Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-23-2010, 06:23 AM   #11 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
bannister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: East Bay, CA
Posts: 125
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
the problem with homosexuality is that it runs counter to the only real method of survival for the species.

you can paint it up any other way you want but ultimately homosexual relationships are means to an end rather than means to a future (at least from anything besides an emotional perspective).

they can scream all they want about their 'love' and how it's just as 'real' as the love felt in hetero couples but the point continues to be missed. a life long love shouldn't be about satisfying the immediate individuals, it should be about establishing a love that will survive beyond themselves, to combine themselves within another being that will carry and live out their love throughout their own existence. it's physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for homosexuals to do this.

i don't mean this as any form of disrespect to adidass or any other homosexuals here. i've struggled with the idea myself at various times in the past too. once i had made sense of the preceeding paragraph to myself it made it a lot easier to realize that i was alone because i wasn't interested in shallow or promiscuous relationships, not because of gender issues. again, nothing against homosexuals, but in my experience i've also noticed a SIGNIFICANT increase in promiscuity and basic indecency and intimate disrespect within the g4y community. a lot around here (especially young ones) seem to take the idea that since they can't make babies as a green card for slutting out hardcore.
Well, if you put it that way, then being homosexual could be argued to be another form of naturally-occuring population control, like disease, famine, etc.

Which, in my opinion, is fan-****in'-tastic. Bring on the sodomites. There are far too many neglected, unintelligent, and flat-out bratty children being born to heterosexual couples every day.

(Excuse me if I'm opening a huge can of worms. I've had a really ****e day and I feel like unleashing it somewhere.)
__________________
You're not punk, and I'm telling everyone.

____

last.fm

____

"Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.

But, set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."

- Terry Pratchett



bannister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 06:53 AM   #12 (permalink)
nothing
 
mr dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 4,307
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bannister View Post
Well, if you put it that way, then being homosexual could be argued to be another form of naturally-occuring population control, like disease, famine, etc.

Which, in my opinion, is fan-****in'-tastic. Bring on the sodomites. There are far too many neglected, unintelligent, and flat-out bratty children being born to heterosexual couples every day.

(Excuse me if I'm opening a huge can of worms. I've had a really ****e day and I feel like unleashing it somewhere.)
yeah i wanted to avoid the worm cans too but whatever. hahahaha

now while i do agree with what you've said, here's where i really pull worms out. the angle on procreation i brought up earlier are the same reasons i don't think organized religions need to recognize homosexual partnerships in the same way as heterosexual marriages. i see absolutely no reason why any couple can't be seen in the same way under legal, social, educational, health etc environments. but where the fundamentals of all religions seems to be revolving around life and death, and the survival of the species, i don't see why religious organizations need to be forced to bend to political correctness to view a union between two individuals that runs completely opposite to the physical procreation and ultimately, the prolonged survival of humanity.

it's not that i think homosexuals can't or shouldn't raise children. it's that, at least one of those partners will always be a surrogate. you'll never actually have a physically transcendent union between two homosexuals the same way that traditionally happens with a hetero couple. it's not that one is better or more right than the other, only that they're different. i think most religions recognize that difference and see it as a big deal, and it seems that most homosexual groups recognize the difference as well but see it as a small deal. as for me, i think neither side has really figured out how to actually respect that difference properly yet.
__________________
i am the universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandteacher1 View Post
I type whicked fast,
mr dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 09:21 AM   #13 (permalink)
Seemingly Silenced
 
crash_override's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 2,308
Default

The term "g-ay" still has a negative connotation, and therefore it's blocked on this site. That is the problem.
__________________
My MB music journal

Quote:
Originally Posted by OBEY
"Never trust your own eyes, believe what you are told".
crash_override is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 09:58 AM   #14 (permalink)
Facilitator
 
VEGANGELICA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Where people kill 30 million pigs per year
Posts: 1,993
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
the problem with homosexuality is that it runs counter to the only real method of survival for the species.

you can paint it up any other way you want but ultimately homosexual relationships are means to an end rather than means to a future (at least from anything besides an emotional perspective).

they can scream all they want about their 'love' and how it's just as 'real' as the love felt in hetero couples but the point continues to be missed. a life long love shouldn't be about satisfying the immediate individuals, it should be about establishing a love that will survive beyond themselves, to combine themselves within another being that will carry and live out their love throughout their own existence. it's physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for homosexuals to do this.
Mr dave, I have a completely opposite view of a life-long love: it is about satisfying the immediate individuals, if it has any "purpose" at all. Just because it is true that people who procreate pass on their genes to a future generation doesn't mean this is a relationship's purpose. Having a child is wonderful (though I don't see it as a "biological goal"), but it doesn't give more meaning to a couple's relationship that isn't there to begin with.

When the sun consumes the earth, NO ONE will be left (space travel escape is extremely unlikely), so believing that having a child somehow sustains or maintains love beyond parents' biological lives ignores that all life on earth will end. There will BE no earth eventually, given what stars do (fusion reactions eventually run out of fuel). I feel that loving each other at the moment is what is important, rather than trying to live through one's child. The only thing that we can say will last, when we love someone, is that the fact that we once loved that person will always be true. All biological signs of that love will eventually be completely non-existent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
the angle on procreation i brought up earlier are the same reasons i don't think organized religions need to recognize homosexual partnerships in the same way as heterosexual marriages. i see absolutely no reason why any couple can't be seen in the same way under legal, social, educational, health etc environments. but where the fundamentals of all religions seems to be revolving around life and death, and the survival of the species, i don't see why religious organizations need to be forced to bend to political correctness to view a union between two individuals that runs completely opposite to the physical procreation and ultimately, the prolonged survival of humanity.
Many hetero couples have no children. Should religions not sanctify relationships between a woman and a man unless they vow to have a child? Of course, religions can invite whom they wish to their "poker party" of value judgements, but I feel wise religions...if there is such a thing...would not turn biological possibility into a religious imperative.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan:
If a chicken was smart enough to be able to speak English and run in a geometric pattern, then I think it should be smart enough to dial 911 (999) before getting the axe, and scream to the operator, "Something must be done! Something must be done!"
VEGANGELICA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 10:04 AM   #15 (permalink)
Blue Bleezin' Blind Drunk
 
NumberNineDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The land of the largest wine glass (aka Lebanon)
Posts: 2,183
Default

^ I wonder what happens to sterile people in this world. The church must be against them getting married.
__________________
Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do cats eat bats? Do cats eat bats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats?Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats? Do bats eat cats?

NumberNineDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 10:18 AM   #16 (permalink)
Me llamo Marijan
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Kuala Lumpur
Posts: 6,984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
the problem with homosexuality is that it runs counter to the only real method of survival for the species.

you can paint it up any other way you want but ultimately homosexual relationships are means to an end rather than means to a future (at least from anything besides an emotional perspective).

they can scream all they want about their 'love' and how it's just as 'real' as the love felt in hetero couples but the point continues to be missed. a life long love shouldn't be about satisfying the immediate individuals, it should be about establishing a love that will survive beyond themselves, to combine themselves within another being that will carry and live out their love throughout their own existence. it's physically, biologically, and genetically impossible for homosexuals to do this.
Some recent research claims that it does serve some biological purpose ( clickety click). In any case, even if mother nature continuously and for no apparent reason seems to screw up, the fact remains that homosexuality exists and will continue to indefinitely.

Now, what might possibly be inferred from your post is that either homosexuality is a choice (do we need to go down that route?) or that homosexuals should, in the interest of propagating the species, choose to live heterosexual lives to give some meaning to their existence, which, I'm sure you realize, would lead to a lifetime of unhappiness.
Also, as veg and nine point out, there's the tricky issue of all those heterosexual infertile couples.

So, the question remains, seeing as how such people serve no apparent purpose (if we assume our only purpose is to reproduce which to be frank, seems like an incredibly depressing though, whether you're gay or not), what do we do with the unfortunate hand density has dealt us? Commit mass suicide?

Quote:
now while i do agree with what you've said, here's where i really pull worms out. the angle on procreation i brought up earlier are the same reasons i don't think organized religions need to recognize homosexual partnerships in the same way as heterosexual marriages. i see absolutely no reason why any couple can't be seen in the same way under legal, social, educational, health etc environments. but where the fundamentals of all religions seems to be revolving around life and death, and the survival of the species, i don't see why religious organizations need to be forced to bend to political correctness to view a union between two individuals that runs completely opposite to the physical procreation and ultimately, the prolonged survival of humanity.
I agree, and I think most lgbtq activists do too, which is why no one is asking religious institutions to recognize gay marriages. What they're asking for is equal rights under the law. :\

Quote:
it's not that i think homosexuals can't or shouldn't raise children. it's that, at least one of those partners will always be a surrogate. you'll never actually have a physically transcendent union between two homosexuals the same way that traditionally happens with a hetero couple. it's not that one is better or more right than the other, only that they're different. i think most religions recognize that difference and see it as a big deal, and it seems that most homosexual groups recognize the difference as well but see it as a small deal. as for me, i think neither side has really figured out how to actually respect that difference properly yet.
I think the most important issue with gay couples raising children should be whether or not they can provide a safe and loving environment to their children, perpetuating social concepts of gender roles should be the least of anyone's concern (not to mention that I fail to see any actual benefit from having parents of different sexes. If you could name some I'd be much grateful).

Last edited by adidasss; 07-23-2010 at 10:23 AM.
adidasss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 11:52 AM   #17 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,258
Default

They're portrayed SO poorly in the media. People who have never actually met a REAL gay person think they're all sex-addicted flamers. I'd love to see a movie where the gay character is just a regular person who happens to like the same sex, instead of a flamboyant girly man for once. And I seriously think that Pride Parades are extremely detrimental to the gay image.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 11:58 AM   #18 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 0
Default

Quote:
Well, if you put it that way, then being homosexual could be argued to be another form of naturally-occuring population control, like disease, famine, etc.

Which, in my opinion, is fan-****in'-tastic. Bring on the sodomites. There are far too many neglected, unintelligent, and flat-out bratty children being born to heterosexual couples every day.

(Excuse me if I'm opening a huge can of worms. I've had a really ****e day and I feel like unleashing it somewhere.)
Thing about this is though, 1. why should they do this? They're alive, they have a working penis/vagina. They COULD reproduce. So why should they not be given the opportunity to? And the opportunity to spend their life together with each other? As male and female of the species? I only see humans man. If you're a human you're a human. there's nothing beyond this to my eyes.

its societal bull**** is all it is man. Trying to force people into roles like an ant farm. If we've got too many people, lets kill a load of them and everyone left can live tio the fullest. I'd never ask anyone to be a method of "population control"

2. why do people need to sodomise each other to control the population? Human beings dont HAVE to have sex. If you say, a worldwide "cull" is too extreme, fair enough. We could all just have sex less. Why would anyone need to have sex within the genders to accomplish population control? It may be a reason, but it's an incomplete line of reasoning. If they're here as population control, not to be cruel, but surely it would have been better that they die in the womb? Because they are a part of the population, too. any child that THEY would have had, wouldnt exist, if they didnt either.

If you still insist its a part of nature's design for some people to be born and not reproduce, then why were they simply not born with no genitalia? Or sterile, even?

Nobody is here as population control.

There's no inferior or superior biology if you ask me. If you're a man, you're a man. If you're a woman, you're a woman. Yin and yang. This is all because fo those ****ing nazis and their eugenics. They didnt even start it you know. WE did. It's all still going on; trying to imply some humans are better than others. Human is human, man we're all the same **** if you ask me.

But anyway thats why I dont get the argumanet of population control. it implies some are tools for the service of others.

Quote:
So, the question remains, seeing as how such people serve no apparent purpose (if we assume our only purpose is to reproduce which to be frank, seems like an incredibly depressing though, whether you're *** or not), what do we do with the unfortunate hand density has dealt us? Commit mass suicide?
I wouldnt say it's our only purpose, I would say, its the ultimate purpose of sex, not neccessarily of humans, or existing, but of sex itself. You could have no sex and live, we dont need it personally. But ultimatly, it's there to reproduce, I believe.

But then by proxy, any other purpose one does discover in life, it could be augmented by keeping the race alive to pursue it

I believe also that for every person, there is a person of the opposite gender who'll make them the happiest they could be, to be with. Because everything and anything else is simply a substitute.

Just because you may have bad experience with relationshiops or the opposite gender or life in general, or search for something of substance while all around search for stupidity and indulgence, it doesn't mean you HAVE to conform to some "group" to get by. Look at me for instance, I have no job, no proper friends, no girlfriend, no qualifications. Ah but be thankful for my good health eh? Not got that, even The point is, despite all this crapness, it doesnt make me "this" or "that", I don't need any of that to live. would be nice, but without it still, I am alive, I'm a human being, am I not?

Destiny hasnt dealt you a crap hand, its all about perceptions man. I presume you're a man, I cant see you but I presume as such going off the conversation. as such you have a penis. If you WANT to, you could find a lady to be with. If you feel perhaps slightly "feminine" in your self, maybe a lady who is more "masculine". Although, those are only words. Yin and yang man. Anima and Animus. What I mean is, there's the completing part for every one, opposites attract. The completing part to man is woman and vice versa.

If you dont want to, thats fair enough. But it's not your destiny to be doomed to a "sub-standard" role. Carve out your own destiny my friend.

I'm not trying to dictate to you here, or confuse you or mind-****. I simply am trying to make it known, that there is nothing you have to do, there is only whats best. Forget society, forget all the mind games people play, forget all that crap. You're a human being, that's all there is to it.


Quote:
When the sun consumes the earth, NO ONE will be left (space travel escape is extremely unlikely), so believing that having a child somehow sustains or maintains love beyond parents' biological lives ignores that all life on earth will end. There will BE no earth eventually, given what stars do (fusion reactions eventually run out of fuel). I feel that loving each other at the moment is what is important, rather than trying to live through one's child. The only thing that we can say will last, when we love someone, is that the fact that we once loved that person will always be true. All biological signs of that love will eventually be completely non-existent
Thats an incredibly pessimistic conclusion though, you know. To me. I refuse to accept that. Firstly, because no matter how scientifically sound, it's not certain. Secondally, maybe one of my own children will in fact create space travel, or save the planet or something, who knows.

And here, and now, the sun looks fine to me. Regardless of the impending doom, it doesnt change the fact that I am a man, a woman is a woman. I dont think the idea that it all could end should make one stop trying to do things. Surely it's more of an encouragement - it could all end any moment, it didnt end this moment so lets do everything in our power to keep it going, because the alternative is nothing.



Mr dave I agree with you sir, in a lot of what you said, is sound in my opinion; the irony is, when I share such views with people I end up ostrasized by 90% of the people listening, heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, they seem offended by the idea of free will and embracing of the body and self, man. Maybe I'm not so tactful in what I say, who knows.

I dont know what all people think, whats going on in their head. But I believe that it only exists as you said, as the "green card" for promiscuity, personally i expand on this to say it's also to escape:

1. responsibility

2. pain of heart break and loss

3. the expectation of established success

whoever wants to do it, if everyones consenting, I got no problem with that; it's not my place to think for people. I simply say, they dont have to do it.

Last edited by Cressidagater; 07-23-2010 at 12:15 PM.
Cressidagater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:20 PM   #19 (permalink)
Atchin' Akai
 
right-track's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Unamerica
Posts: 8,696
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
They're portrayed SO poorly in the media. People who have never actually met a REAL gay person think they're all sex-addicted flamers.
This is the only problem I have with homosexuality/homosexuals.
To be more accurate, some of them at best. Most of them at worst.
If straight men talked openly about sex as often and as crudely as some gay men and women do in public...straight men would be blasted for being laddish and reviled for being disgusting and uncooth in a heartbeat.
OK...I get it...you're gay.
But please, please, please don't ram the fact down my throat (so to speak).
I don't have a problem with your gayness, but for Christs sake, spare me the fucking details!
right-track is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2010, 01:32 PM   #20 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paloma View Post
you homosexual men take all the good looking dudes

that's my problem
Holy cow you're right.

And no offense but I do think gay men tend to have better taste in men than straight women.
boo boo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



2003-2019 Advameg, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO 3.5.2 ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.