@crimsonbrute said:
@JyePhye said:
Meh.
I must agree. I might watch this when it comes out on Blu-Ray.
Likewise. The first one was good, but was by no means worth going to the midnight viewing like I did... big mistake.
JyePhye's forum posts
This already exists.
No. It is important that we discuss how elements of the games community have threatened the lives of respectable, intelligent, hardworking women, and how it may be systemic of the larger issue of sexism in games and the gaming community.
As further evidence that "gamer culture" is more of the problem than games journalism, I present to you: http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/10/23/3583347/felicia-day-gamergate/.
I think the discussion we need to be having should be about how elements of the gaming community are apparently filled with worthless sacks of shit who deserve to go to prison for a solid chunk of the rest of their lives.
@i_return said:
@JyePhye said:
@i_return said:
That doesn't just explain why it's unnatural but also explains why it's a menace or can be a menace for nature. There's no outcome of homosexuality. Just sex and be done with it. Let's posit if half of the world population were to be homos. We will face a serious crisis of under-population which could never be solved. It's not love. At least, not natural. It's artificial. And if it's potentially a menace for our society and the nature as a whole, then we have to compromise this artificial love for something that is more natural and more widely accepted, both by the society and the nature.
We're not slaves of nature. We can change it to our will. But again, we humans are limited in what we can do. In everything, we have limits. For some things, we have to consider what the nature demands because if we ignore the nature, it'll be us who'll be affected.
I don't know. I intended it to just be a simple discussion over the internet. If it change someone's mind, then it's up to him. If not, then who cares? it's a simple debate over the internet that may or may not be fruitful. I'm not saying everyone should stop being gay. Instead, I'm saying everyone should consider this. Why gays are not good for our society and how they can prevent people from being gay. Because it is in our control. Environment and the upbringing of the child is what makes one a gay. Naturally, there are no genes in us forcing us to be gay neither we're born to be gay.
You keep saying genes aren't responsible. You're incorrect. They are partially responsible. Once again, as I explained earlier, see diathesis-stress model: something like homosexuality occurs due to the confluence of both environment AND genes, and some people ARE more genetically prone to homosexuality than others.
There is no statistical, scientific, or historical evidence to show that rises in homosexual behavior have led to any decline in society. If you want to continue with the line of thought which posits that homosexuality is bad for society, please produce some evidence to support this viewpoint.
You say that most homosexual sex doesn't lead to anything, that it's just sex for sex's sake; but then the majority of heterosexual sex in the Western world is just sex for sex's sake as well. Should we outlaw sex that isn't for the purpose of conception? Should contraceptives be outlawed so we ensure conception? Or what do you mean? Because as it stands now, that line of thought is also fallacious.
Lastly, you state that love between two homosexual partners is artificial or unnatural; this is completely unfounded. Technically, on a neurological level, the chemical catalyst for what we call "love" is exactly the same in homosexuals as it is in heterosexuals. In other words, homosexual love and heterosexual love are experienced the same way by human consciousness, and therefore there is nothing
"artificial" about it if it happens to be experienced in a person of a homosexual persuasion.
You have yet to prove any point whatsoever in this argument.
That partial responsibility of genes is in every deed we commit. Theft, murder, depression and all kinds of emotional tendencies and other behaviors are somewhat integrated in our genes. But then it's up to the environment to bring the stimulus. Everyone has a genetic tendency to go berserk, now if one goes berserk will you blame the society or the genes? Being more genetically prone or not won't matter when you erase the whole idea from the roots. And it can be erased.
Of course there isn't any. Because homosexuality has always been in the minority. If there was one society where homos were the majority, I could give you an example. But luckily there's none.
I seriously despise the way West perceives sex as a whole so I'll just say, don't bring the West in here. But even then, that kind of sex is casual. One not intended to be fruitful. But heterosexual behavior will at some point, reproduce. Will it not? but homos cannot and never will be able to. This is what I mean. One thing that can NEVER bring anything, is not something that we should support.
When the idea or the nature itself of homosexuality is artificial, then how can you that their love is natural? it's just like masturbating and having real sex. Both stimulate the same thing but are different. A lot different.
No, that's not how it works. Please look up diathesis-stress model. It is a high validity psychological construct which applies to psychological conditions. Under this theory, while there is a certain degree of choice, once a person already feels homosexual desires, choosing to totally repress and disregard those feelings will actually lead to psychological problems which could be very destructive to the individual in question and the people around them. It is much healthier for persons who feel homosexual desires to act on those desires in a safe and healthy environment rather than repress them. This is proven by years of psychological research.
If homosexuals are in the minority, then their practices as a minority group are necessarily protected under U.S. law, especially since their actions do not harm anyone. You can not tell homosexuals not to engage in homosexual behaviors with other consenting homosexuals. It is against the law, and beyond that there is no ethical basis for limiting the freedoms of a group when their actions cause no harm to society.
Once again, not all heterosexual sex leads to procreation. There are plenty of individuals who NEVER produce offspring at any point in their life. That does not mean they should be outlawed from sex.
And your despise of the Western sexual culture is anachronistic insofar that the sexual revolution of the West has been correlated with healthier expression of individuals' sexuality (as proven by years of psychological research: namely, sexual repression is unhealthy) and subsequent returns on a multitude of social issues, such as gender equality. So while your perspective on sexuality is archaic, your appraisal of homosexual sex as producing nothing of good is also tentative at best: homosexual sex may yield in the individuals involved a healthier baseline psychological state of being and potentially higher forms of psychological functioning as recorded in individuals who are in the throes of "love". Therefore, homosexual love and sex is not without product, and this is totally excluding any consideration of homosexual partners who provide much needed warm and loving homes for orphan children who otherwise might be thrown into the cycle of inadequate foster care. There is worth which arises from the love and subsequent partnership of many homosexual individuals, and this worth is beneficial to society at large!
Inevitably, you have failed to provide a clear definition for "natural" to use as a construct for appreciating homosexuality. Thereby any labeling of homosexuality as artificial is baseless as you have failed to prove how it is unnatural to begin with. And masturbation is as "natural" as it gets: fetuses in the womb have been observed masturbating in multiple scientific studies. Likewise, young children and other animal species have been observed engaging in masturbation. So that comparison doesn't really make sense. Masturbation is JUST as natural as sex.
Agree, although not by much. Both sports get boring to watch after about 20 minutes.
Raiders of the Lost Ark > The Last Crusade > Temple of Doom > Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Meh.
Believe big penises
@i_return said:
@PlaWeird said:
@i_return said:
Read GazaAli's posts. If that doesn't clarify it, then nothing will. In worst case scenario, like alim298 says, we'll just agree to disagree.
From what I gathered, they simply explain why homosexuality isn't natural, not why it would be harmful. Gay sex, mostly referring to anal, isn't harmful if you do it right - and my original statement that love between two human beings is natural, still stands. I don't particularly like it when people are observed as slaves of the nature, as we're very complicated beings.
What I'd most like to know, is that what's the goal of this conversation? So what if you can prove that homosexuality isn't natural? Are you saying that everyone should just stop being gay because it doesn't make sense? I don't mean to offend, just curious.
That doesn't just explain why it's unnatural but also explains why it's a menace or can be a menace for nature. There's no outcome of homosexuality. Just sex and be done with it. Let's posit if half of the world population were to be homos. We will face a serious crisis of under-population which could never be solved. It's not love. At least, not natural. It's artificial. And if it's potentially a menace for our society and the nature as a whole, then we have to compromise this artificial love for something that is more natural and more widely accepted, both by the society and the nature.
We're not slaves of nature. We can change it to our will. But again, we humans are limited in what we can do. In everything, we have limits. For some things, we have to consider what the nature demands because if we ignore the nature, it'll be us who'll be affected.
I don't know. I intended it to just be a simple discussion over the internet. If it change someone's mind, then it's up to him. If not, then who cares? it's a simple debate over the internet that may or may not be fruitful. I'm not saying everyone should stop being gay. Instead, I'm saying everyone should consider this. Why gays are not good for our society and how they can prevent people from being gay. Because it is in our control. Environment and the upbringing of the child is what makes one a gay. Naturally, there are no genes in us forcing us to be gay neither we're born to be gay.
You keep saying genes aren't responsible. You're incorrect. They are partially responsible. Once again, as I explained earlier, see diathesis-stress model: something like homosexuality occurs due to the confluence of both environment AND genes, and some people ARE more genetically prone to homosexuality than others.
There is no statistical, scientific, or historical evidence to show that rises in homosexual behavior have led to any decline in society. If you want to continue with the line of thought which posits that homosexuality is bad for society, please produce some evidence to support this viewpoint.
You say that most homosexual sex doesn't lead to anything, that it's just sex for sex's sake; but then the majority of heterosexual sex in the Western world is just sex for sex's sake as well. Should we outlaw sex that isn't for the purpose of conception? Should contraceptives be outlawed so we ensure conception? Or what do you mean? Because as it stands now, that line of thought is also fallacious.
Lastly, you state that love between two homosexual partners is artificial or unnatural; this is completely unfounded. Technically, on a neurological level, the chemical catalyst for what we call "love" is exactly the same in homosexuals as it is in heterosexuals. In other words, homosexual love and heterosexual love are experienced the same way by human consciousness, and therefore there is nothing
"artificial" about it if it happens to be experienced in a person of a homosexual persuasion.
You have yet to prove any point whatsoever in this argument.
of toilet time
Log in to comment