Obama declares Gay PRIDE month

[Sheepo]

GJ Obama.

 

[Stigmata]

Yeah. We'd have the opposite problem and be facing extinction.... That would be worse in my mind.

Yeah, I'm sure we'll forget how to do in vitro fertilisation forever.

 

[Sheepo]

Guys, we are so close to extinction, our population levels are dangerously low.

 

[15357]

To the first wave of people: I guess I understand. I don't agree, but I understand nevertheless.

You see, I was never religious. To me, morality was nothing but what is accepted as the social norm or not. Sin was an empty word. Homosexuality wasn't accepted as normal, so I was against it, particularly because if people identified themselves with other groups rather than their nationality (i.e. I am a Homosexual as opposed to I am a Korean) it would be bad for national cohesion. You see, I don't like people dividing themselves even further and further on such things as race or sexual orientation, or class, whatever. They all serve to make greater the rift between members of society, and prevents us all from living happy happy lives till the end of time. My reasoning is that if people didn't know we were different from each other, there would be no need for conflict!

Of course, we could simply marginalize the different people from society, but since I did develop a quasi-religious sense of morality and human purity based on the Confucian ideal, it would seem immoral to me. (Of course, that quasi-religious idea of human purity also doesn't seem to be very friendly toward homosexuality, but whatever)

Now, I'm not saying that we should put gay people into concentration camps and have them gassed (I never say that, I use words like "marginalize" while knowing fully well that the euphemism actually makes it look worse), but I don't like the idea of homosexuals (or communists, or religious people, or anyone that deviates from the social norm) flaunt their identity in front of society. It would simply be inviting conflict. I don't really care if gays/Christians/other interesting groups exist or not. I just don't want no trouble, see?

Now, as for gay marriage, I am opposed to the idea because I see the legal act of marriage as to make sure that they have some of the tax burden removed so that they can be productive and reproduce and have many babies to replenish the labor/military manpower pool of society, and continuously ensure human dominance and superiority through numbers. Gays, unfortunately enough, can't reproduce, and therefore shouldn't be subject to tax relief. (On another note, we can never have too much population. Anyone who thinks we should limit our population as a species is inviting our own extinction.)

I've never said that being gay was a dysfunction, nor have ever thought it was. Ok, I've heard that there are certain DNA differences between gays and other people, but I don't think I've read any convincing papers on it, so no, my ideal of Human Purity currently does not affect gays, only mutants.

 

[Lucid]

Fabulous!

 

[Krynn72]

I don't have an issue with homosexuality, but I do consider it a reverse of the evolutionary norms that is detrimental long-term to the possible survival of a species.

Do you know anything about history? There has ALWAYS been gaysex in our species. You know those bad ass hardcore Spartans from 300? They didn't show it in the movies, but they all ****ed each other the night before they died. In fact, pretty much all of ancient Greece was having gaysex with each other all the ****ing time. Brothels and whore houses in ancient Rome came equipped with boywhores for paying noblemen and richfolk to bang. Its really only since the Victorian era that homosexuality has really started being frowned upon. Most other points in human history everyone was just like "whatever bro."

 

[Raziaar]

Their naked statues turned everybody gay.

 

[Mogi67]

Do you know anything about history? There has ALWAYS been gaysex in our species. You know those bad ass hardcore Spartans from 300? They didn't show it in the movies, but they all ****ed each other the night before they died. In fact, pretty much all of ancient Greece was having gaysex with each other all the ****ing time. Brothels and whore houses in ancient Rome came equipped with boywhores for paying noblemen and richfolk to bang. Its really only since the Victorian era that homosexuality has really started being frowned upon. Most other points in human history everyone was just like "whatever bro."

The victorian era? Are you joking?

 

[VirusType2]

Another vacuous statement by Obammy. Though it's an interesting progression in rhetoric, Gay pride month will serve to be just as meaningless as Black History month. In another 30 years we'll get a heterosexual pride month, a mexican history month, and a ginger & proud of it month

Woah - slow down, bud. There's only so many months to go around.

 

[Viperidae]

The victorian era? Are you joking?

It was punishable by death in England up until 1835. It was considered no worse a sin than premarital sex during Shakespeare's time and earlier. I don't know about the centuries in between.

But you're right, his statement is a bit of a generalisation.

 

[<RJMC>]

gay sex does existed trough all history,it was whit the increase of catholicism and others religions like islam where it was started to be banned

 

[Asknoone]

I see.

Although, if I wanted to promote equality, I wouldn't make distinctions on the people of the nation, such as dividing them into classes or by their sexual orientation. I mean, you're actually promoting inequality, if you make distinctive certain social groups, like gays. If we're all equal, why do we need to divide them?

Coming from a through-and-through and sworn nationalist this is he-lair-re-us!

 

[15357]

Actually, I'm doing it because I'm a nationalist - people shouldn't have their allegiances to other groups except for their own country (not counting family).

 

[Rizzo]

So, to all you saying gays don't make babys, how many kids have you spawned? How is it any different then a man and a woman having protected sex? Exept for it being all icky and gross...

 

[15357]

Wait, so you're saying that gay marriage makes babies?

 

[blackout]

more than half of society believes in magic sky wizards

If you're talking about Christians, you're an ignorant naive fool.

Actually, I'm doing it because I'm a nationalist - people shouldn't have their allegiances to other groups except for their own country (not counting family).

or religion.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

I want to see this on the news. I want to see how hateful everyone else is. This is Obama's plan to wipe out the prejudice, make targets by showing them on the news.

Southerners.

 

[Rizzo]

Wait, so you're saying that gay marriage makes babies?

No, Im asking if you do? You deviant.

 

[Maestro]

I'll admit guys, I was kind of trolling for reactions.

I wasn't kidding about "Recognize X group month," though. That shit is annoying.

 

[Eejit]

Don't be an idiot. Homosexuality is an anomaly. Its not a sin and its not morally wrong but it is a deviation from the basic mechanisms used to propagate the species. Homosexuals tend not to reproduces (not including artificial methods) and thus limits the growth of the species. But this does not harm the population because they are always in the minority. If they ever became the majority then it might become a problem.

If a behaviour with at least some level of genetic determinism such as homosexuality (see here) is maintained in a population it will have compensating advantageous effects for ensuring the individual's genes are passed on. Otherwise the genes responsible will disappear over time.

There have been quite a few studies and theories by biologists which look at this question.
For example, the "gay uncle" hypothesis supposes homosexuality to fall under 'kin selection' - where non-reproducing individuals ensure their genes are passed on by helping the success of their reproducing relatives.
Another theory is that since homosexuality is only partly determined by genes then those who carry the genes but are heterosexual may have advantages in reproducing successfully (see here and here, here)
There is also some evidence that female relatives of gay men are more fertile, (see here, here, here), an example of a well known phenomenon known as "sexual antagonism" - i.e. 'a gene can be
reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other'

If it was an 'anomaly' rather than a naturally occurring (recurring) behaviour with some advantages to passing on genes it would disappear. It hasn't. It's been present in our species throughout recorded history and has been observed in dozens of other species across several phyla (see here).
Don't be an idiot, learn about evolution.

 

[lord_raken]

If a behaviour with at least some level of genetic determinism such as homosexuality (see here) is maintained in a population it will have compensating advantageous effects for ensuring the individual's genes are passed on. Otherwise the genes responsible will disappear over time.

There have been quite a few studies and theories by biologists which look at this question.
For example, the "gay uncle" hypothesis supposes homosexuality to fall under 'kin selection' - where non-reproducing individuals ensure their genes are passed on by helping the success of their reproducing relatives.
Another theory is that since homosexuality is only partly determined by genes then those who carry the genes but are heterosexual may have advantages in reproducing successfully (see here and here, here)
There is also some evidence that female relatives of gay men are more fertile, (see here, here, here), an example of a well known phenomenon known as "sexual antagonism" - i.e. 'a gene can be
reproductively harmful to one sex as long as it's helpful to the other'

If it was an 'anomaly' rather than a naturally occurring (recurring) behaviour with some advantages to passing on genes it would disappear. It hasn't. It's been present in our species throughout recorded history and has been observed in dozens of other species across several phyla (see here).
Don't be an idiot, learn about evolution.

I you think I disagree with any of that, you have misinterpreted what I was saying. I was saying that the ONLY way homosexuality could EVERY begin to pose ANY sort of threat is if they became the majority. I never commented about genetic correlations between homosexuality and potentially beneficial social behaviors. I know Homosexuality has been a part of human history and that there may be genetic reasons for it that are not yet fully understood... That was never the question.

 

[Eejit]

Realllly?

Homosexuality is an anomaly.

it is a deviation from the basic mechanisms used to propagate the species

Two assertions you made which are wrong. I think you misinterpreted what you were writing.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I did always see June as kind of gay. Cool.

 

[Raziaar]

Wait... from what I've been reading, Gay Pride Month was already declared by Clinton back in 2000.
What's the dealio?

 

[15357]

If you're talking about Christians, you're an ignorant naive fool.



or religion.

Actually I believe religion to be the greatest threat to the sanctity of the state.

Anyway I don't really care about homosexuality one way or the other as long as it doesn't threaten the general cohesion of society in any way. Different is dangerous, people.

 

[Darkside55]

That's why I love you, Numbers. "Do what you want as long as you don't threaten the state. Threatening the state? SUPRESS. EXTINGUISH."

 

[CptStern]

Homosexuals tend not to reproduces (not including artificial methods) and thus limits the growth of the species. But this does not harm the population because they are always in the minority. If they ever became the majority then it might become a problem.

there's plenty of heterosexuals who will never reproduce (our community alone has a disporportionately high number) therefore heterosexuality is a threat to our species growth

If you're talking about Christians, you're an ignorant naive fool.

other religions believe in sky wizards too

Anyway I don't really care about homosexuality one way or the other as long as it doesn't threaten the general cohesion of society in any way. Different is dangerous, people.

you're either the world's greatest troll, a North Korean spy, hopelessly brainwashed or a little bit of all three

 

[Raziaar]

there's plenty of heterosexuals who will never reproduce (our community alone has a disporportionately high number) therefore heterosexuality is a threat to our species growth

Oh Stern. Always finding the need to constantly insult the members of the forum he spends all day on.

Making lots of friends since May 2004.

 

[Tyguy]

Pride should be reserved for something you achieve, not something you are born into.

The practice of devoting entire months to arbitrary human conditions (sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc) serves its purpose in patronizing those involved but that's all it does. In this specific case "pride" is being used as a metaphor for acceptance, which is great in of itself, but when seen in context with Obama's personal views of gay marriage it boils down to nothing but an empty gesture.

 

[Raziaar]

I've been hoping all along that Obama and his Gay Marriage stance was just politicking... but I hope he doesn't continue with the charade any longer if that's the case. Gay couples deserve the same recognition and financial benefits as straight married couples. But I doubt any president could change that... it has to be the will of the people through changes in each state.

 

[lord_raken]

Realllly?


Two assertions you made which are wrong. I think you misinterpreted what you were writing.

Yeah... A-N-O-M-A-L-Y.... as in different from the norm. I never commented about their role in society. I only commented about homosexuality from a purely reproduction perspective.

If you'd like to discuss the theories about homosexuality and the possibility of evolutionary reasons for it they we can do that.

@ Numbers: What can't a person be both? Why can't a person be both a proud citizen and homosexual.... or a citizen and a christian (or other religions)?

They are not mutually exclusive. So I really don't see why your are so opposed to subsets of social groups.

 

[Acepilotf14]

But what is the 'norm', really?

I think that's the argument. If you think there is 'normal' you're just silly or have no knowledge of psychology.

 

[Eejit]

Yeah... A-N-O-M-A-L-Y.... as in different from the norm. I never commented about their role in society. I only commented about homosexuality from a purely reproduction perspective.

If you'd like to discuss the theories about homosexuality and the possibility of evolutionary reasons for it they we can do that.

Could you be more condescending? Also you miss the point, I was commenting about the purely reproductive aspect of homosexuality, it's inextricably tied to its evolution. Evolution works through reproduction, so if some trait evolves and is maintained then it benefits reproduction in some way, direct or indirect.

All that aside, even if 100% of the world became gay do you think they'd stop having kids? Being gay does not appear to drastically affect the desire to have kids, as shown by gay adoption. If there were no heterosexual people you'd find that humans are a smart enough species to procreate one way or another, and there are so many, many options both high- and low-tech.

 

[15357]

@ Numbers: What can't a person be both? Why can't a person be both a proud citizen and homosexual.... or a citizen and a christian (or other religions)?

They are not mutually exclusive. So I really don't see why your are so opposed to subsets of social groups.

Because they tend to work for the interests of the group that is closest to them. Political parties, for example, are so wound up in their own dogma that they forget the real reason for their existence. It's just like NIMBY, but as an extension from oneself and the immediate family. Religions are most dangerous in this regard, since they believe God to be above the State. If the two conflict, they will side with the former.

The second reason is that those subgroups of society tend to engage in conflict - as you've said, Christians and homosexuals. If both didn't exist (or at least, we pretended that they didn't exist, and neither asserted their existence), we've just saved ourselves a lot of trouble. It is in the very nature of man to reject what is different and unknown to him.

 

[Tagaziel]

Actually I believe religion to be the greatest threat to the sanctity of the state.

Anyway I don't really care about homosexuality one way or the other as long as it doesn't threaten the general cohesion of society in any way. Different is dangerous, people.

You sure you're not from North Korea?

 

[15357]

No, I like freedom and the great ideals of democracy and all the good stuff.

 

[Tagaziel]

No, I like freedom and the great ideals of democracy and all the good stuff.

Actually I believe religion to be the greatest threat to the sanctity of the state.

Anyway I don't really care about homosexuality one way or the other as long as it doesn't threaten the general cohesion of society in any way. Different is dangerous, people.

Sure you do.

 

[15357]

No, no, no. You don't get it.

I like freedom. I kinda like democracy. But sometimes they can be counterproductive. Sometimes democracy is used to justify stupid things. Like Hitler. Like labor unions.

So, I am left to wonder, why do we bother with this at all? But democracy is an ideal, a gold standard of political procedure that we must follow. But if it leads to bad things, does that mean democracy is flawed? No, comrades. A thousand times no. WE are the ones that are flawed. We blindly follow demagogues, we go with our heart, we do what is best for ourselves and our friends, instead of the entire country/humanity. Then, if we are to keep democracy functioning, shouldn't we rectify the anomalies in our society?

Sometimes I think that the idea of a technocracy, a government ruled by the scientists who would rely on statistics and SCIENCE to ensure that everyone is benefited, should be implemented. But fundamentally, people are still flawed. A society run by the least flawed people is still flawed.

One of the flaws of man is that he cannot accept something alien to him, whether it be a concept, or something more material. It is a fundamental flaw, one that cannot (and truly, should not) be attempted to be rectified.

The blade of grass that stands out from the rest is not made into a tree, it is cut down. The tree that grow taller and taller than the others only serves to deprive them of sunlight. You see where I'm going with this?

 

[Tagaziel]

No, no, no. You don't get it.

I like freedom. I kinda like democracy. But sometimes they can be counterproductive. Sometimes democracy is used to justify stupid things. Like Hitler. Like labor unions.

So, I am left to wonder, why do we bother with this at all? But democracy is an ideal, a gold standard of political procedure that we must follow. But if it leads to bad things, does that mean democracy is flawed? No, comrades. A thousand times no. WE are the ones that are flawed. We blindly follow demagogues, we go with our heart, we do what is best for ourselves and our friends, instead of the entire country/humanity. Then, if we are to keep democracy functioning, shouldn't we rectify the anomalies in our society?

Sometimes I think that the idea of a technocracy, a government ruled by the scientists who would rely on statistics and SCIENCE to ensure that everyone is benefited, should be implemented. But fundamentally, people are still flawed. A society run by the least flawed people is still flawed.

One of the flaws of man is that he cannot accept something alien to him, whether it be a concept, or something more material. It is a fundamental flaw, one that cannot (and truly, should not) be attempted to be rectified.

The blade of grass that stands out from the rest is not made into a tree, it is cut down. The tree that grow taller and taller than the others only serves to deprive them of sunlight. You see where I'm going with this?

Yeah, straight into North Korea.

 

[StarBob]

No, no, no. You don't get it.

I like freedom. I kinda like democracy. But sometimes they can be counterproductive. Sometimes democracy is used to justify stupid things. Like Hitler. Like labor unions.

So, I am left to wonder, why do we bother with this at all? But democracy is an ideal, a gold standard of political procedure that we must follow. But if it leads to bad things, does that mean democracy is flawed? No, comrades. A thousand times no. WE are the ones that are flawed. We blindly follow demagogues, we go with our heart, we do what is best for ourselves and our friends, instead of the entire country/humanity. Then, if we are to keep democracy functioning, shouldn't we rectify the anomalies in our society?

Sometimes I think that the idea of a technocracy, a government ruled by the scientists who would rely on statistics and SCIENCE to ensure that everyone is benefited, should be implemented. But fundamentally, people are still flawed. A society run by the least flawed people is still flawed.

One of the flaws of man is that he cannot accept something alien to him, whether it be a concept, or something more material. It is a fundamental flaw, one that cannot (and truly, should not) be attempted to be rectified.

The blade of grass that stands out from the rest is not made into a tree, it is cut down. The tree that grow taller and taller than the others only serves to deprive them of sunlight. You see where I'm going with this?

The reason democracy is the gold standard for political systems is that it is has the fundamental function of giving people a choice. However, people suck at choosing things. If one is properly appealing, regardless of their ability to lead and function, they can achieve political power. That's the flaw with democracy.

All of that being said, it's better to choose and choose wrong than to not choose at all. I mean yeah Germany voted Hitler in to power and it was prolly a bad move, but at the time it seemed like the best thing going. Pre-1939 he wasn't like "Hey dudes let's attack everyone we know and kill all da Jews," he was more like "Hey we got effed in the A in WWI, let's get off our backs and do somethin!"

Democracy will always be the posterchild for freedom since the ultimate freedom is choice... no matter what poor choices are made.