Stoned to death for being an emo

[Conservationist]

But on the other hand, you don't make any sense. I can't "see" the toxic landfill leachate that's going to leak into the river a few blocks from my house in 20 - 30 years from now when the protective liner underneath degrades and fails to hold. I can't "see" the connection between peak oil and the sky rocketing costs of basic medical supplies which will greatly affect modern medicine and public health, let alone my future career. My brother can't "see" the way acid rain from coal-fired power plants affects his asthma. So, just because an event is in the future, or further than the horizon, does not mean we just lay back with a teenage-like "outta sight, outta mind" "not my problem" attitude.

I think this is true along the same lines of Plato's comment that you either get involved in government, or get ruled by those who got involved (even if they're total idiots). In other words, no sense complaining about something if you refuse to act on it. It's important first to get personally stable, but after that, it's essential to start fixing the problem.

I interpreted c-man's comment more to mean that outside of vital stuff like pollution and nuclear proliferation, who cares what they do in Iran? If they want to murder fags, emos, babies, women, Christians or negroes, it's none of our business nor is it a quagmire we should involve ourselves in. We have enough problems at home as it is. The one exception would be if we took all of our useless people, dressed them up as emos and sent them to Iran for them to kill. That's a win-win solution for both sides.

[Conservationist]

Nature isn't right or wrong; it just is. Same with homosexuality. It occurs naturally, and it just is. I get the feeling that some here may have a strong opinion one way and are trying to veil it. I'd rather people just said what they felt instead of trying to hide it.

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Cancer and psychopathy occur naturally too.

[NHA]

If I said, "Euthanize all the felons," the important question is "what do we lose" not "how does this make me look to others."

What do we lose if we liquidate all of humanity?

What exactly are the arguments against homosexuality anyway? Mostly the only things i see people come up with is that its icky and against the will of a god that likes to troll people.

[Humanicide]

Nature isn't right or wrong; it just is. Same with homosexuality. It occurs naturally, and it just is. I get the feeling that some here may have a strong opinion one way and are trying to veil it. I'd rather people just said what they felt instead of trying to hide it.

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Cancer and psychopathy occur naturally too.

So? Cancer isn't "wrong" either. It's not desirable, yes, but it's not "wrong". Psychopathy is the same way. You can't throw objectivity around then back it up with subjectivity. Isn't that what we have criticized others here for doing? If you are not comfortable with homosexuality (not referring to you specifically, Conservationist, just using general terms), then just SAY so. No one here is going to rip you apart for it, even if we don't agree.

Nature is the ultimate nihilist. We can only try to emulate that.

[crow]

Why pressure anybody to SAY what they choose not to?
If they wanted to, they would.
The value of thoughts is in their being unspoken. Thoughts are personal things.
Once spoken, the deed is done, while thoughts remain fertilizer for further thoughts, leading to spoken words, or not.
Half-cooked thoughts, spoken or written, can do unintended damage. Conflict may be avoided by voluntary silence.
Likes and dislikes are not always public fare.
Unless made so.

[Conservationist]

You can't throw objectivity around then back it up with subjectivity. Isn't that what we have criticized others here for doing? If you are not comfortable with homosexuality (not referring to you specifically, Conservationist, just using general terms), then just SAY so.

You're confusing two versions of the term "wrong":

(a) According to the Bible, this is wrong.

(b) Something's wrong with my car and it won't start.

#b is what I'm using.

Things go biologically wrong. Thus, biology eliminates that design. That is what happens with most mutations.

There is some biological reason for homosexuality. It turns off the desire to reproduce... we should consider that for a long time, and all should be clear.

In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday. Under even the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban centre were experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by men in Canada in the year 1871. In contrast, if we were to repeat this analysis today the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men would be greatly improved. Deaths from HIV infection have declined dramatically in this population since 1996. As we have previously reported there has been a threefold decrease in mortality in Vancouver as well as in other parts of British Columbia.

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/6/1499.full

Even when you remove AIDS and "the gay lifestyle" from the equation, gay people die younger on average. As this article points out, that's not a consequence of behavior but of biology.

[crow]

There is some biological reason for homosexuality. It turns off the desire to reproduce... we should consider that for a long time, and all should be clear.

Long consideration is unnecessary. That is a brilliant piece of observation, and one I never heard of, or thought about, before.
It probably applies, in some degree, to sex-addicts of all stripes.

[crow]

single-celled organism > intelligent anything

[NHA]

It turns off the desire to reproduce... we should consider that for a long time, and all should be clear.

If that really were the case then it would be a self correcting problem but it isn't unheard of for gays to knock up women just for the sake of having offspring. I have no clue how prevalent it is though.

Also I remember reading somewhere that the chance to produce a homosexual goes up with the number of children a woman has had. IIRC it was unclear if this was primarily due to biological reasons or social ones resulting from the later kids being the youngest/weakest/most submissive in social activities.

[Humanicide]

You're confusing two versions of the term "wrong":

(a) According to the Bible, this is wrong.

(b) Something's wrong with my car and it won't start.

#b is what I'm using.

When you explain it that way, what you're saying makes a lot more sense. I suppose I need to read between the lines a bit more.

There is some biological reason for homosexuality. It turns off the desire to reproduce... we should consider that for a long time, and all should be clear.

So, why are we not praising this in a time of overpopulation? The last thing we need is a ton more people; why frown upon homosexuality when it inadvertently helps the problem?

[Conservationist]

So, why are we not praising this in a time of overpopulation? The last thing we need is a ton more people; why frown upon homosexuality when it inadvertently helps the problem?

First let me separate out a couple issues:

I don't care about what happens in Iran. The Iranians can do whatever they want except have nuclear weapons. Personally, I'd rather not intervene in the Middle East at all, but if we don't intervene, bad results can occur. We have a chance to stop those while they're new but once they get going, it's harder to slow them down.

I don't think overpopulation will be solved by homosexuality, even if having homosexuals around helps it. In fact, in the first world there is no population problem; the first world is stable and shrinking in most cases. It's the third world that has 90% of the earth's population and a corresponding number of problems, if not more. Overpopulation will be solved by an end to subsidies and a reduction in land available.

I take a middle position on homosexuality. I don't want it happening around my kids, so it cannot be public or political. I reserve the right to be disgusted by it. Beyond that, I think it's wise to leave bachelors alone. Without the spotlight of politics, they can have happy lives together and feel no pressure to breed, etc.Without active persecution, they feel no need to hide their sexuality by behaving like heteros and having children, which would pass on whatever genes nature sought to conceal and remove...

This is separate from sodomy, which I endorse in all forms, at all times, with all species.

[analrapist]

Overpopulation is a big problem, the solution is to stop keeping people around. Start with the people who do nothing of any utility. There are huge groups that we could lose and nothing would fail in our society, infact it would work better. The homeless, the permanent underclass, homosexuals, fundamentalists, idiots, kiddy fiddlers, drugs addicts. If they all disappeared tomorrow most of you wouldn't notice at all, except that the roads would be clearer and stuff would work better.

[Humanicide]

homosexuals....If they all disappeared tomorrow most of you wouldn't notice at all

Just come out and say it already; stop beating around the bush. You don't like them. I sure as hell would notice, because I have homosexual friends who I hold dear to my heart and I value them as much as I do my hetero friends.

I also like how you automatically assume all homosexuals don't accomplish anything of worth. Here's a hint; they're similar to most demographics in that about 2% are worth saving. Fuck the rest. But if you kill off my friends, you're going to have to kill me off too.

I don't want to go throwing around insults, but you really need to get the fuck outside more.

[analrapist]

I don't have any feelings toward homosexuals, either way. I don't know any. That's not from lack of availability. I hang out with people like myself.

My point is that if a angry republican Jesus comes back and kills them off, society will go on. In fact it will probably function better without the drama of fags versus christians going on all the time.

You can't deny that with a straight (ha ha) face. There is a norm. People who get away from that even if they're your friends, are not necessary and that which is not necessary just slows us down as a society.

I don't see why you try to make this personal. It's exactly opposite, I don't care about who they are, but which group they are, same with the pedophiles and emos. If we lose them, no loss. My inner nihilist says so what.

[Humanicide]

I don't have any feelings toward homosexuals, either way. I don't know any. That's not from lack of availability. I hang out with people like myself.

My point is that if a angry republican Jesus comes back and kills them off, society will go on. In fact it will probably function better without the drama of fags versus christians going on all the time.

You don't know any - so you have an extremely poor frame of reference when it comes to their ways. Most are wastes of life, but there are some (like in any group) who are genuine and worth knowing. Your loss if you choose not to associate with them; seems the impressions you get are from an outsider looking in, which are never fully accurate.

What if a fag Jesus came back and killed all the Republicans? I think society would function better as a result in that case too. But just "removing" one side still leaves us with the problem with the other side.

You can't deny that with a straight (ha ha) face. There is a norm. People who get away from that even if they're your friends, are not necessary and that which is not necessary just slows us down as a society.

I'm quite away from the norm, in terms of your average braindead pleb. So does that disqualify me?  Are you necessary to society? Am I? Who makes these judgements? You throw out all of these terms like "norm" and what not, but unfortunately there exists NO universal "norm". Normal is a relative term. It can be applied intelligently among people who agree and reach a consensus, but don't speak for everyone here, because not everyone exists under your "norm". People who differ in turn form different societies.

I don't see why you try to make this personal. It's exactly opposite, I don't care about who they are, but which group they are, same with the pedophiles and emos. If we lose them, no loss. My inner nihilist says so what.

It is personal, because what you're advocating is not nihilism. If you were truly nihilistic you would have no opinion about homosexuals at all, even the group. You would simply say that they exist. Period. My inner nihilist says keep around the people who are useful, whether they be gay or black or purple or green. I see no use in bothering with people who have a sexual fetish which occurs between two consenting adults. Like Conservationist said, they should have their own areas where they can be gay and live without fear of condemnation; because they would be separate from the "norm".