| 150 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
4/30/09 1:13:32 PM#101
Originally posted by Abrahmm
Terrible argument. Everything you said is some NATURAL form of a human male showing itself in modern ways. Lower voices are from puberty. Watching sports is the modern display of the competative nature of humans. Drinking beer is... well, just drinking beer, pretty sure girls do that too. There is nothing normal or natural about a males voice turning high and containing a lisp practically over night because they decided they were gay. There is nothing natural or normal suddenly ACTING extremely feminine. It WOULD be normal if they acted that way from birth, showing that it was a condition they were born with and always had. When it spontaneously appears due to their sexual orientation, it's an act. Plain and simple. I can still remember one of the two gay kids in my highschool was in my gym class, and he talked and acted extremely feminine, but in gym class when he was out of his element, you could definitely see moments where he let the act down because he was pre-occupied with something else.
You know I am not talking about natural lower voice, you know I am not talking about people who really enjoy sports or beer, I am talking about men who act in front of other men, this is very common, I am talking about men who says all women are whores, who calls sensitive men "fags" who fake a louder and lower voice, who do "men things" to be acceptet as men, I am talking about the "male image", you and me know, a lot of people just act this way to be accepted as as a "normal" man. We can say the same about some homosexuals, the social act. I am talking about the masculine cliche who does not reflect a real person but a "masculine" image. Social behavior is, in most cases, fake, this is why you will see some people acting "different" only after they reveal who they really are. What I said is not an argument, it is the true, it is what happens. When someone says sexuality is part of social identity (and deep identity values), it is not just an argument, this is accepted as psychological fact. What you call normal is in most cases cultural and social. The typical male image you see as "normal" is a cultural pattern, not an universal human behavior.
|
|
|
4/30/09 2:01:23 PM#102
Originally posted by Umbral
Terrible argument. Everything you said is some NATURAL form of a human male showing itself in modern ways. Lower voices are from puberty. Watching sports is the modern display of the competative nature of humans. Drinking beer is... well, just drinking beer, pretty sure girls do that too. There is nothing normal or natural about a males voice turning high and containing a lisp practically over night because they decided they were gay. There is nothing natural or normal suddenly ACTING extremely feminine. It WOULD be normal if they acted that way from birth, showing that it was a condition they were born with and always had. When it spontaneously appears due to their sexual orientation, it's an act. Plain and simple. I can still remember one of the two gay kids in my highschool was in my gym class, and he talked and acted extremely feminine, but in gym class when he was out of his element, you could definitely see moments where he let the act down because he was pre-occupied with something else.
You know I am not talking about natural lower voice, you know I am not talking about people who really enjoy sports or beer, I am talking about men who act in front of other men, this is very common, I am talking about men who says all women are whores, who calls sensitive men "fags" who fake a louder and lower voice, who do "men things" to be acceptet as men, I am talking about the "male image", you and me know, a lot of people just act this way to be accepted as as a "normal" man. We can say the same about some homosexuals, the social act. I am talking about the masculine cliche who does not reflect a real person but a "masculine" image. Social behavior is, in most cases, fake, this is why you will see some people acting "different" only after they reveal who they really are. What I said is not an argument, it is the true, it is what happens. When someone says sexuality is part of social identity (and deep identity values), it is not just an argument, this is accepted as psychological fact. What you call normal is in most cases cultural and social. The typical male image you see as "normal" is a cultural pattern, not an universal human behavior.
Again, relate it back to primitive instinct. Which males mate with females in many species? The males that present themselves as the biggest, the baddest, the toughest, and the manliest. The ones that put on the best show for the females. So in essence this can be seen as a primitive instinct re-emerging in a modern way. But what is natural about a male acting like a female to attract other males? Nothing really. The closest I can think of is the cuttlefish. Sometimes the smaller males will pretend to be females in order to avoid fighting with the bigger males, and then slip by them and mate with a real female un-noticed. But even then, the end goal is still reproduction. Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic |
|
|
4/30/09 2:10:09 PM#103
Originally posted by Abrahmm
Everyone is a bigot in some form or way. I don't throw around acceptance to things that I think are wrong just because "that's who they are". I find homosexuality, from a scientific and moral view, to be wrong, so I don't show a lot of tolerance for it. Just as people don't tolerate murderers because "Oh that's just who they are". Does that make me a bigot? Sure, I guess so on this subject. I'm not, nor do I go out of my way, to be mean or insult homosexuals, but I don't support it, and I'll argue against it when that agenda is pushed on me. You show you are a bigot by not accepting my bigotry. We're even.
I gotta ask: What "scientific" view causes you to find homosexuality to be wrong? And since we're being 'scientific' please define what you mean by 'wrong'. Cause I'm not sure you mean what you think you mean. If I were to hazard a guess I would think that you are using some vague understanding of what you think are scientific principles to justify your moral objection. And when you say "agenda is pushed on me" are you referring to merely publicly acknowledging they exist and deserve equal respect? Well scientifically speaking, what is the point of sexuality? It is primarily for reproduction. Yes, other human needs are met with it, but it's primary function is reproduction. For a species, when an individual is homosexual, they do not reproduce. This lack of reproduction means that their gene's are not passed on. Individuals who's genes are not passed on are generally considered failures of the species, much the same way natural selection works. If the primary function of sexuality is reproduction and an individual is using it in a way that cannot ever meet that goal, I see that as wrong, scientifically. As for the agenda, well trying to push homosexual content into games seems like an agenda to me. I know the original post from Eikle wasn't pushing this, but others in the thread were. You're aware that homosexual people CAN reproduce? They suffer no physiological inability to reproduce. In fact many gay people do reproduce. What about straight people who don't reproduce for some reason or another? What about straight people who are infertile? Are they also scientifically wrong in your view? I understand what you're saying but I got to tell you, you're way off base on this. I still think, and you're reply backs me up that your scientific reasoning is merely a thinly disguised attempt to backstop your more irrational moral objections. |
|
|
catsaad
Apprentice Member
Joined: 6/02/08
when you cant change anything in this world .sit back and relax .said by anonymous. |
4/30/09 2:15:02 PM#104
gay people are said to be doomed in bible .the last pope declared gay people as ignorant ones and against the christ teaching .if you are smuggling and giving the money to orphans .it will still remain smuggling!!!.i have said the right thing and do what you like but this is truth .truth is always bitter .i dont care if i loose membership .i have my conscience which is more important than stupid memberships!!! |
|
4/30/09 2:19:31 PM#105
Well, what a sticky subject. All I can say is I've seen hate from both sides of the fence, including the "victim" gays, and I do have a problem if they try to force their agenda on people who don't want it forced on them. Even gays would probably not like it if something they opposed was shoved down their throats. So, overall, I agree with Abrahm here. As for Elikal's original post, it's their forums, and they can censor whatever words they want for whichever reasons they deem appropriate. And at catsaad...errm, yeah, that's why they deserve pity more than hate. People will always sin, and God gave us free will, so they conciously turn their backs on him and how he created us. |
|
|
4/30/09 2:19:34 PM#106
Originally posted by dhayes68
Everyone is a bigot in some form or way. I don't throw around acceptance to things that I think are wrong just because "that's who they are". I find homosexuality, from a scientific and moral view, to be wrong, so I don't show a lot of tolerance for it. Just as people don't tolerate murderers because "Oh that's just who they are". Does that make me a bigot? Sure, I guess so on this subject. I'm not, nor do I go out of my way, to be mean or insult homosexuals, but I don't support it, and I'll argue against it when that agenda is pushed on me. You show you are a bigot by not accepting my bigotry. We're even.
I gotta ask: What "scientific" view causes you to find homosexuality to be wrong? And since we're being 'scientific' please define what you mean by 'wrong'. Cause I'm not sure you mean what you think you mean. If I were to hazard a guess I would think that you are using some vague understanding of what you think are scientific principles to justify your moral objection. And when you say "agenda is pushed on me" are you referring to merely publicly acknowledging they exist and deserve equal respect? Well scientifically speaking, what is the point of sexuality? It is primarily for reproduction. Yes, other human needs are met with it, but it's primary function is reproduction. For a species, when an individual is homosexual, they do not reproduce. This lack of reproduction means that their gene's are not passed on. Individuals who's genes are not passed on are generally considered failures of the species, much the same way natural selection works. If the primary function of sexuality is reproduction and an individual is using it in a way that cannot ever meet that goal, I see that as wrong, scientifically. As for the agenda, well trying to push homosexual content into games seems like an agenda to me. I know the original post from Eikle wasn't pushing this, but others in the thread were. You're aware that homosexual people CAN reproduce? They suffer no physiological inability to reproduce. In fact many gay people do reproduce. What about straight people who don't reproduce for some reason or another? What about straight people who are infertile? Are they also scientifically wrong in your view? I understand what you're saying but I got to tell you, you're way off base on this. I still think, and you're reply backs me up that your scientific reasoning is merely a thinly disguised attempt to backstop your more irrational moral objections. Sure, they can, but they don't(not naturally at least). It isn't a physiological inability to reproduce, but apparently they have a psychological one. Sterility is a physical disability that usually can't be helped. They are failing to reproduce, but to no fault of their own. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make my opinion irrational. Just as I will never convince you that homosexuality is wrong, you are never going to convince me that it is right. Frankly, I don't really care what people do, as long as they keep it to themselves. Be gay for all you want, I really don't care. I don't approve of it, but I don't care. Pushing a homosexual agenda onto me is where I have issues. Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic |
|
|
4/30/09 2:20:03 PM#107
Originally posted by Abrahmm Again, relate it back to primitive instinct. Which males mate with females in many species? The males that present themselves as the biggest, the baddest, the toughest, and the manliest. The ones that put on the best show for the females. So in essence this can be seen as a primitive instinct re-emerging in a modern way. But what is natural about a male acting like a female to attract other males? Nothing really. The closest I can think of is the cuttlefish. Sometimes the smaller males will pretend to be females in order to avoid fighting with the bigger males, and then slip by them and mate with a real female un-noticed. But even then, the end goal is still reproduction.
You can't compare human instincts with another specie instincts. There is nothing "baddest" about the western male cliche, it is much more goofy than really "dungerous". In japan the male typical attitude is different than in US, would tell me this is because the primitive japanese male were not a "hunter" or a "warrior" in the past? Not always you can justify modern human bevavior using the primitive human side, sometimes you will find the answer between cultural preconceptions. Bisexualism was a common and normal pratice in primitive tribes and later on in ancient History, would you tell me the typical western male is more in touch with his primitive side today then they were in the past? Homosexualism was a common practice between greek warriors, would you tell me that the western male drinking light beer, watching soccer and calling the other males "fags" because they don't look like Homer Simpson is more "badass" than a greek warrior? Homosexual shamans were and are common in South America indian tribes, would tell me that the modern male man is more in touch with its primitive side than a shaman? Bisexualism is also easy to find in nature, but as I said, you can´t compare species when we talk about instinctive behavior. The modern male cliche dont even know how to approach modern women, do you really think the "though boy" between males but coward between women and scared between homosexuals is an example of the primitive male side? ... |
|
|
4/30/09 2:24:50 PM#108
Originally posted by Abrahmm
Sterility is a quality in today´s world. We are in the age of sex for pleasure , reproduction today is a danger to human race. We don't need more people in this world, at least not right now. ... |
|
|
4/30/09 2:26:37 PM#109
I started to read this post.....then thought much better of it. The last thing I need to read is a debate about the biology and morality of homosexuality from people who are posting on an MMO forum......
Good grief...... |
|
|
4/30/09 2:27:07 PM#110
Originally posted by Umbral
You can't compare human instincts with another specie instincts. There is nothing "baddest" about the western male cliche, it is much more goofy than really "dungerous". In japan the male typical attitude is different than in US, would tell me this is because the primitive japanese male were not a "hunter" or a "warrior" in the past? Not always you can justify modern human bevavior using the primitive human side, sometimes you will find the answer between cultural preconceptions. Bisexualism was a common and normal pratice in primitive tribes and later on in ancient History, would you tell me the typical western male is more in touch with his primitive side today then they were in the past? Homosexualism was a common practice between greek warriors, would you tell me that the western male drinking light beer, watching soccer and calling the other males "fags" because they don't look like Homer Simpson is more "badass" than a greek warrior? Homosexual shamans were and are common in South America indian tribes, would tell me that the modern male man is more in touch with its primitive side than a shaman? Bisexualism is also easy to find in nature, but as I said, you can´t compare species when we talk about instinctive behavior. The modern male cliche dont even know how to approach modern women, do you really think the "though boy" between males but coward between women and scared between homosexuals is an example of the primitive male side? ... There are always abnormalities in the behaviors of every species. You have pointed out many examples of homosexuality in history. Does that suddenly make it right? Would me pointing out the vastly more abundant examples of heterosexuality in history make me more right? As I said above, I am never going to convince you that homosexuality is wrong, just as you are never going to convince me that it is right. It is an opinion for a reason. It's objective, and up to the individual to decide for themselves. I made my decision, as you have made yours. Tried: LotR, CoH, AoC, WAR, Jumpgate Classic |
|
|
4/30/09 2:34:45 PM#111
Abrahmm I am not trying to express what is right or wrong, those values are relative and in most cases just an illusion. Just poiting what is human, what is natural to human and showing to you that the western male and female cliche are not exacly related to the primitive human side, but a cultural expression. About the rest, lets agree to disagree.
... |
|
|
4/30/09 2:41:53 PM#112
i also remember this topic from swg. You could parry a person if you found a certain ring, but you couldent marry same sex, so a guild was formed on the chrimera server which fought for the right for same sex marriages. This guild was banned of SOE if memory serves. This was very a very silly thing to do from SOE I think. Personally I think same sex marriages should be possible irl as well as ig, but while ig its up to sony of cause, but people should not be hindered or punished from trying change things (as long as it dosent cause direct discrimination, so no natzi parties on SOE servers plz). A group fighting for gay marriages should be allowed to exist.  Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.  Long live pc gaming, Viva la Steam, and and down with the Usurpers, down with the consoles |
|
|
4/30/09 4:57:53 PM#113
Wow... I just had a RL alignment shift. Funny thing. Used to be Lawful Good once. Funny.
|
|
|
4/30/09 5:14:18 PM#114
What is the actual problem here? Initially the mods on TOR had words like 'gay' and 'lesbian' filtered because they are words often used to insult people, rather than being used in their true meanings. Elikal objected to this and they rightly removed these words from the filter list. That is all there is to it. Good job from Elikal and his reward was a nice cartoon. Maybe it is because I'm a straight guy from Holland, kind of the San Francisco of Europe, tollerance wise, but I am really surprised of the amount of short sightedness and intollerance against gay people a minor issue like this brings up. It is friggin' 2009, folks! Live and let live. If you see or hear something you don't want to, turn the other way, or don't play MMO's at all if you really can't stand those who don't fit in YOUR PERSONAL view of what is natural or not. Sure, we wouldn't exist as a species if the majority of us weren't straight, but that doesn't mean that most of the time, being gay is a completely natural thing to gay people. Whether you like it or not. They sure as hell can't help being like they are (and neither can we). |
|
|
4/30/09 5:30:19 PM#115
Originally posted by Abrahmm Well scientifically speaking, what is the point of sexuality? It is primarily for reproduction. Yes, other human needs are met with it, but it's primary function is reproduction. For a species, when an individual is homosexual, they do not reproduce. This lack of reproduction means that their gene's are not passed on. Individuals who's genes are not passed on are generally considered failures of the species, much the same way natural selection works. If the primary function of sexuality is reproduction and an individual is using it in a way that cannot ever meet that goal, I see that as wrong, scientifically.
a) Without a doubt, the primary biological purpose of sex is reproduction. In humans, and a few other species, it is also a recreational activity. b) Homosexuals can and do have babies. c) That only leaves you with "the homosexual act cannot produce babies and is therefore 'wrong'". d) Non-sexual human activity also cannot produce babies and also generally fails to serve anything you might define as a 'primary function'. e) As for your comparing murder to homosexuality... Aggression and killing members of your own species are natural (if anti-social) drives which serve the 'primary function' of getting your genes passed on by eliminating competition. So by your standards of scientific right & wrong, murder is good, scientifically. f) By your standards, infertile people are also wrong, scientifically. So is anyone with any kind of disability that if civilization failed and we were reduced to living in the wild, would be less capable of surviving and passing on their genes. g) By your 'scientific' standards, medical science is an abomination - it keeps alive people who otherwise would not survive and ergo leads to the spread of weak genes. h) Only from a viewpoint of genetic puritanism can you reach conclusions e, f & g. I won't name names, but we all know which groups hold to those values. g) Scientifically, the planet is overpopulated and suffering from a range of ecological problems caused by humans. Therefore, scientifically speaking, reducing the number of humans on the planet is a fantastic idea and homosexuality is marvellous! |
|
|
4/30/09 5:40:12 PM#116
I am 38 now and i've been playing online games from the era of muds and bbs's since 1994. In fact I still run an adult mud a haven for mature adults of any sexual preference or lifestyle. I class myself as bi curiouse because rare but some men I find hot :) My wife is bi and together we have a GF (poly) Sexuality, fetish, gay/lesbian/hetro sex has had a place in multiplayer games for as long as they have been around.
I remember both me and my wife having quite abit of naughty fun in meridian 59, And it was there without our help... Any game that has an online comunity will have some sort of sexual development.
It reminds me of a question our gf asked me when we first met and it was this. "what part of my body turns you on the most?" My answer "your mind" Words, meanings, feelings and emotions can be conveyed via text or voice, via artwork or life, anyone who says sexuality has no place in games has been gaming with there head in the sand. On swg along before I left, there was over 70 adult themed guilds based around everything from fury to D/s.
|
|
|
4/30/09 5:42:12 PM#117
Originally posted by green13
Exactly. Even is we are talking 2%-3% of the human population, that still means a huge group. I do not believe that such a big group is a mere freak of nature. Homosexuality is every bit as natural as heterosexuality is. The fact that gay people don't represent the reproducing part of a species doesn't change a THING about that. Also realize that we, humans, are not only a collection of individually reproducing couples of males and females; we are group mamals. And the survival and success of a group doesn't only depend on reproduction but also on cognitive ability and having a coherent structure where different kinds of people fill in different ho ... *coughs* ...roles. edit; look at other primates; often a group has only one alpha male with a few contenders but together, they form the minority of the group's male population. When the 'reproduction task' of a group is covered, there are a range of niches and roles to fill in for other male group members. Quite friggin' natural if you ask me. |
|
|
DrChicken
 Novice Member
Joined: 5/26/05
John Romero is about to make you his bitch... Suck it down. |
4/30/09 5:57:58 PM#118
From the standpoint of normative ethics in our modern, developed society (right now), homosexuality is wrong. We'll see whether or not that changes in the future. For the record, bashing someone because he/she does not believe in the validity of homosexuality and, in particular, gay marriage, makes you about as wrong. Gays tend to make everything about themselves, when their "equal rights" problem only constitutes 50% of the conundrum. The other 50% is made up of the problems they introduce to society by trying to rapidly and forcefully change a dynamic that has worked for millennia. Homosexual relations, in its nature, is an "alternative lifestyle" to that which is tried and true. By all accounts, the anus is not meant to "take things in" (I'm going to make this as PG as possible) - its function is to remove waste. It is indefensible to claim that one man loving another is wrong, but is completely correct to say that sodomy as an outlet for sexual intercourse is unnatural. The "unnatural" case has been used over and over again, and for good reason. Societies are generally built upon certain ethics and absolutes that are known to work - when you know that using "X" to get "Y" works, an attempt at using an unknown "Z," for instance, in order to get the same "Y" will always bring skepticism and, in most cases, failure. This analogy generally only works in subjective matters, where humans are prone to allowing personal feelings and perceptions to blur the ethical code they follow.  |
|
4/30/09 6:13:12 PM#119
Originally posted by DrChicken
I'm reasonably up-to-date on international law on this topic and in very few modern, developed societies is homosexuality a criminal activity (i.e. wrong). Legal inequalities persist, but in the vast majority of modern, developed societies, these inequalities are being rectified. What evidence do you rely on to support your claim? |
|
|
4/30/09 6:30:26 PM#120
Originally posted by DarkPony
Exactly. Even is we are talking 2%-3% of the human population, that still means a huge group. I do not believe that such a big group is a mere freak of nature. Homosexuality is every bit as natural as heterosexuality is.
The irony in discussions like this is that all 'freaks of nature' are, scientifically speaking, normal. Genetic mutations - i.e. variations from the genetic norm - are what drive evolution and make a species capable of surviving both competing species and gradual or sudden changes in their environment. What we are now (i.e. the norm) were 'freaks of nature' to our genetic predecessors. Go back far enough and sexual reproduction - defined as the norm by some in this thread - was a 'freak of nature'. Some species of lizards (colourfully described as lesbian lizards) have even de-evolved on this particular scale and reproduce asexually. |
|
