This Bitch

[vg4030]

And now you're comparing homosexuality with cancer. Wow. You're not really supporting your cause very well. I'm not the one going around saying things are "natural" or "unnatural", I don't believe in using those terms.

You said people are born homosexual therefore it cannot be unnatural right?

So whats the difference?

 

[THEV1LL4N]

but you already used them. so you just contradicted your beliefs. 1-0 to vg.

 

[THEV1LL4N]

in fact, just to add. i think its the individual's interaction with the environment on top of DNA. this brings the nature vs nurture debate into the topic.

someone might dating homosexually after being in heterosexual relationships all their lives. its not like a schizophrenic gene which becomes active and the individual turns gay. its a gradual process in my opinion and their surroundings also have a part to play in their lifestyle as everything has an influence on the outcome.

oh and whats with the [enter phrase] (no homo) comments. those are just as discriminative/homophobic and totally negative towards gay people because it is making a statement and saying "im not one of them by the way".

 

[ArtsyGirl]

I have nothing against being in a single parent home.. did I say so?

No I was saying that lots of kids grow up without a father/mother.

Who said anything about being passed around from family to family.. are you saying that if a child goes to a gay home they are less likely to be sent back to a foster center?

No. But when you are looking at adoption the kids stability is not stable as it is so suggesting putting them with a gay couple would be less stable seems a little silly to me.
Maybe you could better explain this: "but is that a 'stable' environment to bring up a child in?"

 

[vg4030]

No I was saying that lots of kids grow up without a father/mother.



No. But when you are looking at adoption the kids stability is not stable as it is so suggesting putting them with a gay couple would be less stable seems a little silly to me.
Maybe you could better explain this: "but is that a 'stable' environment to bring up a child in?"

OK.
Say you have a child and you have to give it up for adoption, you no family etc and the baby has to go to one of 2 families:

Option 1:
A gay male couple who will give the child everything they wanted. A loving home, stability etc.. basically everything you would want for your child.

Option 2:
A husband and wife who cannot have their own child and they can also give the child everything the gay couple can.

Basically, all else being equal.

Who would you choose and why?

 

[ArtsyGirl]

OK.
Say you have a child and you have to give it up for adoption, you no family etc and the baby has to go to one of 2 families:

Option 1:
A gay male couple who will give the child everything they wanted. A loving home, stability etc.. basically everything you would want for your child.

Option 2:
A husband and wife who cannot have their own child and they can also give the child everything the gay couple can.

Basically, all else being equal.

Who would you choose and why?

My answer would depend on the type of people they were, ie I cannot answer this question honestly without knowing the 4 people involved. I can tell you that my answer would not be dependant on which couple were gay or hetrosexual.

 

[vg4030]

My answer would depend on the type of people they were, ie I cannot answer this question honestly without knowing the 4 people involved. I can tell you that my answer would not be dependant on which couple were gay or hetrosexual.

Hence why I said ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

There is NO difference at all apart from their sexual orientation.

 

[Casey]

but you already used them. so you just contradicted your beliefs. 1-0 to vg.

What? Speak english please. I have no idea what you are saying. Already used what?

You said people are born homosexual therefore it cannot be unnatural right?

So whats the difference?

What's the difference between homosexuality and cancer? Are you fucking kidding me?

People aren't born with cancer. They might be born with a hereditary predisposition to maybe GET cancer someday. It isn't anywhere near being the same thing.

And Sandeep, nurture has NOTHING, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with sexuality. There is literally NO evidence to support that so you are talking out of your ass there.

The only reason gay people are sometimes in straight relationships before they come out of the closet is because they are in denial.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

Hence why I said ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.

There is NO difference at all apart from their sexual orientation.

eenie, meenie, miny, mo?

Your question is hypothetical and completely unrealistic.

As I said sexual orientation would not be a consideration.

 

[Duke]

Not really. We're basically flipping off the majority of our existing fanbase with the new album we're recording anyway as there won't be any punjabi vocals on there, it's an all English mainstream pop album.

Quite honestly, I couldn't care less if we lost every single fan we already have. Artistically this is the only thing we want to do. Fuck making another niche desi album, we've conquered that scene and have no interest in it any more. All the desi media in the UK are saying 'Sugarless' is the song of the year, or one of the songs of the year, so we're going out on a high note and embracing a new chapter.

It's monday, i'm drunk after the music-quiz at the local watering hole and i'm gonna be honest.

I don't care about your music. I've heard it and it's totally not my thing. Musically sound, sure, but I'm not gonna like it. Not gonna kiss ass either.

But massive massive props on the "fuck every fan we have" issue. THAT'S what music is indeed about, doing YOUR thing. If they don't like it, their problem. Their issue if they don't like the new way.

Lemme know when you have that new album out, I might even like it if it's not filled with shit I dont understand.

If Duke likes, Duke cops. Even if it is just a symbolic purchase to support what you stand for.

 

[ArtsyGirl]

What's the difference between homosexuality and cancer? Are you fucking kidding me?

People aren't born with cancer. They might be born with a hereditary predisposition to maybe GET cancer someday. It isn't anywhere near being the same thing.

And Sandeep, nurture has NOTHING, I repeat N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with sexuality. There is literally NO evidence to support that so you are talking out of your ass there.

The only reason gay people are sometimes in straight relationships before they come out of the closet is because they are in denial.

Also cancer kills you, being gay hurts nobody. That is the biggest reason why comparing the two is an absolute joke.

 

[Duke]

Regardless of whether being homosexual is hard wired into your DNA or not doesnt discount the fact that it is 100% unnatural and against nature.

I'm reading this discussion and replying before I've read the whole. I already know what your comment is going to spark, but I can already say that you're tragically wrong and if I could "un-thank" a post, I would.


Besides the semantical definition debate that the word "unnatural" can spark, you're STILL wrong.

Now I'm going to read on.

 

[Duke]

Animals/Humans... the bits just dont fit!
Were they born that way or did they 'become gay' from their situation? i.e. no females/males around?
Who says that animals cant be hardwired that way like humans can.. it doesnt make it normal just because it exists in the animal kingdom..
I very much doubt that men being gay is linked to displaying male dominance in a pack (excluding prison) as it is with some animals

If you can point a source on the second point I would be interested.

Your second fault. On the same page even. You disappoint me.

The bolded part. Here you implicitly suggest that humans have somehow transcended animal kingdom in the domain of genes and instincts.

Your second fault.

 

[Duke]

Some people are born with a cancer gene.. should they not get treated for it as it occurred 'naturally'?

lmao @ this ridiculous statement. Why didnt you give up at this point?

 

[Duke]

Ooooh, how i hate pseudo science and false rationale.

 

[S O F I]

I'm WAY too drunk to comment on anything after page 11 but I have to say my piece for the moment. No, like really, I have trouble reading the pages.

The "natural" argument has no merit. It's ncredibly stupid to say that one thing is natural and thing is not. In academic circles, it holds NO value. It's only among retarded lay-mans like the KKK and other southern white folk.

Moving on.

I was going to comment on something else but I forgot...

In regard to what sebastian said...

I get offended, even as a non-american, when people speculate on what "respect" means.

When Sebastian said what he said, it's not true. You CAN respect a person's belief and NOT believe in it. His german translation is so narrow that he doesn't recognize the notion.

 

[Duke]

^ Disagreed. There is a difference between respect and tolerating something.

I've reached mine a year ago. Like, RLY.

 

[S O F I]

^you're dutch so your narriow translation of reespect doesn't recognize the notion.


see what I did? I shitted on you even after like 10 .5l hoegaardens.

 

[Duke]

You binge drink Hoegaarden?

You disrespectful Yugo cunt.

see what I did? I shitted over your existance even after your initial decent diss.

 

[S O F I]

Over on these waters, Hoegaarden is the truth. It might have a negative connotation in your shitty country. how do i know it's shitty? my illegal uncle lives there.