter darlingîng bullshît'?

[Colin]

Urabug wasn't expressing a reasonable opinion though. It's clearly expressed in a homophobic & bigoted tone.

I didn't see it as homophobic or bigoted unless, of course, I was blinkered enough to cherry pick instead of reading the post as a whole.

 

We live in a country where we are able to express our views freely.

 

Did you read this bit? If so, why did you resort to cheap name calling instead of presenting a reasoned argument?

 

and this bit?

It is called free speech,so why should we condemn someone who has a different opinion to what we want to hear.

 

The gay community is definately a dictatorship. They want everything there way or no way !

This infers that Urabug believes we, as a society, should be free to condemn homosexuality and that the homosexual community are in some way unreasonable in wanting equal rights as other sexualities.

 

I think that Urabug reserves the right of any individual to condemn any thing that they do not agree with and not have our personal agenda set by someone we do not agree with.

 

Man & Women is normal, but same sex couples are not.

 

Should GAYS be treated diffferently, OF COURSE NOT, but there is a time & place for everything. Somethings are correct & others not.

 

If that's what Urabug thinks, that's what Urabug thinks..

 

Quoting aberrations (deviations from the norm) in other species as justification for homosexual acts is invalid and is just a smoke screen that only demonstrates your lack of understanding.

 

No, it point out that homosexual behaviour isn't uncommon in other species. Some people - I say people, I mean morons - claim homosexual behaviour is a 'lifestyle choice', rather than say, someone's natural state. The fact that there are many recorded incidents of homosexual behaviour in animals other than humans rather destroys that somewhat blinkered premise. For instance, the Bonobo Chimpanzee - one of the primate species most closely related to ours - is a highly social animal, which has been regularly observed in the wild exhibiting homosexual activity, both between males and females.

 

Further, no-one is claiming homosexual behaviour in animals is a 'justification for homosexual acts' and quite honestly, I'm astounded that you would be so jaw-droppingly stupid to suggest as such. You're being a twat. Stop it.

 

Here we go.. Run out of ideas for a reasned argument so you have to resort to name calling. And you think that I'm "jaw-droppingly stupid".

 

Lets dumb it down a bit..

 

You've already achieved that. Spectacularly so.

 

And you have taken it to an even lower level..

 

Propagation of most species requires two components ie male+female. Male on male / female on female is extremely unlikely to achieve the same results (offspring) and, if these acts were 'normal' it would be goodbye species?

 

No-one said that. You're inferring something completely different. Basically, you've added two and two and come up with twenty-two there. Homosexuality cannot by definition be normal, as the vast majority of the 7 billion people waling the planet are not homosexual, otherwise our species would die out. I don't know of many homosexuals who would classify their sexual preference as 'normal'. Doesn't make it some sort of immoral activity though, does it?

 

How many people are going to jump on the blue highlighted part of your post? And, who suggested that it was immoral? Certainly not me..

 

Also, how would you react if two homosexual males/females stole your child in order that they can raise it as their own?

If they did it to one of mine then, statistically speaking, they would be very UNLIKELY to make it to adulthood..

 

Yes, because gay people go around stealing children to raise as their own. Do you realise how stupid you sound? Where are you statistics to prove that gay parents are unable to raise children to adulthood anyway? We should probably inform the adoption agencies, artificial insemination fertility clinics, or potential surrogate mothers. Don't leave your child with the gays! They get distracted by shopping, singing show-tunes and the like and the next thing you know they're on the news with a dead baby.

Hold on there and don't accuse me of being stupid until you have read (and re-read) your own response.

I didn't quote any statistics. I simply pointed out that if anyone had attempted such an action then, I would personally see to it that they were removed from society PDQ.

 

For the sake of the gene pool you immediately have yourself castrated, in order to limit the amount of stupid you might inflict on future generations.

 

To late for that...

 

Could you please add to that 'Don't talk offensively moronic, complete & utter pootleîng bullshît'?

 

Pot calling the Kettle don't you think?

[Equality Street]

Saw this quote from Norman Tebbit (bastion of liberal, measured rhetoric that he is) on HIGNFY:

 

"Maybe I'll be allowed to marry my own son," Lord Tebbit said. "Why shouldn't a mother marry her daughter? Why shouldn't two elderly sisters living together marry each other? I quite fancy my brother!"

 

Playing Devil's advocate here, could the same arguments used by some in defense (rightly, in my opinion) of homosexuality not similarly be used by someone seeking to defend consensual incest? - IE it's repeated on occasion in the animal kingdom etc.

 

Who are we to judge? I'd be interested to read your thoughts...

[Muppet]

Norman Tebbit's quote is typical of the hysterical nonsense being spouted by the 'anti' brigade who have no real arguements to back up their bigotry.

 

Incest laws are in place to protect against his scenario. He also said we could end up having a Lesbian Queen and an heir to the throne concieved by artificial insemination. If he was to try using some brain cells he would realise that this can already happen.

 

He really should hang up his boots if this is the best he can come up with.

[Colin]

Norman Tebbit's quote is typical of the hysterical nonsense being spouted by the 'anti' brigade who have no real arguements to back up their bigotry.

 

Unfortunately, there is just as much hysterical nonsense being spouted by the 'pro' brigade.

 

Seems to me that the issue has become polarised and you are either 'for' or 'against'. There appears to be, no longer, any room for freely expressed opinions.

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Norman Tebbit's quote is typical of the hysterical nonsense being spouted by the 'anti' brigade who have no real arguements to back up their bigotry.

 

Unfortunately, there is just as much hysterical nonsense being spouted by the 'pro' brigade.

 

Seems to me that the issue has become polarised and you are either 'for' or 'against'. There appears to be, no longer, any room for freely expressed opinions.

 

No, plenty of room for freely expressed opinions. Just little time for stupid ones - like you were spouting earlier.

[Colin]

No, plenty of room for freely expressed opinions. Just little time for stupid ones - like you were spouting earlier.

 

Stupid ones?

 

You were the one who was completely intolerant of anybody else's views on the matter. So much so that you had to resort to cheap personal attacks and bad language rather than present a reasoned (assuming you are actually capable of 'reasoned') rebuttal.

 

You're either for it or against it.. Yeah.....

[Fatal Paper Cut]

Stupid ones?

 

You were the one who was completely intolerant of anybody else's views on the matter. So much so that you had to resort to cheap personal attacks and bad language rather than present a reasoned (assuming you are actually capable of 'reasoned') rebuttal.

 

You're either for it or against it.. Yeah.....

 

No, not intolerant of other people's opinions. Bigotry, yes. Opinions, no. Cheap personal attacks? Then don't bring cheap, laughable stupid comments.

 

Bad language? Like I give a fxxx

[Colin]

Stupid ones?

 

You were the one who was completely intolerant of anybody else's views on the matter. So much so that you had to resort to cheap personal attacks and bad language rather than present a reasoned (assuming you are actually capable of 'reasoned') rebuttal.

 

You're either for it or against it.. Yeah.....

 

No, not intolerant of other people's opinions. Bigotry, yes. Opinions, no. Cheap personal attacks? Then don't bring cheap, laughable stupid comments.

 

Bad language? Like I give a fxxx

 

You appear to have an agenda and are obviously not worth discussing anything with but, my last comment to you is;

Go back through this thread and point out to anyone who is still interested any comments I have made that could present me as being 'bigoted'.