Gay Rights

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MagicNakor@24 September 2003 - 01:48
You can't possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...

---

Quote:

---

The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

---

I'm not certain where you're getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It's not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it'll remain impossible.

:ninja:

---

No I'm not arguing christianity is the oldest religion at all??? :blink:
Maybe you should take the math course.... Because 1500 b.c. + 2003 a.d. =3503 yrs. old.
Give or take a couple of month's. :o
BTW how did you concluded I was arguing about the age of christianity, when in fact we were discussing, the age of book's. :unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by protak+24 September 2003 - 06:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (protak &#064; 24 September 2003 - 06:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-MagicNakor@24 September 2003 - 01:48
You can&#39;t possibly be arguing that Christianity is The Oldest Religion. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

The Holy Bible is a phenomenal account of history, comprised of 66 books, written over approximately 1600 years...

---

Quote:

---

The small book which age is over 2500 thousand years...The Etruscans had been around for a half-millenia before the Roman Empire built upon their ruins, and then were wiped out by the conquering Romans in the fourth century BC.

---

I&#39;m not certain where you&#39;re getting that 1600 is greater than 2500+. Perhaps I ought to take that mathematical course. My bank account would certainly appreciate it.

As Biggles already stated, there are texts far older than the Bible. I used the Etruscan book because you said that the Bible was the oldest book. It&#39;s not. But this is reminiscent of another "discussion" not too long ago. It was impossible then, and it&#39;ll remain impossible.

:ninja:

---

No I&#39;m not arguing christianity is the oldest religion at all??? :blink:
Maybe you should take the math course.... Because 1500 b.c. + 2003 a.d. =3503 yrs. old.
Give or take a couple of month&#39;s. :o
BTW how did you concluded I was arguing about the age of christianity, when in fact we were discussing, the age of book&#39;s. :unsure:[/b][/quote]
This has been discussed before, it has got nothing to do with the present topic. Even if it is the oldest book, which it is not, it proves nothing.

Here is a straw for you; it might be the oldest mass produced book.

Edit: A manuscript is not a book. MagicNakor can give you a description of what a book is.

Definition of &#39;natural&#39;:

Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: natural death.

Homosexuality is not natural. No species on Earth could survive if all of its individuals were homosexual. Besides the fact that everyone seems to be ignoring here: there&#39;s a reason different sexes exist&#33; There is a reason we have different sex organs&#33; And the male anus isn&#39;t meant to be one of them&#33;

Definition of &#39;normal&#39;:

Conforming with, adhering to, or constituting a norm, standard, pattern, level, or type; typical: normal room temperature; one&#39;s normal weight; normal diplomatic relations.
Biology. Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.
Relating to or characterized by average intelligence or development.
Free from mental illness; sane.

Funny that the dictionary should mention mental illness...

http://www.ucg.org/gn/gn48/homosexuals.htm

What amazes me though, is the fact that homosexuals continue to fervently demand that normal people recognise being gay as &#39;inherent&#39;. Funny that, considering that THOUSANDS of homosexuals have actively CHOSEN to live normal, decent lives. A European study recently revealed that the average length of a homosexual relationship is less than two years. How pathetic is that?

Not surprising really, considering that most homosexuals are seeking out the affection lacking from their childhood and end up with nothing but sex.

TO ALL HOMOSEXUALS: I would sincerely recommend that you visit this website if you are prepared to turn from your harmful lifestyle and seek HELP:

http://www.narth.com/

Good luck my fallen comrades&#33;

Calvarian....that has to be the most biggoted post ive ever read.

For starters, we&#39;ve already agreed that Homosexuality is not confined to Humanity....it appears in nature. We see male animals humping other male animals all over...

Your calculations appear to have missed out asexual species; which are numerous...and therefore by analogue MUST be homosexual, as there is no opposite sex for them to reproduce with.

Your assumption that the male anus isnt a sex organ......well, granted i&#39;ve not used mine as such, id still like to know how you came to this conclusion. The male G Spot is located there i believe, which must be some sort of incentive.


I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale. Women are much more honest with themselves, generally, about their own sexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

---

Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.

Quote:

---

The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale.

---

So I am honest enough to admit that another guy is good looking, so I&#39;m half way to geing gay? Give me a break. If you are so unsure of your own sexuality, feel free to say so, but don&#39;t tar all of us with the same brush.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
Calvarian....that has to be the most biggoted post ive ever read.

For starters, we&#39;ve already agreed that Homosexuality is not confined to Humanity....it appears in nature. We see male animals humping other male animals all over...

Your calculations appear to have missed out asexual species; which are numerous...and therefore by analogue MUST be homosexual, as there is no opposite sex for them to reproduce with.

Your assumption that the male anus isnt a sex organ......well, granted i&#39;ve not used mine as such, id still like to know how you came to this conclusion. The male G Spot is located there i believe, which must be some sort of incentive.


I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

The very fact that you can appreciate that a man looks good, without fancying him...puts you firmly on that scale. Women are much more honest with themselves, generally, about their own sexuality.

---

Rat Faced, seeing as how you are a global moderator, and I don&#39;t know you, I think I&#39;ll choose my words carefully. The MOST bigoted post you&#39;ve ever read? Surely not...

It appears in nature does it? Perhaps you&#39;d like to give some examples. I know of two or three myself, however, this is missing the point. I said that nowhere in nature does homosexuality exist as a means for SPECIES SURVIVAL. No species could survive if all of it&#39;s members were homosexual (except of course, the human species, which can manipulate genetics and in vitro fertilisation and other such things). Can you refute this statement? Because I would love to hear it.

I would also prefer if you did not put words in my mouth. I&#39;ve been studying science in high school and college for close 5 years now, so do not attempt to rebut me with talk of asexual species. Once again you have completely ignored the point I was making. Asexual species exist because in such species, this is the natural order of perpetuation. Since gender does not exist per se in such species, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot exist.

Why are you even discussing some creatures? Asexual animals.... you&#39;re basically talking about bacteria&#33; Microscopic organisms with no propensity for intelligence or reason or morality&#33; What&#39;s the point?

My assertion that the male anus is not a sex organ isn&#39;t an assumption at all. Try looking in any first year college human biology textbook and it will reveal all. And the fact that you tried to justify the location of the male g spot as a reason for using it in this way only further strengthens my argument that homosexual relationships are more strongly centred around sexual encounters than any long term relationship goals.

As for your psychologist... I&#39;m sure that if you watch or read the news at least occasionally you&#39;ll realise that one can find a &#39;scientist&#39; or &#39;doctor&#39; who&#39;ll say whatever you want. The fact is that psychologists do not require any formal medical training, and thus essentially have little knowledge on human biology. I&#39;d much sooner stake my faith on a pyschiatrist, who at least receives basic medical training and understands the human form, when it comes to matters such as what is physically &#39;natural&#39;.

The fact is Rat Faced, you&#39;ve completely ignored the fact that the NARTH has helped to reform thousands of ex-homosexuals. And regardless of the rhetoric from the gay organisations, homosexuals IN WESTERN COUNTRIES still have much higher rates of STDs, AIDS especially, than heterosexuals. Doesn&#39;t this give any sort of indication that just maybe, at the very least, homosex is unhealthy? I&#39;m sure as a well informed member of this board, Rat Faced, that you followed up on my website link.

Dr Joseph Nicolosi, a clinical psychologist for over a decade, president of the National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and mediator of the transition of thousands of homosexuals, quotes:

"Research has shown that the basic common cause of homosexuality, whether male or female, is an emotional detachment from the parent of the same sex", and usually early in childhood.

Is Dr Nicolosi qualified to speak on such a subject? I think so. Homosexuality is part of a much broader destructive lifestyle. I personally know (knew) three homosexuals. One of them died last year from an alcohol poisoning and drug OD. He also suffered chronic depression. A girl, 18, killed herself when her homosexual lover left her. And the third, is now in a heterosexual relationship.

Granted, this is not an accurate depiction of the homsexual population at large. But is sure isn&#39;t very convincing of the naturalness and normality of homosexuality is it RF?

Question: If homosexuality is a healthy and natural alternative is heterosexuality, why then is the average homosexual lifespan (~55yr) almost 25 years shorter than heterosexuals (~75-80yr)???

Wow, Calvarian has been to college and high school for 5 years, I&#39;m impressed, I thought from your posts that you were a complete idiot, now I realise you have some way to go&#33;


:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 October 2003 - 14:26
Wow, Calvarian has been to college and high school for 5 years, I&#39;m impressed, I thought from your posts that you were a complete idiot, now I realise you have some way to go&#33;


:)

---

Petty, BD, even for you. I have two questions for you (feel free to decline them if you see fit):

1. What country are you from/living in?
2. Why are you such a &#39;shit stirrer&#39;?

I thought this board had some sort of restriction as to personal abuse on members, or was that just an honour system? Yeah, that sounds more like it actually. You can draw your own conclusions from that Billy Dean...

Its not just single celled organisms, snails and slugs are commonly hermaphroditic ie they possess both sexual organs I&#39;m not sure if that qualifies them as homosexual or not, but there is only a single sex so i think it does. Homosexuality as you state has been found in quite a large number of species in nature, no its not to continue the species, but so what that doesn&#39;t make it unnatural and its not contagious so what do you care if someone is happy being gay.
I think the psychological theory that its not all black and white in terms of your sexuality is quite a widely held and respected view I rather doubt its one psychologist on his own.

STD&#39;s are more easily spread through male homosexual sex (though not female) because basically your arse isn&#39;t up to that kind of treatment, the solution here probably isn&#39;t to ban all gay sex, perhaps a more reasonable approach would be promote the use of condoms?

Until we know what causes homosexuality the wild theories abound, I would bet large amounts of money that its more complex than "emotional detachment from the parent of the same sex" , my personal opinion is that like most things its a nature and nurture thing, ie genetic and environmental.

As for depression among gays, that may have a good deal to do with the way society and in particular people such as yourself treat them. (and this depression along with the STD problem undoubtedly contribute to earlier deaths, though I have a shred of doubt about your figures.)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lynx+2 October 2003 - 06:45--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 2 October 2003 - 06:45)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@2 October 2003 - 09:49
I believe some psychologist pointed out that everyone is on a single scale of sexuality. The scale ranges from "never" same sex, to "always" same sex.....but that in the end everyone is bi-sexual, to some extent.

---

Not up to your usual standard, RF.

"A psychologist pointed out that...". Oh well, it MUST be true if a psychologist pointed it out. I remember at university that you could either do a proper degree, but if you weren&#39;t quite good enough for that (or just plain lazy), you could do a degree in psychology - two whole hours of lectures per week, and an essay to write once per fortnight, I don&#39;t know how they managed it. Obviously the staff couldn&#39;t understand it either, because after the first year they dropped to a single one hour lecture per week. Still, it&#39;s good to know that these well trained people are there to guide us.

[/b][/quote]
I may be wrong, but I think RF is referring to Alfred Kinsey and his seven point scale of sexual orientation.

He was originally a biology professor, whose specialty was entomology.