[J m HofMarN]

So, Deuacon posted about homosexuals and their "so called rights" in the lobby. I responded curiously in regards to the post, and debate was born, which has no place in the pointless random thoughts thread, so its come to live here now. Below is the topic such as it exists so far.

Quote

You know if the government got rid of the tax/inheritance inequality between singles and couples then there would be a lot less homosexuals demanding their so-called rights. Plus there'd be a whole lot less bureaucracy.

- Deuacon

Quote

So-called rights.... So marriage and the socio economic perks it brings is not an actual right? Please explain why homosexuals demanding this so-called right are harmful to society at large.

- JM

Quote

If it's granted by the government then it's not a right, it's a privilege. In this case it's an overly glorified privilege. It's an overly glorified privilege defended by the same type of people who wish it banned. The kind that wish to use the government to make everybody do what they want them to do. Of course the only reason the vast majority of homosexuals care is because of the tax/inheritance benefits. Apart from that, marriage is a completely foreign concept to homosexuals. The purpose of marriage is to legally protect the wives of the union so the husband doesn't skip bail when the wife gets pregnant. Since homosexuals don't breed, they have no need for marriage. It has nothing to do with love or whatever airheads say. It's a legal contract.

As far as "allowing" marriage between homosexuals, I think it's beneficial for "society" (by which you mean government, obviously) to "allow" it. Otherwise they'll hide their homosexuality, find a spouse and breed. Then "society" will be stuck with it for at least another generation. Of course I believe that all marriage should be outlawed or unrecognized by the government. That way it's all equal and there will be much less bureaucracy. That's with my society, of course. My ideas for foreign societies differ somewhat.

- Deuacon

Quote

So then what do you consider to be basic human rights? Is a privilege less important then a right? Why or why not? Why are gays who want to be able to marry "the same type" as bigots who are against gay marriage for no reason? Please explain that completely random assertion. Also please explain the following:

Why is marriage a completely foreign concept to homosexuals? Do they not feel love and desire to have a ceremony and documentation to prove that?
Why can't homosexuals have children? Are you against gay adoption or single parents who have homosexual partners?
Why do you not know what marriage is? Are you trying to say that that is the historical reason for marriage(It's not) or are you implying that its the current nature of marriage (it's really, really not)
Why would it benefit society to disallow or not recognize marriage?
Why would homosexuals have to breed if society didnt allow them to marry? Can't they still live fairly openly if they're unmarried to people of the same sex?
Why does marriage create bureaucracy?

- JM

Quote

I'll keep this as short as possible and this will be my last post here so as not to hijack this thread. You want more then create a thread. Anyway...

(1) "Rights" don't exist. They're just something self-entitled idiots tell themselves so they feel important. Similar to people who think they live "in the greatest country on Earth." It's so they can feel all important without having to do any work. Apart from that, it's propaganda used by powerful people to bomb powerless (or less powerful) people into submission.
(2) Homosexual supremacists and heterosexual supremacists both want to use the government as a weapon against anybody who disagrees with their opinions. To be fair, though, the government is a weapon. But I have a problem when people don't acknowledge as such then go on hiding behind so-called human rights or so-called human decency. If all marriage was illegal/unrecognised then this wouldn't be a issue at all.
(3) Marriage isn't about love. It's a legal contract designed to protect the partner which gets pregnant. I clearly wrote that in my previous post.
(4) I'm against adoption. It's better that they're raised in state care so they can grow up to faithfully serve the government like all publicly schooled children.
(5) I seem to know more about marriage than you.
(6) I wrote (IN MY PREVIOUS POST, MIND YOU) that it's healthier for society to recognise and allow homosexual marriage. Are you semilliterate or do you simply choose not to read posts you're replying to?
(7) Because society's standard is that they find a partner and have children. I mean in actual societies, not quasi-societies like the one/s America has.
(8) Regulations, information gathering and paperwork creates bureaucracy.

- Deuacon

Quote

You are a crazy person, Deucaon. There is no such thing as homosexual supremacists or heterosexual supremacists, if anyone believes or identifies themselves as such, they are insane.

- Icey

Quote

I agree that they're insane. But they're there. You can identify the homosexual supremacists because they're the ones who argue that every historical leader was gay. I don't know why they do this, maybe because most famous historical leaders tend to be narcissistic to a fault. You can identify the heterosexual supremacists because they're the ones who believe homosexuality can be cured through social conditioning. Of course homosexuality can no more be cured by social conditioning than schizophrenia or podophilia can. In any case they both use the government to enforce their view of the world, like all supremacists do. Homosexual supremacists believe that homosexuality must be idolized and heterosexual supremacists believe that homosexuality must be suppressed.

- Deuacon

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

You want more then create a thread.

I don't want more homophobic trolling, but thread started all the same.

1: Yes they do. Also, people with quantified civil rights do still work. And no, giving the public rights is not important in allowing countries to go to war.
2: What Icey said.
3: Yes I know what you think marriage is, my question was more "how did you develop such ridiculous misconceptions?"
4: Not all publicly schooled children faithfully serve the government. Also, individuals coming out of the charge of social services are statistically more likely to be involved in crime, domestic violence, drugs, and so forth. That does not make them faithful servants of the government. Again, we are debating matters pertaining to real children and families, not a fictitious Orwellian regime that you envision.
5: Ok.
6: I'm not arguing with your conclusion, I'm arguing with how you got there. You say we need to allow gay marriage because otherwise gays will breed heterosexually and that will be bad for some reason. I say it's because we should recognize their rights as human beings and the fact that their relationships are as valid as heterosexual ones. As usual, on one of the few occasions when you agree with sensible logic in order to avoid blatantly trolling, you assure that you're still agreeing for the wrong reasons.
7: Why is America (or Western Europe and Canada) a quasi society? Because they recognize gay rights to some degree? Or for other reasons?
8: Bureaucracy will not be significantly reduced by outlawing or not recognizing marriage. Government does not have a large aparatus to handle marriages.

Quote

I agree that they're insane. But they're there. You can identify the homosexual supremacists because they're the ones who argue that every historical leader was gay. I don't know why they do this, maybe because most famous historical leaders tend to be narcissistic to a fault. You can identify the heterosexual supremacists because they're the ones who believe homosexuality can be cured through social conditioning. Of course homosexuality can no more be cured by social conditioning than schizophrenia or podophilia can. In any case they both use the government to enforce their view of the world, like all supremacists do. Homosexual supremacists believe that homosexuality must be idolized and heterosexual supremacists believe that homosexuality must be suppressed.

No they're not. No one does that. And people who believe homosexuality is a disease to be cured are not heterosexual supremacists, they're just ignorant bigots. Also, way to compare homosexuality to mental illness (it's not) and child molestation (you're an asshole)... And here we go with the use of the word "all" again. I thought I told you not to do that. No, not all supremacists, either real or fictious, use the government to enforce their views. Otherwise government would be a hell of a mess.

[Deucaon]

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 04:05 PM, said:

I don't want more homophobic trolling, but thread started all the same.

1: Yes they do. Also, people with quantified civil rights do still work. And no, giving the public rights is not important in allowing countries to go to war.
2: What Icey said.
3: Yes I know what you think marriage is, my question was more "how did you develop such ridiculous misconceptions?"
4: Not all publicly schooled children faithfully serve the government. Also, individuals coming out of the charge of social services are statistically more likely to be involved in crime, domestic violence, drugs, and so forth. That does not make them faithful servants of the government. Again, we are debating matters pertaining to real children and families, not a fictitious Orwellian regime that you envision.
5: Ok.
6: I'm not arguing with your conclusion, I'm arguing with how you got there. You say we need to allow gay marriage because otherwise gays will breed heterosexually and that will be bad for some reason. I say it's because we should recognize their rights as human beings and the fact that their relationships are as valid as heterosexual ones. As usual, on one of the few occasions when you agree with sensible logic in order to avoid blatantly trolling, you assure that you're still agreeing for the wrong reasons.
7: Why is America (or Western Europe and Canada) a quasi society? Because they recognize gay rights to some degree? Or for other reasons?
8: Bureaucracy will not be significantly reduced by outlawing or not recognizing marriage. Government does not have a large aparatus to handle marriages.



No they're not. No one does that. And people who believe homosexuality is a disease to be cured are not heterosexual supremacists, they're just ignorant bigots. Also, way to compare homosexuality to mental illness (it's not) and child molestation (you're an asshole)... And here we go with the use of the word "all" again. I thought I told you not to do that. No, not all supremacists, either real or fictious, use the government to enforce their views. Otherwise government would be a hell of a mess.

Against my better judgement, I decided to read your post. I feel dumber now than before I read it. It utterly lacks any substance or explanation. It's basically a list of mindless political slogans, admissions of utter ignorance and pointless questions. But I'll still address 4 and 6. And podophilia is also known as foot fetish, you ignorant cunt. And your government is one hell of a mess.

(4) So you agree that institutionalization is statistically unhealthy for society. Why do you continue supporting public education then? Or government intervention in general?
(6) Homosexuality is obviously a hereditary mental disorder. Same with other fetishes. Unless it's social conditioning or a psychological problem, which I doubt. Not because it might be correct but because I don't wish to take chances. On a similar note, I advocate the so-called rights of American homosexuals and agree with American homosexual supremacists.

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Against my better judgement, I decided to read your post. I feel dumber now than before I read it. It utterly lacks any substance or explanation. It's basically a list of mindless political slogans, admissions of utter ignorance and pointless questions. But I'll still address 4 and 6. And podophilia is also known as foot fetish, you ignorant cunt. And your government is one hell of a mess.

That's nice.

4: Yes I do, however, public education is different, and government intervention is drastically different. It is as though you are saying "you don't eat the core of the apple, so you should help me burn down the apple orchard"
6: No, no it is not. Think about it. How can it be hereditary if you claim that homosexuals do not generally produce offspring? What about in cases where both partners are straight but give birth to someone who chooses to be gay? Many gays and lesbians choose the same sex after having bad experiences with the opposite sex, a case of nurture rather than nature.

Also, if there are any homosexual supremacists (I doubt that there are) I'm sure they will be glad to have you agree with them, even though you consider them to be victims of an inherited mental disorder.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 29 December 2010 - 03:13 AM

[Icey]

Great job, likening homosexuality to lacking sense of reality or wanting to have sex with children. The world is simpler than you think, and people more complicated. I don't think you quite understand what homosexuality is. It actually isn't a hereditary mental disorder. Surprise! When homosexuality occurs in nature it is affected by outside influences, it's a sort of population control. How this functions in human society I can't tell, because we are so far flung from nature. Homosexuality is the most natural and normal thing in the world.


I really didn't read the big pile on, because everything I've read by Deucaon, so far, seems immature and arrogant. I'm willing and ready to have a conversation though!

[Zatoichi]

Lol, well this was certainly an interesting read. While I was entertained by it, Deucaon, I can't help but think that you're either crazy, misinformed, or simply creating argument for the sake of arguing. So, I'm going to take time and be all long-winded and stuff. And lazy too. I'm just going to ask you to take my word that I've read about studies and things and thought that they were legit enough to be believed.

I will also throw out from the start that I'm a United States citizen and a Christian. I know about my own government well enough to say some things about it, but really there's just so much that I can't know everything. I don't know much about the workings of other governments other than some disparate facts about a few. As for my faith, I know a good deal about it, and I know a fair amount of information on many other religions. Not enough to make me an expert in any way shape or form mind you. I just felt it was important to mention because of all the topics being discussed.

On the subject of rights ... well first of all they come from a few different places. Many religions figured people were afforded some basic things, like not getting murdered every which way and that (colloquial phrase). Philosophers thought along the same lines. And governing bodies also gave rights to people under the law (though, these tend to get summarily ignored when said gov. is out to get one or more people). Really the thing up for debate back then was who did these rights apply to. Today that debate is still there, but slowly and slowly more people believe that everyone deserves a certain amount of things concerning how they are treated (Except Hindus, sucks to be you if you're on the lower end of the caste system.) Now, what I think you mean is that a lot of times you hear about saying I have the right to blah, blah, blah, or I ought to be able to yada, yada, yada. Sometimes, it's utterly bogus things. Other times it's women wanting the right (under the law) to vote. Which isn't bogus, but is very reasonable. (Rights being used as propaganda to bomb lesser people into submission .... I just don't get that one)

Privileges are atually rights, benefits, advantages, etc that are accorded by either laws, positions (such as a an office), earned things due to actions a person has done in the past, or unearned things granted by others due to race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc. Just felt that I should point that out to clarify. Summarized from an actal dictionary, not the internet or anything.

Okay, the things you said about marriage ... wow ... really? Okay going to take this baby in a few chunks.
What marriage is - Well it's a lot of things. What it's supposed to be is basically when two people declare a partnership in each other's eyes, and in the eyes of the community. But, there's a lot of different things it can mean to different people, and it can mean multiple things to different people. It's certainly not some simple concept that you can boil down to have the same meaning for everyone. For some it can be about love, for others, benefits under the law.
What is marraige to homosexuals - Well, first off I'm not homosexual, and even if I was, everyone is different, can want different things, and can have different things mean differently to them. At best I know and have friends that are bisexual, homosexual, etc, and have heard/read various things about thier wants. I belive that you believing what a varied group such as homosexuals want and saying thats what all of them actually want is rather incompetent ... especially if you aren't homosexual yourself. Human being are very complex, grant that they might have some individuality and difference of opinion/wants as people obviously do have. Now, I'm definitely sure that marriage isn't a foreign concept to homosexuals. It's a thing that is pretty much all around them in every single society. In fact, there are many homosexuals that are married. I think they understand the concept ... not very foreign. Nobody "needs" to be married, it is a want. But why can't they want to be married simply because they don't produce children (and some do). What's wrong with adopting?
What marriage is for - Well a lot of things. It very much depends on an individual and how they feel about it. It's a matter of personal opinion. I'm not married myself, but I have many friends and relatives who are married. I know many that have been divorced, and I know some who have remarried. You Deuacon, whether you're married or not, do not seem to know much about it.

America is a quasi-society? Since when did that happen?

Government run orphan/childcare stuff - yeah, totally with JM on that one. Do a little research on that Deuacon. I would bet that where you're from the stats can't be that much better.

The US gov. can be one hell of a mess. But umm, that's like all govenments in this day and age. Really, pointing fingers is silly for this category.

Homosexuality is neither hereditary or a mental disorder. This really tells me you don't know what you're talking about.

[Gobbler]

Oh come on... I was expecting something big here. Are we still playing around with Deuc? That's so boring. Although I would have expected him to show more sympathy for our homosexual fellows.

[J m HofMarN]

Out of curiousity, what were you expecting? And if you think you can troll better than Deuacon be my guest, but there arent many people out there who are ready to open our eyes to the threat of gay supremacists. They burned a rainbow on my lawn yesterday because I called one a fag.

[Deucaon]

I'm sorry Zatoichi but I can barely comprehend your rant. Could you shorten it and back up your beliefs with logic and/or facts?

J m HofMarN, on 29 December 2010 - 06:12 PM, said:

That's nice.

4: Yes I do, however, public education is different, and government intervention is drastically different. It is as though you are saying "you don't eat the core of the apple, so you should help me burn down the apple orchard"
6: No, no it is not. Think about it. How can it be hereditary if you claim that homosexuals do not generally produce offspring? What about in cases where both partners are straight but give birth to someone who chooses to be gay? Many gays and lesbians choose the same sex after having bad experiences with the opposite sex, a case of nurture rather than nature.

Also, if there are any homosexual supremacists (I doubt that there are) I'm sure they will be glad to have you agree with them, even though you consider them to be victims of an inherited mental disorder.

Wait... you think being a homosexual is a choice? Are you out of your tiny little mind?

And you clearly have little understanding of how genetic inheritance works. Or genetics in general. For instance you have most if not all of your grandparents' genes. They're not all active. One of your grandparents could be a closet homosexual. Their kids might be heterosexual yet still have those inactive genes. Then they can pass those inactive genes onto you and you can be born as a homosexual.

Icey, on 29 December 2010 - 07:47 PM, said:

Great job, likening homosexuality to lacking sense of reality or wanting to have sex with children. The world is simpler than you think, and people more complicated. I don't think you quite understand what homosexuality is. It actually isn't a hereditary mental disorder. Surprise! When homosexuality occurs in nature it is affected by outside influences, it's a sort of population control. How this functions in human society I can't tell, because we are so far flung from nature. Homosexuality is the most natural and normal thing in the world.


I really didn't read the big pile on, because everything I've read by Deucaon, so far, seems immature and arrogant. I'm willing and ready to have a conversation though!

Except that homosexuals are an incredibly small portion of any given population for them to be considered nature's birth control solution or the result of culture. And I didn't liken homosexuality to paedophilia, as I've already pointed out. Though I'm sure they both come about due to similar or the same causes. And before anyone bitches about one group or another being likened to paedophiles, paedophiles don't choose to be that way. Nobody in their right mind would decide one day that they're going to be attracted to children and only children. Nor would it be possible for them to do so.

Gobbler, on 06 January 2011 - 11:21 PM, said:

Oh come on... I was expecting something big here. Are we still playing around with Deuc? That's so boring. Although I would have expected him to show more sympathy for our homosexual fellows.

I'm not unsympathetic. Look I understand that everybody here has been conditioned into believing ridiculous things but this sort of response is denial at best.

J m HofMarN, on 07 January 2011 - 08:57 AM, said:

Out of curiousity, what were you expecting? And if you think you can troll better than Deuacon be my guest, but there arent many people out there who are ready to open our eyes to the threat of gay supremacists. They burned a rainbow on my lawn yesterday because I called one a fag.

You think homosexuality is a choice so you're not allowed to mock anybody.

[civilian_number_two]

I don't understand the purpose of this dialogue.

Deucaon, do you believe that homosexual marriage ought to be recognized, that it should be treated the same as heterosexual marriage for all legal purposes? Why or why not?

[J m HofMarN]

Quote

Wait... you think being a homosexual is a choice? Are you out of your tiny little mind?

And you clearly have little understanding of how genetic inheritance works. Or genetics in general. For instance you have most if not all of your grandparents' genes. They're not all active. One of your grandparents could be a closet homosexual. Their kids might be heterosexual yet still have those inactive genes. Then they can pass those inactive genes onto you and you can be born as a homosexual.

Please cite any study that makes mention of a human gene that predisposes one to homosexuality. After you fail to find such nonsense, please read up on nature-vs-nurture. Then return to this thread, admit that your assertion was bogus, and debate about homosexuality without this borderline eugenics shit.

Civ: Unless he's changed his mind, Deuacon thinks homosexuals should be allowed to marry, even though marriage creates bureaucracy, because if they can't marry gays will have heterosexual relationships, thus having children and passing on their filthy, filthy gay genes.

[civilian_number_two]

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:

Please cite any study that makes mention of a human gene that predisposes one to homosexuality. After you fail to find such nonsense, please read up on nature-vs-nurture. Then return to this thread, admit that your assertion was bogus, and debate about homosexuality without this borderline eugenics shit.

JM, reference to such a study wouldn't prove anything. If we accept the premise of a gay gene, and it must be recessive, then it will always be propogated by heterosexuals. If the homosexuals do not reproduce, this does nothing to the recessive gene, since it is carried by heterosexual parents. His claim that gays are carrying the gay gene to future generation is silly; given the small percentage of gays reproducing, their numbers ought to be dwindling, yet they are relatively steady. Ergo a gay gene is recessive, or there is no such thing. Either way it doesn't have any place in his thesis.

Deuc, maybe you haven't logged on yet or you're formulating your careful and thought-out response, but in the meantime I will not assume JM to have correctly summarized your position. Because that is just dumb.

[Zatoichi]

Deucaon, on 08 January 2011 - 06:46 AM, said:

I'm sorry Zatoichi but I can barely comprehend your rant. Could you shorten it and back up your beliefs with logic and/or facts?

Really, huh, because I only used 2 "big" words. Disparate and colloquial.

As for facts, I gave you definitions, more or less, of the words "right" and "privilege" because you were throwing them around and it really didn't seem as though you knew what they actually meant. It wasn't some crazed belief that I hold, that's what those words pretty much are.

As for logic, I basically said that you can't possibly presume to narrow down what marriage is for everyone out there because we are all people, and all people are different from each other. And once again, it's not even really a belief, it's just true, plain and simple. You don't know these things that you purport to know.

And some of the other things were just simple questions. Like, how are rights being used as propaganda to bomb lesser people into submission? Why can't homosexuals want to be married? Does not producing children somehow magically disallow them the want of marriage? How about heterosexual couples who want to marry but do not desire children? Are they also disallowed from the want of marriage? What's wrong with homosexual couple's adopting? What exactly is a quasi-society? What exactly constitutes a quasi-society? What is it about America that makes it a quasi-society? If America is a quasi-society, when did it become one?

Maybe you should have said that you were sorry for being mistaken about some things but couldn't simply admit to it, because you'd lose face (though I really don't see how you could've done worse). And also that you were sorry for not being able to answer any of my questions because you were making stuff up.

This post has been edited by Zatoichi: 09 January 2011 - 06:50 PM

[Deucaon]

civilian_number_two, on 09 January 2011 - 07:09 AM, said:

I don't understand the purpose of this dialogue.

Deucaon, do you believe that homosexual marriage ought to be recognized, that it should be treated the same as heterosexual marriage for all legal purposes? Why or why not?

Government shouldn't recognise any marriage. Government has no place deciding what's legitimate and what's not, plus government is almost always at odds with society and governments are looking for ways to divide people using stupid issues like this. Plus it establishes economic discrimination against singles.

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Please cite any study that makes mention of a human gene that predisposes one to homosexuality. After you fail to find such nonsense, please read up on nature-vs-nurture. Then return to this thread, admit that your assertion was bogus, and debate about homosexuality without this borderline eugenics shit.

Let me ask you something. Would you be able to have a homosexuality encounter, assuming you're heterosexual? Or a heterosexual encounter, assuming you're homosexual?

And yes, a debate on genetic inheritance and forcing people to pretend to be something they're not is borderline eugenics. Stop being so fucking retarded, Hoffman. At least try not to be.

J m HofMarN, on 09 January 2011 - 03:04 PM, said:

Civ: Unless he's changed his mind, Deuacon thinks homosexuals should be allowed to marry, even though marriage creates bureaucracy, because if they can't marry gays will have heterosexual relationships, thus having children and passing on their filthy, filthy gay genes.

Are you suggesting that the genes which are the catalyst for homosexuality also cause the carrier to be untidy? Or that the genes themselves are somehow unhygienic?

civilian_number_two, on 09 January 2011 - 08:24 PM, said:

JM, reference to such a study wouldn't prove anything. If we accept the premise of a gay gene, and it must be recessive, then it will always be propogated by heterosexuals. If the homosexuals do not reproduce, this does nothing to the recessive gene, since it is carried by heterosexual parents. His claim that gays are carrying the gay gene to future generation is silly; given the small percentage of gays reproducing, their numbers ought to be dwindling, yet they are relatively steady. Ergo a gay gene is recessive, or there is no such thing. Either way it doesn't have any place in his thesis.

Deuc, maybe you haven't logged on yet or you're formulating your careful and thought-out response, but in the meantime I will not assume JM to have correctly summarized your position. Because that is just dumb.

The numbers of the ones that are open homosexuals are "relatively steady." We don't actually know how many homosexuals there are. In any case it's not, as Hoffman wrote, a choice. It's in the same category as a fetish or a (so-called) mental disorder.

[Icey]

You are ridiculous. Couples pay less taxes because people staying together creating strong family units is usually the best thing for everyone, and creates a safety net is a member of the unit turns ill. This is an incentive. It is discriminatory because the qualification to get the incentive doesn't require offspring made through penis in vagina or at all, but sometimes they can't be the same gender. It is also a legal union which tells the universe that this is your life partner, which has all sorts of legal ramification and does give people rights.

Stop overthinking things.