Can you say Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Larry Craig, Ted Haggard and Glenn Murphy? lol
Some closets contain homosexuals, and some contain skeletons. A few contain both.
Don’t be surprised if one day that gay president happens to be a Log Cabin REPUBLICAN.
[quote]Malevolence wrote:
I wonder what we’d see first. A Gay president or an Atheistic president.[/quote]
Atheists are a larger group.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.
No, it was a dumb statement. Consent has nothing to do with the morality of an act. Just ask Dr. Kevorkian.
You’ve been raised in a culture of ethical relativism. A moral code is an objective standard to which one adheres. You can only choose to ignore the code. The act is still wrong even if you choose to ignore it.
[/quote]
Morality is objective?! Since when? I swear you have multiple personalities, half your posts warn we are approaching an age like 1984 and seem to live off the fictional writings of Ayn Rand, the other half say dissent shouldnt be tolerated and condemn individuality. Good trolls can at least be consistent.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I’d bet that 50 years from now, bestiality and pedophaelia will be similar to how homosexual perverts are ‘cool’ now.
[/quote]
Bestiality is legal in Florida. Grab your sheep and get in the van!
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/may/04/me-an-emotional-legislative-session-winds-down/
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I agree. Sexual orientation, how fat or in shape you are, whether you believe in God or not, etc are all largely choices people make. So lumping that in with being a woman or race is not logical. And regardless of what some feel, sexual orientation has not been shown to be genetic in nature, so get over it.
[/quote]
People don’t choose their sexual orientation. Maybe you’re an exception though…at what age did you “choose” to like girls?
People do choose their sexual behavior.
Don’t confuse the two.
[quote]Magnate wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.
No, it was a dumb statement. Consent has nothing to do with the morality of an act. Just ask Dr. Kevorkian.
You’ve been raised in a culture of ethical relativism. A moral code is an objective standard to which one adheres. You can only choose to ignore the code. The act is still wrong even if you choose to ignore it.
Morality is objective?! Since when? I swear you have multiple personalities, half your posts warn we are approaching an age like 1984 and seem to live off the fictional writings of Ayn Rand, the other half say dissent shouldnt be tolerated and condemn individuality. Good trolls can at least be consistent.[/quote]
Altruism is unnatural. It was created for the purpose of removing morality from human life. Since there is little prospect of humanity embracing rational egoism, the most logical outcome of our future is that humans become amoral beasts. Its happening now. Eventually it will literally become impossible for almost everyone to understand even such a conversation as this.
So, while morality is objective and morals will hold, most of humanity won’t even know it. (Hell, how many people even know who Plato was?) It will be an amoral, and, logically, an all-encompassing tyranny. It must. What better way to control animals, than in a pen and with a cattle prod?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree. Sexual orientation, how fat or in shape you are, whether you believe in God or not, etc are all largely choices people make. So lumping that in with being a woman or race is not logical. And regardless of what some feel, sexual orientation has not been shown to be genetic in nature, so get over it.
People don’t choose their sexual orientation. Maybe you’re an exception though…at what age did you “choose” to like girls?
People do choose their sexual behavior.
Don’t confuse the two.
[/quote]
The blatant hypocrisy never fails to make me shudder.
I don’t know many (open) gays, but certaily a lot of them went through most difficult times. How can anyone think people turn their -often young- lives willingly upside down?
An school buddy had been dating every beautiful classmate. A real chick magnet, good looking and nice character. Years later, he didn’t know what to do with his life and dropped out of his studies totally unsure of everything, to be shortly therafter commited to a mental institute after a failed suicide.
There, he finally realized he was… gay.
Never saw him afterwards but I heard he recovered pretty fast.
How can a person make this up? How and WHY can a person “choose” to become gay when it’s basically just more trouble for a “normal” person. Don’t tell me shit about the “liberal media”, cause this is too laughable.
P.S. We have homosexual behaviour in practically every higher animal, seems like their biological function is somehow important after all.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Altruism is unnatural. It was created for the purpose of removing morality from human life. Since there is little prospect of humanity embracing rational egoism, the most logical outcome of our future is that humans become amoral beasts. Its happening now. Eventually it will literally become impossible for almost everyone to understand even such a conversation as this.
So, while morality is objective and morals will hold, most of humanity won’t even know it. (Hell, how many people even know who Plato was?) It will be an amoral, and, logically, an all-encompassing tyranny. It must. What better way to control animals, than in a pen and with a cattle prod?
[/quote]
This is so self contradicting, confusing and just absurd on so many levels.
You don’t have to stick to one school of thought, but how about not mixing everything lazily together for the nth time?
Do you have actually any sort of firm conviction, or are you just typing away? I really mean it.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree. Sexual orientation, how fat or in shape you are, whether you believe in God or not, etc are all largely choices people make. So lumping that in with being a woman or race is not logical. And regardless of what some feel, sexual orientation has not been shown to be genetic in nature, so get over it.
People don’t choose their sexual orientation. Maybe you’re an exception though…at what age did you “choose” to like girls?
People do choose their sexual behavior.
Don’t confuse the two.
The blatant hypocrisy never fails to make me shudder.
I don’t know many (open) gays, but certaily a lot of them went through most difficult times. How can anyone think people turn their -often young- lives willingly upside down?
An school buddy had been dating every beautiful classmate. A real chick magnet, good looking and nice character. Years later, he didn’t know what to do with his life and dropped out of his studies totally unsure of everything, to be shortly therafter commited to a mental institute after a failed suicide.
There, he finally realized he was… gay.
Never saw him afterwards but I heard he recovered pretty fast.
How can a person make this up? How and WHY can a person “choose” to become gay when it’s basically just more trouble for a “normal” person. Don’t tell me shit about the “liberal media”, cause this is too laughable.
P.S. We have homosexual behaviour in practically every higher animal, seems like their biological function is somehow important after all.[/quote]
What if it’s a biological failsafe to keep people with a genetic inferiorities out of the gene pool?
not that I actually believe that, but can you prove it wrong?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree. Sexual orientation, how fat or in shape you are, whether you believe in God or not, etc are all largely choices people make. So lumping that in with being a woman or race is not logical. And regardless of what some feel, sexual orientation has not been shown to be genetic in nature, so get over it.
People don’t choose their sexual orientation. Maybe you’re an exception though…at what age did you “choose” to like girls?
People do choose their sexual behavior.
Don’t confuse the two.
The blatant hypocrisy never fails to make me shudder.
I don’t know many (open) gays, but certaily a lot of them went through most difficult times. How can anyone think people turn their -often young- lives willingly upside down?
An school buddy had been dating every beautiful classmate. A real chick magnet, good looking and nice character. Years later, he didn’t know what to do with his life and dropped out of his studies totally unsure of everything, to be shortly therafter commited to a mental institute after a failed suicide.
There, he finally realized he was… gay.
Never saw him afterwards but I heard he recovered pretty fast.
How can a person make this up? How and WHY can a person “choose” to become gay when it’s basically just more trouble for a “normal” person. Don’t tell me shit about the “liberal media”, cause this is too laughable.
P.S. We have homosexual behaviour in practically every higher animal, seems like their biological function is somehow important after all.
What if it’s a biological failsafe to keep people with a genetic inferiorities out of the gene pool?
not that I actually believe that, but can you prove it wrong?[/quote]
I
It is the job of someone asserting the case to prove it correct - or at least offer some evidence to back up the asserition, not the other way around.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Altruism is unnatural. It was created for the purpose of removing morality from human life. Since there is little prospect of humanity embracing rational egoism, the most logical outcome of our future is that humans become amoral beasts. Its happening now. Eventually it will literally become impossible for almost everyone to understand even such a conversation as this.
So, while morality is objective and morals will hold, most of humanity won’t even know it. (Hell, how many people even know who Plato was?) It will be an amoral, and, logically, an all-encompassing tyranny. It must. What better way to control animals, than in a pen and with a cattle prod?
This is so self contradicting, confusing and just absurd on so many levels.
You don’t have to stick to one school of thought, but how about not mixing everything lazily together for the nth time?
Do you have actually any sort of firm conviction, or are you just typing away? I really mean it.[/quote]
What good is a morality if no one can practice it?
Look, to live, you HAVE to have your self-interest as your primary motivation. To deliberately act against your own good would eventually result in your death…unless you could get someone else to suffer the consequences in your place. The reason the world is a slaughterhouse is because the morality we practice (unselfishness) is not rational or possible, unless victims can be found to suffer the consequences of unselfishness. Altruism can only exist because governments force people to be altruistic. They have to use force to gain acquiescence.
Because altruism causes violence, its not really a morality at all.
So, since humans have no morality, they become animals (which is really the goal of those who preach unselfishness). They become fit for rule.
Basic evolution. It doesn’t need another mechanism to keep people out. If someone’s “not fit” enough to contribute at all, he’s automatically out.
Fit doesn’t mean strong or healthy it means he’s better suited for the job. A gene defect could also have advantages and mother nature isn’t picky. It works-he stays.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
How can a person make this up? How and WHY can a person “choose” to become gay when it’s basically just more trouble for a “normal” person.[/quote]
I think a lot of it is not knowing gay people, and going on stereotypes instead. It can be hard for people to see through another person’s eyes. We tend to assume that everyone is wired the same way we are.
I never “chose” to be gay, any more than people “choose” to be straight. To the contrary, my religious upbringing and the desire to fit in socially gave me every motivation not to want to be gay. I spent a lot of years fighting it and trying to change, until I finally accepted that this is who I am. A lot of damage to myself and loved ones could have been avoided if I had accepted myself sooner.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
I agree. Sexual orientation, how fat or in shape you are, whether you believe in God or not, etc are all largely choices people make. So lumping that in with being a woman or race is not logical. And regardless of what some feel, sexual orientation has not been shown to be genetic in nature, so get over it.
People don’t choose their sexual orientation. Maybe you’re an exception though…at what age did you “choose” to like girls?
People do choose their sexual behavior.
Don’t confuse the two.
[/quote]
Agreed.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Magnate wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Makavali wrote:
I like how HH ignored my statement about the ethical concerns regarding consent.
No, it was a dumb statement. Consent has nothing to do with the morality of an act. Just ask Dr. Kevorkian.
You’ve been raised in a culture of ethical relativism. A moral code is an objective standard to which one adheres. You can only choose to ignore the code. The act is still wrong even if you choose to ignore it.
Morality is objective?! Since when? I swear you have multiple personalities, half your posts warn we are approaching an age like 1984 and seem to live off the fictional writings of Ayn Rand, the other half say dissent shouldnt be tolerated and condemn individuality. Good trolls can at least be consistent.
Altruism is unnatural. It was created for the purpose of removing morality from human life. Since there is little prospect of humanity embracing rational egoism, the most logical outcome of our future is that humans become amoral beasts. Its happening now. Eventually it will literally become impossible for almost everyone to understand even such a conversation as this.
So, while morality is objective and morals will hold, most of humanity won’t even know it. (Hell, how many people even know who Plato was?) It will be an amoral, and, logically, an all-encompassing tyranny. It must. What better way to control animals, than in a pen and with a cattle prod?
[/quote]
lol. Do you just copy and paste this stuff or do you type it over and over again?
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
…
P.S. We have homosexual behaviour in practically every higher animal, seems like their biological function is somehow important after all.
What if it’s a biological failsafe to keep people with a genetic inferiorities out of the gene pool?
not that I actually believe that, but can you prove it wrong?[/quote]
Nope. It’s altruism.
[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
What if it’s a biological failsafe to keep people with a genetic inferiorities out of the gene pool?
not that I actually believe that, but can you prove it wrong?[/quote]
Only if you consider people like Leonardo da Vinci, Alexander the Great, Socrates, Richard the Lionhearted, Francis Bacon, Walt Whitman, Lord Byron, Oscar Wilde, Marcel Proust, Gertrude Stein, Cole Porter, Virginia Woolf, Leonard Bernstein, Tennessee Williams, Michelangelo, Tchaikovsky, Peter the Great, and Ralph Waldo Emerson to have “genetic inferiorities”.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Look, to live, you HAVE to have your self-interest as your primary motivation.[/quote]
Sometimes it is in your long term self interest to make a short term sacrifice for someone else. The two aren’t always mutually exclusive.
Also, sometimes people place a higher value on something they believe in or care about outside of themselves, like giving their lives for their country or sacrificing money and time for their children.
None of this requires “force”…it is internally driven based on what you personally value.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Why is it every place anything “gay” pops up you have to stick your nose in it with propaganda? The above list is inaccurate and you probably know it. [/quote]
How is it inaccurate? It is my understanding that the people in the list that I posted were gay or at least bisexual.
Regardless, the point is that many gay people have contributed to society in significant ways. Are you disagreeing with this?