Most Intolerant People I have Ever Met!!!!!

[knowsbleed]

If Knaves had a radio show... I'd subscribe.

 

[The Battousai]

I don't have a problem with gay people. But I admit that if I saw two blokes in a club eating each others faces it would make me feel uncomfortable.

...but going at it like that in a very public place you are bound to get a reaction.

But making snide comments really ain't the best thing to do. The stupid overreacting ***** was an idiot though. I bet she annoyed the two gay blokes aswell.

Fixed*

 

[Ace of Knaves]

If Knaves had a radio show... I'd subscribe.

I'd get you on with a weekly guest slot

Fixed*

 

[[A]]

I don't have a problem with gay people. But I admit that if I saw two blokes in a club eating each others faces it would make me feel uncomfortable

but if you saw two girls doing the same thing you'd be cheering! You'd even record the whole thing with your cellphone

 

[Hound55]

Meh... I'm the same way.

That said I feel awkward when I see a straight couple really going to town on each others faces in a pub or so forth around me.

Do I feel MORE awkward when its a gay couple who's doing the same thing..?

Yes.

But...

...that's not because I'm homophobic, its because I'm even less equipped to handle that scenario than if it were a straight couple because I don't see it as often.

I mean, what do you say in that situation... generally I'm a smartarse so I'll probably just give a "How bout that local sporting team." (saying the actual words "local sporting team" to underline the point that "I AM MAKING IDLE AWKWARD CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING ME FEEL AWKWARD AND BECAUSE I AM AN ********")

Around gay couples I'd feel less inclined to do that because I'd worry that they would think I'm homophobic... but then I remember:
1. I do that to straight couples
2. I don't give a f*** what people who make me feel awkward think anyway
3. I have no shame
4. I am an ********.

F*** its good to be me...

 

[Majic Walrus]

Meh... I'm the same way.

That said I feel awkward when I see a straight couple really going to town on each others faces in a pub or so forth around me.

Do I feel MORE awkward when its a gay couple who's doing the same thing..?

Yes.

But...

...that's not because I'm homophobic, its because I'm even less equipped to handle that scenario than if it were a straight couple because I don't see it as often.

I mean, what do you say in that situation... generally I'm a smartarse so I'll probably just give a "How bout that local sporting team." (saying the actual words "local sporting team" to underline the point that "I AM MAKING IDLE AWKWARD CONVERSATION BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING ME FEEL AWKWARD AND BECAUSE I AM AN ********")

Around gay couples I'd feel less inclined to do that because I'd worry that they would think I'm homophobic... but then I remember:
1. I do that to straight couples
2. I don't give a f*** what people who make me feel awkward think anyway
3. I have no shame
4. I am an ********.

F*** its good to be me...

 

[Hound55]

Its OK to wish you were me...

 

[JewishHobbit]

Are humans not natural?

What do you think of organisms that reproduce asexually? What about hermaphroditic animals? Or animals that have homosexual sex? Or those who have gay and straight sex for pleasure like bonobos?

Your claim about it being "against nature" kinda contradicts the fact that it exists in nature.

To play devil's advocate.

Though pleasure is enjoyable, sex's main purpose is reproduction and the pleasure is lure to that. Yes, people use sex for strictly pleasure, but it's main purpose is reproduction. If two people or things have sex that aren't designed to reproduce, isn't that going against nature's design? Thus, making it against nature?

It isn't a homophobic viewpoint at all and makes logical sense. When you consider the way nature designed us, it's possible that homosexual sex IS against nature.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

People, debating 101... if you are going to compare 2 subjects, please make them like subjects. How the hell does country music and dreadlocks relate to gay people?

I used that as an example to try to give a better example of where my "dislike" for homosexuality comes in.

My dislike is not "dem dere queers 'er gonna bern in hell ye hurr?"

My dislike is "I am a heterosexual, who believes that sex and romance is between a man and a woman, and would really prefer it if men didn't have sex with men, and women didn't have sex with women".

But the fact is, if I meet someone who is gay, them being gay isn't going to dictate how I feel about them. I have met gay people who I really enjoyed being around, and I have met gay people who really pissed me off and I wanted nothing to do with. In the end, them being "gay" had nothing to do with it, as I either enjoyed their company, or wanted to punch them in the throat for reasons not related to their sexual activities.

My level of "dislike" of homosexuality is on the same level of my dislike of particular styles of music, hairstyles, fashion styles, movies, whatever.

It's something that I don't personally care for, but beyond that I really don't think about it.

My argument has nothing to do with the fact that country music and dreadlocks are at all related to homosexuality. It has to do with the fact that personally, I feel that people take other people's homosexuality way too seriously, and while I personally may not like it, really, what is the big deal, and the actual -impact- that their homosexuality has on me or the rest of the world?

Well honestly, it has about the same impact on me that their preference in music does. Not much. It doesn't dictate who they are as a person, and it's their choice to do whatever the hell they want in their own life.

 

[Wylie Times]

I used that as an example to try to give a better example of where my "dislike" for homosexuality comes in.

My dislike is not "dem dere queers 'er gonna bern in hell ye hurr?"

My dislike is "I am a heterosexual, who believes that sex and romance is between a man and a woman, and would really prefer it if men didn't have sex with men, and women didn't have sex with women".

But the fact is, if I meet someone who is gay, them being gay isn't going to dictate how I feel about them. I have met gay people who I really enjoyed being around, and I have met gay people who really pissed me off and I wanted nothing to do with. In the end, them being "gay" had nothing to do with it, as I either enjoyed their company, or wanted to punch them in the throat for reasons not related to their sexual activities.

My level of "dislike" of homosexuality is on the same level of my dislike of particular styles of music, hairstyles, fashion styles, movies, whatever.

It's something that I don't personally care for, but beyond that I really don't think about it.

My argument has nothing to do with the fact that country music and dreadlocks are at all related to homosexuality. It has to do with the fact that personally, I feel that people take other people's homosexuality way too seriously, and while I personally may not like it, really, what is the big deal, and the actual -impact- that their homosexuality has on me or the rest of the world?

Well honestly, it has about the same impact on me that their preference in music does. Not much. It doesn't dictate who they are as a person, and it's their choice to do whatever the hell they want in their own life.

You're so gonna get hate mail from the coalition of gay Jamaican country western singers.

 

[The Battousai]

To play devil's advocate.

Though pleasure is enjoyable, sex's main purpose is reproduction and the pleasure is lure to that. Yes, people use sex for strictly pleasure, but it's main purpose is reproduction. If two people or things have sex that aren't designed to reproduce, isn't that going against nature's design? Thus, making it against nature?

Design is not a very good argument. For example, one attribute of an animal such as clawed hands/feet are not limited to one function. So why should sex without reproductive intent be anything other than a different function of the genitals? After all, there are bundles of nerves that make the act pleasurable. They wouldn't be there at all if they weren't selected for by the environment (i.e. nature).

It isn't a homophobic viewpoint at all

I didn't say it was.

and makes logical sense.

Only if you accept the premise of design and intent. But there are a thousand questions raised by such a thing, so I'm not going to go into that here - not the thread for it.

When you consider the way nature designed us, it's possible that homosexual sex IS against nature.

Nature "designed" us to feel pleasure when having sex. We are able to have sex without reproducing.

To you, is contraception and the like as "unnatural" as homosexuality?


You're just rationalizing your religion's stance on gay sex.

 

[Maximus One]

I never said you were gay? I thought you were implying these things happened because you were strung out on drugs.

Lol oh ok I gotcha. I was pretty drunk yesterday so yea.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I had a gay guy hitting on my last night. He wouldn't leave me alone. He kept offering me his wrist braclet and everything..Now that is uncomfortable.

 

[Dude101]

I would have called a the f word to get off my back.

 

[ObakeTora]

I would have socked him up.

 

[JewishHobbit]

Design is not a very good argument. For example, one attribute of an animal such as clawed hands/feet are not limited to one function. So why should sex without reproductive intent be anything other than a different function of the genitals? After all, there are bundles of nerves that make the act pleasurable. They wouldn't be there at all if they weren't selected for by the environment (i.e. nature).

Then again, I suppose debating 'without design' also isn't a very good argument. You can't really dismiss one argument but expect the other to be canon.

And I never said you couldn't have sex for just pleasure, only that the act also serves as a reproductive method, which is the natural part. It's made that way for a reason (even if by made I mean yo' momma made it... it doesn't have to mean intelligent design).

As for the pleasure nerves, they can be reached through the anus but their purpose is still reproduction. Sperm goes from the testicles to the prostrate which comes out when you ejaculate and impregnates a woman. So that 'gland in the anus' that people like to refer to as being a reason against design, or against the nature argument, actually helps the nature argument because it isn't like a g-spot at all in that it's still design for reproduction... or serves the purpose of reproduction if you don't like the term 'designed'.

So still, it could still be considered against nature.

Nature "designed" us to feel pleasure when having sex. We are able to have sex without reproducing.

To you, is contraception and the like as "unnatural" as homosexuality?

Yes it is actually, though I still use it.

You're just rationalizing your religion's stance on gay sex.

Actually, I've never heard anything I've said in referance to my faith. In fact, most times, religious people don't even give reasons beyond 'it's against the bible'... so this is a big negative. This is just my playing devil's advocate using basic knowledge and internet

I think you're looking into the term 'design' far too much.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I had a gay guy hitting on my last night. He wouldn't leave me alone. He kept offering me his wrist braclet and everything..Now that is uncomfortable.

I would of politely declined. Then if he kept it up, I'd slap him.

 

[Lunar_Wolf]

I would of politely declined. Then if he kept it up, I'd slap him.

I did something better. I introduced him to my friend and walked away

 

[Ace of Knaves]

YES!!!

 

[The Battousai]

Then again, I suppose debating 'without design' also isn't a very good argument.

When no evidence exists for design, how is it a good position to take?

You can't really dismiss one argument but expect the other to be canon.

I dismiss your argument because it relies on design. I didn't say my position was correct by default.

And I never said you couldn't have sex for just pleasure, only that the act also serves as a reproductive method, which is the natural part.

If both can occur in nature then both are natural - it's that simple. You might object to its usefulness (it has no effect on evolution in most organisms due to the inability to procreate and pass on genes), but it has become part of society - not only in humans, but in bonobos as well. At the point it becomes integral in the social structure of a species, it is a natural aspect of that species.

It's made that way for a reason (even if by made I mean yo' momma made it... it doesn't have to mean intelligent design).

Could you elaborate?

As for the pleasure nerves, they can be reached through the anus but their purpose is still reproduction.

Pleasurable sex is not a requirement of reproduction. It's a plus, to be sure, but does not have that purpose, specifically.

Sperm goes from the testicles to the prostrate which comes out when you ejaculate and impregnates a woman. So that 'gland in the anus' that people like to refer to as being a reason against design, or against the nature argument, actually helps the nature argument because it isn't like a g-spot at all in that it's still design for reproduction... or serves the purpose of reproduction if you don't like the term 'designed'.

So still, it could still be considered against nature.

Not necessarily.

The cloaca is the single "anal" opening which contains the urinary, intestinal, and reproductive tracts. This found in amphibians, reptiles, and birds. It is also found in monotremes (egg-laying mammals of which the only surviving species are the echidna and platypus), and marsupials (pouch-laden mammals like the kangaroo or koala).

However, in placental mammals (such as ourselves) the cloaca differentiates into two separate parts: the anal cavity leading to the intestines, and the genitalia responsible for both reproductive acts and urination.

It would appear that around the time placental mammals branched off from the marsupials (some time before Australia became separated from Antarctica), the cloaca began to differentiate into these two separate parts leaving a sensitive patch/gland in the anal cavity where reproduction would have taken place beforehand.

This is an example of attributes assuming new functions. Something that is completely natural.

Yes it is actually, though I still use it.

Interesting

Actually, I've never heard anything I've said in referance to my faith. In fact, most times, religious people don't even give reasons beyond 'it's against the bible'... so this is a big negative.

Would you have had this position if it weren't for your religion?

This is just my playing devil's advocate using basic knowledge and internet

I was wondering why your argument was a bit off

I think you're looking into the term 'design' far too much.

I don't think you're evaluating the term to enough of a degree. It seems that you don't realize the implications of invoking words like "design", "purpose", etc. when talking about the natural world.

 

[terry78]

I had a gay guy hitting on my last night. He wouldn't leave me alone. He kept offering me his wrist braclet and everything..Now that is uncomfortable.

That's actually a compliment since a lot of them have similar tastes to the females.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

As Dr Malcom said "Nature finds a way"

Or something alone those lines.

 

[Shemtov]

I've never understood the term "homophobe".

Me too.
I prefer the Term Antihomosexual.
Technichally, "Homophobia" would be if someone had an irratianal fear of Homosexuals and homosexuality. They might even know its wrong, but they just can't help it. Thats not the stereotypical Antihomosexual.. they Aren't afraid, they hate. And none of them believ that their Antihomosexuality is wrong.

 

[BestGirl]

The term "phobia" is also used to refer to extreme dislike, not just fear. Think of a xenophobe.

A thought: is sex between people of whom one or more is sterile also unnatural? They can't reproduce.

 

[The Battousai]

The term "phobia" is also used to refer to extreme dislike, not just fear.

"Fear leads to anger - anger leads to hate - hate...leads to suffering."

A thought: is sex between people of whom one or more is sterile also unnatural? They can't reproduce.

Should've thought of that earlier