3DMM Political Threads 2008

[Kale Monster]

"I'm sorry if it offends you but I am right"
Like people who are different and often-shunned by society can't rise up and say, "No! I am absolutely happy with who I am and deserve the same recognition as you!"

Like people can't be proud of who they are and what they have accomplished and reject social inequality. Haha how dare he speak about these sorts of issues as though he has authority and wisdom and a deep knowledge about stuff like this.

FYI Compcat did you know that the same pride philosophy is begginning to the disabled? For very similar reasons, mainly the way disability is shunned and the sexualisation of the disabled is viewed by the 'norm.' Did you also know that acquired disability is treated significantly differently to from birth disability, and that this is actually a hot topic for research amongst sociologists and social scientists?

[Slime]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Homosexuality is as great a threat as rainforest destruction, says the pope.

Yeah, its terrible.

"A Papal spokesman was later forced to clarify that the Vatican continues to condemn the use of the death penalty for any crime, including any related to homosexuality."
...they had to clarify that they don't want to kill gay people for fucking?

[Compcat]

Originally Posted by Andres

Homosexuals do not have any genetic limitations towards reproduction. A homosexual male can have sex with a female, hetero or homosexual. A homosexual female can have sex with a male, hetero or homosexual. Many homosexual males and females actually have children.

Yes, so can autistic people, but, assuming the person really is totally homosexual, they should not enjoy having intercourse with the opposite sex or have an instinctual drive to do so. If they do, we can only assume they aren't totally homo, they really really want children, or they're trying to fit in with society. Either way they DO have a genetic problem reproducing, that is there is no drive to do the act that will lead to reproduction. If everyone on earth was homosexual we'd have difficulty keeping our numbers up and would most likely die off in a short time, although that could never happen, because evolution would not let this gene mutation continue on, because gays don't have a drive to reproduce, survival of the fittest, in this case gays not being "the fittest." It has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with sexual desire.

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with homosexuals, so in that case I strongly disagree with the pope. Hell, I think even them marrying and raising adopted kids is fine. All that I'm saying is that it is not a trait to be "proud" of. It means that you have no drive to have sex with and marry the mother of your child, that seems like a pretty significant defect to me. Gay pride is on the exact same level as autistic pride. If you're proud of that, fine by me, but you're an idiot. If its just to 'change the negative views of society on the gays' then pride is not the word to use. Would a black pride parade be ok to you guys?

Originally Posted by Cade

"No! I am absolutely happy with who I am and deserve the same recognition as you!"

Yeah thats totally fine.

Originally Posted by Cade

Like people can't be proud of who they are and what they have accomplished and reject social inequality.

Being gay is an accomplishment? hmmm... or are you just proud of who you are? Wait, so thats ok? Alright, so then you support white pride parades, awesome! Yes, the inequality for gays sucks, but thats no reason be irrational about it. Wouldn't it be nice to know that you could have a child with the person you love? Are you proud of not being able to do that?

[Andres]

Originally Posted by Compcat

really is totally homosexual, they should not enjoy having intercourse with the opposite sex or have an instinctual drive to do so.

This is all completely irrelevant. You don't need to enjoy having intercourse with the opposite sex in order to have it. You also don't need to enjoy having intercourse with the same sex in order to have it. If you want to reproduce, you can ejaculate inside a woman who is fertile, and then if she gets pregnant, you have a child. That's it. You don't need to enjoy the sex.

Many couples don't enjoy having sex, and only have sex to get pregnant. This especially applies to earlier marriages that were based more on social dynamics and less on sexual interests. Men would marry women simply to have a family or have direct descendants, not because they enjoyed sex. In the social structures of man, desire of sex is not a requirement for reproduction.

Reproduction is also not a requirement for desire of sex. I don't know anyone that has unprotected sex. People decidedly do not want to procreate.

Sexual activities (vaginal, oral, anal) are for personal enjoyment. Reproduction is something else entirely for the overwhelming majority of people. It just happens to be the same as one aspect of heterosexual sex.

I already went over this but you keep wanting to ignore it. It doesn't matter whether someone wants to have sex. What matters is they can have it. If everyone in society was a homosexual, society would still be able to survive because everyone would be able to reproduce.

If they do, we can only assume they aren't totally homo, they really really want children, or they're trying to fit in with society.

And this is wrong? Humans are social animals, so trying to fit in with society is not exactly a problem. Besides that, there is nothing inherently contradictory with being gay and wanting to have children. Why would a gay man or woman REALLY REALLY want to have children if they have some? Why not "they want to have children" at the same intensity as heterosexua couples? You are letting your own ridiculous prejudices cloud your nonsensical argument.

Either way they DO have a genetic problem reproducing, that is there is no drive to do the act that will lead to reproduction.

No. You don't seem to understand this. Having a genetic problem reproducing means there is something in your body that makes procreation physically impossible. Having a genetic problem reproducing does not mean that you'd rather have sex with someone of your gender.

A lot of people have no sex drive, or lose their sex drive, but this is not a "genetic defect", and there is no problem with those people getting married. A lot of people do have sex drives, but are not interested in having children. This is not a "genetic defect", and there is no problem with those people getting married. A lot of people are fucking disgusting and no one would ever fuck them. This is not a "genetic defect", and there is no problem with those people getting married. A lot of people are terrible in bed, and their terrible performance might make procreation extremely difficult. This is not a "genetic defect", and there is no problem with those people getting married.

Genitals have a variety of purposes. I can use my penis for sex, I can use my penis to urinate, and I can use my penis to impregnate someone. If I want to use my penis to have sex with men, that doesn't give me a problem using it to impregnate someone anymore than I would have a problem urinating.

If everyone on earth was homosexual we'd have difficulty keeping our numbers up and would most likely die off in a short time

You are posting this with no evidence whatsoever. I asked you for genetic and population research and you have posted nothing.

There is no reason why we should have difficulties keeping our numbers up. The organization of society would simply be different. Think about this reasonably. Why can't there be a family of two women (who are in a relationship) and two men (who are in a relationship), with each men having children with a corresponding woman, and raising all the children together as a family of four? Or why couldn't there be a simple ritual where at a certain age, people engage in reproductive activities, but during the rest of the time they simply do their own homosexual thing?

That is exactly what happens nowadays, except heterosexually. People have a very short space in their lives where they have sex for procreation (generally the first 5-10 years after marriage) and the rest of their lives are dedicated to sex for pleasure, either with their spouse, or with anyone.

You seem to be arguing from this bizarre world where we only have sex with people we are interested in, and only then can we reproduce, and no one gives thought to reproduction or separates it from recreational sex.

although that could never happen, because evolution would not let this gene mutation continue on, because gays don't have a drive to reproduce, survival of the fittest, in this case gays not being "the fittest." It has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with sexual desire.

Gays don't have a drive to reproduce? That is an unproven assertion. Your evidence that gays don't have a "drive to reproduce" is that they want to have sex that does not result in reproduction, and are attracted to people they cannot reproduce with. But this is not in any way evidence that they don't have a drive to reproduce. This only works if you consider reproductive sex and recreational sex to be the same thing, but no human being does this.

Gays certainly have a drive to have children. They might not have the drive to have heterosexual sex which results in children, but they certainly have the drive to have children. They adopt children and often have families.

Similarly, straight people have a drive to have children. This drive is not the drive to have sexual intercourse, it's the drive to have children. Marriages are often between people that weren't that interested in each other, because one of them wanted a child. Women who want babies don't go around thinking "wow, I really want to fuck right now".

Your argument doesn't work because you are just mixing together a bunch of things that are separate and are completely off regarding people's motivations.

[Compcat]

Before we had protection (or in other words 99% of the time humanity has been around), there was no difference between recreational and reproduction sex.

[Andres]

Do you have any evidence for that?

Because as far as I know, prostitution has existed for centuries (it's even called "the world's oldest profession"), and many cultures have had sex for reasons other than procreation (there are Biblical stories that deal with this). So I don't think this claim is true.

Even if it were true, it would just highlight the fact that human society is no longer even remotely concerned with Darwinian principles of fitness, because we can shape our environment to a greater extent than animals, and therefore it's absurd to judge humans by the standards of other species.

[Aaron Haynes]

A year later and you're still basing your arguments on conditions that don't actually exist in the real world.

I don't know if you've noticed, Compcat, but we're not fighting for our very survival right now. You're sitting in your warm, well-lit room in front of a computer, unaffected and probably unware of the elements outside your walls. Water comes out of a faucet in your kitchen. You have an ample supply of food in a cold box that keeps it from spoiling.

You have never, and will never, have to kill or harvest anything in order to eat and you have no natural predators.

You are utterly complacent and docile and domesticated. If the "unnatural" comforts and tools of human invention were taken away from you, you would wander around, struggle, and die of thirst or starvation.

I'm 100% sure you don't apply this argument to other things in your life. Message boards, video games, movies, music, writing, drawing, none of these things intrinsically contribute to survival on any scale. Sure, you may argue that you can use them in the pursuit of propagation of the species -- but would you argue that's the only worth they have? That music not used to serenade a lover of the opposite sex has no purpose in society?

Because to argue that homosexuality is a defect exactly like autism, and by extension should be considered as such in the larger society, demands these parameters for everything. Our only relevant pursuits as human beings are continued survival of the species.

We live in an incredibly advanced society. There has been nothing like it in the history of the world, or indeed the universe known to us. Homosexuality is no longer even a barrier to the passing on of genetic material, thanks to in vitro fertilization, which many couples decide to do. You could use the same argument against childless people -- clearly, they've failed somewhere along the way if they didn't genetically reproduce. But in your boneheaded attempt to define the validity of human behavior solely in terms of genetics, you've left out every artistic, recreational, and philosophical pursuit we've ever come up with in our history.

This is what happens when you define the paramters of an argument narrowly in order to support your point. You don't get to have two sets of parameters just because it would help your argument.

[Kale Monster]

Originally Posted by Compcat

Before we had protection (or in other words 99% of the time humanity has been around), there was no difference between recreational and reproduction sex.

HAHAHAHA are you fucking SERIOUS
Edit: this is SO FUCKING HILARIOUS and WRONG WRONG WRONG my GOD at LEAST go to the wikipedia article on the history of sex

[Dave Miles]

he's obviously never heard of the 'pull-out' method of birth control, which has probably been around since adam and eve decided to stop having kids. How do you think the cumshot got invented?

[Kale Monster]

Originally Posted by Compcat

Yes, so can autistic people, but, assuming the person really is totally homosexual, they should not enjoy having intercourse with the opposite sex or have an instinctual drive to do so. If they do, we can only assume they aren't totally homo, they really really want children, or they're trying to fit in with society. Either way they DO have a genetic problem reproducing, that is there is no drive to do the act that will lead to reproduction. If everyone on earth was homosexual we'd have difficulty keeping our numbers up and would most likely die off in a short time, although that could never happen, because evolution would not let this gene mutation continue on, because gays don't have a drive to reproduce, survival of the fittest, in this case gays not being "the fittest." It has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with sexual desire.

As I am not infertile, I am capable of reproducing and am planning on doing this later in life. So much for my genetic defect rendering me infertile.

Originally Posted by Compcat

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with homosexuals, so in that case I strongly disagree with the pope. Hell, I think even them marrying and raising adopted kids is fine. All that I'm saying is that it is not a trait to be "proud" of. It means that you have no drive to have sex with and marry the mother of your child, that seems like a pretty significant defect to me. Gay pride is on the exact same level as autistic pride. If you're proud of that, fine by me, but you're an idiot. If its just to 'change the negative views of society on the gays' then pride is not the word to use. Would a black pride parade be ok to you guys?

Black pride existed during the civil rights movement and continues through today, although it is not as obvious. Did you miss the apparent unified black pride over Barack Obama's election?

Originally Posted by Compcat

Being gay is an accomplishment? hmmm... or are you just proud of who you are? Wait, so thats ok? Alright, so then you support white pride parades, awesome! Yes, the inequality for gays sucks, but thats no reason be irrational about it. Wouldn't it be nice to know that you could have a child with the person you love? Are you proud of not being able to do that?

I want you to read this very carefully a few times before responding.

I don't get how you can mention the concept of civil 'pride' for minorities, while at the same time mentioning how the 'inequality sucks,' in such a blazé way. I'm almost certain however that you are just sort of dismissing homophobia as some kind of inconvenience that gay people have to put up with. Aaaand it's not. It's a lot more serious than that. As for the white supremacist implication - white people have pretty much always the majority and thusly have been the most exploitative and responsible for a lot of oppression throughout history. The implication you have made here is pretty friggen retarded and you are twisting my words and ideas. The white, middle class part of society has long-since been promoted as the ideal in the West. It has suffered no collective, large-scale oppression, individual and community-shattering hatred or violence because of something trivial (skin colour / sexuality / perceived wrongness), and the white community as a whole has not been seriously disadvantages by said oppression imposed by another group of society (the majority.) Therefore, it is unacceptable to hold a white pride march, as the point of pride movements is not so much, "gosh, good job for being gay everyone, high five!" but more a sense of defiance and unity through oppression, a rejection of hate and a sense of pride at what the movement has accomplished.

As for "don't I feel sad about whether or not I can have a kid with my partner? I say this – I can have offspring with my partner. It doesn't matter who that is, except whether I am in a relationship with them. When you take into account infertility, adoption and c-sectioned births, the actual physical act of childbirth is remarkably smaller than you obviously assume. One could make the argument that because I am gay, I can actually rationally and thoughtfully choose the mother of my child, should I so desire to, theoretically giving my children a better selection of genes to draw from. In fact, with a lower risk of accidental pregnancy and the requirement of significant planning, one could argue that a gay couple is significantly more advantaged at both conception and parenting despite the fact that a gay couple possibly requires a third party to create the child.

Do I actually believe this? Well, a little. It could be that the ratio for good parents is higher with gay couples simply because heterosexual couples have many awful examples of parenting there to weigh their statistics down. My main point though is to get you to see how completely ridiculous the argument of 'GAYS CANNOT GENETICALLY REPRODUCE DEFECT HURF DURF' is.

A final note and a question about genetics, mainly on the thought of "well, if we were all gay, we'd die out!!!" In order for a species to survive, there has to be a diverse range of genetic material. Have you noticed that not only are we not gay, we also are not all:

• One gender
• Brown haired
• Blue eyed
• asian
• thin
• etc etc

This is due to genetic variation, and guess what! You can replace "gay" with any one of those examples I just listed and you'd still have a correct fucking statement. If a species is to survive a diverse environment, it requires fucking variation! That means, no shit we aren't all gay. Also we would die out if we were all blue eyed! Would you like to tell me how being fair skinned or 6ft tall is any more valid than being gay, considering that they all share roughly the same genetic relevance?

[Damage Jackal]

I for one am shocked that Compcat has no real world frame of reference for the insanely stupid shit he thinks he believes.

[Compcat]

Ok, stop distracting yourself with other issues in this, it is really more simple than you make it. Homosexuals have a gene that makes them attracted to people they cannot naturally have children with. Heterosexual people can do it fairly easily, they don't need to use technology or have to bring in another person. So either heterosexuals have a great advantage or gays are at a disadvantage. A defective gene leads to disadvantages, in this case being that gays cannot reproduce with each other without the aid of technology. THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. A bad gene. Puts gays. At a DISADVANTAGE.

If gay 'pride' actually means gay 'want equal rights,' ok, whatever, thats fine, but pride is totally the wrong word to use "1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc." There is a lot of room to misunderstand the meaning here (that I'm sure plenty of gays do).

[HMC]

Originally Posted by Compcat

in this case being that gays cannot reproduce with each other without the aid of technology.

Have you not been reading this thread at all

Originally Posted by Compcat

pride is totally the wrong word to use "1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc." There is a lot of room to misunderstand the meaning here (that I'm sure plenty of gays do).

OR superiority. OR. You fucking dullard.

[Andres]

Look, I'm going to explain this to you delicately.

1. You start off with the premise that recreational and reproductive sex are the same thing.

2. Based on this, you move to the premise that a man or woman who desires sex with a member of the same gender will not be able to reproduce.

3. Based on that, you conclude that being gay would decrease the species' chance of survival, because there'd be less reproduction.

That is your argument.

1. But premise number one is wrong. Recreational and reproductive sex are not the same thing. Society has had recreational sex since the dawn of time. People have recreational sex since their teen years, for a long time. Reproductive sex has a very specific ritual, which consists of finding a suitable mate, getting married, and spending some time having children.

2. Because of the fact that premise number one is wrong, you cannot move to premise number two. This is due to the fact that a homosexual can in fact have children if he/she chooses to do so. If the homosexual could never distinguish between reproductive and recreational sex, this premise might be true, but homosexuals can in fact distinguish, and therefore this isn't a problem.

Because of the fact that your two premises are wrong, the conclusion is unfounded. You cannot reach that conclusion.

3. However, let's pretend premises one and two are right. In order for your conclusion to be true, human society would have to be completely unadaptable to homosexuality, and the social institutions that govern modern life would have to be some sort of unassailable given. But this is hardly true. You'd have to be very uncreative to not imagine a social order where the reproductive ritual was different and even less associated to recreational sex than it is now.


The starting point of your argument is wrong. Therefore, it seems to you that you are reaching a logical conclusion. You are, it's just you are reaching it based on erroneous facts.

[Slade]

I cannot believe you're actually, seriously, saying what you're saying, Compcat. If anything's defected here, it's your utterly warped, suger-coated view on how the world and everything in it works. I'm no expert, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't take a genius to spot the total naivety of your posts. When you grow up, if you ever discover and experience what's really happened/happening, you're going to look back on this and vomit with embarassment.

Please, please read and re-read what Andres, Aaron and Cade have been saying.

[Kale Monster]

Originally Posted by Compcat

Ok, stop distracting yourself with other issues in this, it is really more simple than you make it.

You're the one who has repeatedly failed to fully address points. Also no, it isn't really more simple than I make it.

Originally Posted by Compcat

Homosexuals have a gene that makes them attracted to people they cannot naturally have children with. Heterosexual people can do it fairly easily, they don't need to use technology or have to bring in another person. So either heterosexuals have a great advantage or gays are at a disadvantage. A defective gene leads to disadvantages, in this case being that gays cannot reproduce with each other without the aid of technology. THAT FUCKING SIMPLE. A bad gene. Puts gays. At a DISADVANTAGE.

As a gay guy, I can avoid unwanted pregnancy and I basically undergo a self-imposed proof of parenting trial before I can have a child. This is an advantage. Any homosexual couple who manages to adopt or conceive a child gets the opportunity to choose the mother of that child in ways that don't at least partially hinge on romantic emotions. This is an advantage.

The desire to have children is strong and trancends sexuality. What this means is that if a gay couple wants to have a child, they will. This is not a disadvantage. The act of having a child is not exclusive to heterosexuals, and homosexuals have a variety of ways in which to accomplish conception – including many low-tech methods that don't even require vaginal penetration by either of the gay couple. This is not a disadvantage

Originally Posted by Compcat

If gay 'pride' actually means gay 'want equal rights,' ok, whatever, thats fine, but pride is totally the wrong word to use "1. a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc."

You haven't fully comprehended your own definition of 'pride' –

Originally Posted by Compcat

There is a lot of room to misunderstand the meaning here (that I'm sure plenty of gays do).

For fucks sake. So just because some gay people might have a superiorty complex and just because some of those complexes might be caused by the pride movement, that means the pride movement is asserting that gay people are superior to other social groups or something? That seems to be what you're saying here.

I have defined not only the goals of the pride movement, but why it is called the 'pride movement', mentioned that there were/are pride movements for other disadvantaged or oppressed minorities (black, disabled, etc), and what the pride movement's goals are. Those goals are the elimination of oppression through the rejection of imposed shame and discrimination and responding by rising to meet the oppressing societal groups through the rejection of that shame..

Quote from wikipedia that sums it up far more eloquently than I can this morning:

LGBT pride or gay pride refers to a philosophy asserting that (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) individuals (LGBT people) should be proud of their sexual orientation and gender identity. In recent years the use of the abbreviation has been used to be inclusive of the entire "gay community".

The word pride is used in this case an antonym for shame, which has been used to control and oppress LGBT persons throughout history. Pride in this sense is an affirmation of ones self and the community as a whole. The modern "pride" movement began after the "Stonewall riots" of the late 1960s. Instead of backing down to unconstitutional raids by New York Police, gay men in local bars fought back. While it was a violent situation it also gave the underground community the first sense of communal pride in a very well publicized incident. From the yearly parade that commemorated the anniversary of the Stonewall riots began a national grassroots movement. Today many countries around the world celebrate LGBT pride. The pride movement has furthered the cause of gay rights by lobbying politicians, registering voters and increasing vivibility to educate on issues important to LGBT communities. LGBT pride advocates work for equal "rights and benefits" for LGBT people.

The movement has three main premises: that people should be proud of their sexual orientation and gender identity, that diversity is a gift, and that sexual orientation and gender identity are inherent and cannot be intentionally altered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_pride this is the link.

Fucking lolll that you have completely mutilated your own definition. Also you're implying that lots of gays have a superiority complex. What the fuck, man. Superiority complexes are a common human trait, and not necessarily caused by someone's sexuality. And even if someone does have a superiority complex, so what? It's not at all relevant to this discussion at all. Did you add that sentence on to sort of try to make the Pride movement seem a little more irrelevant? Why did you even add that to the end of your post?

It seems pretty clear to me that you don't really think too critically about things, and most certainly that you form opinions about issues without looking too deeply at the issues themselves or doing much in the way of understanding core concepts within these issues. This trait you have is the reason why I quoted you in my first post in this thread, because I believed that the quote illustrates it conscisely.

[Zaquis]

its atough world at there... survival of the species, man... * sips mountain dew *

[Kale Monster]

Zachie post a recent pic i need to know whether i still want to feel you up

[Compcat]

Originally Posted by Cade

As a gay guy, I can avoid unwanted pregnancy and I basically undergo a self-imposed proof of parenting trial before I can have a child. This is an advantage. Any homosexual couple who manages to adopt or conceive a child gets the opportunity to choose the mother of that child in ways that don't at least partially hinge on romantic emotions. This is an advantage.

HOLY SHIT. You are telling me that not being able to conceive a child with the one you love is an advantage. What the fuck is wrong with you people? You have to consciously choose which one of your genetics go into your child, you cannot combine as partners to produce offspring and you are telling me this is an advantage?! AND I'M DELUSIONAL? FUCK.

[Notch Johnson]

*shits on your dick*

[Slade]

* massive facepalm picture *

[Kale Monster]

Originally Posted by Compcat

HOLY SHIT. You are telling me that not being able to conceive a child with the one you love is an advantage. What the fuck is wrong with you people? You have to consciously choose which one of your genetics go into your child, you cannot combine as partners to produce offspring and you are telling me this is an advantage?! AND I'M DELUSIONAL? FUCK.

lolllllllll way to read+comprehend everything i posted :*

[Bown]

Originally Posted by Compcat

AND I'M DELUSIONAL?

yeah. dude you really are

[Kale Monster]

Hey compcat, have you noticed yet that you're the only one who has responded to my list of things that are advantageous of being gay in a negative way?

[Bown]

the thing about compcat that bugs me is he seems to be at least a slightly likeable guy except for the fact he gets all his opinions from anus.com and burzum