WSJ: Democracy loses if Prop. 8 is overturned.

[Grey Acumen]

WessleWoggle said:

Grey Acumen said:

WessleWoggle said:

 

Yes, lots of people wouldn't choose to be gay, but lots of people also would feeling dishonest with themselves because they're denying their true thoughts.

It still good, feels right for some people, and it'a not harming anyone. Same argument as right now.

Deny their true thoughts? So a person with depression feels dishonest with their thoughts? They can't control how they feel after all, or how their mind works, the treatments they have are designed to help them regain that control. I hardly see how autism hurts people, they just don't socialize well, but there are treatments and research to try to help with that. Mind you, I'm referring to the less intense examples that don't actually lead to depression or the inability to care for themselves, but they still have treatment for those people too.

So why not homosexuality? What makes this part of their nature somehow their "true thoughts" such that denying it would be dishonest? We have drugs for impotence too. Them not having sex doesn't harm anyone, but we have treatments for that. Or are you going to claim that NOT having sex harms people? Are they denying their true nature by taking viagra or whatever the latest brand is?

I still having nothing against homosexuals, I just don't feel its an acceptable activity. I even specify that I have no issues even with a relationship between two men or two women, that's hardly unacceptable at all, the only part I don't accept is the idea that those relationships need to include sex somehow. I've listed out my reasons why I feel that way about a page or two ago. Yet people are claiming MY logic is flawed, so I assume they have some examples that actually make sense here. I've yet to see them.

Well, to start off, depression is natural, so is being a crazy murderer for some people. But, what do these things do? Depression causes the individual harm, a need to murder causes others harm. Harm is bad. Homosexuality is different because it's a function of love and passion, not sadness or madness. People who do wrongs or have negative disorders SHOULD deny their true thoughs, to reduce harm to themselves and others. What does treating homosexuals fix except other's bigotry?

Impotent people not having sex harms themself and their sex drive, and their sexual partner if they have one. Also, if someone wants to have sex but is impotent, their true nature is wanting to have sex. Your body and your mind are different things, and for most people limp noodle is often caused by physical problems, rather than emotional ones. They're are some who are denying their true thoughts with anti-impotence medicine, but most just have old penises or disorders and need a jump.

Why is it unacceptable? I looked at your posts here, and the reasons I found were.... (I put them in numbers so you can refute them easily )

1. Parenting, Father and mother better parents. So? 2 Dads are better than nothing. Weak argument, I know, but I consider yours weak as well, because lots of poeple are messed up with perfect parents, and lots turn out great with abusive rapist parents. Some actually turn out better for their abusive parent and make the world a better place. Same sex parents might actually be better for children of different minds. Not everyone's equal when it comes to needs in parents.

2. You think it's a choice. I do think it's a choice from my own experience, but a choice that can't be unmade without deluding yourself. But I also think being straight, asexual, bisexual, pedophile, zoosexual, are also choices. I think people have a natural disposition to one of the states from their brain chemestry, hormones, and genes. I was naturally straight but I chose that I didn't find the idea repulsive, and now I can't unlearn that. Lesson: Knowledge is the devil. Hahahahaha... Don't eat the fruit!!!

3. Unnatural intercouse. I don't believe in the concept of natural and unatural. Everything we do is natural because we're part of nature, unnatural is just a term used by those who want to bring institutions, scientific advancements, and people down, without a real reason. Who cares if it's natural, it feels good, harms no one. If you weren't predisposed to be against it you wouldn't have any problem with it and you would think it's natural, or at least not unnatural.

4. You can't understand why you'd be interested in another guy's cock. Well, I can tell you my reasons if it helps. Cock(or just any phallic shaped object) feels good in your ass, because it stimulates the prostate gland, creating orgasms so intense, normal orgasms, even your best ones, pale in comparison. What's wrong with the cock? It's the same thing as a clitoris, but with male genes activating it to grow different. Also, If I liked a guy, I'd suck him off because I would get off on giving him pleasure, so it's win-win for me. You wouldn't get off on it though like me because of your social and/or religious stigma. 

5. You think it's animalistic behavior. It is, we're animals, and it's not insulting. "Are you saying beastiality should be accepted and supported among humans because they apparently don't have a choice?" Yes, it should be supported and accepted, because some animals like receiving sexual stimulation from humans. It would be tricky to implement though, but with procedures and tests one could prove the animal liked it, and was not getting violated. What's wrong with animal love if no one is harmed? I feel the same way about all conduct... No harm = Not wrong.

6. If everyone was gay/straight argument. Well, It's not like that for a reason... Gays are natures birth control.

I'm responding to you, since you've actually read what i've said and not just randomly inserted your own words for what you'd respond to. Some of your responses are excellent, some are... well i'll get into that later.

The other points I see here are "you want to force gays to become straight and that's wrong!" When did I say that? Do I think it's right to force someone to take antidepressants? I SPECIFICALLY STATED "So why shouldn't they have the option? After all, if a gay person actually WANTS to be straight, but can't, why can't we give him or her REAL help in doing that?"

or alternately "this group of people says so, and they know more than you do, so you're wrong" congratulations, you've just turned a scientific institution into a church. Especially when all they really said is essentially; "our stance is we have no stance" and you're using it as justification.

1.) This is a good point, no argument against it.

4.) I already know that reason, but don't see why you need another guy for that. Fingers work perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

6.) This is an interesting concept, but then what sets it off? Overcrowding? this would certainly be a possible explaination as to why homosexuality seems to be far more open and prevalent in places like Japan, other Eastern countries as well as other areas of high population density.

my issue with your other points basically falls into the problems of weakening personal responsibility. you shoudl just do what you want as long as no one gets hurt? Sorry, that's a very slippery slope which kinda bridged right into:

5.) Seriously, no. It's one thing to have an open mind, but there is a limit to that, and this is precisely the reason why. I will applaud you for trying not to be a hypocrite though.