20061114

Homosexuality and Human Instinct

Recently, after hearing a homosexual advocate speaking about homosexuality, I got to thinking about the subject. I asked myself: Is my opposition to homosexual marriage reasonable, or am I just being intolerant?

I wondered why is it that I think homosexuality is wrong. I have reasoned on the subject that homosexuality is unnatural, that homosexuals do not ever use their sexual organs in the way they were intended to be used. I think it is reasonable for a human to oppose homosexuality on this ground alone, however is it possible that there is even more behind my not being able to be "tolerant" of society officially sanctioning homosexual unions?

Ignoring what the Bible has to say about the subject, I attempted to approach this only from a "human reasoning" vantage point. Since I would imagine that most (but certainly not all) homosexual advocates are evolutionists, and I was going to once again see things from their viewpoint, I decided to limit my reasoning to the confines of evolution.

OK, God did not create me. I am only an animal, a product of evolution. I am a mammal. The only difference between me and my pet dogs is that I have a larger brain, the ability to speak etc. Being "only human", only an animal, I almost instinctively recoil at the thought of two men engaging in sex.

I remember back to my grade school science classes where I was taught about human instincts. The teacher drew a large pyramid on the blackboard and at the top of the pyramid she wrote "self preservation". I can not recall exactly what she wrote in the middle, but I do vividly recall at the bottom of the pyramid she filled in "species preservation".

Is it possible that the reason I find it so difficult to overcome my opposition is due to human instinct? No matter how often I take up the subject, I find it impossible to use my power of human reason to rationally overcome my opposition to homosexuality.

Hmmm, perhaps my "unreasonable" opposition to homosexuality can be explained through human instinct. I "know" it is wrong because my instincts tell me this is so. Homosexuality threatens species survival by upsetting natural selection through heterosexual sexual activity.

OK homosexual advocates, have you got that? When you ask me to be "tolerant" of homosexual marriage, you are asking me to go against my instincts. Using my power of human reason, I can overcome my intincts to be somewhat tolerant of homosexuals. I do not want, for example, to see heterosexual toughs beating the hell out of homosexuals. I do not want employers to fire individuals when it is discovered they are homosexual. I do not want to see signs sprouting up in front of apartment complexes with the message "No Gays Allowed". However I can not reason away that it is wrong for homosexuals to expect human society to encourage their activity by granting their unions the official "blessing" of marriage.

I can overcome my instincts when it comes to being tolerant of homosexuals. I think I can learn to overcome my instinctive impulse to recoil when I encounter a "flaming faggot". However when it comes to the subject of marriage, I am going to go with my instinct, I am going to keep on saying no way, that homosexuals are asking for too much.

If this is not enough for homosexuals, if this is upsetting for them, I ask for their forgiveness. I ask them to try to see things from my viewpoint like I have attempted to see things from theirs. And when you try to put yourself in my shoes, try to remember, I am only human.

31 Comments:

Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

As you, I completely disagree with homosexuality.

That said, I dont think it is any governments place to endorse one set of people, and deny another. Thats just not cool.

This gets back in to the days when blacks and whites werent even allowed to get married legally. Hell, Im sure some states probably still have that on the books even though its technically ignored.

Is that really fair to legislate priveledge, and deny others simply because you disagree with their creed or institution?

There was once a similiar thing, it was called....whats that name.....slavery.

The majority of people didnt believe those of color deserved any rights, and were less then human beings, property even. So it was. Do you agree with that type of behavior? Because a majority of people have a bias against something, is it correct to legislate against it?

We arent talking murder, or arson, or any of the like. It isnt physically harming anyone. The simple reason we are outlawing this is because it sickens at least 70% of people.

So what? Should we outlaw the production of brocolli and turnips as well? Something like 70% of people are non smokers, maybe we should completely outlaw smoking altogether? Elderly people are statistically far more likely to get into car accidents or fall asleep at the wheel then people under 60, maybe we should go ahead and start taking away driving priveledges at a certain age......

Come on now. It makes no sense to say, "Ok you people can have this priveledge or right, while you cant because youre ugly". What kind of sophmoric playground logic is that?

Am I any more comfortable watching two dudes making out? No, it makes me sick. Would I ever attend a wedding of two women, no I wouldnt.

On the same note, I operate under logic 100% of the time, and their is no sound logical or legal reason to ban gay marriage, period.

There are a whole lot of things you or I might disagree with, but the bottom line is, we supposedly live in a free and equal society, there is no room for legislating those freedoms and equalities to certain demographics of people.

11/16/2006 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

Some liberals ARE talking of outlawing smoking. Already in some low income housing developments, you are not allowed to smoke even if you go outside onto your patio. Business establishments are prevented by law from allowing people to light up (some bars could be smoking, others non-smoking allowing market forces to decide).

I am not in favor of making homosexuality illegal. However I am not in favor of allowing them to get married either.

By the way, a not totally unreasonable argument can be made that male homosexuals are a public health threat, and I am not talking about "due to AIDS" either (although this could be included).

11/19/2006 07:59:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. Some liberals ARE talking of outlawing smoking. Already in some low income housing developments, you are not allowed to smoke even if you go outside onto your patio

Reply- This doesnt mean its correct. Two wrongs dont make a right.

Furthermore, that said, the basis for banning smoking is completely different then homosexuality. The argument behind the smoking that has been banned is that is DOES create harm to other people from the second hand smoke. Its not simply because its a repulsive behavior that most people dont agree with.


2. By the way, a not totally unreasonable argument can be made that male homosexuals are a public health threat, and I am not talking about "due to AIDS" either (although this could be included).

Reply- How are male homosexuals a public health threat, especially if you arent refering to AIDS? Are you going to catch homosexuality through the air? Im not quite understanding this.

Granted, some limited argument can be made about HIV, considering homosexual males contract the virus at the highest concentrations amongst all demographics. But that isnt a result of them being homosexual, that is unsafe sexual practices. Im not aware of any statistics, but I suppose homosexuals probably practice unsafe sex at a higher rate then straight people?

Do you think that allowing them to be in official monogamous relationships might cut down on the promiscuity of that demographic?

Something to think about.....

11/20/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

They are trying to prevent smokers from smoking even when they go outside where the smoke is dispersed into the atmosphere and does not threaten anyone else. They have raised tobacco taxes to outrageously high rates in many states because smoking is a "sin".

As for male homosexuals being a threat to the general public health... Male homosexuals are extremely promiscuous in their sexual practices as when compared to the general public. Heterosexual males enjoy the dampening effects of females when it comes to sex on promiscuity. Homosexual males are abandoning safe sex due to the availability of the drug cocktail to combat AIDS. They suffer from "ordinary" sexual diseases at greater rates then the public at large due to their sexual habits.

Some bisexual members of our society engage in sex with the homosexual community and then bring the diseases home to their unsuspecting partners.

Homosexual advocates explain the spread of AIDS within the homosexual community as being due to it first being introduced into the homosexual community within our society. There is some truth to that. However the introduction of AIDS in the homosexual community can also be explained by the promiscuity of the male homosexual community. When it was introduced to gays, it spread like wildfire through tinder. That it did not likewise spread in the heterosexual community (although still a problem) points, in truth, to the differences between the communities.

Male homosexuals are a public health threat. They need to clean up their act.

11/20/2006 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. They are trying to prevent smokers from smoking even when they go outside where the smoke is dispersed into the atmosphere and does not threaten anyone else. They have raised tobacco taxes to outrageously high rates in many states because smoking is a "sin".

Reply- Personally, I only favor banning smoking on public property. To me, private property is up to the owner, and patrons to subject themselves. I know there are all kinds of drives nationwide to ban smoking in any and all gatherings of the public, including private bars and what not. Im completely opposed to this.


2. As for male homosexuals being a threat to the general public health... Male homosexuals are extremely promiscuous in their sexual practices as when compared to the general public.

Reply- Do you think the fact that they are not permitted to be in officially sanctioned monogmous relationships has anything to do with this? Do you think the homosexual male has more of a sex drive then the heterosexual male? Im not aware of any data on this, but Im sure they are comparitable.

What is the difference? Straight males are encouraged to have monogomous relationships by society and church. They also can form officially sanctioned relationships. This leads to two things

1. Im sure the rates of married men having multiple sex partners is not even a fraction of those who are unmarried. Those in officially sanctioned monogomous relationships are statistically far less likely to stray from that relationship.

2. When, or, if a married man engages in post marital sex with other partners, Im sure he is more likely to use protection, in fear of his spouse discovering the encounters.


3. Homosexual males are abandoning safe sex due to the availability of the drug cocktail to combat AIDS. They suffer from "ordinary" sexual diseases at greater rates then the public at large due to their sexual habits.

Reply- I have no doubt that they are, but is this because they are homosexual, or because they are abandoning safe sex, and arent confined to monogomous relationships?


4. When it was introduced to gays, it spread like wildfire through tinder. That it did not likewise spread in the heterosexual community (although still a problem) points, in truth, to the differences between the communities.


Reply- I agree.....but is it the fact that gays are scientifically proven to be more promiscuous?

I believe one reason that, at first, it probably spread through the gay community, is because gays probably saw little need for a condom, since it was largely viewed as a birth control measure at the time.

I think, if the risk for birth was non existant, it would have increased exponentially faster through the mainstream straight community.

Just take a look at Africa, or Asia, or any other AIDS ravished third world country whose people do not readily practice safe sex. AIDS is just a prevelent or even more so in heterosexuals as it is in homosexuals.

In these countries, the sex trade is rampant, there is little education of STDS, little availability of birth control, and its often acceptable for men to have many female partners.

In these societies, the number one transmitors of AIDS are not homosexual males, but straight males who spread the virus to multiple women at a time, and prostitutes.


5. Male homosexuals are a public health threat. They need to clean up their act.

Reply- I agree with the fact that they need to clean up their act. The number one largest growing demographic of infected people are straight African American women, last time I checked, and Ive read the reason for this is that so many black men are "in the closet" because its a much bigger stigma in the black community.

So, I do agree with you that unsafe sex practice, and dishonesty amongst the homosexual community is a health concern, but I dont agree that homosexuals themselves are. They are no greater of a health threat then a straight man screwing everything walking, the only difference I suppose is that AIDS specifically, has a much lower chance of spreading from a woman to man, and therefore a straight man probably has a much lower chance of ever picking up AIDS in the first place, but still can spread other fun things, like Herpes, or Gonorrhea or Syphillis.

11/20/2006 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Males who wish to engage in sex are apt to find more willing partners within the male community (if they are homosexual) then from within the female community.

As much as everyone might scream "We are all the same" there are differences between males and females.

Sex of a nature of men only within men is a public health threat.

Males are more apt to be promiscous as evidenced by male sexual activity within the male homosexual community. Males are more apt to engage in sex at the "drop of a hat" then females are. Females insist that "love" or something must first exist before they engage in sex.

Do you believe in evolution?

11/20/2006 12:39:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. Males who wish to engage in sex are apt to find more willing partners within the male community (if they are homosexual) then from within the female community

Reply- I dont know if this is fact or not, but Im not sure it matters. What does that have to do with praticing safe sex?


2. As much as everyone might scream "We are all the same" there are differences between males and females.


Reply- Im not sure I know anyone who has claimed that males and females are the same. It is scientific fact that females are different, physically, and chemically. So anyone making that claim is an idiot.


3. Males are more apt to be promiscous as evidenced by male sexual activity within the male homosexual community. Males are more apt to engage in sex at the "drop of a hat" then females are. Females insist that "love" or something must first exist before they engage in sex.

Reply-

1. I said as much that males are more apt to be promiscuous. So what? Do you believe that none of the increased sexual behavior (if that is a fact of course) has to do with the fact that their relationships are not legally or officially endorsed?

Let me ask you a question, if you werent married, and werent allowed to be, do you believe that you would be monogomous? Even though such a relationship could be devistating for you personally?

It is a fact, the monogomy, is a biologically unnatural state that is only entered into for emotional, religious or legal reasons, and occasionally financial or convenience reasons, but none for biological reasons.


So, what happens if you remove that institution from a certain person? What motivates them to enter into such a relationship, if most of, or all of, the benefit is gone?

I know, for one, there is no way in hell I would have gotten married if it wasnt legally recognized, and with such, received legal benefits.


4. Do you believe in evolution?


Reply- Being a "devout" atheist, I pretty much swear by the theory of biological evolution.

11/20/2006 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Look, male homosexuals are not going to rush into monogamous relationships if we open the doorway to the "blessing" of marriage for them.

Opening the doorway to marriage is only going to signal society's acceptance of that which they do no matter how they do it.

Since you are an evolutionist, will you not concede then that if homosexuals truly are "born that way" (which I am not willing to concede) then they are born with a birth defect that threatens the survival of the species?

Being a truck driver, I have noted all the instances where homosexual men advertise free sex to anyone who wishes to engage in it with them. Female prostitutes also sometimes advertise, but they require payment of money, and they risk arrest because society has said that what they do is illegal.

Believe me, homosexual men are outrageously promiscuous. Evidence is that they suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate then society at large. How could this be so if it was not explained through the promiscuity? I would be willing to wager that this is not true of the lesbian community as a whole. However we can not have discrimination based upon which gender you were born into.

I put forth that it is right for society to encourage sexual activity that is healthy for society. I would describe such sexual activity as being monogamous heterosexual sexual activity. Surely society has the right to "bless" such activity through tax breaks.

11/20/2006 04:54:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. Look, male homosexuals are not going to rush into monogamous relationships if we open the doorway to the "blessing" of marriage for them.


Reply- They might not rush, thats to be seen, but it seems to me there was quite a few lined up when Massachusetts made it legal.


2. Since you are an evolutionist, will you not concede then that if homosexuals truly are "born that way" (which I am not willing to concede) then they are born with a birth defect that threatens the survival of the species?


Reply- I do agree with that, but then again, so are blind people, people with cancer genes, autoimmune disorders, cerebral palsey, mental retardation, etc etc.

The difference is, we are not wild animals, our society is not subjected to the same wild selection process that occurs in nature. We no longer just "turn our backs" as human beings on people with differences or handicaps, as other members of the animal kingdom might.

For centuries, human beings have been fostering those who would otherwise see their lines die out on strictly biological principal.


3. Being a truck driver, I have noted all the instances where homosexual men advertise free sex to anyone who wishes to engage in it with them. Female prostitutes also sometimes advertise, but they require payment of money, and they risk arrest because society has said that what they do is illegal.


Reply- Is this a national fact, could you just have witnessed isolated incidents of this? I dont know.

Furthermore, you say this is just homosexual males, but I contend its males in general. Hell, most straight males would sleep with just about anything with a vagina, and you know that is true.

I cant imagine it would be a different situation with homosexual males. I assume theyd be willing to screw anything they could.

4. Believe me, homosexual men are outrageously promiscuous. Evidence is that they suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate then society at large. How could this be so if it was not explained through the promiscuity?


Reply- I didnt once contend they werent promiscuous, I contend that I will bet my balls that they arent any more promiscuous then society on a whole.

The only differences are

1. They dont fear pregnancy, so I assume that brings down the use of protection. The number one reason condoms are used, Im sure, amongst straight couples, is to prevent pregnancy, and not to prevent disease transmission. If Im not mistaken, even on a condom wrapper it states "This is not intended to prevent the transmission of STDs."

2. Males are much more effective transmitters of the disease then women. So if a straight male had sexual intercourse with an infected woman, the risk of him transmitting the disease would be significantly lower then the risk of two men going at it.


3. The AIDS virus is already rampant within the gay community, which makes every person in the gay community that much more at risk. For instance, the chances are many 10's of times greater for a male having 10 homosexual partners to transmit AIDS, then a male with 10 female partners. I dont think a homosexual male even need to be promiscuous at all to subject himself to a very high chance of getting infected.


4. I would be willing to wager that this is not true of the lesbian community as a whole. However we can not have discrimination based upon which gender you were born into.

Reply- That is not a fair comparison. AIDS is just about non existant in the lesbian community, as they are probably at the least risk of all demographics to spread it. I will be nearly all cases of HIV in the lesbian community are drug related, or from transfusions, and that would remain regardless of how "promiscuous" they were.


5. I put forth that it is right for society to encourage sexual activity that is healthy for society. I would describe such sexual activity as being monogamous heterosexual sexual activity. Surely society has the right to "bless" such activity through tax breaks.


Reply- As I said before, society has "blessed" a lot of things they "didnt agree with" or "agreed with".

The fact remains, this country was supposedly founded on freedom and equality. It was not founded on "what the majority determines to be free and equal".

If you recall those same reasons are why many Europeans came to this country. They were being told what they could and couldnt do, and were being legislated to the fringes of society.

Again, it is my personal view that homosexuality is wrong, and a disgusting act, but I CANT agree that one group of people should be granted special priveledge over another. I dont think thats what America is about, or was ever intended to be about.

11/21/2006 09:37:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

Wow, I would almost have to write a college thesis or something to address everything covered.

First, homosexuals advertising their services on the CB is a national phenomenon and not restricted to any region. It occurs so often that heterosexual truckdrivers sometimes have to put up with taunts of "all truck drivers are gay".

There also are frequent advertisements for coin operated ladies who will be willing to perform sexual acts for money, however this is dampened by risks of arrest. Cathouses are most bold about advertising their locations, of course, in Nevada.

In the almost 10 years I have driving a truck, only once did I ever come across a female who was advertising her services for free on the CB, and she was heterosexual.

You stated: "I dont think thats what America is about, or was ever intended to be about."

I think it is outrageous for anyone to claim that the framers of the Constitution ever meant for this document to be interpretted so that it must allow for homosexual marriage. This is simply ludicrous.

11/21/2006 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

I think it is outrageous for anyone to claim that the framers of the Constitution ever meant for this document to be interpretted so that it must allow for homosexual marriage. This is simply ludicrous.


Reply-

1. Homosexual marriage was NOT a concern of the framers of the constitution.

2. The framers of the constitution did not provide for hetereosexual marriage either. Nor did they provide for enumerated civil rights before the inception of the bill of rights.

What they did was provide a basic framework from which all law was supposed to follow.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


Explain to me how restricting certain segments of people by legislation from enjoying rights afforded to others is "establishing justice", "ensuring tranquility", "promoting the general welfare", or "securing the blessings of liberty".

11/21/2006 11:51:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

I'll jump on the "promoting general welfare" part of that.

Homosexual couples should be denied marriage for the good of society, or for the "general welfare" of society.

By the way, if you listen to homosexual advocates, they claim homosexuals have always been with us. Or do you think homosexuality is something new? The framers of the constitution permitted marriage of heterosexuals while denying the same rights to homosexuals "who have always been with us".

As I stated, it is rediculous to try and say the framers of the Constitution intended for it to grant the right of marriage to homosexuals.

11/21/2006 01:45:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. Homosexual couples should be denied marriage for the good of society, or for the "general welfare" of society.


Reply- What the hell? I guess maybe we should go ahead and deny blacks and latinos rights as well. Maybe we should go ahead and confiscate all the land from people making less then 50k, because, wealthy people could do more for "society" with it.

Unfortunatley, for those biggoted individuals amongst us, all these groups are PART of society. As much as we all want to follow the guidelines of the KKK and Roman Catholic church, persecution of people based on creed is incorrect.

2. By the way, if you listen to homosexual advocates, they claim homosexuals have always been with us. Or do you think homosexuality is something new?

Reply- Open homosexuality is certainly a more recent development.

3. The framers of the constitution permitted marriage of heterosexuals while denying the same rights to homosexuals "who have always been with us".

Reply- The framers also kept slaves, so what? They had the foresight to NOT insert their biggoted backwards views into legislation as the right wing continuously tries to do. People like you and Dubbya, and Jerry Fallwell have hijacked this country and turned it into something it should have never been. Centuries of actual progress are completely being reversed. Im waiting for the day when blacks are eating at a seperate lunch counter again.


4. As I stated, it is rediculous to try and say the framers of the Constitution intended for it to grant the right of marriage to homosexuals.


Reply- Again, there was a reason why the framers refrained from putting their biggoted views in to the constitution.

11/21/2006 02:27:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Well, in my opinion, you are the one who is the bigot.

You seem to have a very closed mind and resort to over the top comparisons when someone disagrees with you such as when you implied I am a bigot.

Not for your benefit, but for the benefit of others comes this definition of bigot from Merriam-Webster: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

11/21/2006 03:03:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. You seem to have a very closed mind and resort to over the top comparisons when someone disagrees with you such as when you implied I am a bigot.


Reply- You are a bigot. Point blank. Anyone who favors legislation denying one person rights another has, simply based on the persecuteds creed, is a bigot. Denying rights to homosexuals is no different then denying rights to the physically handicapped, women, or Asians.

I dont care what your defense is, because its lame. The same things youve been spewing about homosexuals are the same types of things said 50 years ago about blacks.

"They spread disease", "Theyre bad for society", "They are immoral", "Theyre promiscuous".

Hell, Im sure youd find those quotes in Strom Thurmonds personal journal.


If refusing to accept the belief that its OK to legislate rights to certain people while denying others because we "disapprove" of them is being "close minded", then so be it.

11/21/2006 04:08:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

But evidence is that male homosexuals do suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate then the public in general.

Look, I am an evolutionist. I believe in natural selection. I do not think that mankind has progressed so far along in knowledge that "human dictated" selection is preferable to the roll of the dice offered through natural selection. (There are some exceptions to this however.)

Homosexuals do nothing to aid mankind in the natural selection process which is empowered through natural heterosexual sexual activity.

Homosexuals are expecting me to accept that the way they do things are better for, or as good as, the way heterosexuals do it. I am saying this is not so.

I am saying my basic human instincts, which include species survival, tells me this is not so.

11/21/2006 04:25:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. But evidence is that male homosexuals do suffer from sexually transmitted diseases at a higher rate then the public in general.

Reply- So? Blacks suffer from it more then whites? Blacks also suffer from sickle cell and prostate cancer more then whites. Guess we should ban blacks from marrying since they are a health hazard and all.


2. Homosexuals do nothing to aid mankind in the natural selection process which is empowered through natural heterosexual sexual activity.

Reply- So when did the human being revert back to caveman? The "natural selection" garbage holds no water. It might work for lions, but humans have evolved far past simple "survival of the fittest".


3. Homosexuals are expecting me to accept that the way they do things are better for, or as good as, the way heterosexuals do it. I am saying this is not so.


Reply- Im sure homosexuals dont give a damn what you think about them, as you probably dont care what they think of you. I dont think its out of place for them to expect to receive the same rights as you or I are granted though.

You have the right to think whatever you want. As I stated, I believe homosexuality is wrong and a abhorable act The line is drawn when you start trying to push that off through legislation. If there homosexuality isnt physically, or financially hurting me, what the hell gives me the right to legislate against it?

11/22/2006 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

You can not expect a black person to "choose" to suffer from sickle cell anemia or not.

A homosexual still has the choice to not engage in sex if homosexual sex is the only way they can do it.

A majority of Americans are voting against homosexual marriage. Whether homosexuals agree with us or not, they still have to live with the majority, just like us minority smokers are being forced to live with the majority.

11/22/2006 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. A majority of Americans are voting against homosexual marriage. Whether homosexuals agree with us or not, they still have to live with the majority, just like us minority smokers are being forced to live with the majority.


Reply- Again, a "majority" was cool with slavery, and "seperate but equal".

Didnt make it right.

11/22/2006 10:34:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

But it is the responsibility of the homosexuals to prove we are wrong this time.

The rule is not: Once wrong always wrong.

11/22/2006 03:44:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. But it is the responsibility of the homosexuals to prove we are wrong this time.


Reply- Homosexuals dont have to prove anything to you. It doesnt matter if its genetic or not. They should not be denied the same rights as you or I, simply because of the practice they follow. Period.

Tell me this, how is a man and a man being married, or a woman or a woman, ACTUALLY harming you?

Its not, so why is the fact that you or I simply disagree with it enough to outlaw it?

11/27/2006 09:13:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

I have answered that question repeatedly and you have ignored it.

A female/female partnership or male/male partnership threatens the survival of the species through interfering with natural selection.

I do not want to throw practicing homosexuals in jail or anything. I just wish for society to signal to them that while we will "tolerate" them, we are not going to allow them to become "married". That most of us still see what they are doing as being wrong.

11/27/2006 11:28:00 AM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. A female/female partnership or male/male partnership threatens the survival of the species through interfering with natural selection.

Reply-

A. No, actually it isnt. The world is growing at an unsustainable clip, and even if HALF of all people were homosexual it still wouldnt even remotely "threaten" the survival of the species.

B. I asked you how they threaten YOU personally. How do they infringe upon YOUR rights? You keep blabbing on about how "they transfer disease", "theyre promiscuous", "they dont reproduce"....so what? That sounds like a whole lot of them harming themselves....how is it harming YOU personally?


2. I just wish for society to signal to them that while we will "tolerate" them, we are not going to allow them to become "married". That most of us still see what they are doing as being wrong.


Reply- You have no right to legislate to them that its wrong, no more then they have the right to legislate that "driving a truck" is wrong. Everyone has every right to the opinion that it is wrong, but the line gets drawn when you try to push it off on to someone else through legal process.

11/27/2006 12:14:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

I know how to drive a truck. However society comes up with a set of laws about how I am "allowed" to drive my truck.

I can't just decide to drive when I am aware and unsleepy, I am forced to adhere to extreme regulation as to how long I must stop each night etc.

I will not go into how rediculous this is for some parts of the country. Parts of the country where a truckdriver can not find a place to park at night. I will only point out that society deems itself fit to tell truckdrivers how to drive.

Well I think society then has the right to tell humans how to conduct their society. For the same reasons we regulate truckdrivers, we should regulate human sexuality. What is good for society at large while, perhaps, constricting on individual freedoms.

If you want to turn the homosexuals loose, I say then at the same time turn the truckers loose.

Nether move is going to be good for society. However then we will have "freedom" for all. Of course, some of us might then call the result chaos.

11/27/2006 05:44:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. I know how to drive a truck. However society comes up with a set of laws about how I am "allowed" to drive my truck.


Reply- Generally, those laws are designed to keep you from infringing on others rights, not to restrict you. Some laws, such as seat belt laws, do cross over the civil liberty lines in my opinion.


2. If you want to turn the homosexuals loose, I say then at the same time turn the truckers loose.


Reply- Homosexuals are NOT going to kill people. That is the difference. A truck driver going crazy with a killing machine has the likelihood of killing other non willing people.

A homosexual is going to kill him/herself, and those who choose to have unprotected sex with them. Then again, that is the same amongst straight people, yet they are allowed to marry.

11/28/2006 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

I agree that some controls are necessary on truckers "for the good of society". However conscientious, reliable truckers are forced to deal with, at times, absurd requirements as a result.

Homosexual males practice outrageous rates of promiscuity and frequently employ unsafe sexual practices while they do it.

Each person who comes down with HIV/Aids ends up paying $600,000 over a lifetime for lifesaving drugs. Frequently this cost is born by society through Medicaid.

11/28/2006 09:44:00 AM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

1. Each person who comes down with HIV/Aids ends up paying $600,000 over a lifetime for lifesaving drugs. Frequently this cost is born by society through Medicaid.


Reply- I seriously doubt most homosexual males even qualify for medicaid. Not knowing the exacts of qualifications, I believe one must be below poverty to qualify for these benefits. So youre willing to say that most homosexuals are "below poverty"?

That being said, dont even get started on the brunt of smoking related expenses born by society. That is a completely different can of worms there.

11/28/2006 09:57:00 AM  
Blogger Little David said...

I am willing to defend that the average smoker saves society money, on average, by dieing at an earlier age, on average, then those who do not smoke. Perhaps their life insurance should cost more. However they should receive a discount on their Social Security Taxes and Medicare taxes due to their lowered life expectancy at a minimum. This argument would be made without even taking into consideration all the tobacco taxes they pay into society during their lifetimes.

Let us examine the average homosexual (or even a heterosexual) who comes down with AIDS. If their disease progresses to the point they can fulfill the requirement of their jobs, they lose their jobs and lose their medical coverage at the same time.

Even if this individual finds it possible to maintain job performance, their employer, when faced with the enormous cost of drug treatments for treatment of HIV/Aids each year, is apt to find a method of terminating the drain of health care for this one burden so as to keep health care benefits costs in check.

I do not know if the report was accurate or not, however I did hear on NPR (National Public Radio) that frequently those afflicted with HIV/Aids end up having their health care expenses covered by Medicaid.

11/28/2006 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Lethal_Poison said...

I do not know if the report was accurate or not, however I did hear on NPR (National Public Radio) that frequently those afflicted with HIV/Aids end up having their health care expenses covered by Medicaid.


Reply- Wow, I bet thats a fair and unbias source.

11/28/2006 02:06:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Your damn right (or left if you prefer) it is.

Since I know where you live, I will tell you where to go listen and judge for yourself. 89.5 on your FM dial.

NPR, I will state they are the closest to "fair and balanced" as to what you can listen to on your radio. Are they perfect? Nope. At least a little left of center in most markets. In some markets they test the limits of not being described as leftist extremists. However they do open avenues to everyone of almost every viewpoint and treat all of them with respect while they do it.

Do not condemn NPR until you have listened for yourself.

1/02/2007 01:33:00 PM  
Blogger Little David said...

Ooops, a partial retraction...

I should differentiate between "NPR" and "Public Radio".

NPR is a news and programming source that most "Public Radio" outlets draw from. Some "Public Radio" outlets also delve into programming other then NPR. I have no question that NPR is fair and balanced. However, some Public Radio outlets also broadcast content other then NPR.

NPR is ALWAYS fair and balanced, although tolerably left of center. Sometimes individual Public Radio outlets also include content that is unbalanced.

1/02/2007 01:42:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home