Forum - View topic

ANNCast - Viewers Like You: I Think Therefore I Rant

@Mad_Scientist.

Suppose I hit you over the head with a hammer, leaving you concussed and with a permanent loss of memory. In re-formulating your world you may well end having a different belief system.

Such a hammer attack would make no difference to a person's pigmentation, gender, or sexual orientation. (Unless, in the last instance, I did so much damage they lost their sex drive.)

writerpatrick wrote:

When you have kids you will likely find your attitude changing. It's sort of like drugs and the Baby Boomers; they were open to it during their youth but wouldn't want their kids to have the same attitude.

There you have it, folks: being gay is just like experimenting with drugs. Once you have kids you'll suddenly realize that you hate and fear gay people and you'll want your kids to feel the same way!

This is the sort of thing that makes me realize that people like you really do not get it at all. Mistrusting, hating, feeling "uncomfortable" about gay people - it is absolutely no different from racism. You don't like them because they're different, plain and simple. Dress it up however you want - the bible says it's bad, mom and dad said it was bad, they can't have children and you're a science robot and not a human being so the only legitimate reason for love to you is procreation, whatever - they're different and not like you so you toss them in the "other" pile and twist yourself into knots trying to justify your prejudice.

What one believes is likely to change as one gets older. For a parent to hear that their child is gay is interpreted as meaning that the child doesn't want to have children, whether it's true or not.

One can be opposed to the practice of homosexuality without condoning the abuse of someone who is gay. But at the same time one should not use their sexuality to condone their behavior. It seems the public conception of homosexuality is based upon the behavior of a small minority, and it's that behavior that raises the objection. It's sort of like assuming that all conservatives are nazis who want to suppress the freedoms and beliefs of others.

tuxedocat wrote:

A person's religion is ALWAYS a choice!

Sorry to nitpick, but that's not quite the case. And I don't just mean cases where someone was raised in such a way that they are practically brainwashed into believing something.

But I also thing that the portals of homosexuals on American TV has been bad in showing gays being flamboyant characters and have not shown enough of the conservative gays and bisexuals. When have we ever seen a gay character who talks about celibacy? There is too often a push for acceptance of the extreme without trying to gain acceptance of the moderate.

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

Sex may be a physical process, but the chemicals and hormones released play heavily into your emotions. The chemicals released can cause us to feel closer to someone and can even be mistaken for love when if fact it's a much more simply physical addiction.

dragonrider_cody wrote:

Sex may be a physical process, but the chemicals and hormones released play heavily into your emotions. The chemicals released can cause us to feel closer to someone and can even be mistaken for love when if fact it's a much more simply physical addiction.

You make a good point to how sex is related to emotions, I understand that. But this whole tangent about emotional intimacy is irrelevant to what I was trying to make a point to in the first place, which was "homosexuality does not serve any beneficial purpose genetically". I'm not here to argue over homosexual rights because people are going to argue for civil rights until it's legal to marry siblings and animals. If you can give me a "direct" example (not indirect by comparing it to something else) of why homosexuality is genetically beneficial, I would like to know.

dragonrider_cody wrote:

Sex may be a physical process, but the chemicals and hormones released play heavily into your emotions. The chemicals released can cause us to feel closer to someone and can even be mistaken for love when if fact it's a much more simply physical addiction.

You make a good point to how sex is related to emotions, I understand that. But this whole tangent about emotional intimacy is irrelevant to what I was trying to make a point to in the first place, which was "homosexuality does not serve any beneficial purpose genetically". I'm not here to argue over homosexual rights because people are going to argue for civil rights until it's legal to marry siblings and animals. If you can give me a "direct" example (not indirect by comparing it to something else) of why homosexuality is genetically beneficial, I would like to know.

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.

Also comparing gay rights to beastiality, incest, or pedophilia is getting offensive at this point. There is a difference between two consenting adults performing an act that only involves them and does no harm to anyone else and a grown adult raping a child or animal. A child does not have the metal capacity to consent to a sexual relationship. Neither does an animal. Sadly many people tried to make these same arguments when interracial marriage was being debated. They were just a offensive then.

Oh well and I tried wandering son but that entire franchise just repulsed me on many levels.

I'm not here to argue over homosexual rights because people are going to argue for civil rights until it's legal to marry siblings and animals.