Oh yeah, I forgot about asexual. I knew I missed something out.

(February 21, 2011 at 9:36 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I'm talking about if heterosexual marriage is supported but not homosexual marriage. Then the result is bigotry because it's prejudice against a group of people (homosexuals).

Really, I couldn't care less that it means that much to them to call it marriage instead of civil union in order to make themselves feel better about themselves in an attempt to keep themselves in denial that they harbor an abnormality. Go for it.

Quote:If the negative connotation is not included then what's abnormal is merely not the usual so nothing is wrong simply by being "abnormal".

I never claimed there was anything 'wrong' with abnormalities. I have consistantly maintained morality and the ideas of right and wrong are subjective.

(February 21, 2011 at 5:18 pm)Dotard Wrote:

(February 21, 2011 at 9:36 am)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: I'm talking about if heterosexual marriage is supported but not homosexual marriage. Then the result is bigotry because it's prejudice against a group of people (homosexuals).

Really, I couldn't care less that it means that much to them to call it marriage instead of civil union in order to make themselves feel better about themselves in an attempt to keep themselves in denial that they harbor an abnormality. Go for it.

You failed to refute my actual point that if you are against homosexual marriage it is bigotry because it's unwarranted prejudice against a group of people.

Quote:I never claimed there was anything 'wrong' with abnormalities. I have consistantly maintained morality and the ideas of right and wrong are subjective.

No but you give the impression that there's something 'wrong' with homosexuality at least subjectively to you.

(February 21, 2011 at 11:16 am)Ashendant Wrote: That's kinda my point, to me there are no such labels as homosexuality, heterosexuality and bisexuality, just sexuality,...

Sorry. You can't wish away existing labels. There are homosexuals, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. I'm sure there exists chickensexuals, mudsexuals and electricaloutletsexuals to name a few. The first three are identified in the scientific communities and excepted by the majority of people. They exist. You are the first person who I ever heard deny their existance.

Quote:I accept to this statement
In 1995, Harvard Shakespeare professor Marjorie Garber made the academic case for bisexuality with her Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, in which she argued that most people would be bisexual if not for "repression, religion, repugnance, denial, laziness, shyness, lack of opportunity, premature specialization, a failure of imagination, or a life already full to the brim with erotic experiences, albeit with only one person, or only one gender."[12]

And I'm sure I just may have been a homosexual if not for the existance of pussy. Or knotholes, or chickens. Nah, maybe not. Now that I think about it, I'd be a knotholesexual or chickensexual before homosexuality. But that's just me.

Oh.... what was the point of posting that?


EDIT: i also found the proof i was looking for

Quote:Dr. Alfred Kinsey's 1948 work Sexual Behavior in the Human Male found that "46% of the male population had engaged in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, or 'reacted to' persons of both sexes, in the course of their adult lives".[15]

Quote:The Janus Report on Sexual Behavior, published in 1993, showed that 5 percent of men and 3 percent of women consider themselves bisexual and 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women considered themselves homosexual.[14]

What changed between 1948 and 1993, the media view on it
[/quote]


Nope. I'd say it was the quality of the experiments. Maybe the first was held in San Fransico. Or maybe their selection of participants was all of 20 dudes in the "male bath-houses" of that day. It says 46% of the male population". Population where? And really, he asked every single male from the entire populace?
Most likely a much better quality report.

Quote:Sorry. You can't wish away existing labels. There are homosexuals, bi-sexuals and heterosexuals. I'm sure there exists chickensexuals, mudsexuals and electricaloutletsexuals to name a few. The first three are identified in the scientific communities and excepted by the majority of people. They exist. You are the first person who I ever heard deny their existance.

These things exist but they have different labels all together they are Philias and the opposite of them are Phobias, sexuality as a exclusivity label doesn't exist and i'm not wishing away what it's wholly imagined by society, i accept the existance of Man/Womanophilia, but not Hetero/Homo/Bi/A/Pansexuality, sexuality it's like religion it only exists in the human mind

sample:

Quote:5300 white males and 5940 white females provided almost all the data, with the majority of participants being younger white adults with some college education. (This part of the sample is referred to as the "College Sample.") Kinsey tried to compensate for volunteer bias in his sample by interviewing 100% of the individuals available in a given organization or group. Approximately 25% of the sex histories came from these 100% groups. (Kinsey did not believe a random sample was possible.)

What I would like from Dotard is a well thought, well formed argument on why he dislikes homossexuality, perhaps in a speciphic thread.

Can you please indulge me Dotard?

Oh Dotty, ya silly old fart,how old are you?

I'm 63. If I hit someone I'd probably do myself an injury or fall over.(I have osteoporosis).

As it turns out,the last time I actually hit another person was in 1964.It did not occur to me that you might think I was making a physical threat upon your otherwise rational person.

Mate I was expressing my ire. All I meant is that should you express such an attitude in my presence,you and I would 'have words'. I would never hit you.If you hit me I would have you arrested.(really)

Sorry for the confusion old sock; I still actually like and respect you,but you and ib hit a nerve. I did my best to explain why. That it's an emotional and irrational topic for me is perhaps a personal failing,as perhaps is your position. [in my opinion]..

PS: You're a good ole boy? Oh fuck,another reason not to hit you; I'd probably become shot.

Gay marriage, I dont have a good reason to oppose it so I dont.

Dotard: the atheist rep for the Westboro Baptist Church. "Atheists Hate Gays"

(February 21, 2011 at 5:21 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote: You failed to refute my actual point that if you are against homosexual marriage it is bigotry because it's unwarranted prejudice against a group of people.

I don't refute your point. Sure, if you are "against" homos getting married it could be considered bigotry.
Same if you are "against"..oh I dunno.... Christmas or polygamy then you could also rightly be labeled a bigot for prejudice againt polygamists or christians.

Quote:No but you give the impression that there's something 'wrong' with homosexuality at least subjectively to you.

Sure. Yes. Subjectively to me. There is something "wrong" with homosexuals. Objectively biologically speaking there is something went 'wrong' with them also.

---

Video exclusive of a fight between me and Pad.

Forgive the poor quality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxCRgA1XvTU