Homosexuality

What's the jib with people disliking people whom are bi/lesbian/gay? I see nothing wrong with those type of people, they're just like us but with a unique sexual orientation.

Ahem.  I am a pro-life conservative libertarian, and live in quite a rural area to boot - and I do not care what gender my fellow men or women prefer.

Fudgepacking is a filthy practice. And my taxes pay for the resulting STD's. Nothing worse than a googoo-eyed, lisping faggot!

I like little boys.

I don't know about you, but I find another man's hairy, sweaty, shankered bum quite attractive. I fancy men that use Old Spice after shave!

ban it

>>6
yes!

>>6
no!

>>4
me too

>>5

My uncle would like to meet you.

>>1
Every time I've seen this asked it comes down to people thinking that gay people will try to come on to them (surprise /buttsecks) or being afraid of catching "the gay" by being around gay people.
SOUNDS STUPID? WELL IT IS.

you stick your dick in anything you want, just dont harm anyone or anything in the process.

>>1
They're just a bunch of crazy people no one gives a fuck about, but which socialists like to claim are representative of all political opponents because their arguments are so weak they can only resort to fear mongerring to gain support.

I used to find the Cartwight family quite attractive. Does this mean I am gay?

>>11
You can catch gay actually. I did. Though it requires you to be willing or subconsiously willing.

>>13 A majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. That is representing something.

>>16
it represents the amount of religious diversity in this country. i wonder what the statistics are in which they seperate differnt religious beliefs against evolution.

>>17 No, it represents bullshit bullshit bullshit and indoctrination. Everybody get to have their own opinions, no one are allowed to have their own facts.

>>18
Stop before it becomes 1984. There are no real facts, there is only freedom speech.

>>19 Um, reality is cumulative and probabilistic, and I recognize that. As such, even factuality comes in degrees, so all we can do is to ostracize, ridicule, humiliate and marginalize those who talk out of their asses or don't have the evidence to support their level of conviction or adherance (statists, christianists). For example, I've read much things that tells me that the free market is wonderful, and I've read equal material to *allow* me to believe that privatization doesn't require -and may be improved by the lack of- deregulation.

Why is it worng?
Its treason against humanity and its pretty fucking disgusting to.

>>21 Another example where the poster is either failing at troll or failing at life. Do you like painting yourself into a corner?

I\'m all for homosexuality. No need to ridicule someone\'s sexual orientation. People are people.

Lock the closet door fags!

>>23
I'm completely neutral on it.  I am indifferent to a person's sexuality. 

the poo hole is a point of exit.

The desire to propagate ones own kind is natural. It is rare in nature that this drive is limited. The question is, does nature cull out those it finds unfit for reproduction? Homosexuals must be encouraged to separate their lifestyles from the community at large. Homosexuality must not be taught as a positive lifestyle.

>>27 Okay, really. If I could get away with it, I would kill you. The least common relationship in nature is monogamous heterosexuality. Mostly, mammals (the most cerebrally evolved type of animals) are the ones most prone to any kind of nookie. Male dolphins engage not only themselves but also males in other species such as turtles. Procreation sometimes get prioritized down in favor of lust in some individuals, some christians find it acceptable to beat such people to death - and you are their naïve associate. Fail. At. Humanity.

>>28
Just because other organisms does these things doesn't make it moral. Many mammals eat their young because they don't have enough resources to take care of them. Humans eating their babies is still morally reprehensible.

So yeah, homosexuality exists in humans, bestiality exists, necrophilia, pedophilia, baby eating. Humans do a lot of fucked up shit. It doesn't make it morally good.

Homosexuality is morally reprehensible to me and I would not associate myself with you who say that natural things, like say murder, is moral. You can go be an animal. You fail at humanity.

"Humans eating their babies is still morally reprehensible." We are organisms. The reason it is reprehensible is beacuse *our* biology has evolved to the point that it doesn't psychologically permit it. We don't need to eat our young, our stomachs can't handle raw meat either. If nature demanded it, we would do it. However, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality - you are comparing a different kind of sexual act, an act of love, with eating a defenseless baby, immediately exposing your true form. Why am I the only one that wants to hurt this being?
"So yeah, homosexuality exists in humans, bestiality exists, necrophilia, pedophilia, baby eating. Humans do a lot of fucked up shit. It doesn't make it morally good." Ever heard of consensuality? Those sins you list are different iterations of carnal desire - the basis of all human behavior. However, in these cases people fulfill their desire at the expense and damage of other organisms, whose consent and mutual affection is unprovable, coerced or dubious. You really are a void, a big void. Everything that points towards you and pertains to you is the end of humanity, everything that points away from you and seeks to destroy you is humanity's salvation. I would kill you if I could, and I am straight as a girder.
"Homosexuality is morally reprehensible to me and I would not associate myself with you who say that natural things, like say murder, is moral. You can go be an animal. You fail at humanity." I believe that killing people like you before you can do more damage is vital to the survival of human civilization as we know it, a direct case of self-defense, making my murder of you justified. Let's have a poll here, people. Would it be okay for me to exert physical harm on 29 at this moment? Come on, crusader, be brave and tell me where you live, exact address and such. You have nothing to worry about, I live in Stockholm.

"You can go be an animal." I am an animal. Tie yourself to a chair in some secluded, isolated room and I'll prove it.

>>30
Xel stop filling up the volume of your posts with petty attacks on people's persons.

"However, there is nothing immoral about homosexuality - you are comparing a different kind of sexual act, an act of love, with eating a defenseless baby, immediately exposing your true form."

*yawn*

True form? Fundamentalist christian?

As a heterosexual I gain a very vivid feeling of repulsion when thinking about engaging sexually with another man. I have no problem looking at men's bodys or hugging other men in a manly manner when the time calls for it such as winning a game of rugby, so it cannot be psychological. I just cannot get turned on by anything other than a slender voluptuous female body. I cannot be homosexual.

I can only fall in love with one woman at a time, when I do I can still be sexually attracted to other women, but I am severely biased in favour of the woman I am in love with. Thus while, being a man, I am capable of sexual polygamy I am emotionally monogamous.

What do these facts reveal about my true form?

"Fundamentalist christian?" I don't care about monikers, appearances, consensual actions or religion; my guess is that many homophobes are agnostics or very casual christians. I care about actions, intelligence and implications of what people say - and thusly I think I need to kill and harm people like you as if I was paid to do it.
"As a heterosexual I gain a very vivid feeling of repulsion when thinking about engaging sexually with another man." Letting aesthetics shape your view of facts and other people - pitiable. Nobody is forcing you to have such thoughts... UNLESS... You secretly enjoy them. Kumori, anti-chan, Anonymous libertarian guy, can I get some help in ridiculing and heckling this sorry excuse for a man?
"I just cannot get turned on by anything other than a slender voluptuous female body. I cannot be homosexual." So? There is a gap between theory and practice. I like titties meself and I still think you should be forced to see your family members get their genitals mutilated and then be thrown in a pool of vinegar. Nobody is forcing you to think about men in a non-brewski/goodolboy-related way. Come on. You think about it in a sexual manner sometimes - all homophobes are in a closet-proximal zone...
"I can only fall in love with one woman at a time, when I do I can still be sexually attracted to other women, but I am severely biased in favour of the woman I am in love with. Thus while, being a man, I am capable of sexual polygamy I am emotionally monogamous.What do these facts reveal about my true form?" That you are an *average* human being. Whoop-de-boogaloo. There is gay sex and there is gay love. There is nothing wrong with actual polygamy, it is no more wrong than theoretical polygamy.
I wonder, what are you trying to say, you abonimable simpleton? Does your hypothetical GF share your views? Because it would be somewhat interesting to cut your dick off and make her eat it.

>>32 "Xel stop filling up the volume of your posts with petty attacks on people's persons." I will when you admit that consensual actions can not be immoral. Until then, you are an acceptable target for whatever.

>>33
"Kumori, anti-chan, Anonymous libertarian guy, can I get some help in ridiculing and heckling this sorry excuse for a man?"

You bet.  Anonymous libertarian guy to the rescue. 

I fail to see what is bad or immoral about two people who enjoy doing a certain activity that doesn't harm anyone else getting together and doing it, provided both people do so of their own free will.  If said activity makes them happy while not harming anyone else, and again they do so voluntarilly, I don't see what the problem is. 

[aa]　　                 ∧＿∧　　 ／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
  　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜  Emma Nilsdotter is really the voice of britney spears!
  　　　　　　　　／　　　　|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
  　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　
  　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
  　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
  　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
  　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
  　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣

>>35 Take a bow. We don't agree completely but this is common ground right here.

>>37
What isn't there to agree on? What else is there other than 2 people consenting to an activity that harms no one else? Tell me. I fail to see how the existence of homosexuality makes homosexuals superior.

>>33 Umm. I don't want to post anything that was already talked about and thus be beating a dead horse. So I'll state my views on this hooplah.

There's nothing with homosexuality. It shouldn't matter what someone's sexual orientation is. People are people, they're the same as us. I don't see what the problem is when it's done consensually and does no harm to anyone.

If anyone thinks it's a crime against nature, it isn't. The 'great beasts' in nature have their own fair share of homosexuality. Such as male walruses caressing each other and giving one another a flipper job for example.

>>37 + >>38
All three of us are like three peas in a pod on this subject.

It is a crime against human society because homos spread their perverse thinking and fucks up people's lives. Also, stop saying that things are okay for humans to do because animals do it. That is bu