Gay Marriage and adoption!

[Pidesco]

American football?

[astr0creep]

You ignorant heathens should go check out the NHL thread.

 

On topic: There are no Gays in Hockey and players don't need to adopt as they are too... "potent".

 

 

Heathens.

[alanschu]

Edmonton Oilers of the National Hockey League!

 

They were doing so well...lost starting goalie to injury, and are now rattled and down 2 games to 0 in the finals

 

Slightly on topic...wasn't Wendell Clark gay?

[Judge Hades]

Slightly on topic...wasn't Wendell Clark gay?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, but he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[astr0creep]

Slightly on topic...wasn't Wendell Clark gay?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

NOOOOOOOOOO! HE. WAS. CONFUSED!

 

Stop debunking my arguments with facts AlanS!

[Hurlshort]

Like every team sport, I'm sure there are gay players who just keep it quiet. Although a gay guy who can skate has another sporting option. That sounds like a stereotype but, seriously, figure skating takes a certain mentality.

[astr0creep]

Like every team sport, I'm sure there are gay players who just keep it quiet.  Although a gay guy who can skate has another sporting option.  That sounds like a stereotype but, seriously, figure skating takes a certain mentality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I know it's difficult to tell because my posts are usually ridiculous but I was joking.

[themadhatter114]

Very few people actually choose to believe in God without having been indoctrinated from birth. I find there is a distinct lack of choice in every Christian I know. Going to a Christian school, that's quite a lot.

 

Of course there is a distinct lack of choice in every Christian you know, there's probably not much choice in your own beliefs, either, and saying that they only lack choice because of indoctrination is pretty much my point. People are either indoctrinated or they experience something that leads to a belief. Same with you. Have you really chosen not to believe in God, or do you simply not believe? Could you choose right now to start believing in God?

 

Religion is no longer needed. It is a remnant of a primitive and ignorant mindset that if something couldn't be explained some god or some other supernatural force must have made it happen.

 

People need religion still to reassure them that there's more to life than all they'll touch and all they'll see. And do you really think that science is powerful enough to explain everything? Science hasn't explained the origins of life on earth, science hasn't explained what caused the Big Bang, etc., etc. People still experience thousands of things that haven't been and likely won't ever be explained by science. If you believe that intelligent life manifested itself from primitive bacteria, that's a leap of faith. If you believe that the Big Bang was simply a spontaneous action with no cause, that's a leap of faith. No smaller a leap of faith than believing in God, or several gods, or whatever. And blaming religion for anything is silly. Religion is a tool. It's rarely a cause, and more likely an excuse. You think only Christians pick on gays? As a kid I played 'smear the queer' and made fun of girly boys and called people f*gs long before I ever read the Bible or paid attention in church. And gay-bashing was a lot more popular among that atheist crowd than among the Christians.

[themadhatter114]

Religion has been very much a mixed bag.  If it originates in part in the willingness of the unscrupulous to use people's fear and ignorance to control them, it's also in part the result of people's desire to face those fears and understand the world around them.

 

A few thousand years ago someone wrote down that homosexuality was a sin, and we're still stuck with the aftermath of that 'absolute truth' today.  Extremists use it as an excuse for discriminating against gays, and even moderates often feel torn in two directions.  As time goes on, the gap between what absolutists and relativists hold to be good and true is likely to widen even further.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If someone simply wrote down that homosexuality was a sin, don't you think there was a motivation for that? Either, A. God told him to write that., or B. Discrimination was already present. Do you honestly think that millions of people wouldn't simply hate on gays for being 'different' and 'unnatural' regardless of religious beliefs (as they do now)?

Edited June 8, 2006 by themadhatter114

[astr0creep]

If someone simply wrote down that homosexuality was a sin, don't you think there was a motivation for that?  Either, A.  God told him to write that., or B.  Discrimination was already present.  Do you honestly think that millions of people wouldn't simply hate on gays for being 'different' and 'unnatural' regardless of religious beliefs (as they do now)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Homosexuality was written in as a sin when it was time to colonize new continents. You can't have Gays populate a continent by doing each other's hair and evaluating each other's muscles(sorry for the stereotype, it's an example). To colonize, babies need to be made and as much as we would like it, babies don't fit through a p3n1s.

[SteveThaiBinh]

If someone simply wrote down that homosexuality was a sin, don't you think there was a motivation for that?  Either, A.  God told him to write that., or B.  Discrimination was already present.  Do you honestly think that millions of people wouldn't simply hate on gays for being 'different' and 'unnatural' regardless of religious beliefs (as they do now)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Discrimination did exist at the time it was written, yes. I'm suggesting that it would be easier to get rid of that discrimination in the present day if those writings were not still exerting an influence over millions of believers. Our society and culture have made considerable progress, yet still these ghosts of the past haunt us.

[themadhatter114]

If someone simply wrote down that homosexuality was a sin, don't you think there was a motivation for that?  Either, A.  God told him to write that., or B.  Discrimination was already present.  Do you honestly think that millions of people wouldn't simply hate on gays for being 'different' and 'unnatural' regardless of religious beliefs (as they do now)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Discrimination did exist at the time it was written, yes. I'm suggesting that it would be easier to get rid of that discrimination in the present day if those writings were not still exerting an influence over millions of believers. Our society and culture have made considerable progress, yet still these ghosts of the past haunt us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But do you really think that there aren't a certain percentage of people (60% or so) that regardless of religion are going to discriminate against anyone that's different from the norm?

 

And I honestly think that people simply use those scriptures to reinforce their belief that it's abnormal and disgusting. Maybe it is the other way around, but I don't really think so.

Edited June 8, 2006 by themadhatter114

[astr0creep]

But do you really think that there aren't a certain percentage of people (60% or so) that regardless of religion are going to discriminate against anyone that's different from the norm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

[themadhatter114]

But do you really think that there aren't a certain percentage of people (60% or so) that regardless of religion are going to discriminate against anyone that's different from the norm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, at least you have your scapegoat for all the world's problems. I guess that makes religion a tool for even the non-religious.

Edited June 8, 2006 by themadhatter114

[astr0creep]

But do you really think that there aren't a certain percentage of people (60% or so) that regardless of religion are going to discriminate against anyone that's different from the norm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, at least you have your scapegoat for all the world's problems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes and it's(sorry) Onur.

[taks]

I learned that procreation happens when the female body produces pheromones, attracting always-horny males, one of which will then do his business after establishing his superiority over other males.

but they don't. at least, not sex.

 

Do you think that when there is a lack of females males will not go around doing business with each other?

no.

 

Have you ever been humped by a dog?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which isn't about sex.

 

taks

[taks]

Errr, sorry to nitpick, but try not to have your words under a "quoted by me" quote box.  I was kind of confused what was going on.

it was an editing error. i was trying to quote your comment about lesbianism being "acceptable" over male homesexuality which is not. just cut the wrong bit (i hate carrying embedded quotes, some software packages don't do it).

 

Whether or not it's because of preceived lifestyle differences, or the fact that men find lesbians hawt, there's still greater social acceptance for lesbians than homosexual men.

my point is that part of the reason they are more socially accepted is, maybe, due to their perceived lifestyle difference. i don't disagree lesbians are more socially accepted.

 

Considering politics is dominated by men, and men typically find lesbianism much more attractive than homosexual males, is it a systemic cause?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

dunno... one thing, however, is that men typically only get off on the "hawt" lesbians. those are generally only exist in porn. your typical run of the mill lesbian is going to be just like any other typical run of the mill human... run of the mill looks and not someone to build elaborate fantasies around.

 

taks

[alanschu]

dunno... one thing, however, is that men typically only get off on the "hawt" lesbians. those are generally only exist in porn. your typical run of the mill lesbian is going to be just like any other typical run of the mill human... run of the mill looks and not someone to build elaborate fantasies around.

 

Which reminds me of a discussion I had when at work one time. Somehow it came up that I didn't particularly care for lesbianism (in that I didn't find it particularly attractive). This shocked some guys (most in fact....I seemed to be explaining myself to almost everyone at work that day). I commented that I've seen not-so-hot lesbians making out, and it didn't exactly "thrill" me.

 

I don't know how representative my little Boston Pizza kitchen was of the rest of the world, but it was 8 men against 1 man, and those 8 men believed lesbians were hot regardless, and that my comments about unattractive lesbians shouldn't be relevant. Yeah, hot lesbians in porn are hot....but hot women doing anything can be hot

[themadhatter114]

dunno... one thing, however, is that men typically only get off on the "hawt" lesbians. those are generally only exist in porn. your typical run of the mill lesbian is going to be just like any other typical run of the mill human... run of the mill looks and not someone to build elaborate fantasies around.

 

Which reminds me of a discussion I had when at work one time. Somehow it came up that I didn't particularly care for lesbianism (in that I didn't find it particularly attractive). This shocked some guys (most in fact....I seemed to be explaining myself to almost everyone at work that day). I commented that I've seen not-so-hot lesbians making out, and it didn't exactly "thrill" me.

 

I don't know how representative my little Boston Pizza kitchen was of the rest of the world, but it was 8 men against 1 man, and those 8 men believed lesbians were hot regardless, and that my comments about unattractive lesbians shouldn't be relevant. Yeah, hot lesbians in porn are hot....but hot women doing anything can be hot

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, I'm all for hot lesbians in porn, but nothing's a bigger turnoff than sitting around campus with my wife and seeing two 300-pound women making out in public. Not that I'm particularly fond of seeing anybody making out in public (in fact I find it rather disgusting to see people even being affectionate in public...I think I'm just disgusted by happy people in general despite being one myself, and I'm not exactly cold to my wife in public, either).

[astr0creep]

I learned that procreation happens when the female body produces pheromones, attracting always-horny males, one of which will then do his business after establishing his superiority over other males.

but they don't. at least, not sex.

 

Do you think that when there is a lack of females males will not go around doing business with each other?

no.

 

Have you ever been humped by a dog?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

which isn't about sex.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

-They do.

 

-Yes

 

-You're right, It's quenching its hornyness.

[taks]

-They do.

rarely.

 

-Yes

prove it.

 

-You're right, It's quenching its hornyness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my female dog used to do it. it is not about sex. again, prove it #2.

 

there are documented cases of homosexual dogs, however.

 

taks

[Judge Hades]

Well, at least you have your scapegoat for all the world's problems.  I guess that makes religion a tool for even the non-religious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Human beings are the source of the world's problems. They just use religion as an excuse to treat each other like crap.

[taks]

Not that I'm particularly fond of seeing anybody making out in public

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

that's the point. there's a reason most pr0n folks are at least semi-good looking. nobody wants to watch joe average and suzy normal doing it like animal planet.

 

taks

[themadhatter114]

Well, at least you have your scapegoat for all the world's problems.  I guess that makes religion a tool for even the non-religious.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Human beings are the source of the world's problems. They just use religion as an excuse to treat each other like crap.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, and if they couldn't use religion as an excuse, they'd find something else.

[Judge Hades]

Of course, and if they couldn't use religion as an excuse, they'd find something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yep.