Poll: Homosexuality

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Fine. You can be gay. Just no where near me.
That is my take.

People are gay near you every day. You should learn to get over it. People are gay when they walk out of their house, at the store, walking down the street, gay surrounds you. You either accept and move on or live in a constant state of insecurity and denial.

Yeah, but they aren't all "I'M GAY! I LIKE PENISES! I LIKE IT ANAL! YAY!" now are they?
They aren't sucking some other guy's face off in front of me, now are they?
THAT is what I don't want around me, from straight people AND from homosexuals. Yeah. Great. You're into sexuality. Now can you keep in the in bedroom? Seriously. Its bloody indecent.

 

[Seneschal]

Sorry this should be obvious... we can still adopt... and lesbian couples can have children quite easily, either from sperm banks, or one can still have sex with a man to get pregnant (before I get called on this I know people who have done this).

Sorry if you meant that most wont 'want' to have children, but even this may be false, I personally don't, at least not yet, but many gay couples would like to have children.

Edit: And I'm fairly sure they meant the homophobes children.

I assumed that he meant LGBT children, as homophobes' children could grow up to be homophobes especially with early childhood indoctrination.

And I said most LGBT are not able to have children. I understand you can adopt, sperm bank, have sex with men etc. But Gays can't haf sperm bank and sex with men, and neither will the Trans group able to have children naturally. Hence adoption seems to be the most viable option for LGBT as a whole group.

Which leads me to adoption laws across many countries. Most of them DO NOT allow for LGBTs to adopt. So there you go.

Hey hey, wait 20 years and you'll see! I'll splice my own genes and have a kid with myself. My own little ME2 Miranda! Uh... not that I want to. Or anything.

Anyway, I selected the pro option. I'm just waiting for the whole European open-minded gay rights stance to trickle down towards us backwater savages in the rest of the world. Come on, hurry up and spread, we haven't got all day.

 

[DannibalG36]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

Do you?

And I can't imagine the mods would ban someone for expressing their opinion, if it was reasonably argued with decent points. If it was just "I hate gays!!!" I could understand them being smacked with the hammer.

You can't rationalize hatred. That doesn't mean hatred is incorrect. Example: I hate Crocs (footware). Why? I simply hate them, but my hatred isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong." You might apply the same reasoning to a person's thoughts on homosexuality. And yet, a person who hates homosexuals and says so will be banhammer'd.

 

[DannibalG36]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

So, the only people who can explain their vote are those who are indifferent or supportive. This poll shoots itself in the foot.

This is incorrect.

You can express a negative opinion so long as you do so without insulting or disrespecting people.

For example [footnote] These are just examples for the sake of clarification. I don't personally share these opinions are all[/footnote]:

Good way to express a negative opinion:

Spoiler: While I personally don't agree with it, this would be acceptable

I think homosexuality is wrong because my religion says [whatever] / because I don't think it's right [whatever reason here]

Wrong ways to express a negative opinion on this topic:

Spoiler: Doing this will get you punished

Homosexuals are wrong because they're not real people! / because they have no rights!

Or

Spoiler: This will get you banned very fast

FUCKING FAGS ARE FREAKS!

In essence, if you're explaining why you express a negative opinion and not being derogatory or insulting, you're fine, even if people don't agree with your opinion.

Hatred cannot be qualified as "positive" or "negative"; its impact relies on what it is directed at. On these forums, hatred directed toward homosexuals is not tolerated. Escapists who bear this kind of hatred towards gay people can't actually say that they do.

 

[powell86]

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but as far as I know all western countries are perfectly fine with surrogate mothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Legality
Nope. Definitely not. And even those that are ok with surrogacy, most of these refer to altruistic kind e.g. must be friend/family and they need to have tons of paperwork and need to be approved by the authority.

 

[AnkaraTheFallen]

I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but as far as I know all western countries are perfectly fine with surrogate mothers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrogacy#Legality
Nope. Definitely not. And even those that are ok with surrogacy, most of these refer to altruistic kind e.g. must be friend/family and they need to have tons of paperwork and need to be approved by the authority.

I'm sorry, it seems I was wrong, I don't want any children yet, so I've not looked into it.
But I thought that in modern times governments would be more open to these things.

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Whilst I have no subjective or empirical data to back up my claim, from a casual standpoint human societies generally expect men to be physically strong and mentally hardy- when something is that ubiquitous a relatively safe assumption would be in there being a genetic component, either directly or indirectly.

No, that's wrong.

History is replete with examples of societies where the opposite has been true. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that taken worldwide emotional sensibility has played a larger role in distinguishing elite men from non-elite men than physical strength ever did, and if the point of masculinity is not to determine a male ideal then what is it?

Sorry to barge in here, but Elite != Ideal. In fact the traits that lend an individual a higher chance of achieving elite status (excessive ambition, ego, greed, ruthlessness) are far from idealized, at least in our society. Furthermore, Togs did not use either of those words (elite/ideal) but instead used the word "expected" which is quite different. You've taken his post and twisted it into something else entirely.

 

[Baradiel]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

Do you?

And I can't imagine the mods would ban someone for expressing their opinion, if it was reasonably argued with decent points. If it was just "I hate gays!!!" I could understand them being smacked with the hammer.

You can't rationalize hatred. That doesn't mean hatred is incorrect. Example: I hate Crocs (footware). Why? I simply hate them, but my hatred isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong." You might apply the same reasoning to a person's thoughts on homosexuality. And yet, a person who hates homosexuals and says so will be banhammer'd.

Well, shoes don't have feelings or particular rights. Hating inanimate objects won't often cause offense.

And there must be a reason for hatred. There must be a reason you hate Crocs, whether its rational or not.

If you explained the reason behind your hate of homosexuals, it would be part of the discussion and wouldn't necessarily get you banned.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Sorry to barge in here, but Elite != Ideal. In fact the traits that lend an individual a higher chance of achieving elite status (excessive ambition, ego, greed, ruthlessness) are far from idealized, at least in our society. Furthermore, Togs did not use either of those words (elite/ideal) but instead used the word "expected" which is quite different. You've taken his post and twisted it into something else entirely.

I noticed you cut the end of there. I won't complain, since it's something I do myself when I say something I'm going to regret, but I saw it so I'll respond.

If this is about you. Well, you said that women want to be raped and enjoy it. That's it. That ends the discussion for me permanently and makes you a genuinely horrible person. No amount of 'having your words twisted' will ever vindicate what you actually said. I'm sorry to point that out.

I'll reply in detail later when I'm not late for other things.

 

[DannibalG36]

You do realize that those of us who disapprove of homosexuality out of simple hatred can't say that we do without being bandhammer'd?

Do you?

And I can't imagine the mods would ban someone for expressing their opinion, if it was reasonably argued with decent points. If it was just "I hate gays!!!" I could understand them being smacked with the hammer.

You can't rationalize hatred. That doesn't mean hatred is incorrect. Example: I hate Crocs (footware). Why? I simply hate them, but my hatred isn't necessarily "right" or "wrong." You might apply the same reasoning to a person's thoughts on homosexuality. And yet, a person who hates homosexuals and says so will be banhammer'd.

Well, shoes don't have feelings or particular rights. Hating inanimate objects won't often cause offense.

And there must be a reason for hatred. There must be a reason you hate Crocs, whether its rational or not.

If you explained the reason behind your hate of homosexuals, it would be part of the discussion and wouldn't necessarily get you banned.

Explanation of my hate for homosexuals (will doubtlessly offend many, but this clarification was requested):

Homosexuals are incalculably stupid for desiring to stick their dicks into an asshole (obviously not the case with lesbians). Gay sex is a surefire ticket to an STD - actually, STDs are proportionally far more common among LGBTs than among heterosexuals. I liken homosexuality to smoking - the very act is repulsive and profoundly unreasoned.

 

[Mudze]

I support homosexuality, in a sense. It exist, and I believe homosexuals should be equal, but I approach it with the same cautious attitude that I do with feminism. Somehow, someway, people are going to take it too far and give the previously discriminated group too many rights and too little responsibility.

Why do I hold this opinion? Well, I'm about 20% homosexual myself, and it kind of sucks, for more reasons than just discrimination.

Why does it suck? Feeling of despair or being alone? Or just wanting to be "like everyone else"?

Gay rights shouldn't be met with skepticism. Ultimately, one has to ask, what are too many rights? Because, we do have a self-checking society. If people get out of line, they are checked. They are reprimanded. Unless the boundaries of acceptable behavior in general completely change or go away, then none of that will be an issue.

The being alone part. Especially in younger days, where no one else has come out yet. Women's rights have gone too far. They have more than men, which is, you know. Not equality. By definition. I would hate to see gay rights go the same way.

 

[feauxx]

It is an affront to the sacred act of creating life, I abhor it for that fact... That being said, I try my best to spread love amongst my fellow man, regardless of what they do... "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

affront? do you feel the same way about male masturbation? (spilling seed)

 

[AntiFate]

It is an affront to the sacred act of creating life, I abhor it for that fact... That being said, I try my best to spread love amongst my fellow man, regardless of what they do... "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

affront? do you feel the same way about male masturbation? (spilling seed)

NO, WHY WOULD I? MASTURBATION IS NATURAL...

 

[feauxx]

It is an affront to the sacred act of creating life, I abhor it for that fact... That being said, I try my best to spread love amongst my fellow man, regardless of what they do... "Hate the sin, not the sinner."

affront? do you feel the same way about male masturbation? (spilling seed)

NO, WHY WOULD I? MASTURBATION IS NATURAL...

masturbation is spilling seed, spilling seed is an affront to the sacred act of creating life. masturbation is sin.

:')