March of Tolerance in Krakow

sorry, but what's the definition of life and how does homosexuality go against it?


well what do you supppose I mean? I don't know about you but if an aspect of human behaviour helps to remedy a problem and is painless at the same time then "healthy" defines it rather well imho.


I see (i think) where you're going but as you pointed out, this is a painful "solution" which seems (heavy on the "seems") to be much more chaotic.


well on that we agree but i'm not sure if i had to try at all, i think you did more of the work;)

If you want to argue from a biological point of view then:
There are too many people on this planet. Homosexuality ensures at least some of the population doesn't procreated. This in turn (hypothetically) should eventually reduce numbers (hasn't though, maybe we need more of them first) which in turn ensures our survival rather than impede it.

It seems more like an adaptation that acts as a pressur release valve (if there is such a thing).

Really, if we start mixing biology and philosphy then i don't see how this could work out in favour of your position. Sooner or later we'll come to the question of "what is natural?" I mean if conflict between bacteria, viruses and the infected is seen through a neutral natural lense, ignoring the pain and suffering, then it's a slippery slope to say all things are natural and just "are."

Drama Queen!

yea ofcourse... what a drama... huh! ...

z_darius and Lodz_The_Boat,
Do either of you know any gay people? be honest, please.
It reads like you have taken gays into a lab, they are living breathing people.

---

Also I find certain straight people are disgusted about male gays, yet either indifferent or turned on by female gays. forgetting of course that female gays are not interested in men.

Probably because we (straight men) fancy women so we "understand" why a woman would fancy another woman but


is abnormal.

I've always said that they are living and breathing... but they are ill.


Thats a generalisation Sean... I think its an ailment to fancy the same sex...be it for male or female.

Some people will never come to terms with the fact that some people dont fit in to what they consider "normal".


I doubt it or they wouldn't have these absurd ideas about gay people.

Especially as what is considered "normal" is so flexible and changing over the centuries...

Its not what we consider...its what is.


What absurd idea?....atleast I am giving them respect.... not grouping them all in one basket and asking them to be deported somewhere...or saying that they are a plague in my country....or that they will make my land sink!... like some strange people do to gays or other races or just the other kind~!


There is one cultural norm... one traditional norm...and the other 'natural norm'. The natural norm is same. And the natural norm is our refuge... but maybe its difficult for some people to understand.

Is it not normal to fall in love? or have sex? to want to spend your life with a person you want to?


That gay people are ill.


Some people are stuck in the dark ages.

Interesting perspective Darius, that one's existence has no purpose whatsoever.

I couldn't disagree more. There are many purposes to existence. I've said it b4, the purpose of life is a life of purpose. This sense of purpose is what gives our existence meaning, fuelling our egos and driving our actions. It fundamentally underpins the perceived raison d'etre of being here and not descending into an anarchic state of justifiable mass suicide.

Its absolutely normal.

For humans, we love our parents, siblings, spouse, children, people in general (universal love).

A male spouse have sex with the female spouse.

We normal (male/female) couple want to share our life, responsibilities etc, and take every possible step to benefit the society in which we live in. By giving them good human resources... by adding to the higher values.

The purpose of life of a human is to Worship God (Religion view)
The purpose of life of a human is to be of benefit to the society and its order (Material view).

As man is a social creature.

For example: The purpose of every member of the heard, e.g. a heard of deer, is to move together and protect each other (often the children) and be in some way the benefit to the heard. Eating and other works are fulfilled as a result. The first priority of any member of the heard is always to be of use to the herd.

I know, you should see Canal Street at weekend :)

Correct me if I am wrong but your reasoning is that homosexuality is against a critical part of the definition of life because they can not produce offspring and therefore must be sick?

So if a person does not want children, they are sick?

---

Why does our existence need a purpose?
If I have no purpose, I still exist.
Fuelling our egos and driving our actions does not necessarily have anything to do with any specific or even general purpose.
Perhaps you could elaborate, if I understood better what you mean this would be more productive.
I do not feel I have any purpose.

There are a few. I'm sure you can find them. Look at the part where they talk about procreation/perpetuation of the species.


Since homosexuality is not a new phenomenon then it is obvious that its purpose is not regulation of overpopulation at all. The problem of overpopulation in its age is dwarfed by the period of human histiry when the overpopulation wasn't even on the table. The plague (to name just one) is quite capable to do the job.


By no means do I want to mix biology and philosophy, even though too often do I fail to refuse getting drawn into the latter. Philosophy is ethnocentric, biology is not. I'm looking at things (in this thread) from purely biological standpoint. Hugging and touchy feely approach does not apply.

Homosexuality is indeed is a naturally occurring phenomenon, just like flu, mental disorders, hunger and old age. Of those homosexuality seems to be tho only one which doesn't cause physical pain, at least not on the level accepted by those who participate in it. Once more, this is irrelevant. The fundamental truth about homosexuality is that id does go against the human species as a whole. So do clinical diseases. The latter are sometimes countered by human immune system and eventually the species learns to survive future attacks by a foreign organism. I cannot think of such a mechanism in homosexuality. No kids means no kids, whether it hurts or not.

In other cases (bacterial and viral diseases) pain is irrelevant - bacteria or viruses do not seem to suffer when they consume an organism they invade. Again, you are much too ethnocentric and that makes you forget that human survival, much like the survival or many microbes, causes a lot of pain and suffering. Much less in Canada where we have only 30+ people, than in the USA with the population 10 times that number. We had Thanskgiving last Monday. Poor turkeys.

Other than that pain is good and necessary. Just think about it for a minute.


I do. In one of my jobs I took a position of a gay man who later died of HIV. There was another gay fella in the customer service there. Nice, good looking and well built 20 something man. I currently know a gay couple and I see them briefly at least aq couple times a week. Nice people, interested in computer graphics hence they come to ask questions on a pretty regular basis.


So what is wrong with that? Gays and straight, women and men, kids and adults are taken to labs all the time. People analyze data, behaviors, reactions, interactions and a whole whack of facts. If I do no harm I see nothing wrong or callous in an attempt to understand, explain or observe.


I have a lot of respect for you as you present yourself on this forum, and even this post will not change it. But let's face it - what you wrote above says and proves nothing, other than offering some potential for a good intro to a sermon. Except where you mention suicide. That should go in the actual sermon, probably somewhere towards the end so it could have a sort of a punchline effect.


Sick is a pretty well defined term, and guarded by all kinds pf political correctness rules so I won't go there. To answer your question then I'd say that indeed, people who refuse to contribute to the perpetuation of the species are aberrant and useless from the standpoint of the needs of that species.

@ ShelleyS

You really should work on your education. People like you keep amazing me with you incredible ignorance. Is education in England that expensive so your parents couldn't afford to send you even in elementary school?

What has my education got to do anything? - my education was fine, I wasn't out murdering innocent Croatians when I should have been in class!

Education is free in the UK.

My ignorance? You are the ignorant closet homo! Step out, don't worry, your parents will still love you when they find out you fantasise about David Hasslehoff!

Yes, from the need of the species to multiple, i would agree, celibate monks and nuns, even the Pope, celibacy in general and homosexual activity are not going to produce any off spring but that does not make them diseased or ill or anything else like that.

(I know some of you love that I grouped monks nuns, the Pope and homosexuals together:))

So it is not just a matter of who you fancy? I think it is.
And lets not forget all the other reasons people form relationships, loyalty, money, compatibility, need and even love.
Love is also considered a disease and an imbalance of the brain.

I don't think you can "help" gays, I do not think they need it.
I do not see anything wrong with what gays do, provided like the rest of us they are consenting adults, in the privacy of their own homes.

It does not effect me and it certainly has not much effected the needs of our species.

your point about the Greeks, is indeed a valid one, except I have taken a different conclusion from it.


Be it heterosexual or homosexual, the age of legal sex were much younger for various reasons. Off the top of my head, we live to a much older age these days.

Juliet was thirteen years old. In Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, Pocahontas was 12 years old etc.. of course I do not know too much about the age of consent in the past but it is much older now.

What I am trying to impress upon your argument is that was the "norm" of the time for everybody and it can't be used in an argument just against homosexuals.

Norms do change of course and repeat.

A cunning plan :) thad'll learn um for being homophobic :)


It was 12 years old in Britain in the 18th Century...but due to large scale prostitution it was changed in the 19th century to 13 then it was changed to 16 in the late 19th century - they're thinking of increasing it again...

Amen, Bratwurst Boy...homosexuality has been here since the beginning of recorded time...and the world ain't gone no where yet nor has the normal of straights being born. Even Alexander the Great was a homosexual. At one time, it was not even something that was regarded as negative...it wasn't until the advent of religion that it turned to something else...and people allowed(and still do) to be brainwashed by religion or by what someone taught them.

Of course it is. The point is that some individuals fancy what leads to a potential extinction of their gene pool.


It is an imbalance for sure. The purpose of that imbalance is to make people stop thinking rationally and have sex instead. After all, love is also known as a trick nature plays on us to make us have sex and to perpetuate the species.

See what happens to all those people who win the battles with that imbalance. Careers, mortgages and by the time they decide to have 2.3 children it is often too late for them.


The same is true about HIV, flu etc. Except that these serve a survival of a species or two, while homosexual relations do not.


You are talking about social norms. I am not.


That, of course, is an uninformed statement. Homosexual relationship were accepted, and even encouraged in ancient Greece and Rome. Both cultures were deeply religious.

As for the rest, you understood approximately nothing.

I think the gay haters are just in the closet gays otherwise why would they care so much? there is a fine line between love and hate

Desperate and frankly, stupid argument.

Using the same logic you might say that male laryngologists are people who have or would love to have larynx and nasopharynx diseases, but won;t admit to it.

that is the worst analogy and weakest argument that i have ever read haha try again

Well...mother nature has never had a problem with gays!
Or else homosexuality would really never exist in the first place, not between animals and not between humans...

But it were only always some humans who made it a problem...mostly religious types...says all, not hard to understand at all!


Okay...I didn't want to spell it out so clearly but the christian religion, as of course Islam and Judaism too - the so called "book religions" aren't the epitome on intolerance not for nothing!

They worked hard for centuries to earn that label...

So when people speak of religious prejudice they very rarely mean the old greeks...

Generalized spoken...the demonization of homosexuality started with the rising of these religions and it will end with them.
(But we can already see that most secular, non-religious people of today have no problems with gay's at all...that number is rising).

And no...mankind won't die out because of that! :)

Quite true. They're sick but it's up to them whether to be cured or not. I'm personally ok with them as long as they don't affect or "infect" naturals (or "straight" as it's said in english).


Good thought as well.

You think it's "infectious"?


Well...this discussion here shows why they feel the need to do so.
If it wouldn't be a such a hotly discussed topic there wouldn't be a parade...

It could be. Just think of your kids beholding such "parties". It would inevitably affect or infect them. It's said that only part of gays are gays by nature.


Discussion is a consequence, don't mix things up. It's a reaction on parade.

You want to say that it could hapen that I go to a party with the wish tho stick my d'ick into a girl and come out with the urge to stick my d'ick into an man???

no use to explain... sometimes... some people are helpless.

If you're a kid or a man with immature conscious then you can. I hope you're not.
What I say is that this shouldn't look like an advert of that kind of life and we should keep the most indefensible social layers (first and foremost kids who don't have an immunity to resist perversion yet) out of this show. People with a formed enough turn of mind are welcome to do what they want. Nevertheless I've never attend gay's parties and not going to. It's merely not interesting to me.


I haven't heard any explanation so far.


I agree with that. Still helpless?