Found out one of my friends is......

[mavs>spurs2]

i think my iq dropped by 50 after reading this thread.

Why do all apologists always have to scream "Nooooo!! That's ignorant!" Are you the Michael Jackson off Southpark?

I'd like one of you to show me how sexuality makes any sense whatsoever from a religious standpoint, or an evolutionary one. The floor is yours

[JamStone]

At least for me, it's not about proving that sexuality makes sense. It's about not hating and judging people who are gay. It's unnecessary to have so much conviction about it. You don't agree with people who are gay and it grosses you out. Fine. But it's unnecessary to hate them or judge them.

As far as a religious argument, why does there need to be one? If you believe that a union between man and woman, whether it's marriage or not, only makes sense from a religious or evolutionary point of view because they can procreate/reproduce, then would you be of the opinion that impotent men and sterile women shouldn't be allowed to have companionship or be allowed to marry?

Plus, gay couples can adopt, just like impotent men and sterile women. You can raise children without the biology of pregnancy... if that's what you're trying to infer by asking for religious and evolutionary logic to sexuality.

Love isn't easily definable. It's an abstract. For me, it's not an issue of whether you agree or disagree with being gay. Rather, it's about your ability to respect those who are gay without judgment. The Bible does talk about loving your neighbor and talks about not judging your neighbor. And, from an evolutionary point of view, if gay people don't affect your ability to reproduce, why should you care either way about them?

[Blake]

Truthfully I wouldn't vote. I am against it completely but it is their life. If I vote against I am denying a persons right to believe what they want which I am even more against than sexuality. If I vote for than it is saying that I agree with it which I do not. So I would refrain from voting.

so when it comes down it, you are indifferent.

[Blake]

Ok well I had an experience at a regular ol' bar (Fast Eddies) where this gay dude that was invited out with us would not leave me alone. He wasn't drunk because it was right after work and we had just got there and he kept inviting me to his house and trying to grab my arm. I know I know I would get called a phobe if it was just that but he was asked by someone in the group how he stayed so young looking. He turned and looked at me and said "It's because I swallow". I WAS LIKE WTF?! He just kept saying how he liked manly men and not "pansies" like him. It was an awful experience and the few times I have been invited to go to a gay bar all I can think of is a bunch of (we'll call him) Jimmy's running around.
I know they are not all like that but he didn't help their cause. It's one thing being hit on and saying no and it's another thing when you aren't just left alone after saying there is no way.

gross!

it would have been so much better if it was a fugly chick telling you all of that stuff instead.

[leemajors]

gross!

it would have been so much better if it was a fugly chick telling you all of that stuff instead.

I don't see any other way to react to being told that than to just laugh your ass off.

[Blake]

Why do all apologists always have to scream "Nooooo!! That's ignorant!"

because it's ignorant. You don't catch on very quick for being a genius.

I'd like one of you to show me how sexuality makes any sense whatsoever from a religious standpoint, or an evolutionary one. The floor is yours

it could easily take 10 pages to argue religious standpoints. Evolutionary standpoints are moot because even if it's a conscious decision they make, why do you care?

From a society standpoint there is no reason to hate the gay. There's nothing about the gays that bring our society down.

[CuckingFunt]

Ok well I had an experience at a regular ol' bar (Fast Eddies) where this gay dude that was invited out with us would not leave me alone. He wasn't drunk because it was right after work and we had just got there and he kept inviting me to his house and trying to grab my arm. I know I know I would get called a phobe if it was just that but he was asked by someone in the group how he stayed so young looking. He turned and looked at me and said "It's because I swallow". I WAS LIKE WTF?! He just kept saying how he liked manly men and not "pansies" like him. It was an awful experience and the few times I have been invited to go to a gay bar all I can think of is a bunch of (we'll call him) Jimmy's running around.
I know they are not all like that but he didn't help their cause. It's one thing being hit on and saying no and it's another thing when you aren't just left alone after saying there is no way.

Welcome to our world. Girls have been dealing with that forever.

Maybe straight guys are bothered by hanging out with gay guys because it forces them to see how persistent and y they all can be.

[I. Hustle]

Welcome to our world. Girls have been dealing with that forever.

Maybe straight guys are bothered by hanging out with gay guys because it forces them to see how persistent and y they all can be.

Not all guys and I have met chicks that are just as bad

[mavs>spurs2]

Not all guys and I have met chicks that are just as bad

I've always found it sexy as in the rare instances where the female is actually the one hitting on me

[marini martini]

Being honest and having a good heart, should be all that matters, in a friendship, IMHO!

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Blake, gots fail, whether you look at it from a religious standpoint or from Darwin's theory of natural selection. The bible says gayness is wrong, and it also goes against natural selection. If our ancestors were all gay then we wouldn't be here today. Nothing about being gay is really right now matter how you look at it. When I see 2 s together, it just makes my stomach squeamish and goes against everything that's ingrained into my DNA.

I'd like one of you to show me how sexuality makes any sense whatsoever from a religious standpoint, or an evolutionary one. The floor is yours

Wrong. sexuality has flourished in numerous species (it is not confined to humans), as reported by peer-reviewed science, despite the fact that sexuals don't procreate. What does that tell you? That sexual preference is probably a polygenic effect (that more than one gene is involved), and that it is NOT selected for or against by natural selection (it is a selectively neutral trait), otherwise it would have quickly left the gene pool.

Please don't abuse and misunderstand Darwin's theory, or genetics, for your own personal agendas. What are you studying? It sure isn't evolutionary biology or genetics.

I'm not a hillbilly, I'm a ing college student with around a genius level iq. You want me to die because I don't approve of sexuality? Just face it, you're a closet .

Nice, open-minded at ude to others' rights they teach you at that college.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

At least for me, it's not about proving that sexuality makes sense. It's about not hating and judging people who are gay. It's unnecessary to have so much conviction about it. You don't agree with people who are gay and it grosses you out. Fine. But it's unnecessary to hate them or judge them.

As far as a religious argument, why does there need to be one? If you believe that a union between man and woman, whether it's marriage or not, only makes sense from a religious or evolutionary point of view because they can procreate/reproduce, then would you be of the opinion that impotent men and sterile women shouldn't be allowed to have companionship or be allowed to marry?

Plus, gay couples can adopt, just like impotent men and sterile women. You can raise children without the biology of pregnancy... if that's what you're trying to infer by asking for religious and evolutionary logic to sexuality.

Love isn't easily definable. It's an abstract. For me, it's not an issue of whether you agree or disagree with being gay. Rather, it's about your ability to respect those who are gay without judgment. The Bible does talk about loving your neighbor and talks about not judging your neighbor. And, from an evolutionary point of view, if gay people don't affect your ability to reproduce, why should you care either way about them?

Great post.

You ought to carefully read it, mavs>spurs, especially the 1st and last paragraphs.

[florige]

I've always found it sexy as in the rare instances where the female is actually the one hitting on me

Are you sure they were actually females?

[Blake]

At least for me, it's not about proving that sexuality makes sense. It's about not hating and judging people who are gay. It's unnecessary to have so much conviction about it. You don't agree with people who are gay and it grosses you out. Fine. But it's unnecessary to hate them or judge them.

As far as a religious argument, why does there need to be one? If you believe that a union between man and woman, whether it's marriage or not, only makes sense from a religious or evolutionary point of view because they can procreate/reproduce, then would you be of the opinion that impotent men and sterile women shouldn't be allowed to have companionship or be allowed to marry?

Plus, gay couples can adopt, just like impotent men and sterile women. You can raise children without the biology of pregnancy... if that's what you're trying to infer by asking for religious and evolutionary logic to sexuality.

Love isn't easily definable. It's an abstract. For me, it's not an issue of whether you agree or disagree with being gay. Rather, it's about your ability to respect those who are gay without judgment. The Bible does talk about loving your neighbor and talks about not judging your neighbor. And, from an evolutionary point of view, if gay people don't affect your ability to reproduce, why should you care either way about them?

I somehow missed this very well put post. I'd say it's almost genius.

[mavs>spurs2]

Wrong. sexuality has flourished in numerous species (it is not confined to humans), as reported by peer-reviewed science, despite the fact that sexuals don't procreate. What does that tell you? That sexual preference is probably a polygenic effect (that more than one gene is involved), and that it is NOT selected for or against by natural selection (it is a selectively neutral trait), otherwise it would have quickly left the gene pool.

Please don't abuse and misunderstand Darwin's theory, or genetics, for your own personal agendas. What are you studying? It sure isn't evolutionary biology or genetics.



Nice, open-minded at ude to others' rights they teach you at that college.

Bro I'm an accounting major, I'm not an expert in the history of s, and quite frankly I'm not interested. I know that sexuality makes me sick, it goes against my beliefs, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do to sway or change me. sexuality does not make sense from a religious nor an evolutionary standpoint. I do not care for political correctness, to be perfectly honest I hate it and think it sometimes goes too far. If I step on somebodies toes while voicing my opinions, then so be it. I do not give a . I'm actually pretty open minded when it comes to most things, but sexuality isn't one of them. They disgust me and I am repulsed by them. That's just the way it is, and if you're offended, then good.

[mavs>spurs2]

Are you sure they were actually females?

Yup it's not very often that a female will actually initiate the flirting but girls are a lot more bold today than in your generation. I'm guessing you're somewhere between the ages of 32 and 40. I'm 21 and girls today are a little bit different than the ones you grew up with. Women today are more bold and outgoing about their sexuality than in past generations. Sure it's not an everyday occurrence, but yeah I've ever had women come up and actually flirt with me, I didn't even have to approach them first. I've always found it to be really really sexy.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yup it's not very often that a female will actually initiate the flirting but girls are a lot more bold today than in your generation. I'm guessing you're somewhere between the ages of 32 and 40. I'm 21 and girls today are a little bit different than the ones you grew up with. Women today are more bold and outgoing about their sexuality than in past generations. Sure it's not an everyday occurrence, but yeah I've ever had women come up and actually flirt with me, I didn't even have to approach them first. I've always found it to be really really sexy.

Why does every new generation think they invented sex?

[I. Hustle]

Why does every new generation think they invented sex?

I'm with you. I am 10 years older than that dude and chicks are the same now as they were when I was 21. More than likely the same as they were 20, 30, 40 years ago. He is just now getting into the bar scene since he is only 21and experiencing that side of night life. Chicks that are at the bars/clubs get their drink on and get bold just like dudes.

[DisAsTerBot]

im a genuis! im 21! s are gay!...for the last three pages




....one time a girl flirted with ME!

[mrsmaalox]

im a genuis! im 21! s are gay!...for the last three pages




....one time a girl flirted with ME!

Thanks, I was just debating if I should go back a few pages to catch up!

[rjv]

Why do all apologists always have to scream "Nooooo!! That's ignorant!" Are you the Michael Jackson off Southpark?

I'd like one of you to show me how sexuality makes any sense whatsoever from a religious standpoint, or an evolutionary one. The floor is yours

from a religious standpoint? what religion? what denomination? what aspect of it? ethical? moral? metaphysical? does this question presuppose religion as the ultimate arbitrator? does it assume that all religions would agree?

are you suggesting that there could be a genetic aspect to sexuality or are you being facetious and stating that evolution is not part of the equation?


the ability to answer the former almost depends on the answer to the latter. if one can demonstrate that there is a genetic or physiological character to sexuality then one would pose the problem of determinism and free will to some, although not all, religions as certain faiths are based on the belief that we are esentially destined or subscribe to a fatalistic view while others believe in choice and self-determination.

certainly there are brain mapping studies that have suggested enough anatomical differences between sexual and heterosexual brains that they have merited more studies and research. there can be no way to conclude at this point that there is no physiological facet to sexual orientation especially since so many other behaviors have been linked to biological factors.

the question of evolution juxtaposed to the question of religion is also interesting since not all religions or faiths even believe in evolution. but to the point about what could be the evolutionary benefit of sexuality i would have to infer that you are stating the argument of the need to procreate. but have you ever considered the other point of view? the species at some point places a burden on its environment as humans are now doing by our exponentially expanding population. most ecological studies suggest that this planet could not sustain a population of 15 billion or more (a number that we are already more than halfway at). knowing this, would it really be necessary for all people to procreate? or could it be that there could actually be a benefit to sexuality in that it helps place a limit on the intended height of our population?

[Blake]

Yup it's not very often that a female will actually initiate the flirting but girls are a lot more bold today than in your generation. I'm guessing you're somewhere between the ages of 32 and 40. I'm 21 and girls today are a little bit different than the ones you grew up with. Women today are more bold and outgoing about their sexuality than in past generations. Sure it's not an everyday occurrence, but yeah I've ever had women come up and actually flirt with me, I didn't even have to approach them first. I've always found it to be really really sexy.

genius!

[Blake]

from a religious standpoint? what religion? what denomination? what aspect of it? ethical? moral? metaphysical? does this question presuppose religion as the ultimate arbitrator? does it assume that all religions would agree?

are you suggesting that there could be a genetic aspect to sexuality or are you being facetious and stating that evolution is not part of the equation?


the ability to answer the former almost depends on the answer to the latter. if one can demonstrate that there is a genetic or physiological character to sexuality then one would pose the problem of determinism and free will to some, although not all, religions as certain faiths are based on the belief that we are esentially destined or subscribe to a fatalistic view while others believe in choice and self-determination.

certainly there are brain mapping studies that have suggested enough anatomical differences between sexual and heterosexual brains that they have merited more studies and research. there can be no way to conclude at this point that there is no physiological facet to sexual orientation especially since so many other behaviors have been linked to biological factors.

the question of evolution juxtaposed to the question of religion is also interesting since not all religions or faiths even believe in evolution. but to the point about what could be the evolutionary benefit of sexuality i would have to infer that you are stating the argument of the need to procreate. but have you ever considered the other point of view? the species at some point places a burden on its environment as humans are now doing by our exponentially expanding population. most ecological studies suggest that this planet could not sustain a population of 15 billion or more (a number that we are already more than halfway at). knowing this, would it really be necessary for all people to procreate? or could it be that there could actually be a benefit to sexuality in that it helps place a limit on the intended height of our population?

whoa slow down.....he said he's only "near genius"

if you don't throw in a few lines of "bud ice kicks ass" he'll be totally lost.

[v2freak]

Wrong. sexuality has flourished in numerous species (it is not confined to humans), as reported by peer-reviewed science, despite the fact that sexuals don't procreate. What does that tell you? That sexual preference is probably a polygenic effect (that more than one gene is involved), and that it is NOT selected for or against by natural selection (it is a selectively neutral trait), otherwise it would have quickly left the gene pool.

Please don't abuse and misunderstand Darwin's theory, or genetics, for your own personal agendas. What are you studying? It sure isn't evolutionary biology or genetics.



Nice, open-minded at ude to others' rights they teach you at that college.

That's rather fascinating. I consider myself well-versed in evolution. Other than bonobos, what animals are known to consistently engage in sexual behavior?

Also, I have heard horror stories of particularly persistent gay men who try to hit on straight men and convince them that they too are gay. Fact of the matter is, all gays are different. Some are notoriously horny, some just want to settle down with 1 guy, some are flamboyant and some try to cover it up.

[Blake]

That's rather fascinating. I consider myself well-versed in evolution. Other than bonobos, what animals are known to consistently engage in sexual behavior?

Penguins?