AWKWARD ZOMBIE

It's simple, the hypothalamus is responsible for human sexuality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18588532

Basically (not described in the source directly), homosexual males have a hypothalamus closer resembling that of a woman, and vise versa. The only question I have now is if that does anything for your perception of the subject.

This also implies inherent gender roles (women must be feminine, men masculine).

I'm also confused by the statement "I don't agree with homosexuality", whenever it's used.

Basically this. Taboo Topics is best when it forces someone to think outside their head and understand that there are valid points on other sides, or drawbacks on their own side that they never considered (not because they're dumb, but individuals aren't generally capable of brainstorming exactly how everything works). it can also point out that often times there may be no truly right answer, but rather the answer we believe fits most within our morals and values. This thread gets boring if everyone agrees on something or has nothing new to contribute, so it's always nice to get fresh perspective.

That being said, while you don't (or shouldn't) need to worry about feeling attacked in this thread, it's suited for debate and debate can get to be a bit much sometimes. And sometimes it's best to just observe a debate if no novel/substantial debate points can be made to weigh in.

I would say what you seem to be interested in is either the introduction thread to let people get to know you, or the confession thread to confess things without needing to really defend them, though, I'm not sure religious matters or discussing positions on touchy social topics are really allowed in some topics though (due to past things), so I'd probably wait for a mod's opinion on where these posts would best fit without any unnecessary rub.

I am to, to be honest. It's like disagreeing with gravity...or the speed of light.

Aight let's break this down a little.

The thing about this, though, is that the parents are not the only source of "motherly" or "fatherly" figures. There's aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, family friends, teachers, etc. It's not just the parents that are part of a child's life. And what about single parent households? If there's only a mother or a father, isn't that a similar thing? It's missing the theoretical "feminine motherly figure" or the "fatherly figure." So do you think single parent households


Are you for real. Honestly, the fact that a few people, of any group, act a certain way, it's just bullshit to say it makes a group look bad. Would you say you don't like black people because they act "too black"? A Muslim person because they act "too Muslim"? A white person because they act "too white"? I've seen straight people be straight up dicks, I've seen a lot, but I'm not gonna say "well these straight people acted like this so it makes you look bad..." That's bullshit, and it's dumb. You can't judge a whole group because a few people do things you find obnoxious.

As a bit of an aside, someone who doesn't feel strongly about the religious morality of sexuality might still feel negatively about persons who don't fit in with the fairly rigid gender roles conventional society promotes. I think for some men, who often seem to feel more strongly about homosexuality than women, it might sometimes stem from uncomfortable and unfamiliar sensations of sexual vulnerability they may feel around homosexuals? Straight men don't usually have to deal with being actively hit on, feeling checked out in a "predatory" way, or feeling like their masculinity may be "compromised" somehow, by another person's potential attraction. Meaning, they experience distinctly different feelings and fears concerning a gay man's potential attraction toward them as compared to a woman they simply don't like. Which is understandable as a nervewracking and weird sensation for them, but not as a reasonable cause for outwardly negative or aggressive behavior toward the group as a whole.

I'm totally not commenting on religious viewpoints here or anything, by the way, but rather looking at a different reason people might have for being uncomfortable with homosexuality/etc. Just, like, conversationally.

I read something similar to that, (probably read it here actually) It makes a lot of sense.


I just have two opinions, I guess, about these last couple of pages.
Firstly I don't like the idea of religion being used to justify anything other than being nice to someone else. No amount of 'the bible/pentateuch/koran says so' makes oppression anything other than what it is.

Secondly, that kids don't need people to fit the roles of 'mother' and 'father'. Kids just need love, support and protection. Doesn't matter who does it. Doesn't matter if the parents are gay, old, poor, single or captain of the Enterprise. If those 3 things are provided, nothing else matters.

....okay, let me just get this straight. He posts on an Internet forum that he doesnt like homosexuality, and then states that he doesnt want an argument? I call troll. You dont just blurt out controversial opinions and then try to shield yourself from the fallout, thats a huge Internet dick move.

Hey, let's not, Stranger. If you sincerely hold that opinion, tell a mod or something. It's not appropriate to throw accusations like that around, especially toward a newbie. Obito just didn't read the OP and wasn't aware that this wasn't the thread he was looking for.

Besides, if you must throw around accusations like that, don't do it in this topic of all places.

If your only reason that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal is because of the bible, or one of the arguments posted already (the mother/father argument debunked by single parents, procreation debunked by infertile women or people who just don't want kids, etc) then I've got a phrase I'm having trouble wording in a way that doesn't make me sound like a raging douchebag.

Church and state are separate, if there's no legal reason to disallow same-sex marriage (and there isn't) there's no reason to keep it from being legal.
Marriage is no longer simply a religious thing. There are legal reasons to be married. Some states don't allow adoption of a child by a couple unless they're married, civil unions wouldn't count. Tax reasons, medical visitation reasons, there's a long, long list of things getting married does for/against you legally. it's not just a religious symbol with religious rules anymore, it's heavily integrated into our society and its laws, so not allowing people, regardless of whom they love, to get married is demoting them to second-class citizens.

Next time you are butthurt about your own experiences you should say it instead of accusing other people.

Alright let's cool it in this thread for a bit. The newbie brought up a topic without understanding the meaning of this thread and ducked out so any comments directed towards him at this point are moot anyway. If anyone wants to continue this line of thought without further questioning that users merits or opinions they may do so, but otherwise maybe it would be best to start a new topic.

Yeah, you're bodaciously the only one (ignoring the fact that the entire discussion is old news anyway) who's butthurt about anything. I understand you have things you take offense to, but wigging out on them is usually never the best course of action. All it does is create animosity and get the discussion nowhere.

EDIT: And then I waited to read the mod's comment until after I'd replied to the one that replied to me and look like a doofus. Sorry Vax, I'll comply.

EDIT 2: Just realized, we could always start this discussion up again if it's still fresh in everyone's mind. If not...

......gun control?

gun control more like the second amendment should be revised 50 million times because of how fucking loosely it can be interpreted

The 2nd Amendment specifies that it's in place in order to allow for a "well-regulated militia," which is exactly the role the National Guard and its State branches are supposed to fill.

It's also worth mentioning that the Constitution was drafted during a time in which a foreign power could easily invade and take the brand new country, so letting everyone carry weapons would allow the United States to deter that sort of thing. Now we've been one of the most militarily powerful nations for nearly a century, but people still want their guns.