March of Tolerance in Krakow

That wasn't the question Sasha!
You made it sound as if gayness is something contagious...I just wanted to make sure!:)


Yup...as if god had no other problems!

Yes, quite right. It could be contagious if one imposes his will upon others and represents sick as a normal state of affairs. I agree that we should treat them well, help to those who we are able to help to but in parallel we should clearly utter "it's a decease". Nothing wrong with that. Why do you act as if I violate anybody's right?

Sasha I like you because you have way about about that one could only like, but your comments are quite wrong, I have two friends (male) they have been together for 12 years, they foster children, children who are in need of love care and a home for whatever reason. These two guys can only look after boys because of the laws in child care, do you honestly think that social services would place a fragile little boy with two gay men if they thought that they were going to corrupt him? C'om your argument is ignorant at best :( Im dissapointed :(

Any by the way, I've been frequenting the gay village in Manchester for a very long time and I have never had the urge to sh*g a woman - why would I? I'm attracted to men, it's not in my genetic make-up to be attracted to women. As my t-shirt reads "I like cock me" ;-)

Shelley I like you too with your sometimes aggressive manner of expressing your views. :)


Send those two guys my "privet" and best wishes if they're really able to help children and upbring them mentally and physically healthy. But what if they can't? Who will check that and who will be responsible if something would go wrong with them [kids]??? How, I wonder?

You say...


Do you honestly think they seriously think of that? Or do you honestly think they are able to check whether these two guys are able to treat kids well and give them correct parenting? How?


I can't figure out what it has to do with ignorance and I'm surely not dissapointed but I don't also know why this causes so disruptive reaction. :) These are only opinions. Yours and mine. I thought I described my points well enough.

I like to think of it as being passionate, rather than agressive :)

Okay so we have different points of views on this matter, I have gay friends and know what they are like, they are kind, careing, educated and honest...these are traits some people can only dream of having...their sexuality to me isn't an issue, they are certainly not ill or sick or after "infecting" me with their gayness :)

Oh yeah... that word would be better. :) It's my poor vocabulary, so that adopted words (like aggressive) cross my mind first.


Not sick... What is homosexuality then? How would you call it? "Different way of perception of a beauty" or what? :)

Why not?

People dont just wake up one day and realise that they are gay, it's a feeling, just like you as a man are attracted to women (hetrosexual) a gay man will always be attracted to men (homosexual). Some men live a lie and marry and have families but are never truely happy to me that's a wasted life we all deserve to be happy and comfortable with the person that we are closest too, it's unfair on both parties involved. Some men never engage in any kind of a relationship because they have no attraction to females and are scared of what society would say if they engaged in a relationship with a man.

Ok, I agree. So your definition is a "feeling"? But this "feeling" contradicts the nature and doesn't allow to one to procreate. That's why I call this feeling "illness"* or better to say a symptom of an illness.

*illness - impairment of normal physiological function affecting part or all of an organism


Just because it puts an end to your family (procreation).

To swarm the environment till it suffocates isn't "natural" either.
That would happen if every living being would only think of getting babies as much and often as possible!
Just take it as natural population control...:)

I could understand that line of thinking with an endangered species...but not with humans.
And I really doubt that in history an animals species where homosexuality also is quite "normal" ever died out because of that and not rather because the ever growing population of humans destroying his environment or just killed it to the last.

Hmm, that's strange, feelings or instinct are exactly what nature is about, some animals find a mate for life some animals eat their mates some animals go from one female to another - nature is a funny old thing. But gay men do have the same "feelings" as their hetroxsexual counterparts just because their feelings are towards another man this doesn't make them ill or different, it's just how they feel, nothing mentally wrong or physically they are as nature made them and no amount of "help" or "praying" is going to "cure" a gay person because they don't need to be cured, they are not ill in the first place.

One of my friends at school always knew he was gay - he tried to fit the stereotype of what a boy should be doing (dating girls etc) but by the time he was 15 he was going to gay clubs and doing what he wanted to do, he's still gay because he was always gay, if you ever bothered to speak to a gay person, they will tell you that they always knew that they were but tried to hide it for the sake of family or society.

Polish music from 1980's

Trojanowska Izabela -Jestem twoim Grzechem (I am your sin)

Don't forget that population is naturally regulated. The weakest dies having no chance to procreate.


Absolutely right, I take it right this way but it's still decease.


It's rather ironic to hear that from the man whose people dies out. Yeah... I mean Germans (as well as Russians)... My attitude towards Germans and your culture is pretty warm and I want to see Germans thriving on their own land. Maybe it's time to change something, bro?.. In your ratrace for material wellbeing you seem to completely forget about kids as your future... like Russians here.


Firstly, animal's homosexuality is tricky. Pure homosexuality doesn't almost exist among them, what one calls "animal's homosexuality" is usually bisexuality and they issue, whereas human's homosexual species likely to die with no issue.

Secodnly, homosexuality of course is not the only factor leading to species' extinction. It's just one of many but it's still worth considering.


Numerous napoleons in asylums all over the world kindly, sincerely experience feelings they're all napoleons simultaneously. Nature heartlessly got rid of them, making sick of them who needs to be cured. It's very sad, I condole with them but I admit they're sick. I don't see significant dinstiction between them and gays. Please don't think I'm trying to isolate gays with every my move. I don't want to as long as they're not dangerous and I'm glad you Shelley have had a good experience with them but I didn't find any proof in your nice post of that homosexuality wasn't a decease.

P.S. Shelley I think it's hard even to expert psychologist to thoroughly determine how strong the impact of gay's fostering on the unformed young psychic is.

Quality instead of Quantity! :)

I know, I know... Good luck! :) You've got fertile Turks, we've got fertile Caucasians.

BBoy, I am disappointed with you and all those who are so stubborn about the whole "homosexuality predates this and that and yet humanity didn't die". Since I am responsible for bringing the survival of the species aspect of homosexuality forward I feel I need to make sure it gets through the all those minds resistant to logic, and frankly, understanding of simple words.

Homeosexuality obviously has not cause extintion of human beings, and possibly of no other species. Perhaps it will never cause it, perhaps it will. I simply do not want to argue about the future because no matter how much material we have, predicting future is good for the nostradamuses of this world.

The point where I mention that survival of the species shows how homosexuality is an aberrant behavior is only to illustrate the point. The purpose of sexual intercourse in humans (on biological level) is procreation. Homosexual intercourse does not fulfill this requirement. Hence, it is against life. The use of organs in homosexual relations results from mistaken sexual identity. MISTAKEN, i.e. not expected, i.e. not normal.

Other arguments that I cannot call by names other than silly (not to use stronger words) are : homosexuals are naturally the way they are. So is cancer, ebola, HIV, bubonic plague etc. Just like homosexuality, they occur in nature naturally, none of those caused the extinction of the human race, and yet a person with one or more of those conditions is considered sick.

Similarly, rapists are just the way they are, so are murderers, thieves. None of these caused anywhere close to an extinction of human race so they should be considered OK.

I am not comparing gays to murderers, and I hope it is clear that I am merely ridiculing the automatic acceptance of a status just because that status exists. After all the reality was such that homosexual relationships were illegal in the UK not such a long time ago. That was the reality, i.e. things were the way they were. Anybody willing to protest the changes gay movement forced? If so, why not accept the anti-gay movement? If so, why make any changes at all? Why kill bacteria? They have feeling, you know? ;)

And again, as for the touchy feely comments, nature does not care about feelings. When a human body is consumed by cancer it is not a pretty sight. A person looks terrible, ugly, terrible stench is sometimes present and above all it hurts for long periods of time.

There is also a lot of hurt every time we have fun and some meat is present during a feast. Animals are killed but most do not think twice about that. (no, I am not a tree hugger, and I do eat meat).

Nature is not to be confused with some big hug that's meant to make us feel good. It's a system that is neither good, nor bad, pretty or ugly. It just is. The living, bilogical part of nature exists and continues to exist because individuals give life to new individuals. Homosexuals, in their pure form, are incapable of this. This the nature of homosexuality is against life, but not necessarily a major, nor even minor, contributor to any possible dangers of the extinction of the human species.

A side note, perhaps Marches of Tolerance for gays and lesbians should be accompanied, or followed by Marches of Tolerance for families. You know what I mean? The old fashion way where there is a mother an father and children and they are the real and primary providers of all needs of their offspring, insted of allowing the TV and youtube to do the job?

Tak. I second that.

I find myself agreeing with most of what you have written.

My stubborn point was that you were using something other than scientific fact to form an opinion (Homosexuality is a disease) and then denying all reference to anything other than scientific fact.

I am using scientific facts.
What I have refused to do is to call homosexuality a disease. I did not refrain from calling it an aberration (biological) which it clearly is.

The problem with calling a condition a disease is that the word is a word defined in many various ways. We would open a can of worms just by trying to define it, or even to accept any of the existing definitions. But since you insist...

for instance, this is what wikipedia says (my annotations are in parentheses, following bold text):

A disease is an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions and can be deadly. It is also defined as a way of the body harming itself in an abnormal way (anal sex is known to cause injuries as the anus has no natural lubrication, infections are very likely),[1] associated with specific symptoms and signs.[2][3]

In human beings,"disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes extreme pain, dysfunction (inability to procreate), distress, social problems, and/or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders (sexual identity disorder), syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors (homosexuality is biologically deviant), and atypical variations of structure and function (atypical use anus), while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories.

hope this helps

But it's not funny, Sasha does have a point...All Europeans are being out numbered in their own countries :( But that's another issue.

As Mr D said it goes against the grain and that sex has a purpose, i.e. procreation, but you could argue that using contreception goes against the grain too (according to the church) - I would argue that sex is for pleasure and has always been so... how we derive that pleasure and who with is our own personal choice.

I really am finding it hard to understand how such an educated person like Sasha actually believes that being gay is an illness that could possibly be cured. I know that I am not going to change your perceptions and that's fine, you are entitled to your views :)

Thanks for the compliment, Shelley... I don't know why I believe. :) Maybe nobody has ever proved me I'm wrong. Numerous doctors are with me.

Sorry that I disappointed you, that wasn't my intent! :(
But belittling your adversaries when your arguments aren't accepted won't help you
or your position...


Why looking in the future?
One main argument of homo-haters is that it's unnatural because it goes against the instincts of species preserveration and reproduction.
If it would be the case research would have been able to find some species who died out because of excessive homosexuality by now, don't you think so too?

But they didn't, no such case is known!


Life means sex? Even animals are affectionate with each other without having sex.


No...YOU consider it sick like a disease...you and other mostly religious people.
Many people do not!
In big parts during mankind's history people didn't care much about homosexuality either way...only the churches made it a crime! But that time is nearly over anyhow as churches are losing their importance...


The difference being CONSENT!
As long as two grown ups are both on the same level they can and should do what they want...a rapist or a pedophile should lose his nuts or worse if I had a say!


The status of homosexuality being taboo and called a bad thing people need to be cured of (or being prayed for) is the unatural thing! It should be corrected!


As does rough sex? :):):)


So then why do you have a problem with homosexuality? It's the same - it just is!


I'm all for support for families, especially for children!
But as in nature homos aren't responsible for the extinction of a species they are not responsible for the fate of families!

And to conclude....homos are such a tiny percentage, they don't hurt anybody, they are not to blame for the plague, for the rain today or for the financial crisis...why not just let them be!

Now I get it dude... carry on.

(not that homo is right... but I get why so big messeges) :)

I really doubt you get any thing....dude!

You are outdoing yourself in complete misunderstanding of what is being written here. One need no single proof that homosexuality in any species caused extintion. Not one. One only needs to proof that homosexual intercourse cannot produce offspring within a given species.


And where did I say that? Quote me?
Or is it your English?


Now I am religious? Have you aver read anything I have to say about religion? Again, you're inventing as you go. You require proof for what I say. Show me yours.


consent is a social concept. Biology does not care about consent. I am not discussing homosexuality on a social level. You are and you try to drag me into it.


Pedophilia has been known forever. Humanity survived. What's the problem here?


Homosexuality is anything but taboo. What seems to be taboo to you is discussing biology without resorting to levels secondary, or even tertiary in respect to life.


I do not have a problem with homosexuality at all. I am not homosexual, neither do I care whether homosexuals exist or not.


Again, quote me where I said homos are responsible for any extinction?


And where the fvck did I disagree with any of that?

If you are unable to comprehend simple arguments then read them again. I don't expect you to agree with them, but it would be great if you rebutted statements I made, not the statements you think or assume I made.

So much disregard for science in this thread, truly depressing...

Well...the most sensible thing I read all day....

@ ShelleyS

You (I have to tell wrongly) presume that in your case would activate the law of crossing over from quantity to quality. And that finally you would write good posts. As we all see that hasn’t happened. You still further keep writing one and the same nonsense. I am afraid that you will not be helped even by two and half million posts. However remedy still exists. Instead of perpetually repeating your own mistakes, go over my posts then maybe you will learn how to argumentatively and qualitatively write. I am here to assist you to repair the shortcomings in your education and logic.

Second conclusion which can be reached by observing your chronic attacks of scribblemania is that forums for you obviously serve as compensation for your loneliness, lack of attention and acknowledgment which you so desperately seek and possibly sexual frustrations. Shortly, absence of real life due to which you have withdrawn into the virtual world. Listen to well intended advice. Leave the keyboard and go out for a bit on the street. Try to communicate a little with alive people. Get a pet. Something alive and real. You will see that you shall immediately feel better.


Shame that you have been born few centuries too late. In the middle ages you would probably made a brilliant career as a court jester. You are natural talent.


Your posts are namely sometimes really difficult to read as they resemble anagrams. And that isnt consequence of "supersaturation" in typing instead of anger (very similar to oubursts in small children) when you see that you are not capable to refute the arguments of your adversary.


Very educational. Fascinating. It is only one slight problem about that. Nobody cares but you. Just one of numerous completely meaningless posts of yours nobody is interested about. Sad, isn't it?


Please tell me about schooling. It looks really hilarious coming from your keyboard.


I am really impressed. And, with every new product of your obsessed mind, more and more amused.

Just as in this forum you are fighting against evil Polish Catholics and their moral values. So tell me the "Warrior of the Light" have you really gone that far astray that you actually consider this as some kind of a struggle?

Don’t you have family or friends who would well-intentionally advise you to seek professional help while it’s not too late?

Hey sorry this is real real late but i got back to this topic when i could:

Hey z_darius, I think you might be sick of this topic but I felt a bit obliged to write back on some of the things we'd debated. Here's my 2 cents and sorry if you've gone over everything i am about to write (i tend not to read ever post once it gets like this).


Great and homosexuals are perfectly capable of procreating with the opposite sex, there is nothing physical preventing a homosexual male and female from copulating other than their brains (or minds but then that takes us further out to sea than we already are).


...that it is perfectly natural whether i, you, or anyone else likes it at all?
If it went against the species as a whole then the world population should be a lot lower than it is.


and that's where you're only right in the abstract, fictional situation you conjured up. In theory if we only had homosexuals in one civilization and only heterosexuals in another, then the hetero community would probably continue long after the homosexual community. But so what?

It's a stupid hypothesis based on stupid circumstances that simply don't mimic reality. If we threw in a bunch of straight guys in one civilization with no women then they'd still be unable to procreate. I guess what I'm saying is that you'd have a great point in this debate if we were discussing your fictional scenario.

I guess i agree with you but don't see what conclusions one could really draw from this. Unless of course we get into philosophy, and by defining things from a _____ perspective we're really just interpreting the world around us through various lenses.

Defining things biologically, pfft! Works great for an amoeba but when dealing with a civilization as complex as the human one, perhaps we could expand to how "beneficial" one is to the species beyond their desire to procreate, y'know like their overall contribution to society, and fellow man.

Sorry if that's too touchy feely for you but almost any male female pairing "can" procreate, I think we're should be about a bit more than that.


Great but i don't see your point. I only stated that something painless with beneficial effects is, and should be, considered healthy, if I wrote pain is a bad thing then i take it back but show me where i wrote that if so.

cock!