Metanet Forums

Well, at the end of the day, I don't care where you've gone, what you've done, where you live or who you've had sex with. In my book, at the end of the day, you're either good or you're bad. It's the choices you make during the day that decide this for you. Whether or not you make the right choices is up to you.

I'm perfectly fine with gay people. There's nothing wrong with being attracted to something of the same sex. Religion should never be a factor when deciding what's good or bad.

Nonoke wrote:Religion should never be a factor when deciding what's good or bad.

I, an atheist, raise my eyebrow at you, sir.
If you believe that your sky-daddy invented morality and means well for you, religion should be the ultimate factor in deciding what's good or bad. All others are practically irrelevant.
We can laugh at the religious nuts for thinking God cares about homosexuality, bet we can't laugh at them for being consistent in their beliefs (on the rare occasions they are).

The way I feel about gays is similar to the way I feel about guys who like other guys.

lol.

I think if they honestly think that they'll be happier that way, then fine, we should establish a gay colony on Jupiter and send them all there. Until then, they should just stick together and leave the rest of us alone. I wouldn't start a mass killing of gays, but I'm not exactly for them, either.

mop, who likes girls, just like he should

Oh, and about religion - I'm atheist, but I follow the basic beliefs about right/wrong as Christians. I mean, I won't argue that being gay is bad simply because the Bible says so, but still... It kinda destroys the whole point of a human's existance, and I'm glad that their genes probably won't get passed on.

a human's biological purpose (to perpetuate its species) can differ very much from the many other purposes they have. they might include inventing the tank, missles, parachutes and robots. they could encompass works of great art that people can marvel at. they might be centered around procuring orgasms in people of your own gender. all are fine, and the first two probably blow the "purposes" of 99% of straight men out of the water.

in other news, the phrase "just like he should" should have been omitted, as should the entirety of your 3rd paragraph, because with those parts of your post you sound like an arrogant, biased asshole, in a topic discussing bias. now, the weather.
its raining men.

Minion_of_Pi wrote:It kinda destroys the whole point of a human's existance

Oh? And what do you think the point of human existence is? Procreation? You do realize we currently have a severe overpopulation problem? Half of the human population turning suddenly and irrevocably gay could be one of the best things that has ever happened to our species, because the point of our existence (according to you) is one of the more significant things killing us.

Minion_of_Pi wrote:and I'm glad that their genes probably won't get passed on.

Because Lord knows homosexuality is genetic. Straight parents only produce straight children, and it's only the gays that pr-- OH WAIT, maybe you should just shut your face.

Don't get me started about purpose. The purporse of our perception of reality (i.e., matter, energy, the universe, everything anyone's ever learned,) is to create the best. at a small (not smallest) level, within a species, the weakest die. The ones who are the smartest, strongest, fastest, or whatever it takes to survive, well; they survive. Their purpose is to pass on their speed, strength, whatev. to the next generation; basically, they strive to create a super-(insert species). Species-wide, the weakest go extinct. If there are any other planets with life out there, it would be a contest between us and them. Now, on a completely different track, I wanna say that humans have screwed themselves over on all counts by messing with the system. We have made it so that not just the strongest, smartest etc. humans survive; we put people who don't contribute to society on life support, and people who shouldn't, reproduce. We've also made species-wide mistakes, eradicating entire species that weren't necessarily the weakest. All this will come back and get us; we don't even know exactly how it will affect us. About gays. I realize after some thought that gay people can help their species-wide proliferation, even if they don't strive to create the perfect human through reproduction; they don't try to make individual elements in the system (humans) better, but rather, through things like inventions, teaching, and generally contributing to society in other ways, make the system as a whole more likely to become stronger. So I guess that yes, gays can have other purposes than people who make the race better by passing on their genes. We all strive to make the human race better, just in different ways.
Sorry for my rant earlier, and for sounding like a jackass. Also sorry in advance if I've sounded pretentous just now. Just putting forth my views.
mop

Oh, gods. It is like the speech of some comic-book villain. I don't even know where to begin.

Firstly, organisms do not "strive to create a super species". Bacteria have no minds. They cannot strive, nor do they know what a super-species is. Your argument is like saying that rocks "strive to crash into each other" (due to gravity), then going on to argue that it is morally right that things should crash into each other, and that traffic laws are an affront to right-thinking people everywhere because they prevent stuff crashing into other stuff.

Secondly, the concept of a "perfect" human is ridiculous. It's not possible to create an organism which is "perfect", unless that organism somehow transcends the laws of nature and sends its son to die so sins may be forgiven, and if can remove ourselves from the constraints of physics I don't think breeding lines will be much of an issue. Even if a perfect organism were possible, that is not the result of evolution - evolution produces creatures which are better adapted to their current environment. Nor does evolution necessarily mean the strongest or smartest survive - sometimes, being strong isn't worth the resources it takes to build those muscles. This is why many insects are successful despite being stupid and fragile. And sometimes a weakness can also be a strength, as in the case of sickle-cell anemia - annoying handicap in the West, life-saving resistance to malaria in other places. Forcing the race to conform to your ideal of "perfect" would just result in a homogeneity which undermines the capacity of humans to adapt and survive in a different environment.

Then we have the claim that "we have made it so that not just the strongest survive". Which is ludicrous because it's impossible for "only the strongest to survive" unless either there is only one person left alive or everyone left alive is exactly equal in strength. Consider: if people differ in strength, at least half the population will be below or equal to the median. Because that's kinda what the median is. If you kill all these people, than half the surviving people will be below the new median, and therefore still alive despite being "not the strongest". Kill them too? Eventually you'd be left with one dude trying to saw his left arm off because his right is stronger.

And, of course, there's that whole "compassion" and "empathy" thing. You know, that stuff that stops us all stabbing each other in the back for individual gain, thus plunging the world into fire and darkness?

Atilla wrote:
Firstly, organisms do not "strive to create a super species". Bacteria have no minds. They cannot strive, nor do they know what a super-species is.

That's only what the unmotivated bacteria say.

Has anyone come out of the closet on this thread yet?

Amen to Demonz and Atilla.

Also:
Our natural progression as a species has led to a more frequent occurrence of homosexuality (or at the very least a much greater acceptance of it). What has you so convinced that a more perfect human couldn't be a gay one, or one that tolerates gays?
If I take a toaster and end up creating some kind of super-toaster, I don't need my toaster to be able to make new toasters; I just need it to sit around and be awesome, as well as to make supertoast. In the same vein, why does a super-human even need to have our same weak, emotion-based impulse to procreate? If he can fly and shoot lightning from his mouth, I'd be one of the last people to dog him for being gay.

But hey, on the subject of purpose, feel free to keep talking about it at length. I think I'd get a kick out of it, at least.

Tsukatu wrote:If I take a toaster and end up creating some kind of super-toaster, I don't need my toaster to be able to make new toasters; I just need it to sit around and be awesome, as well as to make supertoast.

What's bad about having a multitude of super-toasters?

incluye wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:If I take a toaster and end up creating some kind of super-toaster, I don't need my toaster to be able to make new toasters; I just need it to sit around and be awesome, as well as to make supertoast.

What's bad about having a multitude of super-toasters?

I'm not sure, but I'm quite sure it's not as awesome as a gun that shoots super-toasters.
Therefore, one of the necessary principles of the advancement of humanity is that firearms remain legal.

yes I have absolutely nothing to contribute to this topic

incluye wrote:What's bad about having a multitude of super-toasters?

You can't have a multitude of super-toasters. If there's one, it is a unique marvel, the best of its kind. If everyone has one, it's merely average.

Besides, you don't need a multitude of super-toasters. You're only going to use the one - where do you put the other ten million? And, really, isn't building self-replicating appliances just asking to have them eat the entire planet and turn it into toasters?

*reads the last few posts*
Yeah, but... wait what?!

scythe33 wrote:

incluye wrote:

Tsukatu wrote:If I take a toaster and end up creating some kind of super-toaster, I don't need my toaster to be able to make new toasters; I just need it to sit around and be awesome, as well as to make supertoast.

What's bad about having a multitude of super-toasters?

I'm not sure, but I'm quite sure it's not as awesome as a gun that shoots super-toasters.
Therefore, one of the necessary principles of the advancement of humanity is that firearms remain legal.

Or, rather, that babies are fired from guns.

ganteka wrote:yes

Read the Debate forum rules.

Or, rather, that babies are fired from guns.

yeah, ganteka. higher standard. conform to it.

I Have a weird set of belief's. I believe the bible was a past day Aesop's Fables blown out of proportion. people didn't follow the fables so they added a god figure to add to the fear, but made him omnicent. I believe in a god, yes, but also evolution. I think adam and eve was a lesson against going against general good will. The Bible was written for moral, not as a life guide as all New born christians such as my aunt seem. And if you're not a new born and you die, you're not going to hell. What i hate about Live by the bible Christians [LbtB™] is that they take all their fears from the bible, one being gays. Back in 0 (wayy back when the Lordy Christ was birthed in a manger next to a real live ass), gay was not okay, but now it is. Including blacks, sex before marriage, and all that good stuff you LbtB™'s go to church to reconcile. So by me, Gay is okay.
Just don't hit on me.

i think its the homophobes who usually end up being the gays.

im not fond at all...but eh their just human.... and dont hit on me either.

This is REAL gaydar. The red areas, are curiously all suburban areas. and denver. I hope. I actually don't know what state it's in. but they got a lot of gays.
And The weatherman's doppler-penis is pointing at the real root of all Gaydom™ - the root of Amish, Mormons, Quakers and all other non-Roman Catholic religions- Philadelphia. Ick.

yungerkid wrote:

Or, rather, that babies are fired from guns.

yeah, ganteka. higher standard. conform to it.

Thanks for providing laughs in the midst of this high-level toaster-talk. Also you, Martyr.

debate is where you come for laughs, everywhere else leaves me stale.
i've never really understood the fear of being hit on by a gay man amongst straight men. is it based on insecurity or aggression?
that and it wont happen anyway, unless you seem like that type of person to a stranger with the courage to hit on a random, who happens to be gay and find you atractive. bit of a long shot. Oo"

also flag, i dont think anyone has come out yet, no, but a few people have admitted to liking boys and/or girls. and dave has admitted to being a dude-kisser.

gays?

nothing wrong with gays.
except for when normal people pretend they're gay (or bi) so they can look cool, which is the case of a few people in my school, and surrounding neighbourhood. they strut around, talking about how they kissed some guy the other night at a party, then everyone else just throws abuse at them and they go off to sulk or clean up their fringe. and yet they still keep on doing it, hoping that someone will take pity on them or something. i reckon its insulting.


it doesn't help that half of them are emos as well.