should homosexuality be a crime?

[Yago]

Being heterosexual (straight) is an "orientation"? The only reason to call what is natural "an orientation" is to make fit what is a deviation as "another orientation".

You keep talking of "rights" for homosexuals, yet you deny the most fundamental right of children to grow in a healthy and normal environment when you speak of their "rights to adopt".

I believe that this is sick, probably one of the sickest spawns of this modern society. Perverting the right of little children to normalcy and condemning them to grow in a deviated environment, at an age where they are defenseless and incapable to decide for themselves.

That's the big hipocrisy of many who demand their rights and freedoms, that they do so by crushing and perverting the rights and the freedoms of all others without mercy.

[Carnyx]

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos

Really? I've never heard anything about this. Where did you hear it from?

From a few Muslims. It's well known among Anuminatis.
They can, no idea if all do it. Obviously it's a way to know a girl before marriage without having sex per se and keep her virginity intact.

[Marcus Marulus]

I think I said it already, but it needs to be repeated for people to understand. There is no such thing as "homosexuals" and "heterosexuals". There are no distinct "homosexual" and "heterosexual" personalities. Nobody is born "homosexual". There are people who practice homosexual activities from time to time, some practice it through their entire life, some practice it in their youth and then later marry and have children. If the "homosexual" as a type of personality existed, how would we name all those who abandoned it, but once had practiced? Would they be ex-homos, half-homos, or what? If they had been born with it, how would it be possible for them to change that - allegedly - unalterable "orientation"?

There are only homosexual acts in which someone could indulge and they are result of some psychological deviation. Psychiatry had homosexuality as disease, some normal countries still have it, only the disgusting, degnerated, perverted West has come to claim it as some "right". The very concept of "rights" is very problematic in the philosophical sense, let alone such invented and absurd rights, that have been produced almost industrially in the last decades, like, for example, right to buggery (or homosexuality if you prefer to term it in the modern way).

[3rdEye]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Nobody is born "homosexual". There are people who practice homosexual activities from time to time, some practice it through their entire life, some practice it in their youth and then later marry and have children. If the "homosexual" as a type of personality existed, how would we name all those who abandoned it, but once had practiced? Would they be ex-homos, half-homos, or what?

There are also examples of people who were married for fifteen years, with children, and then one day they decided to try out being homosexual instead, get a divorce and all that. When so many people buy that idiotic crap about it being genetically inherited, I'm sad for more than one reason. It really points to how stupid people are on an average.

Should homosexuality be a crime? No, but advertising it in public or in the mass media should be a crime. I even wish that we could have warnings on movie ads etc, so that one doesn't accidentally find oneself watching some disgusting graphic apology of sodomy.

[Engelbrecht]

Personally I see homosexuality as a sexual disorder that is possible to correct or heal from.

The more society stimulates homosexuality, the more it will appear.
The more disturbed relations that appear in a society, the more homosexuality will appear.

As a consequense I think that it should be treated like that too.
It´s not illegal to suffer from mental illness, and it shouldn´t be illegal to be homosexual.

But we don´t praise mental illness, we try to cure it. The same should go for homosexuality.

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

Personally I see homosexuality as a sexual disorder that is possible to correct or heal from.

The more society stimulates homosexuality, the more it will appear.
The more disturbed relations that appear in a society, the more homosexuality will appear.

As a consequense I think that it should be treated like that too.
It´s not illegal to suffer from mental illness, and it shouldn´t be illegal to be homosexual.

But we don´t praise mental illness, we try to cure it. The same should go for homosexuality.

How can you cure something if there is nothing to cure in the first place? Aversion therapy and reparative therapy are methods that are supposed to "cure" homosexuality. These methods have been reported as unsuccessful, and actually causes harm for those subjected to such therapies. To me that is the exact opposite of curing.

I have a friend who has a homosexual brother. She told me how he had slept with many women, denying that he had attractions to men, and having a hatred for himself and to those who are homosexual. All of this drove him to the point of suicide, trying to be someone he is simply not. Needless to say all this sleeping with women and self-hatred did not make him turn heterosexual. Many homosexuals go though a phase of self-hatred and denial, trying to convince themselves that they are not. Again, like the mentioned therapies, this has more of a negative effect than positive. Does this not tell you something? I ask again. What is there to cure?

I ask you all to try put yourself in his situation. Imagine that homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is something that is socially unacceptable. How would you feel if you if felt pressured to adapt yourself to what is perceived as "normal" in society. Would you be willing to psychologically damage yourself, just so you can be accepted as such? Would you feel good about yourself? Do you think you could force yourself to be gay? Should anyone have to even go though a process like that?

My views of homosexuality are simply from a non-judgemental standpoint. If homosexuality is such a threat, then why is there not a major crackdown on it? As I said before, there are much more major problems, than trivial issues like homosexuality.

To Mynydd : Why speak for every single child? You speak as if you are the saviour of children. Shouldn't the parents of each child decide the best interests for their children? Not you. If it's a problem for you, then by all means do as much as you can to shield your children or future children from it. However, should the worst come to worst for you. What will you do if the issue is in your own backyard? If homosexuality was a crime and you had a child who grew up to be homosexual. Would you see that he/she is sent to prison?

Your view of homosexuality being a sick spawn of society is your opinion. Or do you think this a fact that should be acknowleged by society and it's children that you so speak for.

[Marcus Marulus]

There might be some cure against homosexuality....

But is there a cure against Liberalism and modern-Westernism? I mean, for those infected with it. I am starting to doubt it very much.

[Carnyx]

I will only paraphrase what has already been said previously. The most annoying thing with homosexuals isn't their unhealthy sexual habits but the fact they (or whoever did it...) succeeded in creating a debate where there should have been none in the first place and that they have beside that perverted. Now we are discussing something that has no reason to be... whether children can have 2 fathers or 2 mothers, the questioning of one's "sexual identity" from childhood to adulthood (sexual ID?!?), the definition of normalcy, so called homophobia vs homophilia in everyday life and laws forbiding the former (ie, calling names at homosexuals = a crime, as it is here), was Da Vinci gay, can homosexuals be sad and so on.

The homosexual pro-adoption lobby is criminal, that's all I need to know about the "homo" question. Adoption of children by homosexuals and "homoparentality" (great neologism and oxymoron) are a crime against family and nation.

I've no position whatsoever on whether homosexuality should be made illegal or not. I don't feel concerned nor interested.

I only wish people understand "gays" are actually intolerants by nature and only pretend to be "open minded". Tell me why should we be positives with a kind that is aggressive towards our values and whose only goal is destroy them by reversing natural order? Instead of adapting, they have decided we should adapt their views and lifestyle. Now they would decide what is good for us and our children. And that is not a trivial matter.

Should we respect a minority people complaining about discrimination, intolerance (pure minority's fantasy), who is asking always more (similar) "rights" when they deny ours to live according our own values and are discriminating on ground of sexuality themselves? (The "homosexual network" is for real, or do you think homosexuals offer other homosexuals jobs just because they have the competences? You must be naïve if you do.)

In short, what do homosexuals want if not being at the top to impose their ways to others? Homosexuality is merely despotic and homosexuals are tyrans.

PS: why is it always asked to the average normal people to walk in the shoes of " others' " -namely the "minorities", the weaks, the deviants? We don't have to. They have to adapt the situation, not us.

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Evrain

What is there to cure?

The sexual disorder.

Originally Posted by Evrain

Imagine that homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is something that is socially unacceptable. How would you feel if you if felt pressured to adapt yourself to what is perceived as "normal" in society. Would you be willing to psychologically damage yourself, just so you can be accepted as such? Would you feel good about yourself? Do you think you could force yourself to be gay? Should anyone have to even go though a process like that?

As a principle I do not take a stand in hypothetical issues. And this one is on top of that absurd.

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

The sexual disorder.



As a principle I do not take a stand in hypothetical issues. And this one is on top of that absurd.

If it is a sexual disorder as you say it is. Then how can you expect to prove it is a sexual disorder without hypothesising first. No-one has proved anything without putting forward a hypothesis. If you don't take a stand in hypothetical issues, then you aren't going to get very far in curing it are you?

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Evrain

If it is a sexual disorder as you say it is. Then how can you expect to prove it is a sexual disorder without hypothesising first. No-one has proved anything without putting forward a hypothesis. If you don't take a stand in hypothetical issues, then you aren't going to get very far in curing it are you?

To make it clear - what I mean when I write that I do not take a stand i hypothetical issues is that I will not answer absurd hypothetical questions like what would you do if every day of the week was a Monday.

What if homosexuality was the "norm" and heterosexuality was something socially unacceptable qualify as such.

If the hypothesis is serious and makes sense, then it is worth arguing for.

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

To make it clear - what I mean when I write that I do not take a stand i hypothetical issues is that I will not answer absurd hypothetical questions like what would you do if every day of the week was a Monday.

What if homosexuality was the "norm" and heterosexuality was something socially unacceptable qualify as such.

If the hypothesis is serious and makes sense, then it is worth arguing for.

If you aren't willing to explore every area of an argument, then that makes your own theories badly founded and full of bias.

In other words, if you aren't willing to take counter arguments into consideration. How do you expect people to accept the validity of yours.

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Engelbrecht

The sexual disorder.

As a principle I do not take a stand in hypothetical issues. And this one is on top of that absurd.

Engelbrecht, don't be so narrow-minded.

Let's take for example, that the great majority of all people in the world had horns on their heads, just like the deers. If you were the member of minority that has no horns on the head and the horny majority forced their horny standards upon your non-horny personality, how would you feel?

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Evrain

If you aren't willing to explore every area of an argument, then that makes your own theories badly founded and full of bias.

In other words, if you aren't willing to take counter arguments into consideration. How do you expect people to accept the validity of yours.

That was no 'area' of the argument, and less so a 'counter-argument'.

You pretend that the absurd is accepted as a point in case, or else anything else is invalidated.

Originally Posted by Mynydd

That was no 'area' of the argument, and less so a 'counter-argument'.

You pretend that the absurd is accepted as a point in case, or else anything else is invalidated.

Who is pretending? I am not "pretending" anything. A hypothetical question is one that comprises an imaginary situation incorporating facts about, in this case, homosexuality. The very same methods of hypothetical questions are used in law. So, because it is used in law - I guess it's also absurd

I am not trying to convince you guys to embrace homosexuality as a norm. I am simply someone who wishes to question and challenge your views on it. However, when you vehemently refuses to consider another area of an argument, or let's call it "point of view" for you. You have taken the first step in becoming a bigot.

I am also starting to question about why you think it's so "absurd" and refuse to answer what I put forward. That's what I like about hypothetical questions. It allows us to see things in a different perspective and can make us question our own views. Which is one of the reasons why I think you guys are so stubborn to answer it.

Originally Posted by Plethon

Engelbrecht, don't be so narrow-minded.

Let's take for example, that the great majority of all people in the world had horns on their heads, just like the deers. If you were the member of minority that has no horns on the head and the horny majority forced their horny standards upon your non-horny personality, how would you feel?

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Evrain

I am also starting to question about why you think it's so "absurd" and refuse to answer what I put forward. That's what I like about hypothetical questions. It allows us to see things in a different perspective and can make us question our own views. Which is one of the reasons why I think you guys are so stubborn to answer it.

I still think that it is an absurd hypothesis wich I consider falsified before even investigating it further.

But OK, I will do my best to speak for my view.

Originally Posted by Evrain

How can you cure something if there is nothing to cure in the first place?

If you first look at what sexuality is and why it exists for us humans, I would say there are two reasons.

1. To reproduce
2. The glue that makes a man and a woman deepen their love relation. To make strong bonds.

The two reasons depend on each other. You need, obviosly, sexuality to reproduce. You then need sexuality to makes strong bonds between the mother and the father, to make them a family and secure the future survival and safety for their children.

Seen from this perspective, a healthy and natural sexuality is the heterosexuality between one man and one women.

Homosexuality doesn´t qualify on reason nr one.
It doesn´t fulfill it´s purpose.
It is a sexual disorder.

This is my view by reason, I haven´t considered the moral aspect of it.

Originally Posted by Evrain

I ask you all to try put yourself in his situation. Imagine that homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is something that is socially unacceptable. How would you feel if you if felt pressured to adapt yourself to what is perceived as "normal" in society. Would you be willing to psychologically damage yourself, just so you can be accepted as such? Would you feel good about yourself? Do you think you could force yourself to be gay? Should anyone have to even go though a process like that?

This depends. If I realized by feeling and reason that heterosexuality was a disorder and changing my life would make me normal from a sexual point of view - yes, I would try to be homosexual.

If I realized it was a disorder and didn´t succeed in correcting it, I would try to supress it.

Would I feel good about it? Probably not.
Would I think it was worth the effort? Probably.

Would I feel good about going through a painful therapy to get rid of a phobia? Probably not.
Would I think it was worth the effort? Probably.

[Engelbrecht]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Engelbrecht, don't be so narrow-minded.

Let's take for example, that the great majority of all people in the world had horns on their heads, just like the deers. If you were the member of minority that has no horns on the head and the horny majority forced their horny standards upon your non-horny personality, how would you feel?

Oh deer, oh deer... I would feel sad that I was never horny, when the world was filled with horny women!

[Yago]

Originally Posted by Evrain

Who is pretending? I am not "pretending" anything. A hypothetical question is one that comprises an imaginary situation incorporating facts about, in this case, homosexuality. The very same methods of hypothetical questions are used in law. So, because it is used in law - I guess it's also absurd

I quote you: "I ask you all to try put yourself in his situation. Imagine that homosexuality is the "norm" and heterosexuality is something that is socially unacceptable."

Is this what you call a method used in law? Try to tell a judge to imagine that paedophilia is the the accepted "norm" and that normalcy is socially unacceptable.

I am not trying to convince you guys to embrace homosexuality as a norm. I am simply someone who wishes to question and challenge your views on it. However, when you vehemently refuses to consider another area of an argument, or let's call it "point of view" for you. You have taken the first step in becoming a bigot.

I see that your idea of discussing an argument is insulting people by calling them bigots when they don't accept your absurd statements. Well, that is not how things work here and less so for an outsider who is not fully European, like you.

I am also starting to question about why you think it's so "absurd" and refuse to answer what I put forward. That's what I like about hypothetical questions.

That is not an hypothetical question. It is the moronic diversion of someone who has no arguments to offer but still wants to be right.


I'm not going to ban you, but I'm moving your membership to the restricted usergroup of Aliens. You will receive a private message with the details for this usergroup.

[Marcus Marulus]

Why are modern liberals so boring and so pesky, I wonder?