Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only one.

[Heisenberg]

Racism and homophobia are forms of bigotry so closely related, yet produce a very contradictory position on marriage. Bigots say, it isn't right to allow bi-racial couples to marry. We should outlaw it and only allow them to marry each other. When it comes to gay people the opinion is opposite, it's not right for them to get married. We should outlaw gay marriage and make them marry us...

 

[sso]

homo means human

homo sapiens means, intelligent man. (or something like that, i just remembered the translation from latin in my language)

hominid means something like "humanish" (that monkey kinda looks like a small hairy man mommy!"


i think we are actually homo sapiens sapiens now, to distinguish between us and cromagnon man, or something same that..
so, intelligent intelligent man lol,, guess scientists arent big on names.
dont think there ever was just a plain homo, guess people had some insecurities when they decided to call themselves (us) intelligent.

but anyway, funnily, every time someone calls someone a homo, they are, actually , just calling them a human

 

[sso]

so homo sexual is really a bit of a misnomer (human sexual)

probably came from thinking homo = man, so homo sexual = man sexual (men that want to have sex with men)

kinda sexist and stupid but hey

a human is what a human does.

 

[cannabineer]

It's an unfortunate consequence of mixing Greek with Latin roots. "homo-" in Greek means "same". Hetero- means "other, cognate" and allo- means "other, not cognate". So if my date says "Ba-a-a" I'm allosexual. cn

 

[Beefbisquit]

You're forgetting species that form life long bonds. Also, you didn't address the habit of bonobos and chimps using sex in social bonding. Heterosexual and homosexual alike.

You don't have to go outside of our own species to see societies that accepted, and even admired homosexuality and homosexual acts. The only reason people see homosexuality as a stigma now is because of the Abrahamic religions being the dominant religions in the world, and they expressly condemn it.

There were native American tribes that fully accepted homosexual behaviour, and assigned the gay men "women like" responsibilities. Often they were a leader among the women, and often took a husband of their own. Fully accepted, fully integrated and useful.

There are other tribal societies that taught boys they needed to "receive strength" by ingesting the semen of the most powerful warriors in the tribe.... and the boys jumped at the opportunity... lol

Just sayin', if anyone wasn't explicitly taught that being gay was wrong, then no one would think it was wrong.... and people ceasing to believe it's wrong isn't magically going to make anyone turn gay. It's like the odd adage about drug legalization;

If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, how many people would go on a crystal meth bender until they died? I'm guessing if you weren't inclined to do it already, you wouldn't go out of your way to try it.

 

[Corso312]

i don't have a problem with gays marrying.. i do think two guys is nasty and gross though

 

[Red1966]

Why do they call it HomoPHOBIA. It's not a fear is it? The word is too broad

The words original definition was a fear that oneself might be a homosexual. It had nothing to do with hating gays. But the word has been co-opted to mean something else than it's original intent.

 

[Carne Seca]

i don't have a problem with gays marrying.. i do think two guys is nasty and gross though

And you seem quite intent throughout this thread in letting us know how much you find it sickening, disgusting, gross, etc., etc., blah blah blah. To borrow from Shakespeare.

"She doth protest too much, me thinks."

 

[Bobby2times]

To each their own..But on to a more important conversation who do you guys think will win the superbowl?

 

[Carne Seca]

To each their own..But on to a more important conversation who do you guys think will win the superbowl?

The drunkest fan there?

 

[Red1966]

You don't have to go outside of our own species to see societies that accepted, and even admired homosexuality and homosexual acts. The only reason people see homosexuality as a stigma now is because of the Abrahamic religions being the dominant religions in the world, and they expressly condemn it.

There were native American tribes that fully accepted homosexual behaviour, and assigned the gay men "women like" responsibilities. Often they were a leader among the women, and often took a husband of their own. Fully accepted, fully integrated and useful.

There are other tribal societies that taught boys they needed to "receive strength" by ingesting the semen of the most powerful warriors in the tribe.... and the boys jumped at the opportunity... lol

Just sayin', if anyone wasn't explicitly taught that being gay was wrong, then no one would think it was wrong.... and people ceasing to believe it's wrong isn't magically going to make anyone turn gay. It's like the odd adage about drug legalization;

If all drugs were legalized tomorrow, how many people would go on a crystal meth bender until they died? I'm guessing if you weren't inclined to do it already, you wouldn't go out of your way to try it.

I have to comment on the drug legalization statement. After Prohibition (alcohol) ended, the consumption of alcohol increased, as did the incidence of alcoholism. However, Prohibition gave rise to organized crime like nothing before ever had. That is why Prohibition was ended. The banning of drugs has caused much worse consequences than the drug use itself ever did. The horrific crimes we hear about happening on a daily basis in Mexico and other places are a good example. Thousands of lives are ruined by lengthy prison terms for simple possession of minor amounts of illegal drugs. So, if drugs were legalized, and more easily obtained, perhaps a few would overdo it, but not many. But those are trivial compared to the carnage caused by the banning of drugs. Prohibition of alcohol and drugs causes MUCH worse problems than the alcohol and drugs do.

 

[Red1966]

Does anyone disagree? Not at RUI!

 

[mindphuk]

I have to comment on the drug legalization statement. After Prohibition (alcohol) ended, the consumption of alcohol increased, as did the incidence of alcoholism. However, Prohibition gave rise to organized crime like nothing before ever had. That is why Prohibition was ended. The banning of drugs has caused much worse consequences than the drug use itself ever did. The horrific crimes we hear about happening on a daily basis in Mexico and other places are a good example. Thousands of lives are ruined by lengthy prison terms for simple possession of minor amounts of illegal drugs. So, if drugs were legalized, and more easily obtained, perhaps a few would overdo it, but not many. But those are trivial compared to the carnage caused by the banning of drugs. Prohibition of alcohol and drugs causes MUCH worse problems than the alcohol and drugs do.

Not to assume what another poster thinks, I would say that beefy's analogy using the meth example doesn't preclude him from agreeing with everything you just said.

 

[Red1966]

Point accepted.

 

[Hepheastus420]

So homosexuality is accepted by some, hated by some, natural,and as pointless as a hug.

 

[Beefbisquit]

So homosexuality is accepted by some, hated by some, natural,and as pointless as a hug.

Pointless to those not seeking love and companionship from someone they're attracted to.... Or, if you look at all relationships as a means to procreation, then I guess it would be pointless, but by that definition, any straight couple that chose not to have kids is in a pointless relationship as well because just being in a relationship for love and companionship isn't a reason worth labelling them as anything BUT pointless....

 

[olylifter420]

im pretty sure some dudes have babies,

[video=youtube;rIrwW8lupBs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIrwW8lupBs[/video]

Isn't male on male stuff unnatural anyways? I mean the point of our reproductive organs is to have babies. Obviously male on male sexual relations will not produce a baby, so IMO it is far from natural.


Well maybe it's natural but not helpful at all.

 

[Hepheastus420]

Pointless to those not seeking love and companionship from someone they're attracted to.... Or, if you look at all relationships as a means to procreation, then I guess it would be pointless, but by that definition, any straight couple that chose not to have kids is in a pointless relationship as well because just being in a relationship for love and companionship isn't a reason worth labelling them as anything BUT pointless....

I said as pointless as a hug, I didn't say homosexuality has no point at all. I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.

Hey have you updated your journal?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I said as pointless as a hug, I didn't say homosexuality has no point at all. I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.

Hey have you updated your journal?

I have updated

You just proved my point. lol

I'm saying a hug shows affection, homosexuality shows affection, and neither have any point other than that.

Do they need more than one point to be classified as something other than pointless? It would seem to me that only having one point should still exempt them?



The link to my journal is in my sig... lots of new pics!

 

[grizlbr]

Wipe female hormones on an object and males go at the hormones together is not homo. Who evers sperm wins reproduces that was the point. Only people think homo. A male frog sits on females back, another male on top is just hoping his seed wins. The drive to reproduce just that except racoons have a bone in their boner.