B&D's type blog

[UDP]

JuJu, for what it's worth man, I'm all for it. I thought it was exceedingly fucked up when your friend told you to "lose his number". Like honestly... what's the damn problem?!?

I really don't see it as any form of perversion, I really don't see who they're hurting...

Yeah.........

I wrote a +1000 word post, but I figure I'll wait a bit more.
My current stance on gay rights or anything else is what I said to B&D when we talked before: I compare it to how I feel about women.

• I don't want to marry a woman because it's what God said. I really don't. It actually has nothing to do with any religion. It is because that is the kind of relationship I like.
• I am not attracted to women because I read the bible and it said that it was right to be attracted to a woman. I think they are hot, beautiful, amazing, adorable, and lovely. My urge to be with them is completely beyond my control. I want to have sex with one and be with one and take care of one and live with one. And if I felt that way about men for some reason, I'd sure as hell not want anyone telling me that's wrong. I don't think it's anyone's business what I find attractive or what I like, or who I like. I've gotten grief because I said a girl from another culture was attractive once, and that pissed me off. My likings are my likings and no one has any say but me. And if God has beef with them, I'll talk to him about it - fuck anyone else.

That's about it basically. I just can't imagine someone telling me that how I feel about women is wrong. So in that way, if I was naturally attracted to men and it's not something I can control, I can't imagine what it's like to be told that who you inherently are is wrong.

Alternately, what if someone came up and started telling me that I was wrong because I like women, and I should start being with men. I'd say fuck you to that, as well. I don't want anyone telling me what is right or wrong about my own personal preferences.

Especially in a situation like this, where being gay isn't really directly affecting anyone else - what does it matter? You going to to bitch someone out because they like white wine instead of red wine? Get real.



As for gay marriage being an issue, I don't really care. If gay people desire to get married, then so be it. Why should I have any say in it at all? Because of my personal beliefs?

[Gilly]

As for gay marriage being an issue, I don't really care. If gay people desire to get married, then so be it. Why should I have any say in it at all? Because of my personal beliefs?

Hoo-fucking-ray. Perhaps one of the most beautifully simple, elegant, intelligent utterances ever to appear on this forum.

[Lotus]

Kam have you ever talked with a gay person?

I actually have in real life. More like a couple. They're nice, but I don't condone their behavior.

A man is capable of knowing he loves a woman and he is just as capable of deciding he loves a man. What behavior do you not approve of? The affection between two people capable of loving each other?

And also, why do you think your personal opinion on it even matters? It's not your right to decide that someone else's rights should be limited.

[Mediator Kam]

Kamangir, do you have a problem with blood transfusions?

Because of hemophilia and AIDS in the blood back in the 80's? I don't really understand the question. I am also not amish or christian scientist, so I wouldn't have any problem with that.

[Gilly]

I wish Kamangir had big enough balls to answer my very simple question. You will all have to wait with baited breath for me to get back from dinner to spit a little truth on this intolerant rat.

[UDP]

I actually have in real life. More like a couple. They're nice, but I don't condone their behavior.

Great. You've expressed your personal discontent. You are entitled to your personal discontent. And a gay person can disregard you, just as well, and go along with their own personal inclinations.

What more is there to say?

[Socionics Is A Cult]

Because of hemophilia and AIDS in the blood back in the 80's? I don't really understand the question. I am also not amish or christian scientist, so I wouldn't have any problem with that.

Well, as you are aware, people have different blood types, and the early days of blood transfusions, people died by being given the wrong type blood.

But blood transfusions are a Good Thing - it's just they didn't know about blood in great detail in those days. Nowadays, with precautions, people can be given blood which matches their blood type.

So if a homosexual person dies from AIDS, this does not mean that homosexual practices are wrong.

[jessica129]

HI GUYS I'M A LEZBIAN!

[UDP]

That Iam Malcome guys says you're Bi.

[Mediator Kam]

I wish Kamangir had big enough balls to answer my very simple question. You will all have to wait with baited breath for me to get back from dinner to spit a little truth on this intolerant rat.

I never saw a question from you. I wait with baited breath.

[Mediator Kam]

I wish Kamangir had big enough balls to answer my very simple question. You will all have to wait with baited breath for me to get back from dinner to spit a little truth on this intolerant rat.

I never saw a question from you. I wait with baited breath.

So if a homosexual person dies from AIDS, this does not mean that homosexual practices are wrong.

I never implied this? AIDS is bad(obviously), and AIDS was first found in LA with gay man, so that is the link I am simply stating, no more.

[xyz]

HI GUYS I'M A LEZBIAN!

Prove it.

[jessica129]

That Iam Malcome guys says you're Bi.

Who?

[UDP]

When you're wicked hot I think everyone wants some from you. At least that's been my experience.

[Mediator Kam]

A man is capable of knowing he loves a woman and he is just as capable of deciding he loves a man. What behavior do you not approve of? The affection between two people capable of loving each other?

Very moral post coming.

Two men or two women can love each other, yes. Love is good. The bible even claims God is love, so why can't people love anyone, pansexually?

My problem is not with the love, it is with the result of the love, which in my opinion is harmful to family bonds. I don't believe two men can take the role of a motherly figure, nor can two women take the place of a father figure, no matter how hard they try.

[Mediator Kam]

This is a silly argument against gay marriage. Whatever sexual acts people do behind closed doors should be their own business, no matter what their sexual orientation is. Also, if two loyal married people who love one another engage in this act, what would it matter anyway?

It had nothing to do with gay marriage, did it? The men I was referring weren't trying to get married. They contracted AIDS from homosexual sex, then used their heterosexual marriages to spread the disease.

All sex is dirty.

ok.

[jessica129]

Not to mention that anal sex is exceedingly dirty

lol.

All sex is dirty.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

My problem is not with the love, it is with the result of the love, which in my opinion is harmful to family bonds. I don't believe two men can take the role of a motherly figure, nor can two women take the place of a father figure, no matter how hard they try.

Africa has more orphans than any other continent, so all the childless homosexual couples can take care of them!

Africa also has more people with AIDS than other continents - this is more to do with poverty than to do with sin (unless you think god enjoys punishing the poor).

[Lotus]

Very moral post coming.

Two men or two women can love each other, yes. Love is good. The bible even claims God is love, so why can't people love anyone, pansexually?

My problem is not with the love, it is with the result of the love, which in my opinion is harmful to family bonds. I don't believe two men can take the role of a motherly figure, nor can two women take the place of a father figure, no matter how hard they try.

Being a heterosexual couple does not mean there's a perfect motherly figure/fatherly figure balance in their family. Homosexual couples are certainly capable of raising a family just as well as a heterosexual couple can. Two men can be great fathers and raise a healthy, happy child. A man and a woman can be horrible parents who abuse and neglect their child.

It's not a heterosexual>homosexual thing, it's the people involved.

[JuJu]

A lot of these newer posts are making me happy that I'm involved with this forum... There are some very thoughtful people here, with good hearts.

This issue very recently became personal for me--so yeah, it's cool to read... Makes me feel good.

[Socionics Is A Cult]

I never implied this? AIDS is bad(obviously), and AIDS was first found in LA with gay man, so that is the link I am simply stating, no more.

AIDS is actually supposed to have originated in Africa, and is believed to have arisen due to the practice of eating bushmeat - which is basically where people go around killing things and then eating it. Non-human primates are often involved in all this - it is believed that the virus mutated from baboons or some other primate, and then passed into humans through bushmeat consumption.

The genetic similarity between humans and the other primates made the AIDS progenitor all the more likely to mutate to a virus particularly fatal to humans.

An unrelated interesting nugget about baboons is that cases of homosexual behaviour are well documented. Actually, this is true with many other primate species too. And dolphins. And penguins etc.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

7/10:

I'm feeling very powerful today. I hope this will last. I went to the art fair with my big sis. I notice men submit to me when I'm more confident. However strangely enough, this invites evil women into my life.

I love how people think they are being intimidating when they're really not. So they walk right up to you thinking you will move out the way, and they brush your shoulder with theirs they act all surprised. It's funny. I also did this 'dance' with this macho dude because we were on the same level. Some people are just LOOKING for a battle it's great.

I'm very sensitive to how people are really being. They always think they can hide it and when I point it out they create another defense mechanism. Do you really think you can hide from the most powerful gay male shaman in the world? Bitch, please. I also met this one other gay guy that was so hot.

You can't hide your nature folks. People know. Stop trying to think you are being cute and clever. I SEE ALL. KYAHAHAHAHAHaaa. Don't you love being an intuitive type?

I'm an alpha male BITCH. Haha I love all my fans/supporters. *mwah*

[Gilly]

I never saw a question from you. I wait with baited breath.

Would you believe me if I told you that homosexuality was an evolutionary advantage? Species of birds have been observed engaging in homosexual practices as a way of promoting the survival of a species and rearing healthier chicks. What happens is in areas where a certain bird population is densely inhabited, male chicks born after the first male in the clutch will seemingly choose to not mate. Those who do so have a propensity for nesting with another male and helping rear the young of the older brother. And not only do they bring food to their "nephews" and protect them and make sure they are reared well, in addition, they tend to nest near the fringe of the populated area and serve as an early warning service to the rest of the birds for approaching danger (hawks, snakes, other predators).

Not only is homosexuality perfectly natural, it is beneficial. Cities all over the world are becoming more and more densely populated, and its actually GOOD for our species as a whole if some males choose not to procreate. It slows down overpopulation (not to mention helping the fashion and arts industries) significantly if, as has been observed these days, approximately 10% of the male population tends towards homosexuality.

Still don't think its natural? Still think it's a "deviation?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301.../Gay/Text.html
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Li...erner20.24.htm
http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm

Read to your shriveled heart's content from these pages, then go on google and search for any combination of the words "evolution," "homosexuality," "overpopulation," etc, and get back to me when you have an informed opinion on the matter, buster.

I never implied this? AIDS is bad(obviously), and AIDS was first found in LA with gay man, so that is the link I am simply stating, no more.

ROFL! AIDS was found in LA! LMAO!

[Lotus]

7/10:

I'm feeling very powerful today. I hope this will last. I went to the art fair with my big sis. I notice men submit to me when I'm more confident. However strangely enough, this invites evil women into my life.

I love how people think they are being intimidating when they're really not. So they walk right up to you thinking you will move out the way, and they brush your shoulder with theirs they act all surprised. It's funny. I also did this 'dance' with this macho dude because we were on the same level. Some people are just LOOKING for a battle it's great.

I'm very sensitive to how people are really being. They always think they can hide it and when I point it out they create another defense mechanism. Do you really think you can hide from the most powerful gay male shaman in the world? Bitch, please. I also met this one other gay guy that was so hot.

You can't hide your nature folks. People know. Stop trying to think you are being cute and clever. I SEE ALL. KYAHAHAHAHAHaaa. Don't you love being an intuitive type?

I'm an alpha male BITCH. Haha I love all my fans/supporters. *mwah*

<333333

[Mediator Kam]

Would you believe me if I told you that homosexuality was an evolutionary advantage? Species of birds have been observed engaging in homosexual practices as a way of promoting the survival of a species and rearing healthier chicks. What happens is in areas where a certain bird population is densely inhabited, male chicks born after the first male in the clutch will seemingly choose to not mate. Those who do so have a propensity for nesting with another male and helping rear the young of the older brother. And not only do they bring food to their "nephews" and protect them and make sure they are reared well, in addition, they tend to nest near the fringe of the populated area and serve as an early warning service to the rest of the birds for approaching danger (hawks, snakes, other predators).

This is very interesting. I never knew such a thing. Although, I don't see how this has anything to do with human homosexuality or even animal homosexuality. Your post says nothing about sexual relations between the "eunuch"(non-mating) bird and his older brother, or any other animals in the group, and how such behavior would be beneficial. If something like this happened in human circles, what bad could I say of it? So overall, I can write this off as a very beneficial quirk of nature.

Not only is homosexuality perfectly natural, it is beneficial. Cities all over the world are becoming more and more densely populated, and its actually GOOD for our species as a whole if some males choose not to procreate. It slows down overpopulation (not to mention helping the fashion and arts industries) significantly if, as has been observed these days, approximately 10&#37; of the male population tends towards homosexuality.

It sounds like homosexuality is some sort of choice. I was under the impression that it was genetic. Anyway, I believe Kinsey discovered the "1 in 10" claim of homosexuality? Kinsey himself was gay, so how can we be so sure that his claim was not biased? Of course, technically only an eunuch or an asexual would be qualified to make a objective study, but still, I doubt Kinsey's claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...exual_behavior
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301.../Gay/Text.html
http://www.androphile.org/preview/Li...erner20.24.htm
http://www.backyardnature.net/j/o/homosex.htm

I have seen most of these sites beforehand, and how much of this is true homosexual behavior or simply power play to prove dominance over the other? Anyway, I find it degrading that you're trying to compare the human being to animals who act on pure instinct instead of informed opinion.

[Lotus]

If two men want to get married, then I think I should be able to marry my cat. It's all about love right?

Anyway, I find it degrading that you're trying to compare the human being to animals who act on pure instinct instead of informed opinion.

Yes, I agree. It's degrading to compare love between two human beings to animals who act on pure instinct.
Christ, make up your mind.


And btw, you never answered my last post.

[Mediator Kam]

Yes, I agree. It's degrading to compare love between two human beings to animals who act on pure instinct.
Christ, make up your mind.


And btw, you never answered my last post.

I was very light-hearted in the first post. I have no inclination to want to marry animals. And I was merely saying that it is inappropriate to compare animal sexuality to human sexuality. Next thing you know, you'll want to follow the black widow spider, who kills the husband after mating.

As I said before, it isn't about who loves who.

Being a heterosexual couple does not mean there's a perfect motherly figure/fatherly figure balance in their family. Homosexual couples are certainly capable of raising a family just as well as a heterosexual couple can. Two men can be great fathers and raise a healthy, happy child. A man and a woman can be horrible parents who abuse and neglect their child.

It's not a heterosexual>homosexual thing, it's the people involved.

I respectfully disagree.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I act on pure instinct too. Nothing is more satisfying when I go out every night and I kill and feast upon a phobe. Smelling their weakness.. it's invigorating.

Hehe.

[Lotus]

Next thing you know, you'll want to follow the black widow spider, who kills the husband after mating.

As I said before, it isn't about who loves who.

It's not about who loves who? Then what's the issue?

When it comes down to it, you're saying two human beings: both capable of thought, reason, and love; cannot be married because they were both born with penises.

And the whole "next thing you know..." argument is bullshit. Homosexuality isn't "destroying the sanctity of marriage." In contrast, it's making marriage more meaningful. People getting married for love rather than to breed... I must be delusional.

I respectfully disagree.

Why? Is it in your opinion that two crackheads would raise a child better because one of the crackheads has a vagina? How does that have anything to do with this? A stable, loving, couple is always going to be better regardless of the couple's sex.

Husband/wife does not equal functional. It's the people involved. If you still respectfully disagree, explain why please.

[Mediator Kam]

And the whole "next thing you know..." argument is bullshit. Homosexuality isn't "destroying the sanctity of marriage." In contrast, it's making marriage more meaningful. People getting married for love rather than to breed... I must be delusional.

ok, man and man gets married. Next move, adopt maybe?

Why? Is it in your opinion that two crackheads would raise a child better because one of the crackheads has a vagina? How does that have anything to do with this? A stable, loving, couple is always going to be better regardless of the couple's sex.

Husband/wife does not equal functional. It's the people involved. If you still respectfully disagree, explain why please.

Well of course, two crackheads would not make good parents. I think it is sad that children are born under unfit parents. Firsthand, I've seen what a "ho" mom and a "druggie" dad can do to a kid. The guy himself used that terminology for his parents. He goes out to hotels with trannies and gets high all the time ): But I am of the opinion that a stable, loving woman and a stable loving man provide the needed variation for a healthy child. Even though two gay men or two women may be well-meaning, they cannot provide either the maternal or paternal role. That is the advantage I see in a opposite-sex union. Yes, I am sure you can find some very nice homosexuals families who have adopted, etc. Sure, but I still see that flaw of doubled gender. That is what I am saying, a man and a woman, both respectable, have the innate skills to take care of a child because nature gave them the power to have children. If they are able to use them is another talk entirely. Now BD claims that gay men are better parents. I don't know what constitutes "better", but I am sure he knows his stuff. I know I am being ambiguous and abstract with the "maternal" and "paternal" idea, but I don't think I can word it better.

[Khola aka Bee]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one Kam. I think experiences are important for a child, but to stereotype that need for growth and development through varied experience into the typical mummy/daddy family seems, well, close-minded.

[UDP]

B&D, seeing this clip made me think of you, and how you liked that ESTp gay rights activist.
Immortal Technique is pretty well beta. Very epic, as you will see.




He is referring to this song

[Gilly]

This is very interesting. I never knew such a thing. Although, I don't see how this has anything to do with human homosexuality or even animal homosexuality. Your post says nothing about sexual relations between the "eunuch"(non-mating) bird and his older brother, or any other animals in the group, and how such behavior would be beneficial. If something like this happened in human circles, what bad could I say of it? So overall, I can write this off as a very beneficial quirk of nature.

Read more carefully.

It sounds like homosexuality is some sort of choice. I was under the impression that it was genetic. Anyway, I believe Kinsey discovered the "1 in 10" claim of homosexuality? Kinsey himself was gay, so how can we be so sure that his claim was not biased? Of course, technically only an eunuch or an asexual would be qualified to make a objective study, but still, I doubt Kinsey's claim.

I linked you to a site that had research containing evidence for genetic predisposition to homosexuality. READ MORE CAREFULLY.

I have seen most of these sites beforehand, and how much of this is true homosexual behavior or simply power play to prove dominance over the other? Anyway, I find it degrading that you're trying to compare the human being to animals who act on pure instinct instead of informed opinion.

You've seen most of these sites? I don't believe you at all, because you clearly demonstrate a lack of knowledge of the information that is conveyed in them. Animals have sex for pleasure, and many of them do it with members of the same sex while SPECIFICALLY foregoing sexual interaction with the opposite sex. I don't know how much more evidence you want/need.

How is it degrading to compare humans to animals? Are you a Mormon or something? Get out of your fucking bubble: we ARE ANIMALS. How do you know that other animals don't have formed opinions? Did you know that other animals are capable of complex language-based communication and display clear signs of feeling emotions similar to those of humans?

http://www.koko.org/world/

Even if that doesn't convince you, you have zero evidence that "animals" act only on instinct and are so "inferior" to humans.

Seriously, stop talking about shit that you know nothing about. You have no way out of this one.

[Gilly]

Well of course, two crackheads would not make good parents. I think it is sad that children are born under unfit parents. Firsthand, I've seen what a "ho" mom and a "druggie" dad can do to a kid. The guy himself used that terminology for his parents. He goes out to hotels with trannies and gets high all the time ): But I am of the opinion that a stable, loving woman and a stable loving man provide the needed variation for a healthy child. Even though two gay men or two women may be well-meaning, they cannot provide either the maternal or paternal role. That is the advantage I see in a opposite-sex union. Yes, I am sure you can find some very nice homosexuals families who have adopted, etc. Sure, but I still see that flaw of doubled gender. That is what I am saying, a man and a woman, both respectable, have the innate skills to take care of a child because nature gave them the power to have children. If they are able to use them is another talk entirely. Now BD claims that gay men are better parents. I don't know what constitutes "better", but I am sure he knows his stuff. I know I am being ambiguous and abstract with the "maternal" and "paternal" idea, but I don't think I can word it better.

Wait, so you're saying you've seen healthy gay families on one hand, but on the other saying that they are somehow inherently dysfunctional just because of your ideas about "innate abilities" to take care of children? Where in your tiny brain does that make ANY sense whatsoever? How would they be healthy if they were dysfunctional? What's the problem here?

[JuJu]

Firsthand, I've seen what a "ho" mom and a "druggie" dad can do to a kid... He goes out to hotels with trannies and gets high all the time ):

lol

Did he go to Milton and spend the summers in Chatham..? I think I remember him.

[Wynch]

My problem is not with the love, it is with the result of the love, which in my opinion is harmful to family bonds. I don't believe two men can take the role of a motherly figure, nor can two women take the place of a father figure, no matter how hard they try.

Oh oh oh! This is my favourite one! The nuclear family (mother, father, children) is a relatively new concept. It really only took effect during the industrial revolution when the population moved from the farm to the urban center. It's not a static dimension to familial structures. Please note: before the industrial revolution people took very little interest in the upbringing of their children. So saying that homosexuality has a negative impact on the family is ludicrous. Your concept of family is relatively new and by no means the only way of having a family.

Also, I suppose single mothers and fathers can never hope to raise their children with the same quality of life as those with two parents. And children from split homes can never hope to have the same sense of "family bonding" or values or quality of life as those from a united household.

JuJu: It's this kind of thread that makes me react the way I did in the other thread. It's the social reinforcement of negativity and the idea that there are "more important" things to deal with that prevents people from simply asking themselves "Why CAN'T they be recognized as deserving equal rights?"

General comments: The idea of prioritizing social issues makes me laugh. Most of the worlds issues stem from social or socioeconomic places, and the rights of homosexuals is one of many. Some people assume that the fight for GLBTQ rights is about symbolism or about money or about the law, but it's more than that. Homosexuals are not only discriminated against, but they're often at risk of emotional and even PHYSICAL abuse. I have gay friends who don't walk alone anywhere private because they've been jumped and beaten before by people who think it's wrong that they're gay. Granted, there are plenty of people who dislike homosexuality who are not violent about it, but it's a private lifestyle that doesn't touch most people. It doesn't harm people, it doesn't affect the lifestyle of those around them, so why shouldn't they be allowed to do what they do? Like UDP was saying, it's who they are, how they feel, how they're attracted to others. What they're doing is abnormal? Considered immoral? That's like saying BDSM couples can't get married because someone is getting physically abused in their relationship. If it's consensual, who cares? And the more that people make excuses like AIDS stems from homosexuality and homosexual families are bound to raise screwed up children, the more it sets back the work that has been done to help them find a safe place in the world. People did the same thing during the women's movement, making excuses for why the status quo is right despite the changing needs of the people.

[UDP]

My problem is not with the love, it is with the result of the love, which in my opinion is harmful to family bonds. I don't believe two men can take the role of a motherly figure, nor can two women take the place of a father figure, no matter how hard they try.

You are straight-up damn lucky if you get two people care about you so much as to earnestly want to be your lifetime guardians. (full stop)



That's no entitlement, that's not guaranteed, that's not requisite for coming into this world.

A lot of biological parents don't give a shit about (their) children, nor plan properly for one. So I don't think that being gay has much to do with success for parents. A lot of people are downright incompetent at this. Simply having a dong and a pair of tits in a house doesn't mean they are destined to be great parents.

PS: And then there is being a single parent.....

[Mediator Kam]

Read more carefully.

Bullshit. I read it.

I linked you to a site that had research containing evidence for genetic predisposition to homosexuality. READ MORE CAREFULLY.

I saw the site. What evidence did this suggest? Twins are usually homosexual together? Fraternal twins only half as much? I see too much room for error stemming from twins being treated similarly, up to a degree. Plus as the site said, we're too "weird" to be experimented and tested on. Don't try to bring up the gay gene, because it doesn't exist, it's a myth. Just type in "gay gene" on google. Thank you for sharing your enlightened state with all of us.

How is it degrading to compare humans to animals? Are you a Mormon or something? Get out of your fucking bubble: we ARE ANIMALS. How do you know that other animals don't have formed opinions?

Even if that doesn't convince you, you have zero evidence that "animals" act only on instinct and are so "inferior" to humans.

We are clearly not animals bro. I know animals don't have formed opinions because they act on instinct. Hasn't that struck you in your enlightened head of yours, that when a cat wants to eat, it meows until it gets it food, or if it is wild, it searches for that food? If a bull wants to have sex, it goes for it, rampantly. If a wolf needs to sleep, it sleeps right there. Yes, we have an animal side to us, but we are able to suppress all of these desires, something an animal is unable to do. Simple.

Did you know that other animals are capable of complex language-based communication and display clear signs of feeling emotions similar to those of humans?

http://www.koko.org/world/

I heard of that smart gorrilla, yes. I did not know the extent of her genius however. Clearly, she is as near human as any animal would be. But just because she has an IQ of 80, would you give her citizenship? Could you prove she was human in a court of law? No, so I don't know why you mentioned her. We all know that apes are near human in their features and behavior, but I bet she has next to zero control of her bodily functions, something a healthy human who is "capable of complex language-based communication and display clear signs of feeling emotions similar to those of humans" can do. So Koko doesn't change my mind bro. She relies on instinct, we don't. Simple.

PS: And then there is being a single parent.....

Your post has more to do with western civilization than anything.

Oh oh oh! This is my favourite one! The nuclear family (mother, father, children) is a relatively new concept. It really only took effect during the industrial revolution when the population moved from the farm to the urban center. It's not a static dimension to familial structures. Please note: before the industrial revolution people took very little interest in the upbringing of their children. So saying that homosexuality has a negative impact on the family is ludicrous. Your concept of family is relatively new and by no means the only way of having a family.

Nope. We know that the Europeans lagged behind until the Industrial Revolution. In Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to India, the nuclear family/extended family was prevalent since the 8th-9th century. So this is at the very least, a thousand year old way of life.

Also, I suppose single mothers and fathers can never hope to raise their children with the same quality of life as those with two parents. And children from split homes can never hope to have the same sense of "family bonding" or values or quality of life as those from a united household.

Unfortunately yes.

[Wynch]

Nope. We know that the Europeans lagged behind until the Industrial Revolution. In Muslim countries stretching from Morocco to India, the nuclear family/extended family was prevalent since the 8th-9th century. So this is at the very least, a thousand year old way of life.

Wrong, extended family =! nuclear family. Additionally, the mindset of childrearing is STILL a phenomena of the industrial revolution. Extended family aka the universal marriage pattern does not revolve around the nuclear family and the roles of individuals in the household completely contradicts what you're claiming is necessary for the healthy upbringing of children. The European Marriage Pattern (North of France and spreading into Scandinavia) consisted of the closest resemblance to the modern nuclear family, but was still detached from the child. Societal attachment to children and the modern concept of "childhood" and "childhood development" is an idea stemming from the industrial revolution. If there is evidence to contradict this, you're going to have to give it to me because I'm fairly certain that I'm better educated in this regard than you.

Also, I'm glad that someone is pointing out to me how badly my parents raised me as an individual and ruined my life with their divorce. I, of course, always wished that my parents had never divorced and that I could have the perfect nuclear family. There are no pros to divided households, no valuable experience and life lessons that I cherish and am glad to have had that no perfect nuclear family could have. More the fool I, I should lament my upbringing.

[FDG]

Honestly I'm not gonna lose sleep over two guys having sex. I honestly don't understand why people give such a shit.

Really. I mean, call it human rights or whatever you want. Less time wasted in bullshit discussions, more time gained for doing anything else, be it more productive or more pleasurable, or be it gay sex.

One more gay men = one less straight men competing for women on the planet!