|
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
Sans social pressures to conform, seeing others having heterosexual or homosexual relationships or affection doesn't change your sexuality. Any young boy who might think they were gay for seeing two men kiss would likely find it quite unsatisfactory when he kisses another boy. Let us not forget though that most youngsters aren't actively engaging in heterosexual relationships either, even though public displays of affection have been the norm for a long time.
I really don't think segregation would be the best move--nor worth the effort. It'd probably be hard to have an all-gay scout group, since there's presumably far less homosexual (or homosexual identified youngsters) than heterosexual participants.
|
On January 30 2013 04:57 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:55 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:50 PanN wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation. Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc. Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already.
I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted.
|
On January 30 2013 04:24 sam!zdat wrote:I'd say stopping reproduction is a big plus in my book. I think we should encourage more people to be homosexual, that way we can solve the population problem. Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:10 KAB00000000M wrote:
The problem is that people let their religion decide if homosexuality is right or wrong. Instead of studying the evidence of evolution. studying evolution tells you absolutely nothing about right and wrong
Yes exactly. You are focusing on what is right or wrong. That's absolutely not the point.
The point is to understand how things are the way they are. Instead of asking why - which in most cases makes the right or wrong direction.
|
But how does knowing how things are the way they are tell you what you should do about it?
|
On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
|
On January 30 2013 04:58 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:57 PanN wrote:On January 30 2013 04:55 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:50 PanN wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation. Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc. Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already. I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted.
I'm really just trying to find out why you said "kids these days". I've always hated that phrase because people can never back up what they mean when they say it, people throw that out all the time yet when you ask them about it, they never have an answer. This is the first time I got political talk from it though, amusing.
|
On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say.
A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
|
If Christ would chill with prostitutes and tax collectors, he'd chill with gay people too. Homophobia is a complete perversion of the teachings of Christ.
|
On January 30 2013 05:08 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:58 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:57 PanN wrote:On January 30 2013 04:55 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:50 PanN wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Explain in detail why kids are more like monkeys "these days" than in the past. I'd love to hear your detailed explanation. Simple. Who do kids try to emulate when their younger or older for that matter? Celebrities, Athletes, Musicians, Reality show divas, etc. Celebrities, atheletes, and musicians have existed for a long time. You're not convincing me at all here. You're saying kids have role models. I knew that part already. I changed my post before you posted. Also, convincing you is like a democrat trying to convince a republican, it won't happen. Because you already had your mind made up before I even posted. I'm really just trying to find out why you said "kids these days". I've always hated that phrase because people can never back up what they mean when they say it, people throw that out all the time yet when you ask them about it, they never have an answer. This is the first time I got political talk from it though, amusing.
I'll backup what I say in one sentence. I say "these days" because I can only speak for the generation in which I have lived and can't speak for the past generations in which I have not.
|
On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity.
You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
|
On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say. A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence.
I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
|
On January 30 2013 05:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say. A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence. I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems.
So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
|
On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you?
No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
|
On January 30 2013 05:24 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say. A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence. I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems. So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then?
No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
|
On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:Boy Scouts of America Rejects Eagle Scout Status to Gay MemberBSA standing up for their backwards policies against homosexuals yet again. I respect their firm stance on this issue as it will make it more abundantly clear that this organization is inimical to a compassionate and progressive society and culture. I propose they change their name to The Faggotless Boy Scouts of America (FBSA) to avoid any further issues in the future. Edited by KwarK to head off religion tangents[Redacted - I was pissed. You understand] Don't support the BSA until they get their shit together and join the rest of us in modernity. Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you? No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy.
There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
|
On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you? No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy. There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
On January 30 2013 05:25 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:24 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 05:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:
[quote]
so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say. A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence. I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems. So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then? No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either.
So you think that our secular government should provide funds to an organization that actively discriminates against its members? Would you not be upset if the KKK received federal funding as well? Taxpayers dollars? BSA can discriminate if they want on the basis of religion, you'll find a lot of people in this topic would support that, but the issue comes in taht they receive federal funding.
|
If we remove federal funding for Boy Scouts, how can we teach little British boys to be explorers and go out and colonize the globe for Mother Britannia?
Oh, never mind, this is America and it's 2013.
|
On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:On January 30 2013 02:32 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
Lol so their supposed to just drop everything that their organization stands for just because somebody who likes the opposite sex wants to join? That's preposterous. If their policies were written in respect to their religion then I don't see why you people don't think that they should be allowed to uphold it. It's always a one way ticket with you folks. Your way or the highway eh? I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you? No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy. There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance?
I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
|
On January 30 2013 05:41 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you? No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy. There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance? I went to school in an urban area. Also, where did you get that percentage from? If you were talking about yourself when you said "there is no factual argument" then I completely agree with you after seeing your false percentage.
So to clarify, yes, you think gay people turn straight people gay.
|
On January 30 2013 05:37 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:35 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 05:24 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:20 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:38 sVnteen wrote:On January 30 2013 03:27 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 03:16 Arghmyliver wrote:
[quote]
I think even the KKK is required to allow black members to join. You can believe whatever you want - but you can't be discriminatory in terms of you r membership. I figured that would be an argument you would try to direct my way. Homosexuality has no color. lol you comparing a hate crime organization to a religious organization. I see what point you're trying to make though. But still, Homosexuality has no color and it certainly doesn't say Race: Homosexual on your license. so what you are saying is taht it is ok to believe that homosexuality is bad but not that being black is bad? Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. You did not seriously just use the "gay people convert straight people to become gay" argument did you? No, I used a "fact" of what occurred at my middle/high school. Unless you just want to call it a factual argument. It was the straight kids decision to make the choice they did. The same as peer pressure. Some people do what they have to do to "be cool". Which is why I brought up the monkey analogy. There is no factual argument. Even if you do have some hilarious anecdotal evidence about a straight kid peer pressured into engaging in a homosexual act, you're talking about 0.001% of the population, at best. Did you go to middle school in an extremely rural area, by any chance? Show nested quote +On January 30 2013 05:25 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:24 FabledIntegral wrote:On January 30 2013 05:22 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 05:16 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 05:04 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:44 farvacola wrote:On January 30 2013 04:43 BlazeFury01 wrote:On January 30 2013 04:32 Alay wrote:On January 30 2013 03:48 BlazeFury01 wrote:
[quote]
Well, I look at it this way. Being A color of race doesn't stop reproduction. Ask yourself this: If the whole world was homosexual, how on earth would mankind cease to exist with no reproduction? If the whole world was black that wouldn't effect anything. However, it would certainly cure racism. I would say that it's not your choice to be born black, but in the same instance people tell me that they're born homosexual, so I have to rule out this comparison and refer to the reproductive analogy above. Is it right? Logically, no. Is it wrong to discriminate against them? Yes, but not under religious intent. There should be a similar program for homosexuals. I'm not sure I can understand how you feel that the element of banning homosexuals on a basis of religious views is any more or less inherently 'wrong' than the previous widespread banning of blacks from organizations because of religious views (they were previously considered 'dirty souls' and stuff like that.) Further, segregation of sexualities is kind of pointless and would only be there to try and belittle a minority or empower a majority. Their both wrong in a sense. However, being of color doesn't affect the mentality of someone of youth like two men kissing in public can. Kids are like monkey see, monkey do; these days. If a parent doesn't want their kids to be exposed to such activity them they should have the right to join an organization that teaches their young boy how to become a man, not a gay man and vice versa. There should be an organization like the BSoA that all gay men should be allowed to join a well. So they have the same opportunity. Kids are not like monkeys, and if a parent treats them as such, they deserve to have shit flung in their face. Gay men kissing do not owe shitty parents anything. I'm not talking about how a parent treats them, I'm talking about their mentality to copy what say see an what he/she thinks is cool. I actually heard people say in mid and high school that being gay was "cool" and straight kids tried it because it was the "thing to do" so to say. A teenager's sexual confusion is no justification for the different treatment of homosexuals. If a child has grown up with the notion that his sexual identity is some sort of plaything, I cannot dismiss such a notion out of hand but can only chalk such a thing up to the environment he/she comes from; an environment in which parents are the ones with the most influence. I agree. I believe that homosexuals should be treated equally to an extent and that extent is where religion comes in. Other than that, I have no problems. So basically then you'd agree that BSA should not be provided with federal funding anymore then? No, because that's where that extent comes in. Also, it's a double negative as removing federal funding wouldn't fix the problem either. So you think that our secular government should provide funds to an organization that actively discriminates against its members? Would you not be upset if the KKK received federal funding as well? Taxpayers dollars? BSA can discriminate if they want on the basis of religion, you'll find a lot of people in this topic would support that, but the issue comes in taht they receive federal funding.
The difference between the two is that one promotes violence and blatant hatred while the other doesn't promote hate nor violence but just doesn't accept one of a certain orientation to join due to religious morals and not to have kids exposed to such activity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
