Forum - View topic

ANNCast - Viewers Like You: I Think Therefore I Rant

Zac wrote:

Progress marches onward, and if things keep going the way they're going, soon these people will have all the same rights as you do, and their relationships will be considered equal in the eyes of the law. I am eternally thankful that viewpoints like yours are increasingly the minority, and the rest of us can move on and ignore the obstructionism that comes from people who just can't get over themselves and their prejudices.

You're absolutely right. We should let people have their rights. I believe that everyone with any kind of sexual orientation should have their freedom. If my sister wants to get it on with me, who's business is it? Who are we to get between the emotional intimacy between a teacher and their middle school student? If my neighbor wants to have puppy love with his dog Sam, he should have every right to do what he wants on his own property.

If you disagree with any of this, than you're just being a hypocrite like anyone else; it's just that some people happen to have higher standards than you.

Anyone who legitimately believes that fights for civil rights will lead to outcries for bestial or incestuous marriages, as if that were an actual concern, let alone a logical extreme, is clearly of little genetic benefit or possessing of mental capacity themselves.

SoandSo wrote:

Anyone who legitimately believes that fights for civil rights will lead to outcries for bestial or incestuous marriages, as if that were an actual concern, let alone a logical extreme, is clearly of little genetic benefit or possessing of mental capacity themselves.

In the past, most people never thought of outcries for homosexual civil rights becoming a concern. But look at it now. And that mindset lasted for thousands of years, and still does in most countries. So who are you to think that your standards are the limit, and that other people won't eventually cry out for incestuous civil rights? Unlike bestiality and pedophilia, incest "can" be between two grown adults, but is that accepted? Should it be accepted? If you don't think incest should be accepted, then that shows your standards. Unless you have no standards towards any kind of sexual orientation, you're nothing but a hypocrite for criticizing someone else's standards.

SoandSo wrote:

Anyone who legitimately believes that fights for civil rights will lead to outcries for bestial or incestuous marriages, as if that were an actual concern, let alone a logical extreme, is clearly of little genetic benefit or possessing of mental capacity themselves.

In the past, most people never thought of outcries for homosexual civil rights becoming a concern. But look at it now. And that mindset lasted for thousands of years, and still does in most countries. So who are you to think that your standards are the limit, and that other people won't eventually cry out for incestuous civil rights? Unlike bestiality and pedophilia, incest "can" be between two grown adults, but is that accepted? Should it be accepted? If you don't think incest should be accepted, then that shows your standards. Unless you have no standards towards any kind of sexual orientation, you're nothing but a hypocrite for criticizing someone else's standards.

Wakazhi wrote:

Zac wrote: Progress marches onward, and if things keep going the way they're going, soon these people will have all the same rights as you do, and their relationships will be considered equal in the eyes of the law. I am eternally thankful that viewpoints like yours are increasingly the minority, and the rest of us can move on and ignore the obstructionism that comes from people who just can't get over themselves and their prejudices. You're absolutely right. We should let people have their rights. I believe that everyone with any kind of sexual orientation should have their freedom. If my sister wants to get it on with me, who's business is it? Who are we to get between the emotional intimacy between a teacher and their middle school student? If my neighbor wants to have puppy love with his dog Sam, he should have every right to do what he wants on his own property. If you disagree with any of this, than you're just being a hypocrite like anyone else; it's just that some people happen to have higher standards than you.

Quit it with the pathetic slippery slope argument. It doesn't work. How does legalizing same-sex marriage bring us any closer to legalizing incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? It doesn't. Incest has just as much relation to homosexuality as it does to heterosexuality. The only common factor is sex. Thus you're argument is the equivalent of saying we shouldn't have HETEROSEXUAL marriage because it will lead to the legalization of incest and pedophilia.

jrnemanich wrote:

Hey, what about that last segment (that no one has talked about)? That guy was cool.

Yeah, he was cool. But what we really want to know is, what are your entrenched and politically charged views on homosexuality and religion?

merr wrote:

Wakazhi wrote: Zac wrote: Progress marches onward, and if things keep going the way they're going, soon these people will have all the same rights as you do, and their relationships will be considered equal in the eyes of the law. I am eternally thankful that viewpoints like yours are increasingly the minority, and the rest of us can move on and ignore the obstructionism that comes from people who just can't get over themselves and their prejudices. You're absolutely right. We should let people have their rights. I believe that everyone with any kind of sexual orientation should have their freedom. If my sister wants to get it on with me, who's business is it? Who are we to get between the emotional intimacy between a teacher and their middle school student? If my neighbor wants to have puppy love with his dog Sam, he should have every right to do what he wants on his own property. If you disagree with any of this, than you're just being a hypocrite like anyone else; it's just that some people happen to have higher standards than you. Quit it with the pathetic slippery slope argument. It doesn't work. How does legalizing same-sex marriage bring us any closer to legalizing incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? It doesn't. Incest has just as much relation to homosexuality as it does to heterosexuality. The only common factor is sex. Thus you're argument is the equivalent of saying we shouldn't have HETEROSEXUAL marriage because it will lead to the legalization of incest and pedophilia.

Why do you think males and females have specific body parts when it comes sex? It's the easiest puzzle to solve. A man's anus is genetically designed for "exiting" substances, not entering inside it. Forget about morals all you want, but this is logic. You say that heterosexuality is no different from homosexuality? Can you prove that by giving facts instead of just criticizing my comments?
Here's the difference:
heterosexual: male + female = child (genetically possible)
homosexual: female + female (or) male + male = no child, unless adopted of course.

If you want to say it's a good thing, than that's your opinion and you're obliged to it. But saying that at the end of 9 months, they're the same thing, that's a straight lie.

And here's a fact sheet from the CDC of how favorable homosexuality is to the human body:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

SoandSo wrote:

Anyone who legitimately believes that fights for civil rights will lead to outcries for bestial or incestuous marriages, as if that were an actual concern, let alone a logical extreme, is clearly of little genetic benefit or possessing of mental capacity themselves.

In the past, most people never thought of outcries for homosexual civil rights becoming a concern. But look at it now. And that mindset lasted for thousands of years, and still does in most countries. So who are you to think that your standards are the limit, and that other people won't eventually cry out for incestuous civil rights? Unlike bestiality and pedophilia, incest "can" be between two grown adults, but is that accepted? Should it be accepted? If you don't think incest should be accepted, then that shows your standards. Unless you have no standards towards any kind of sexual orientation, you're nothing but a hypocrite for criticizing someone else's standards.

Wakazhi wrote:

merr wrote: Wakazhi wrote: Zac wrote: Progress marches onward, and if things keep going the way they're going, soon these people will have all the same rights as you do, and their relationships will be considered equal in the eyes of the law. I am eternally thankful that viewpoints like yours are increasingly the minority, and the rest of us can move on and ignore the obstructionism that comes from people who just can't get over themselves and their prejudices. You're absolutely right. We should let people have their rights. I believe that everyone with any kind of sexual orientation should have their freedom. If my sister wants to get it on with me, who's business is it? Who are we to get between the emotional intimacy between a teacher and their middle school student? If my neighbor wants to have puppy love with his dog Sam, he should have every right to do what he wants on his own property. If you disagree with any of this, than you're just being a hypocrite like anyone else; it's just that some people happen to have higher standards than you. Quit it with the pathetic slippery slope argument. It doesn't work. How does legalizing same-sex marriage bring us any closer to legalizing incest, pedophilia, bestiality, etc.? It doesn't. Incest has just as much relation to homosexuality as it does to heterosexuality. The only common factor is sex. Thus you're argument is the equivalent of saying we shouldn't have HETEROSEXUAL marriage because it will lead to the legalization of incest and pedophilia. Why do you think males and females have specific body parts when it comes sex? It's the easiest puzzle to solve. A man's anus is genetically designed for "exiting" substances, not entering inside it. Forget about morals all you want, but this is logic. You say that heterosexuality is no different from homosexuality? Can you prove that by giving facts instead of just criticizing my comments? Here's the difference: heterosexual: male + female = child (genetically possible) homosexual: female + female (or) male + male = no child, unless adopted of course. If you want to say it's a good thing, than that's your opinion and you're obliged to it. But saying that at the end of 9 months, they're the same thing, that's a straight lie. And here's a fact sheet from the CDC of how favorable homosexuality is to the human body: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

Thank you for missing the point. I was asking you to explain how incest is anymore conceptually related to homosexuality than it is to heterosexuality. I didn't ask for an anatomy lesson.

But let's have some fun with your type of logic.
1.Did you know that people who are sterile can't have children? --> Let's ban them from getting married!
2. Did you know that having sex with someone who has herpes is significantly more dangerous than having sex with someone who doesn't? --> Let's ban people with herpes from having sex!
3. Did you know that riding in a car is a lot more dangerous than walking? --> Let's ban automobiles!

And now for some real fun!
1. Did you know that abortion is always safer than childbirth? --> Abortions for everyone who wants one!
2. Did you know that religious societies are significantly more likely to go to war? --> Let's ban religion!

See how ridiculous you sound?

And don't forget that dicks weren't made to go in mouths either, among other hetero-possible places, nor result in farting out a baby, but America and Christians seem to love the hell out of that. Good thing it's "comparitively normal."

Wakazhi wrote:

SoandSo wrote: Anyone who legitimately believes that fights for civil rights will lead to outcries for bestial or incestuous marriages, as if that were an actual concern, let alone a logical extreme, is clearly of little genetic benefit or possessing of mental capacity themselves. In the past, most people never thought of outcries for homosexual civil rights becoming a concern. But look at it now. And that mindset lasted for thousands of years, and still does in most countries. So who are you to think that your standards are the limit, and that other people won't eventually cry out for incestuous civil rights? Unlike bestiality and pedophilia, incest "can" be between two grown adults, but is that accepted? Should it be accepted? If you don't think incest should be accepted, then that shows your standards. Unless you have no standards towards any kind of sexual orientation, you're nothing but a hypocrite for criticizing someone else's standards.

It's sad to me that you so clearly think this is some trump card argument, the ultimate "homosexuality is an abomination of nature!!" smackdown to anyone who would dare argue in favor of civil rights for gay people.

In fact it's an extremely tired old talking point from the same conservative christian factions that fund the bills that prevent same-sex couples from getting married or adopting children, and it's sort of laughably transparent. "Oh, so you're okay with two consenting adult men having sex, but what about a dude and a DOG?! or his BROTHER? Isn't that gross?!?! Now are you afraid of gay people because that other stuff is gross?!?!?" It's this really cheap attempt at dehumanizing and further "othering" homosexuals and it doesn't work on anyone with a functioning ability to think critically. This particular talking point preaches only to the choir that already believes that homosexuality is totally the same as those other damaging and often abusive fetishes and/or mental disorders, rather than something that occurs in nature with an overwhelming amount of proof that it's just another normal shade in the spectrum of human conditions, one that produces healthy, happy relationships, great parents, long-lasting families and productive members of our communities.

On the debate about categorical imperative (CI) as applied to homosexuality a couple of pages ago.

The argument I read is that CI would deny homosexual sex because there is no chance of reproduction. First of all, this would also apply to celibacy and infertility and use of contraception. However, is the reason for homosexual sex to reproduce or to make you and the other person happy? The other thing is that being a homosexual is not a moral choice. A heterosexual can't choose to be homosexual and vice versa. ...

......I'm going to bombard you with a bunch of Judeo/Christian Eugenics crap disguised as intellectual pseudo-science.

agila61 wrote:

Except you cannot get away from a racist view being racist by saying "oh, I'm not saying that black people are lazy by nature, I think they are lazy by choice". Its racist either way. Someone's reasons for being bigoted against some group of people ~ including pretending that the way people are born is somehow something they did by choice, presumably because its just a joy being homosexual in the United States with the theocrats hating on you ~ does not change the fact that its bigotry.

Well, that seems to reveal something about the way you view Black people and their(our) work ethic. African-Americans are stereotyped as being lazy. Why? Is it because of the high unemployment rates?

Homosexuality is an existing behavior and lifestyle ...

I'm not here to argue against people's rights. This is America, people are eventually going to get what they want. I'm just saying that genetically, it's not the same as heterosexuality. I'm not trying to discuss "good or bad", I'm just stating logic. ...

SoandSo wrote:

And don't forget that dicks weren't made to go in mouths either, among other hetero-possible places, nor result in farting out a baby, but America and Christians seem to love the hell out of that. Good thing it's "comparitively normal."

I almost put that in, but based on Wakazhi's post history, I assume he's opposed to all sex except for missionary (and only if neither party really enjoys it).