Homosexual found guilty on 45 out of 48 counts!

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I love it when this happens. The homophobes are up in arms about how being gay is so damned "unnatural", and yet whenever somebody posts out to them that it isn't, they are all of a sudden dumbfounded as to what on earth nature has to do with the discussion!

Let's put it this way:

Homosexuality neither is the statistical norm representing the sexual design of heterosexual species (the statistical norm in heterosexual species, representing "normality" due to being the dominant norm, is heterosexuality - big surprise); nor is homosexuality the way by which evolutions planned to ensure the survial of a species that was designed to reproduce by mixing genes through sexual intercourse between two different sexes.

Abberations from the norm do not qualify for being a norm of equal quality, quantity and "naturalness". Amongst apes and birds, homosexuality often happens when male adolescent ones still are excluded from competing for the female animals due to being too young or too weak, or when they live in a habitat where they still have not found a mating partner of the other sex, again male animals seem to be effected more often than female animals. Amongst animals, male homosexuality appears to happen more often than female homosexuality. One can thus formulate the theory that this form of homosexuality is not genetically predetermined, but a neurotic reaction to an uncooperative environment - like the budgie that is held alone in a cage although these birds are totally social animals. You then put a mirror into the cage and laugh when the bird starts to court or fight with it's image, in the end even tries to copulöate with the mirror. That is not a sign of natural behavior towards mirrors - it is a sign that the bird has become neurotic due to isolation, and that the mirror serves the purpose of a surrogate for a real mating partner.

Some individual animals even can become fixiated on surrogates for a living mating partner. For example in my home town some years ago there was a swan who fell in love with a tourist boat shaped like a giant swan. The romance lasted two or three seasons, the animal swam beside the boat and did not leave it alone. It finally gave up - when it had found a real swan of the other sex to mate with.

Nobody would conclude from that story that it is natural and a representative event in nature that animals bond with man-made boats.

Homosexuals exist, and I see no reason to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then many species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probably our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! - move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some people find that unsentimental truth a hard and big pill for their glorious egos to swallow, but that's how it is.

Some people get born with a cheilognathoschisis (=harelip), so the phenomenon exists and in this meaning is part of nature. But it is not the norm, nor is it the way our species design is meant to be - it is an aberration. We must not discriminate people with that anomaly, like we must not discriminate people having the defective gene making them albinos, because they do not mean any disadvantage for the community they live in, but we also must not think or claim that their lip design is natural in the meaning of being representative for our species, or being of equal status beside normally shaped lips.

Not before we allow homosexuality to distort the hierarchy of communal vital and important priorities that safeguard our survival and our communal/cultural integrity, it turns into a problem. That's why the couple living somewhere like everybody else and just let the world be what it is, is no problem for the community. But narcissistic and/or exhibitionistic freak shows like CSD and comparing parades with the outwritten agenda to change society for the worse and relativising important value standards that feed back on our communal solidity and long term survivability, are a problem. And they give the majority of homosexuals who just want to go on with their lives, a bad name, to get their own egoistic kick in the present moment. Last but not least CSD is not only a display of exhibitionsim and narcissism, but of a very ruthless egoism as well. With the "ordinary" homosexual whoi just wants to gewt along with his loife like I want, too, I get - and got! - along. With parade-marchers I cannot - and I don't even want.

Some people get born with one psychological gender, trapped in a body of the other physical sex. It happens sometimes. It is great vdrama and tragey, and great suffering for the affected individual. The problem exists, but that does not make it "normal". - Some people are genetically predetermined to be homosexual. Fine. Let them. But they are not the natural norm in our species' design, nor is it equal in significance to the dominant and evolutionary wanted norm in our species: heterosexual orientation, that is.

There have been theories that maybe homosexuality may have some indirect and so far undiscovered effect on the genepool of a species, "indirectly" by influencing the mating frequency of heterosexual partners (lowering it), and thus effecting the stirring of combinations in the genepool, or that it may have an effect in terms of stimulating mutations by reducing the mixture of the next generation'S genes. Others wanted to construct parallels to known precedences like diseases killing parts of a population, but immunizing against another, more dangerous epidemia (like for example malaria immunizes against sichel-cell-anemia). But these theories, if one wants to call them like this, so far have been extremely unfounded, speculative and unreasonable imo, and seem to be more motivated by constructing an argument for declaring homosexuality natural in the meaning of being as important as heterosexuality. Lot'S of agendas out there, and unfortunately the ideologic warfare does not stop short of sciences, but not rarely corrupts scientific methodology. And then it becomes worthless.

Back to the gardeners' discussion.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Back to the gardeners' discussion.

The plants have read your post and they tip their hats.

[Takeda Shingen]

I think that the trouble has passed enough that I can take off the moderator hat and sound off a bit. I do, however, reserve the right to put it back on if people start acting crazy again. Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Homosexuals eicst, and I see no reasoin to discriminate against them, but I also am not willing to label homosexuality as a sexual norm that is of equal meaning and importance in nature than heterosexual relations. If that would be the case, then man species would have gone extinct a long time ago, and probbaly our own as well. Homosexuality can happen, but it is not the intended and evolutionary planned way by which we should - or could! move on, as a species. And for evolution, the species ranks higher than the individual. Possible that some peope, find that a hard and big oill to swallow, buit that's how it is.

So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

[Betonov]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

They don't have to deal with women. Lucky bastards

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I think that the trouble has passed enough that I can take off the moderator hat and sound off a bit. I do, however, reserve the right to put it back on if people start acting crazy again. Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.



So, in other words, if we permit gay marriage everyone will turn gay and humanity will die off. I mean, is gay sex that much better than hetero sex? Maybe I'm missing out.

No. That is your erratic summary and conclusion. I am only about pointging out that both forms of sexuality are not of equal importance in the way nature moves on, and that the one is dominant due to evolutionary design, and the other is a - statistical as well as biological - anomaly that does not do harm to the species as long as it'S prevalence does not exceed a certain mark - beyiond which it starts to effect the reproduction rate of a population in a given habitate.

I did not say somethign like that if we let poeope with arelips live, the whole population sooner or later would become harelipped.

But you stumbled over something although you did not want that. A side-effect of medical progress is that many people with a genetical disease that in earlier times would have killed them before they could have had children of their own (carrying the same defectiove gene), today survive and can have children. As a result we know that these defective genes spread thrpoughout the genepool, and survive. We know that because counting it out showed us that the share of individuals with said genetically caused disease has grown amiongst the total population, and they become older. For example, a higher percentage of populations are bleeders, than in earlier times, and they also become older. They have children which carry their defective gene - in earlier times, they often died from a small injury while being teenagers.

So, there are three forms of homosexuality: intended trying, neurotic reaction for example due to sexual traumatisation or isolation, and genetic. The latter could have a material effect on a population indeed if the respoijnble gene gets transported from one generation to the next. As far as I know, we are unknowing about this, we have not even idenmtified the assumed homosexuality-gene, or am I wrong there? Could very well be that I am wrong, I so far think on the grounds of that the genetical component is just concluded on, but is not proven in hard evidence in a genetic screening. If the "gay-gene" indeed has been identified, let me know.

Maybe homosexuality is not caused by a defective gene triggering it, but a constellation of other genetic combinations that taken for themselves have different singular features, but in combination cause homosexuality as kind of a side-effect. But again: I don't know.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Let's keep the hate speech out and name calling at zero.

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

You really want to do this publically? Because we can, you know.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian' (note the irony 'quotes') the OP claims to be (ie the kind that likes to wave placards claiming that "god hates fags!" and other rubbish), and was not hate speech.

As a broad minded supporter of free speech (even of the kind that I find utterly revolting, like holocaust denial/revisionism) it takes a lot for me to consider a post hate speech. Like calling a group nothing but degenerate scum that should be eradicated of the face of the earth, or the use of pejorative slurs would qualify. If anyone crosses that kind of line when it comes to the groups you or anyone else belong to, then I will be more then happy to nail them to the wall for it.

I don't censor or censure you for what you say, just as I don't for those that disagree or counter you, regardless of what side I may actually be on. If you bring your cherished personal beliefs up to the table, it is perfectly fair to expect to have them disputed, even dragged through the mud, and up to you to defend them if you can (and if you can't then perhaps those views should be reevaluated).

As an academic, I really do not see why this is such a hard concept to understand. If you don't want to play, leave your ball at home.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You really want to do this publically? Because we can, you know.

Someone with a documentable history of hostility to those of faith continues that pattern (regardless of whether its "justified" on any single occasion or not) - along with hurling a personal insult regarding someone's sexuality in their following post (expressly forbidden in the TOS) and you guys choose to turn a blind eye - thats up to you. I guess some things are not hate speech when the "target" is equally hateful and despicable. I guess it all depends on the "kind" of group that its targetted at. So anyone who is an "identity christian" is a target - regardless. But because they are as a group wrong, hateful and yes - despicable - that makes such comments perfectly ok. The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well? Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about? Some people see Jews as despicable. That's one of the ways the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

I don't agree with "identity christians". But I still see a major double standard.

You guys call em like you see em.

So do I. It is what it is. I don't see a need to "do" anythng - either publicly or privately. If you do - then you know how to PM me - or take action publicly as you see fit.

Someone with a documentable history of hostility to those of faith continues that pattern

The only "hostility" is the writings of those of "faith", especially those that make ridiculous claims about the scripture they claim to follow.
There is no hostility at all to people of faith or to people of no faith.

along with hurling a personal insult regarding someone's sexuality in their following post

It addresses the issue.
It is widely held that the more someone screams about queens the greater the chance is that they are rather partial themselves.
Would you like a big list of very vocal homophobes who turned out to be taking deliveries by the back door?

I guess some things are not hate speech when the "target" is equally hateful and despicable.

Well done, almost correct.
Calling a nazi a nazi isn't hate speech, calling a Klansman a racist "christian" isn't hate speech, calling a black supremacist a dumb bigot isn't hate speech, it is addressing their views.

The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well?

You can call them racist scum, extreme right wing or bigots, but I don't think you can call them liberals

Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about?

That is simple, a statement about "christians" isn't a generalised statement about Christians any more than a statement about white supremacists is a generlised statement about "white" people.

I don't agree with "identity christians".

Good, becuase I wouldn't want you to follow the trail from NC to the great northwest homeland for "white" "christian" aryan folk based on the principles of the founding fathers and true to the US constitution free of "jews, ******s, race traitors and other degenerates"........call em like you see em.

@Mods. If any words of that last neo nazi hate speech is deemed unnaceptable despite the context please censor them.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I guess it all depends on the "kind" of group that its targetted at. So anyone who is an "identity christian" is a target - regardless. But because they are as a group wrong, hateful and yes - despicable - that makes such comments perfectly ok. The KKK is pretty despicable too - so I guess we can say anything we want about that group as well? Where do you draw the line on what "group" its acceptable to make blanket, generalized hateful comments about? Some people see Jews as despicable. That's one of the ways the Holocaust was allowed to happen.

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The terrible irony is that you have now described the OP, except that you left out blacks, Native Americans and Catholics. It would appear that you would be too busy trying to silence a forum rival to see that.

I have no issue with you brigging the OP. I pointed out way earlier in this thread that I found his tone and message way off base. I don't care who the person is - to say any group is worthy of "ripping the piss" because they are "sick puppies" is what it is. Last I read the rules - calling someone "ladyboy but not in a sexual way" - and then admitting that it was all about someone taking "deliveries in the back" was a violation as well. But you guys say its not. So be it.

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster instead of on the content of the posts just goes to show how much of a double standard you are using.

Don't think so? Fair enough. Guess we will see.

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Black Panthers, KKK members and "identity christians" (along with other types), plus a lot more groups - all worthy of "ripping a piss" just because they are sick puppies.
Don't like it? Guess your just all a bunch of ladyboys taking deliveries in the back.

geez , you sure you didnt forget someone in there?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by Webster

geez , you sure you didnt forget someone in there?

Truthers, moon-landing deniers...


..
...
Oh yeah, and also leprechauns.

Muslims, Jews, Athiests, Black Panthers, KKK members and "identity christians" (along with other types), plus a lot more groups - all worthy of "ripping a piss" just because they are sick puppies.
Don't like it? Guess your just all a bunch of ladyboys taking deliveries in the back.

Classic
Can you get it more backwards?(no pun intended)

The fact your hung up on some supposed rivalry between myself and the poster

Supposed
On your part......
ME ME ME ME ME
your CAPS LOCK habit comes back into play and unfortunately emphasises you again well illustrating your seemingly rather blatent dishonsty on that score.

instead of on the content of the posts

Yet it appears they are dealing with the content of the posts, rather than what you think you want those posts to be saying.

You really should have thought first before you went off on one, a topic angle dealing with nazi "christians" isn't a good location to be trying to fight your imaginary war on the mythical anti Christians you think you see.

In other news a nice development on the crazy nazi "christian" front.
Apparently that twat from NC who is running the northwestern homeland for real white people is having a problem with some of the other Nazi loons.
In a startling revelation they are now accusing the crazy white supremacist Stormfront website of being part of a global jewish conspiracy to make the nazis look bad, it kinda makesthe OPs past suggestion that Subsim is a Jewish conspiracy pale in comparison
Nazis don't ya just love em...but not in a gay way

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Well it all depends on who is doing the name calling and using the hate speech, now doesn't it...

Apparently so....

If this is in response to the post you reported... we looked at it and judged that it was aimed directly against the kind of 'christian' (note the irony 'quotes') the OP claims to be (ie the kind that likes to wave placards claiming that "god hates fags!" and other rubbish), and was not hate speech.

As a broad minded supporter of free speech (even of the kind that I find utterly revolting, like holocaust denial/revisionism) it takes a lot for me to consider a post hate speech. Like calling a group nothing but degenerate scum that should be eradicated of the face of the earth, or the use of pejorative slurs would qualify. If anyone crosses that kind of line when it comes to the groups you or anyone else belong to, then I will be more then happy to nail them to the wall for it.

I don't censor or censure you for what you say, just as I don't for those that disagree or counter you, regardless of what side I may actually be on. If you bring your cherished personal beliefs up to the table, it is perfectly fair to expect to have them disputed, even dragged through the mud, and up to you to defend them if you can (and if you can't then perhaps those views should be reevaluated).


As an academic, I really do not see why this is such a hard concept to understand. If you don't want to play, leave your ball at home.