Homosexuality discussion thread

[Ifreann]

Yes, you are one person. Other people, even if they are also gay, are different from you. This really should not come as a surprise.

You're the one who made the specific claim that, and I quote, "it's only natural that people will revel in being openly gay."

I thought it was obvious that I wasn't saying that all gay people will behave that way, just some people will naturally behave that way. I thought it was obvious because I thought it went without saying that people are not all exactly the same, and have different personalities, and different interests, and react to things differently.

Fucking prove it; if it's so natural to act like contrarian non-conformists, you should have no problem finding evidence that people are naturally inclined to that kind of bullshit.

It's self-evident. Or do you think that all those people at all those gay pride parades are behaving unnaturally?

There's millions and millions of homosexuals who have never once had the desire to partake in the worthless garbage you consider to be natural to them; if you want to tell tall-tales about how we all have a natural urge for that shit, cough up the evidence for it.

Nah, I'm not pushed to support claims that I didn't make.

[Auze]

Is there a forum to apologize for bad debate practice?

Feel free to apologize wherever you messed up.

Okay, I apologize for making a few idiotic mistakes, and also comparing the LGBT pride flag to a epileptic rapid color flashing program with an air raid siren playing on a loop in the background, that was a awful thing to do, to put it lightly.

[Senkaku]

Yes, you are one person. Other people, even if they are also gay, are different from you. This really should not come as a surprise.

You're the one who made the specific claim that, and I quote, "it's only natural that people will revel in being openly gay."

At what point did Iffy say "all people", exactly?

you should have no problem finding evidence that people are naturally inclined to that kind of bullshit.

I mean, I like the color pink and I paint my nails occasionally. That seems to fall under the vague umbrella of camp that you're bitching about, and I'm not doing it just to piss off people who are easily triggered by other people's fashion choices, I'm doing it because I happen to like it.

There's millions and millions of homosexuals who have never once had the desire to partake in the worthless garbage you consider to be natural to them;

You seem to be making a host of assumptions- one, Iffy is talking about ALL gays EVERYWHERE, and two, that "reveling in being openly gay" constitutes embracing every single stereotypical behavior or fashion choice that society thinks of gay people doing or making. Neither of those things were suggested, it was simply pointed out to you that some people might make some of those campy choices for certain reasons, to try and get you to see why some people might find things appealing that you do not.

People make different choices about how to behave and dress and look for different reasons. No one is asking you to necessarily be on board, but you said you couldn't understand the appeal, so people are trying to explain to you why other people find it appealing.

[Hakons]

"Render unto Caesar" does not mean one has to agree with the government on everything, or support the government on everything.

If that were the case, Christianity wouldn't have existed past the Diocletian persecution.

No, it doesn't. I'm well aware of what it means, thank you very much for your patronizing and wrong explanation. It means, leave to government what is government's. Marriage is the government's, and has belonged to government long before religion. Stop trying to co-opt it.

Marriage predates the modern nation state. Forms of marriage probably existed before civilizations and organized religion. Anyway, Christians hold that marriage is defined by the Church. The state can have its own definition of marriage, since the state is not the Church.

[Oil exporting People]

Gay people haven't disappeared since Mesopotamia, why are they going to disappear now?

Gene editing, presuming it is genetic; changed social and technological conditions otherwise.

...that was Sal, not me.

Sorry, fucked up the quoting.

But while there's not conclusive proof as to it being caused by genetics, there have been indications that it at least plays a role, so saying there's "no evidence whatsoever" is quite silly.

The only evidence they've found is some shared genes, and the study authors of that particular case took pains to stress it was in no way the fabled Gay gene and that there was no definite proof it had any ties to being gay.

And I assume we can take your point to mean that gayness will somehow be expunged from human society in the future? Do tell how that'll work- are we talking death camps, or everyone magically un-gaying themselves with future tech?

Future tech, such as gene editing. By the end of this century, presuming there is a genetic basis for it, we'll be able to use things like CRISPR to remove it easily enough; think of it like the Polio vaccination campaigns. If, as I suspect, there is no genetic basis for it, then that is proof it's a mental condition of some sort and then other methods will probably be examined.

What do you base this on?

CRISPR, among other things. Future demographics pointing to a less than supportive environment from the wider population for Hosexuals later on too.

[Kannap]

No, it doesn't. I'm well aware of what it means, thank you very much for your patronizing and wrong explanation. It means, leave to government what is government's. Marriage is the government's, and has belonged to government long before religion. Stop trying to co-opt it.

Marriage predates the modern nation state. Forms of marriage probably existed before civilizations and organized religion. Anyway, Christians hold that marriage is defined by the Church. The state can have its own definition of marriage, since the state is not the Church.

As long as the people officiating weddings have to be licensed by the state - whether they're Christian or not - then don't tell me the state definition of marriage isn't important.

[Senkaku]

No, it doesn't. I'm well aware of what it means, thank you very much for your patronizing and wrong explanation. It means, leave to government what is government's. Marriage is the government's, and has belonged to government long before religion. Stop trying to co-opt it.

Marriage predates the modern nation state.

As do governments...?

Forms of marriage probably existed before civilizations and organized religion.

I'm not sure this would be provable, since there'd be no records indicating so, but regardless, that certainly means that marriage doesn't belong to the religious.

Anyway, Christians hold that marriage is defined by the Church.

The Church and Christians hold that all kinds of silly shit is true, so I don't really know why this should hold any water. This is basically just saying, "yeah, but WE say it's ours lol."

[Monterey Springs]

Exactly and homosexuals recruit children by adopting them among other things to advance the gay agenda. It wouldn't shock me if there are people who actually believe that.

There are tons of kids in foster care/who are wards of the state who age out before finding a home. Why on earth wouldn't we want them adopted to loving homes?

Just my opinion, please understand that it was never etched in stone and brought down from heaven, and I’m not saying it is, this is just what I think, I’m sharing, not telling.
See this is what gets to me - not that you are an example this is just related, when people go down that road of distinguishing a difference between Adopted relationships and non adopted relationships, because when people don’t understand what being adopted is like they get fantasies about a constant drama and identity crisis. Especially on TV shows, where a kid will be like I want to find my birth mother and they’ll run away and all. A lot of people don’t understand that that sure on paper it’s different but the love in the relationship is the same. Same with Singtel parents, sure it’s sometimes harder, but so are a lot of things in life, but in the end you wouldn’t change a thing. This is what this whole debate is about, people feel like it’s their responsibility to save people from themselves, but being gay, sure it makes it harder, but harder does not mean you’d want it any different way. You can say that you’re trying to save them, by ending adoption, or single parents, or gay rights movements, but in the end of the day, we aren’t waiting for you to save us and change who we are. Being human isn’t about scientific data, or classifications, it is about the gap between what we are and who we are. Our sexual orientation, how we grew up, or race or color, it is the qualities that make us up, it is what we are, but who we are, we will never know, because we are always changing. Nobody’s as simple as gay, or single, or shallow, or pretty, or stupid, we all have to recognize that God wanted us here for a reason, and that reason, and it’s cirxumstances, aren’t for us to judge, but for us to find out. Life is like a box of chocolates, you can call them by their flavor or their color, or their brand, but you never truly know the chocolate until you taste it in the end. Love to hear your thoughts, unless they’re unkind, in which I wouldn’t really like to

[Fascist Russian Empire]

You're the one who made the specific claim that, and I quote, "it's only natural that people will revel in being openly gay."

I thought it was obvious that I wasn't saying that all gay people will behave that way, just some people will naturally behave that way. I thought it was obvious because I thought it went without saying that people are not all exactly the same, and have different personalities, and different interests, and react to things differently.

Exactly what part of the phrase "it's only natural that people will" can be construed as doing anything other than make the implication that people have an inherent inclination to do so? "It's natural for some people to" is a statement that some people will naturally behave a certain way. Saying "it's only natural that people will" is a declaration that people are naturally driven to do something. Either back off the universal terminology or back up the claim.

It's self-evident. Or do you think that all those people at all those gay pride parades are behaving unnaturally?

Bull-fucking-shit it's self-evident. If I got my gun, went out, and started shooting people at random, would that mean it's only natural that people will go on psychotic killing sprees? Would it be self-evident that unprovoked murder is natural? After all, people do it; is that proof that killing-sprees are natural?

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether people do something or not. "Gay pride" is an artificial construct, not something natural to anybody, and you have yet to provide a single God-damn shred of evidence to the contrary.

Nah, I'm not pushed to support claims that I didn't make.

Unbelievable. First, you assert that it's "self-evident" that it's a natural proclivity, then, in the very next sentence, you blatantly deny having made the claim that you just asserted. How inattentive do you think people are? Show some consistency.

[Senkaku]

Gay people haven't disappeared since Mesopotamia, why are they going to disappear now?

Gene editing, presuming it is genetic; changed social and technological conditions otherwise.

...that was Sal, not me.

Sorry, fucked up the quoting.

But while there's not conclusive proof as to it being caused by genetics, there have been indications that it at least plays a role, so saying there's "no evidence whatsoever" is quite silly.

The only evidence they've found is some shared genes, and the study authors of that particular case took pains to stress it was in no way the fabled Gay gene and that there was no definite proof it had any ties to being gay.

Sure, but it's still evidence. I was expressly not claiming that. I was just saying that it's silly to say there's no evidence whatsoever that genetics isn't at least a major part of it.

And I assume we can take your point to mean that gayness will somehow be expunged from human society in the future? Do tell how that'll work- are we talking death camps, or everyone magically un-gaying themselves with future tech?

Future tech, such as gene editing. By the end of this century, presuming there is a genetic basis for it, we'll be able to use things like CRISPR to remove it easily enough; think of it like the Polio vaccination campaigns.

Maybe in certain segments of the population, but I doubt it'll gain that kind of traction, since being gay doesn't cripple you for life or carry the risk of infecting others and also crippling them.

It really is unfortunate how often LGBT rights opponents compare being gay or trans or whatever to having an infectious disease, isn't it?

If, as I suspect, there is no genetic basis for it, then that is proof it's a mental condition of some sort and then other methods will probably be examined.

Why is that proof it's a mental condition? Epigenetics and environmental factors and all that jazz aren't indicative of a mental condition- this makes about as much sense as saying all straight people have a mental condition, and it's the gays who are working as designed.

What do you base this on?

CRISPR, among other things.

I can see certain segments of the population using CRISPR to eliminate homosexuality, if it does prove to be purely genetic, but across the board? Definitely not.

Future demographics pointing to a less than supportive environment from the wider population for Hosexuals later on too.

And what does that mean, exactly?

[Monterey Springs]

Marriage predates the modern nation state.

As do governments...?

Forms of marriage probably existed before civilizations and organized religion.

I'm not sure this would be provable, since there'd be no records indicating so, but regardless, that certainly means that marriage doesn't belong to the religious.

Anyway, Christians hold that marriage is defined by the Church.

The Church and Christians hold that all kinds of silly shit is true, so I don't really know why this should hold any water. This is basically just saying, "yeah, but WE say it's ours lol."

Christianity isn’t about anti homosexuality or taking back the holy land, it’s about forgiveness and mercy. Some people say they are devout Christians, but cannot accept the core message of the Bible. And yes, Christian Churches have done awful things in the past, but let’s temember that the Christian world today is largely secular, compared to Saudi Arabia where women are stoned to death formadultery. The problem isn’t with religion itself, it’s with how the bad interpretations are the ones enforced.

[Senkaku]

I thought it was obvious that I wasn't saying that all gay people will behave that way, just some people will naturally behave that way. I thought it was obvious because I thought it went without saying that people are not all exactly the same, and have different personalities, and different interests, and react to things differently.

Exactly what part of the phrase "it's only natural that people will" can be construed as doing anything other than make the implication that people have an inherent inclination to do so? "It's natural for some people to" is a statement that some people will naturally behave a certain way. Saying "it's only natural that people will" is a declaration that people are naturally driven to do something. Either back off the universal terminology or back up the claim.

It's not universal terminology? You yourself literally summed it up- "SOME people will naturally behave a certain way." Given the insanely broad and sweeping generalizations you've made about pride and flamboyant behaviors, it seems really unreasonable to suggest that no one naturally behaves in campy ways- clearly some people do exhibit many of the behaviors you're objecting to, so either they exhibit them naturally, or you're asserting that every single one of them is being unnatural by exhibiting them.

It's self-evident. Or do you think that all those people at all those gay pride parades are behaving unnaturally?

Bull-fucking-shit it's self-evident. If I got my gun, went out, and started shooting people at random, would that mean it's only natural that people will go on psychotic killing sprees? Would it be self-evident that unprovoked murder is natural? After all, people do it; is that proof that killing-sprees are natural?

I mean, yes. For some people. As you literally said earlier in your post.

Some people naturally do things that are different from what others do.

It doesn't matter in the slightest whether people do something or not. "Gay pride" is an artificial construct, not something natural to anybody, and you have yet to provide a single God-damn shred of evidence to the contrary.

I mean, you're the one out here asserting that a significant proportion of the LGBT population is behaving unnaturally every time they do anything vaguely camp-y or pride-y and buying into an "artificial construct" and that it isn't natural to anyone, despite the fact that millions of people partake- one would think you'd be the one providing the proofs here.

Or we could accept that different people go about life differently. Some people are into pride and being kinda flamboyant, others aren't, and that's fine and not a big deal.

Nah, I'm not pushed to support claims that I didn't make.

Unbelievable. First, you assert that it's "self-evident" that it's a natural proclivity, then, in the very next sentence, you blatantly deny having made the claim that you just asserted.

Frankly, given that you yourself, when restating Iffy's post, clearly grasped that it was talking about "some" people, I think you're just being obtuse and belligerent at this point.

[Senkaku]

As do governments...?

I'm not sure this would be provable, since there'd be no records indicating so, but regardless, that certainly means that marriage doesn't belong to the religious.

The Church and Christians hold that all kinds of silly shit is true, so I don't really know why this should hold any water. This is basically just saying, "yeah, but WE say it's ours lol."

Christianity isn’t about anti homosexuality or taking back the holy land, it’s about forgiveness and mercy.

Listen, you're not gonna hear me condemning an entire religion. But I'm happy to point out that while it's awesome that you and millions of other Christians may interpret your faith as leading you to try and be more tolerant, forgiving people, it also sucks that there are other Christians who use their faith as a cudgel against people they're afraid of.

Some people say they are devout Christians, but cannot accept the core message of the Bible.

And those Christians will now ask "who the hell are you to tell me I'm No True Scotsman?"

And yes, Christian Churches have done awful things in the past, but let’s temember that the Christian world today is largely secular,

Well, this could be the topic of a whole different thread, but it isn't really relevant to the conversation.

compared to Saudi Arabia where women are stoned to death formadultery.

Is the bar really that low? "Hey guys, we don't stone people to death any more, so we're basically great now!"

The problem isn’t with religion itself, it’s with how the bad interpretations are the ones enforced.

Great? I'm personally inclined to agree, but sadly, neither of us are arbiters of which sects are and are not just "bad interpretations" or heresy or whatever.

[Oil exporting People]

Sure, but it's still evidence. I was expressly not claiming that. I was just saying that it's silly to say there's no evidence whatsoever that genetics isn't at least a major part of it.

That's still wrong, however, because there is no evidence at all there is any genetics even mildly inducing it.

Maybe in certain segments of the population, but I doubt it'll gain that kind of traction, since being gay doesn't cripple you for life or carry the risk of infecting others and also crippling them.

Being Gay serves no purpose, reduces overall fertility rates, and carries a massive risk of HIV/AIDs which can no longer be accepted going forward.

It really is unfortunate how often LGBT rights opponents compare being gay or trans or whatever to having an infectious disease, isn't it?

Personally I consider Homosexuality a plague to be eliminated with extreme prejudice, but I do believe some nuance is in order since the means of doing that in gentler way is now possible.

Why is that proof it's a mental condition? Epigenetics and environmental factors and all that jazz aren't indicative of a mental condition-

There's never been any environmental factors, beyond getting molested as a kid, that has been linked with higher incidence rates of producing Homosexuals. Given that and the fact no proof exists of a genetic link at this point, then the obvious answer is it must be a mental condition.

this makes about as much sense as saying all straight people have a mental condition, and it's the gays who are working as designed.

Except for the fact one can reproduce and one can't.

And what does that mean, exactly?

Demographic trends clearly show that, by the end of this century, the population profile will favor those who oppose Homosexuality here in the United States at the least. Given the advancements in CRISPR like technologies by then, they'll have the power to enact nationwide screening and "Vaccination" campaigns easily enough to remove the blight of Homosexuality. Otherwise, yes, other methods can be used.

[San Lumen]

Sure, but it's still evidence. I was expressly not claiming that. I was just saying that it's silly to say there's no evidence whatsoever that genetics isn't at least a major part of it.

That's still wrong, however, because there is no evidence at all there is any genetics even mildly inducing it.

Maybe in certain segments of the population, but I doubt it'll gain that kind of traction, since being gay doesn't cripple you for life or carry the risk of infecting others and also crippling them.

Being Gay serves no purpose, reduces overall fertility rates, and carries a massive risk of HIV/AIDs which can no longer be accepted going forward.

It really is unfortunate how often LGBT rights opponents compare being gay or trans or whatever to having an infectious disease, isn't it?

Personally I consider Homosexuality a plague to be eliminated with extreme prejudice, but I do believe some nuance is in order since the means of doing that in gentler way is now possible.

Why is that proof it's a mental condition? Epigenetics and environmental factors and all that jazz aren't indicative of a mental condition-

There's never been any environmental factors, beyond getting molested as a kid, that has been linked with higher incidence rates of producing Homosexuals. Given that and the fact no proof exists of a genetic link at this point, then the obvious answer is it must be a mental condition.

this makes about as much sense as saying all straight people have a mental condition, and it's the gays who are working as designed.

Except for the fact one can reproduce and one can't.

And what does that mean, exactly?

Demographic trends clearly show that, by the end of this century, the population profile will favor those who oppose Homosexuality here in the United States at the least. Given the advancements in CRISPR like technologies by then, they'll have the power to enact nationwide screening and "Vaccination" campaigns easily enough to remove the blight of Homosexuality. Otherwise, yes, other methods can be used.

Amazing every word you just said is wrong.

Being gay is not a disease you can create a vaccine for nor is it a choice. How in anyway is same marriage and adoption a threat to you? What other methods were you referring too?

I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known and turned out just fine.

[Oil exporting People]

Amazing every word you just said is wrong.

Being gay is not a disease you can create a vaccine for. How in anyway is same marriage and adoption a threat to you?

I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known and turned out just fine.

I've always wanted to do one of these, and you've finally given me my chance.

Not an argument

[San Lumen]

Amazing every word you just said is wrong.

Being gay is not a disease you can create a vaccine for. How in anyway is same marriage and adoption a threat to you?

I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known and turned out just fine.

I've always wanted to do one of these, and you've finally given me my chance.

Not an argument

And thats not a response. Being gay is not a disease you make can make a vaccine for.

Its a perfectly good argument to give real world example. Your just dodging.

[Senkaku]

Sure, but it's still evidence. I was expressly not claiming that. I was just saying that it's silly to say there's no evidence whatsoever that genetics isn't at least a major part of it.

That's still wrong, however, because there is no evidence at all there is any genetics even mildly inducing it.

You yourself were just talking about some evidence that genetics may be involved. Just because people are being careful not to jump to definitive conclusions without lots more data doesn't mean there aren't suggestions that it could be a factor.

Maybe in certain segments of the population, but I doubt it'll gain that kind of traction, since being gay doesn't cripple you for life or carry the risk of infecting others and also crippling them.

Being Gay serves no purpose, reduces overall fertility rates,

Gay uncle theory, my dude, have ya heard of it? Apparently my sister's gonna be able to pump out kiddos like nobody's business thanks to the genes we ended up with.

and carries a massive risk of HIV/AIDs which can no longer be accepted going forward.

Being gay does not inherently make you more susceptible to HIV. Gay and bisexual men (let's just say MSM in general, since incompletely transitioned MtF trans and transitioned FtM trans and "straight" guys are also all in the mix) are at a higher risk for HIV because the disease was able to spread widely in the community thanks to a really dreadful public health response when it first came on the scene.

It really is unfortunate how often LGBT rights opponents compare being gay or trans or whatever to having an infectious disease, isn't it?

Personally I consider Homosexuality a plague to be eliminated with extreme prejudice,

Better start stitching some pink triangles.

but I do believe some nuance is in order since the means of doing that in gentler way is now possible.

Well, isn't that magnanimous. "Genocide might not be necessary to wipe you out, so let's look into less invasive eugenics policies!"

Why is that proof it's a mental condition? Epigenetics and environmental factors and all that jazz aren't indicative of a mental condition-

There's never been any environmental factors,

There are almost an infinite number of them, so I would hardly say the jury's in-

beyond getting molested as a kid,

w h e w

Given that and the fact no proof exists of a genetic link at this point, then the obvious answer is it must be a mental condition.

"The science isn't in on two other possible factors, so let me assume that my narrative is correct!"

das bayud sighunce

this makes about as much sense as saying all straight people have a mental condition, and it's the gays who are working as designed.

Except for the fact one can reproduce and one can't.

Oh, maybe you've been confused, sweetie- gay means homosexual, not sterile.

And what does that mean, exactly?

Demographic trends clearly show that, by the end of this century, the population profile will favor those who oppose Homosexuality here in the United States at the least.

[many citations needed]

Given the advancements in CRISPR like technologies by then,

Now you're assuming it's genetic- weren't you just telling me it's all in my head?

they'll have the power to enact nationwide screening and "Vaccination" campaigns easily enough

Yeah, but even if this homophobe's wet dream came to pass, I feel like the country would probably have bigger political fish to fry than wiping out gayness.

to remove the blight of Homosexuality.

Otherwise, yes, other methods can be used.

Namely, genocide. You might as well be upfront about it, tbh, your hints aren't at all subtle.

[Oil exporting People]

[And thats not a response. Being gay is not a disease you make can make a vaccine for.

Alright then, let's start from the begining; is Gay being a choice or something someone is born as?

Its a perfectly good argument to give real world example. Your just dodging.

Nitpick, but it's *you're, not your.

No, because your example is what is called Ancedotal evidence; it has no merit at the societal level. What you'd actually need to do here would be to cite evidence backing up your underlying point that Homosexuals can be good parents or some such, but that's not even what is being debated here by me. What is, however, is whether or not Homosexuals are going to be removed from society in this century or at some other time.

[Eisarnathiuda]

Namely, genocide. You might as well be upfront about it, tbh, your hints aren't at all subtle.

Genocide? I didn't know Gay was a race.

[The Black Forrest]

Amazing every word you just said is wrong.

Being gay is not a disease you can create a vaccine for. How in anyway is same marriage and adoption a threat to you?

I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. They are the only family he's ever known and turned out just fine.

I've always wanted to do one of these, and you've finally given me my chance.

Not an argument

Still better then the silly arguments you presented. Gay as a choice really?

[Senkaku]

Namely, genocide. You might as well be upfront about it, tbh, your hints aren't at all subtle.

Genocide? I didn't know Gay was a race.

gen·o·cide
ˈjenəˌsīd/Submit
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

"especially", not "invariably"

thanks for your attempt at semantic warfare kiddo but I r8 4/10 for weak basis, gn

[Chuukango]

Oh, maybe you've been confused, sweetie- gay means homosexual, not sterile.

And let us not forget that, to my knowledge at least, there are people willing to have a child (if that makes sense) for homosexual couples.

[El Hamidah]

Making yourself look ridiculous isn't a fundamental part of being a homosexual; getting turned on by dicks is. You don't need to wave a stupid rainbow flag or wear an ugly pink getup to enjoy the company of the same-sex.

Just because you find the flag stupid or the color pink ugly doesn't mean everyone does.

You aren't hiding your sexuality by dressing and behaving in a nice, proper manner;

Your aesthetic tastes in clothing are different from other people's. That's fine, but don't act as if you're the universal authority.

being open about your sexuality would be publicly going out with your significant other, or being honest when asked about it, and generally treating it the same way any normal person would treat their romantic and sexual inclinations. You don't need to conform to stereotypes of what a homosexual is to be open and honest about your sexuality.

And you don't need to hide your desire to indulge in behaviors that *gasp* might be considered stereotypical or flamboyant, or act completely hetero in every way possible except for fucking the same sex and not hiding it from people, or whatever you're suggesting.

Yes, it's true that the cause of equals rights has advanced in recent years. It's also true that there's been an increasingly active movement in opposition to homosexuality in the West, and that there's been a resurgence of anti-homosexual rhetoric in the general population as of late. Lobbyists against homosexuality wield a lot of influence; handing them material to use against us on a silver platter is only going to embolden and empower reactionary politicians who want to revoke equality for homosexuals.

So your conclusion is we should self-repress so that they can't repress us....?

And I for one have never felt any inclination towards reveling and flaunting my sexuality; after all, who the hell cares? Who I want to fuck is my business and only my business; nobody gives a shit, there's no reason to go flaunting it about. Waving around dicks and proclaiming to the world how much I adore them would just be rude and disruptive to the people around me, quite frankly.

That's fine- I don't think anyone is forcing you to or criticizing your choices. You do you, but don't suggest that other people being themselves is being dishonest about who they are, undermining the gay liberation movement, or being somehow unseemly just because what they're doing isn't your style.

No. He's 100% right. The types that dress and act crazy make us all look bad.

It's not about repressing your attraction to other guys. It's that you don't go around screaming to the world with your speech, clothes and public actions that you're obsessed with sex.

[San Lumen]

[And thats not a response. Being gay is not a disease you make can make a vaccine for.

Alright then, let's start from the begining; is Gay being a choice or something someone is born as?

Its a perfectly good argument to give real world example. Your just dodging.

Nitpick, but it's *you're, not your.

No, because your example is what is called Ancedotal evidence; it has no merit at the societal level. What you'd actually need to do here would be to cite evidence backing up your underlying point that Homosexuals can be good parents or some such, but that's not even what is being debated here by me. What is, however, is whether or not Homosexuals are going to be removed from society in this century or at some other time.

It is not a choice. And it is evidence when I know someone who was raised by a gay couple. He was charming, intellectual, and overall wonderful young man. I also met his parents. They were absolutely wonderful people. Studies have shown that LGBT couples can be just as good parents as you.

And its not going to be removed from society as you can't create a vaccine for something than isn't a choice and is not a mental condition. Its quite arrogant and scary that you'd say that we will come up with a way to remove homosexuality from society. Sounds very V for Vendetta.

Do tell how you think its going to be eliminated when society is becoming more accepting of it.