[THREAD SPLIT] - LQTBQ/Homosexuality/Etc

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 7, 2021

*SD* said:
If AI were not an option, a homosexual male, for example, still has the option and capability of having aforementioned 'traditional' sex with a female in order to reproduce.

This is a naturalist argument normality of society denotes how that society exists naturally right? AI wouldn't be an option as it is NOT standard.

*SD* said:
Not to mention that, as you correctly observe, most people aren't homosexual so reproduction isn't an issue in the first place. But should everyone suddenly become gay overnight, for some unknown reason, the above options still stand so I don't think we need to do much panicking about the human species dying out because of rampant homosexuality just yet

The argument does depend on the implication of how normal society would be with an overwhelmingly majority aka the 94.4% of population being lgbtq whatever. You don't base what is normal of a 5.6% statistic do you?

So assuming a 94.4% population that is gay the society would die out if not for artificial insemination. You wouldn't have enough normal people to outpace death rate.

Conversely when I consider if the tables were turned and as a hypothetical in order to reproduce the human race had to be same sex reproducing I wouldn't participate in that even if it meant humans not existing.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 7, 2021

he_who_is_nobody said:
So, in other words, just your opinion.

So difficult to google search such an available statistic. <eyeroll>

he_who_is_nobody · Oct 7, 2021

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Conversely when I consider if the tables were turned and as a hypothetical in order to reproduce the human race had to be same sex reproducing I wouldn't participate in that even if it meant humans not existing.

Good to know that you are so homophobic that in a hypothetical like this you would rather doom the human race then sacrifice your masculinity. Hilarious!

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
So difficult to google search such an available statistic. <eyeroll>

View attachment 584

Yet that statistic does little to support your claim, now does it? Remember, you claimed:

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
the normal function of human society relies on a binary sex nature in order to be in working order.

Which I asked you for a citation for that claim and you spouted your opinion. I pointed out that you did nothing but spout an opinion and your response is to provide a citations for a small part of your opinion.

Now, care to try again? Perhaps this time provide a citation(s) to support your whole claim. You demonstrated that homosexuality makes up a small percentage of our society now link that to the claim you originally made.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 8, 2021

he_who_is_nobody said:
Which I asked you for a citation for that claim and you spouted your opinion. I pointed out that you did nothing but spout an opinion and your response is to provide a citations for a small part of your opinion.

Again we have to define what is normal or typical. Typically the human race consists of HETEROSEXUALS that reproduce for the species. What is normal for human society is a overwhelming majority of heterosexuals in order to support the population. 5.4% of the population being the literal opposite of this is not standard is not typical that is in fact ATYPICAL.

he_who_is_nobody said:
Now, care to try again? Perhaps this time provide a citation(s) to support your whole claim. You demonstrated that homosexuality makes up a small percentage of our society now link that to the claim you originally made.

I already did the claim is that society of humans is typically made up of heterosexuals 5.4% if NOT typical therefore not normal by definition. The better than 90% statistic being the normies is in fact being normal which is the claim.

he_who_is_nobody · Oct 8, 2021

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Again we have to define what is normal or typical.

No. You would have to define a normal human society. We can both agree that things like green eyes or red hair are atypical, yet we agree that those do not affect a normal society. Thus, something simply being a minority does not support your claim.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Typically the human race consists of HETEROSEXUALS that reproduce for the species. What is normal for human society is a overwhelming majority of heterosexuals in order to support the population. 5.4% of the population being the literal opposite of this is not standard is not typical that is in fact ATYPICAL.

It appears that you are trying to equate reproduction to normal human society. If that is the case, I'm afraid I flatly have to disagree with your definition (it is far too narrow). Beyond that, *SD* and ldmitruk pointed out that homosexuals can reproduce, making your point moot.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
I already did

No, you did not, and if you think you did, then that says more about your biases of this topic than it does about anything else.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
the claim is that society of humans is typically made up of heterosexuals 5.4% if NOT typical therefore not normal by definition. The better than 90% statistic being the normies is in fact being normal which is the claim.

That was not the claim. Again you claimed:

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
the normal function of human society relies on a binary sex nature in order to be in working order.

You realize this is a written forum, and I can always go back and quote what you said; thus, changing it in the middle of a written forum is pointless. It is also funny how you keep trying to change your claim to something more defendable as if you know on some level that this claim is incorrect. You know you can also admit that you made a mistake. That is an option.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 9, 2021

he_who_is_nobody said:
No. You would have to define a normal human society. We can both agree that things like green eyes or red hair are atypical, yet we agree that those do not affect a normal society. Thus, something simply being a minority does not support your claim.

What your eyes appear to look like is not the same as what functionally a species reproduces or lacks reproduction given their personal interests. Those two things are not even close - false equivalency. One is ENTIRELY looks the other is ENTIRELY functional.

Ok so would there be more LGBTQ people that kill themselves or less comparatively against normies relative to their population? Would very high suicide figures be fitting for Atypical or not normal or normal human society? Would a good society consist of people wanting to not continue their existence?

he_who_is_nobody said:
It appears that you are trying to equate reproduction to normal human society. If that is the case, I'm afraid I flatly have to disagree with your definition (it is far too narrow). Beyond that, *SD* and ldmitruk pointed out that homosexuals can reproduce, making your point moot.

Homosexuals can yes but they would have to essentially violate what their nature is which is something not going to be commonly done - no different than heterosexuals as a hypothetical being put into the position of copulating with same sex in order to reproduce. Now if you are talking about bisexuals then yes that I think would be likely homosexuals not.

he_who_is_nobody said:
No, you did not, and if you think you did, then that says more about your biases of this topic than it does about anything else.

Yes I did. The majority of people are heterosexual for whatever reason if you believe they choose to or they act as shaped through environment etc. The argument is the same still overwhelmingly heteros more so than homos this is the norm not the other way round.

he_who_is_nobody said:
That was not the claim. Again you claimed:

"the claim is that society of humans is typically made up of heterosexuals 5.4% if NOT typical therefore not normal by definition. The better than 90% statistic being the normies is in fact being normal which is the claim."

Yes by literal definition the minority of something would be Atypical or NOT typical meaning not normal.

Is it typical and/or expected to assume Heterosexuality or Homosexuality given ANY large collection of people on the planet? Of course it is. It is by definition normal.

he_who_is_nobody said:
You realize this is a written forum, and I can always go back and quote what you said; thus, changing it in the middle of a written forum is pointless. It is also funny how you keep trying to change your claim to something more defendable as if you know on some level that this claim is incorrect. You know you can also admit that you made a mistake. That is an option.

By literal definition I already have proven normies aka heterosexuals are the norm. If you have a problem with literal definition for what is normal then I can't help you and arguing further is pointless.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 9, 2021

Led Zeppelin said:
I think it does.

They have ultra privilege ironically when they point out how whites have such privilege.

Led Zeppelin · Oct 9, 2021

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
By literal definition I already have proven normies aka heterosexuals are the norm. If you have a problem with literal definition for what is normal then I can't help you and arguing further is pointless.

What's the point in you being such a square, when you obviously have no endgame?

Led Zeppelin · Oct 9, 2021

Heterosexuals arent exactly the perfect examples of sexual normalness you need them to be for any of your points to make sense.

mechtheist · Oct 10, 2021

Wow, I'm kinda surprised to see such troglodyte attitudes here. Calling gays mentally ill sounds awfully christian to me, and far from what psychology has to say about it since the 50's or maybe 60's, I forget. And elite? Are you kidding me? Where do I go so I can be an elite? If I get swishy enough, can I go to the front of the line?

And the idea that 'normal' or 'typical' somehow defines what's good or right is asinine. Is it entirely the local culture that defines norms? It wasn't too long ago that marrying outside your race was illegal and often deadly, was that good and right because that was the typical attitude? Even the concept of 'mentally ill' is fraught with problems as the fights over the DSM 5 exposed all too clearly.

The 70's weren't all that great, the Viet Nam war was still going on at the beginning with Nixon as president. Pot sucked and could get you thrown in prison for a long time, coke was much harder to get and more expensive, but Quaaludes were around. As was mentioned, no mobiles or PCs, VCRs barely started and VHS quality, yuck. TV and even radio mostly ended at midnight. The tech advances we have today and the overall much more open and tolerant environment make me not want to go back to earlier times. Are there any woman here, have y'all seen Mad Men? The attitudes towards sex would horrify most younger folks these days. Abortions. Even medical advances are substantial. I think most who yearn for those golden yesteryears would quickly tire of it if they went back and would eagerly leap back to today. Well, I'm going to go stream a random movie or old TV show on my big screen TV with my quite good surround sound system that didn't require Bezos money to afford or maybe video chat with someone in a different country for free and order a bunch of goodies online that will get delivered tomorrow while not once until now thinking about church on a sunday and not have the whole town think I'm a deviant evil person who should be ridden out of town.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 11, 2021

Led Zeppelin said:
Heterosexuals arent exactly the perfect examples of sexual normalness you need them to be for any of your points to make sense.

No literally by definition they are not normal.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 11, 2021

mechtheist said:
Wow, I'm kinda surprised to see such troglodyte attitudes here. Calling gays mentally ill sounds awfully christian to me, and far from what psychology has to say about it since the 50's or maybe 60's, I forget. And elite? Are you kidding me? Where do I go so I can be an elite? If I get swishy enough, can I go to the front of the line?

Is it elite to call people mentally ill when they have higher rates of suicidality relative to their population? I suppose it makes you very sane to kill yourself eh?

mechtheist said:
And the idea that 'normal' or 'typical' somehow defines what's good or right is asinine. Is it entirely the local culture that defines norms? It wasn't too long ago that marrying outside your race was illegal and often deadly, was that good and right because that was the typical attitude? Even the concept of 'mentally ill' is fraught with problems as the fights over the DSM 5 exposed all too clearly.

Someone argued that being gay was normal and I specifically responded to that nothing more. By definition they are not normal by definition they are deviant.

mechtheist said:
The 70's weren't all that great, the Viet Nam war was still going on at the beginning with Nixon as president. Pot sucked and could get you thrown in prison for a long time, coke was much harder to get and more expensive, but Quaaludes were around. As was mentioned, no mobiles or PCs, VCRs barely started and VHS quality, yuck. TV and even radio mostly ended at midnight. The tech advances we have today and the overall much more open and tolerant environment make me not want to go back to earlier times. Are there any woman here, have y'all seen Mad Men? The attitudes towards sex would horrify most younger folks these days. Abortions. Even medical advances are substantial. I think most who yearn for those golden yesteryears would quickly tire of it if they went back and would eagerly leap back to today. Well, I'm going to go stream a random movie or old TV show on my big screen TV with my quite good surround sound system that didn't require Bezos money to afford or maybe video chat with someone in a different country for free and order a bunch of goodies online that will get delivered tomorrow while not once until now thinking about church on a sunday and not have the whole town think I'm a deviant evil person who should be ridden out of town.

I would be able to be more of an outdoorsman as that type of lifestyle was infinitely more supported. Now people waste their lives on technology and not actually being with other people recreationally. If it was the 70s I would be in far better shape and friends sharing your interests would be more commonplace going outside and doing interesting things out there instead of just wandering forums looking for conversation and mostly getting half hearted or half assed conversation that commonly miss the point.

Led Zeppelin · Oct 11, 2021

mechtheist said:
And elite? Are you kidding me?

No.

he_who_is_nobody · Oct 11, 2021

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
What your eyes appear to look like is not the same as what functionally a species reproduces or lacks reproduction given their personal interests. Those two things are not even close - false equivalency. One is ENTIRELY looks the other is ENTIRELY functional.

Yet homosexuals can still reproduce. You have already been corrected on this point multiple times, so why you keep repeating it is beyond me. Thus, this is not a false equivalency, and you are just wrong.

Beyond this, you again failed to define what a normal human society would be beyond implying it is solely reproduction. I already rejected that for being far too narrow and also not applying to homosexuals anyways.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Ok so would there be more LGBTQ people that kill themselves or less comparatively against normies relative to their population? Would very high suicide figures be fitting for Atypical or not normal or normal human society? Would a good society consist of people wanting to not continue their existence?

Are you going to ignore why they have higher suicide rates and pretend it has something to do with their nature? The funny thing is, you have identified something (suicide) that I would agree is harmful to normal human society. Yet, since you refuse to define it for us, we cannot move forward on that topic.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Homosexuals can yes but they would have to essentially violate what their nature is which is something not going to be commonly done - no different than heterosexuals as a hypothetical being put into the position of copulating with same sex in order to reproduce. Now if you are talking about bisexuals then yes that I think would be likely homosexuals not.

Amazing how you are just basing your opinion on different opinions you hold. Also funny how you claimed above that homosexuality was functionally distinct from heterosexuality, yet here you are admitting that they can reproduce. You cannot keep your argument internally consistent. That should tell you something about your position, but I bet you will ignore it. Would you please provide a citation that homosexuals would refuse to procreate if given a chance? Otherwise, you have nothing but an empty bag. At this point, it appears to be just turtles the whole way down.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Yes I did. The majority of people are heterosexual for whatever reason if you believe they choose to or they act as shaped through environment etc. The argument is the same still overwhelmingly heteros more so than homos this is the norm not the other way round.

And yet, that has nothing to do with me asking you for a citation for your claim, again, thinking you have only demonstrated your bias of this topic. We already both agree that homosexuality is a minority, thus this looks like nothing more than motte-and-bailey from you. Sad. Remember, you are supposed to be showing that this minority somehow affects a normal human society. It would help if you defined normal human society next time.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
he_who_is_nobody said:

That was not the claim. Again you claimed:

Click to expand...

"the claim is that society of humans is typically made up of heterosexuals 5.4% if NOT typical therefore not normal by definition. The better than 90% statistic being the normies is in fact being normal which is the claim."

Yes by literal definition the minority of something would be Atypical or NOT typical meaning not normal.

Wow! How dishonest can someone get? If we needed any more evidence that you cannot defend your original claim, you cut it out of my post and replace it with your new claim again. Why do you keep doing this on a written forum, wherein everyone can see just how dishonest your actions with one click. So again, stop with the motte-and-bailey and start dealing with your actual claim. Of course, you can also always admit that you cannot defend that claim (as your actions keep demonstrating), and we can move on.

For the record, here it is again:

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
the normal function of human society relies on a binary sex nature in order to be in working order.

One wonders if you will dishonestly remove it again when you respond.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Is it typical and/or expected to assume Heterosexuality or Homosexuality given ANY large collection of people on the planet? Of course it is. It is by definition normal.

Yet no one was arguing otherwise. So please stop with the motte-and-bailey and start dealing with the actual task at hand.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
By literal definition I already have proven normies aka heterosexuals are the norm. If you have a problem with literal definition for what is normal then I can't help you and arguing further is pointless.

Yet no one was arguing otherwise. So please stop with the motte-and-bailey and start dealing with the actual task at hand.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Someone argued that being gay was normal and I specifically responded to that nothing more. By definition they are not normal by definition they are deviant.

No one argued that. Stop lying. I asked you to cite a source for your claim, which you have entirely failed to support, having failed so completely on it that you have twice tried to change your original claim in our exchange thus far.

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
I would be able to be more of an outdoorsman as that type of lifestyle was infinitely more supported.

I have not had that problem at all. My dad always comments on how much easier it is for camping/hiking/hunting now. That is due primarily to the tech being immensely better than anytime before.

mechtheist · Oct 11, 2021

BoganUSAFFLClerk said:
Is it elite to call people mentally ill when they have higher rates of suicidality relative to their population? I suppose it makes you very sane to kill yourself eh?

Someone argued that being gay was normal and I specifically responded to that nothing more. By definition they are not normal by definition they are deviant.

I would be able to be more of an outdoorsman as that type of lifestyle was infinitely more supported. Now people waste their lives on technology and not actually being with other people recreationally. If it was the 70s I would be in far better shape and friends sharing your interests would be more commonplace going outside and doing interesting things out there instead of just wandering forums looking for conversation and mostly getting half hearted or half assed conversation that commonly miss the point.

The suicide rate has already been explained. Most any group that is generally ostracized by the society they live in is going to be a substantially higher risk of suicide. I have no idea what that bit about elite is about.

You're playing with words, or being disingenuous, Einstein was abnormal, so was Newton and Jim Thorpe. How big a sigma is it OK to be within before you're looked down on for being abnormal? Homosexual behaviour has been reported in most mammal species, it's a universal cultural constant in humans, that makes it pretty normal by a lot of definitions of the word. As for 'deviant', it's the same. You know, recently a black school principal had his job not renewed because he dared to post on FB a picture of him kissing his white wife, that was just too deviant for the school.

As to past outdoor living, ??? I'm old, I realize kids today spend an awful lot of time inside online, don't know what to say about that and your inability to find enough folks of like mind to be friends with. I will say that finding folks on forums to talk to is a huge benefit in many ways. I've felt so incredibly lucky to talk with folks of other countries that just wasn't possible before the internet, though I often get POed that some of these motherfuckers with English as a 2nd or 3rd language can speak it better than I can.

Led Zeppelin · Oct 11, 2021

mechtheist said:
The suicide rate has already been explained. Most any group that is generally ostracized by the society they live in is going to be a substantially higher risk of suicide.

Homosexuals are the most celebrated group of people in western society, with transexuals probably in a close second place.

mechtheist · Oct 11, 2021

Led Zeppelin said:
No.

I really don't know what to say to this. It's beyond ludicrous. You seem upset that they have gay pride parades, parades for "men because they like to suck dicks and fuck each other in ass.". This is quite revealing and exposes you have no concept of what's going on. For one thing, you think lesbians are excluded from Pride Parades? And the BQT's? Another thing, and it relates to you thinking gay's elite status is "Just because of their sexual behavior."--NO. It's not about behavior FFS, that's what christians are always using as justifications for their BS. It's about who you are at a pretty fundamental level and how society has shit on us for a very long time. And, most of the vehement antigay crap out there is religion-based. I don't know of any organized anti-homosexual activities that aren't religion-based. Pretty much all violent attacks on gays has come from folks steeped in Christian or Muslim religions. I don't know of any secular arguments against homosexuality that wouldn't necessarily apply to anyone who chooses to not have kids.

You also said "They demand political representation and they get that in spades." The demand bit is right, what's wrong with that? Do you also object to all those pesky dark-sinned folks demanding the same thing? But getting it in spades? Again, are you kidding me? Lawrence v Texas was only in 2003, there are still a shit load of laws making it illegal to be gay, they just can't be enforced. Do you know that anti-sodomy laws in some states made blow jobs illegal? Giving head was considered deviant by many. There's a good chance SCOTUS will weaken marriage equality, possibly to the point of it effectively disappearing. One of the two political parties here in the US is STILL vehemently homophobic. So, no, we got a long way to go before pride parades and civil rights efforts can fade away.

You said you've only seen 3 gay people in your whole life in the US. Did you move elsewhere at a young age? If not, then you have seen a LOT more than 3, they just weren't out. I really don't get where you're coming from. A lot of your posts seem quite tolerant and accepting while others seem rather hateful and intolerant. You qualified your statement about seeing only 3 with 'outside of my family', that kinda hints at something.

mechtheist · Oct 11, 2021

Led Zeppelin said:
Homosexuals are the most celebrated group of people in western society, with transexuals probably in a close second place.

Holy shit, you sound like you're as delusional as a Trumpster.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 12, 2021

he_who_is_nobody said:
Yet homosexuals can still reproduce. You have already been corrected on this point multiple times, so why you keep repeating it is beyond me. Thus, this is not a false equivalency, and you are just wrong.

What eyes look like has NOTHING to do with functionality of reproduction. None absolutely nothing. Therefore irrelevant.

he_who_is_nobody said:
Beyond this, you again failed to define what a normal human society would be beyond implying it is solely reproduction. I already rejected that for being far too narrow and also not applying to homosexuals anyways.

Throughout history what do you think humans did? They had sexual intercourse to reproduce. Did a bunch of homosexuals bring up society? No they didn't because you literally couldn't reproduce if you entirely functioned on being a homosexual. I would have to argue if you claim to be a homosexual then you will remain a homosexual as an overwhelming majority as mental reactions to something you are not wired for would mostly prohibit it and I would suspect they are actually in fact bisexual. The whole thing with LGBTQ is that these people are often very ambiguous and the majority of polled persons depending demographics claim bisexuality and not purely homosexuality.

he_who_is_nobody said:
Are you going to ignore why they have higher suicide rates and pretend it has something to do with their nature? The funny thing is, you have identified something (suicide) that I would agree is harmful to normal human society. Yet, since you refuse to define it for us, we cannot move forward on that topic.

I have to define gays killing themselves in order to move forward are you serious?

he_who_is_nobody said:
Amazing how you are just basing your opinion on different opinions you hold. Also funny how you claimed above that homosexuality was functionally distinct from heterosexuality, yet here you are admitting that they can reproduce. You cannot keep your argument internally consistent. That should tell you something about your position, but I bet you will ignore it. Would you please provide a citation that homosexuals would refuse to procreate if given a chance? Otherwise, you have nothing but an empty bag. At this point, it appears to be just turtles the whole way down.

Just because one CAN reproduce does NOT mean they will CHOOSE to reproduce. Just because you are capable of something doesn't mean you are likely of doing said something. Your premise is faulty.

Homosexuals would overwhelmingly choose to be homosexual as they already have chosen to be homosexual. I can't believe I have to outline this.

he_who_is_nobody said:
And yet, that has nothing to do with me asking you for a citation for your claim, again, thinking you have only demonstrated your bias of this topic. We already both agree that homosexuality is a minority, thus this looks like nothing more than motte-and-bailey from you. Sad. Remember, you are supposed to be showing that this minority somehow affects a normal human society. It would help if you defined normal human society next time.

Suicide is harmful correct? LGBTQ has among the largest suicide rate per their population than any other demographic I have seen. If something is harmful and as such to this degree then something so overwhelmingly negative or harmful is normal or abnormal would you think? Tick Tock Tick Tock.

he_who_is_nobody said:
Wow! How dishonest can someone get? If we needed any more evidence that you cannot defend your original claim, you cut it out of my post and replace it with your new claim again. Why do you keep doing this on a written forum, wherein everyone can see just how dishonest your actions with one click. So again, stop with the motte-and-bailey and start dealing with your actual claim. Of course, you can also always admit that you cannot defend that claim (as your actions keep demonstrating), and we can move on.

You have already admitted that homos are abnormal. If something is abnormal then obviously it is NOT normal correct? Something abnormal is not part of normal by definition. You cannot have something be normal by incorporating abnormal items would you?

So a normal courtyard for example wouldn't have something as ABNORMAL as a binary pulsar in it would it? How about something else that is strange such as a courtyard equipped with something by definition ABNORMAL? What if the courtyard was made of cheese? Would it be normal then because it incorporated the cheese into its make up as you suggest?

he_who_is_nobody said:
No one argued that. Stop lying. I asked you to cite a source for your claim, which you have entirely failed to support, having failed so completely on it that you have twice tried to change your original claim in our exchange thus far.

Via implication of suggesting gays in society can make said society normal or that society doesn't become deviant due to homosexuality they do set those implications.

he_who_is_nobody said:
I have not had that problem at all. My dad always comments on how much easier it is for camping/hiking/hunting now. That is due primarily to the tech being immensely better than anytime before.

I find it immensely more difficult. More and more people are out of shape and lazy. As a result all they want to do is watch something on T.V. on go on the internet. I have been ditched frequently when wanting to go outside for long term by people implicating themselves to be outdoorsman or have an interest with hiking and/or camping. In the 70s no such barriers existed. The scope and severity of people becoming unfit and/or lazy due to technology doesn't hold a candle to what it is today.

BoganUSAFFLClerk · Oct 12, 2021

mechtheist said:
You're playing with words, or being disingenuous, Einstein was abnormal, so was Newton and Jim Thorpe. How big a sigma is it OK to be within before you're looked down on for being abnormal? Homosexual behaviour has been reported in most mammal species, it's a universal cultural constant in humans, that makes it pretty normal by a lot of definitions of the word. As for 'deviant', it's the same. You know, recently a black school principal had his job not renewed because he dared to post on FB a picture of him kissing his white wife, that was just too deviant for the school.

And you don't suppose a GENERAL argument doesn't rely on GENERALITIES? I can think of more negative things that result from abnormalities than I can from normalcies.

If you want to narrow the argument go ahead but mine has been pretty vague.

Generally something that is out of the ordinary is not beneficial although not necessarily.

I think other people are failing to see this as well.

[THREAD SPLIT] - LQTBQ/Homosexuality/Etc

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Member

Active Member

Active Member