re soc motss et al princeton axes matching funds for boy scouts c wainwright eczcaw mips nott ac uk wrote i jim i always thought that homophobe was only a word used at act up rallies i didn t beleive real people used it let s see if we agree on the term s definition a homophobe is one who actively and militantly attacks homosexuals because he is actually a latent homosexual who uses his hostility to conceal his true orientation since everyone who disapproves of or condemns homosexuality is a homophobe your implication is clear it must necessarily follow that all men are latent homosexuals or bisexual at the very least crap crap crap crap crap a definition of any type of phobe comes from phobia an irrational fear of hence a homophobe not only in act up meetings the word is apparently in general use now or perhaps it isn t in the bible wouldst thou prefer if i were to communicate with thou in bilespeak does an arachnophobe have an irrational fear of being a spider does an agoraphobe have an irrational fear of being a wide open space do you understand english obviously someone who has phobia will react to it they will do their best to avoid it and if that is not possible they will either strike out or run away or do gaybashings occur because of natural processes people who definately have homophobia will either run away from gay people or cause them or themselves violence isn t that what i said what are you taking issue with here your remarks are merely parenthetical to mine and add nothing useful it would seem odd if homosexuality had any evolutionary function other than limiting population growth since evolution only occurs when the members of one generation pass along their traits to subsequent generations homosexuality is an evolutionary deadend if i take your usage of the term homophobe in the sense you seem to intend then all men are really homosexual and evolution of our species at least is going nowhere so every time a man has sex with a woman they intend to produce children hmm no wonder the world is overpopulated obviously you keep to the monty python song every sperm is sacred and if as you say it has a purpose as a means to limit population growth then it is by your own arguement natural consider the context i m talking about an evolutionary function one of the most basic requirements of evolution is that members of a species procreate those who don t have no purpose in that context another point is that if the offspring of each generation is to survive the participation of both parents is necessary a family must exist since homosexuals do not reproduce they cannot constitute a family since the majority of humankind is part of a family homosexuality is an evolutionary abberation contrary to nature if you will well if that is true by your own arguements homosexuals would have vanished years ago due to non procreation also the parent from single parent families should put the babies out in the cold now cos they must by your arguement die by your argument homosexuality is genetically determined as to your second point you prove again that you have no idea what context means i am talking about evolution the preservation of the species the fundamental premise of the whole process but it gets worse since the overwhelming majority of people actually prefer a heterosexual relationship homosexuality is a social abberation as well the homosexual eschews the biological imperative to reproduce and then the social imperative to form and participate in the most fundamental social element the family but wait there s more read the above i expect you to have at least ten children by now with the family growing these days sex is less to do with procreation admittedly without it there would be no one but more to do with pleasure in pre pill and pre condom days if you had sex there was the chance of producing children these days is just ain t true people can decide whether or not to have children and when soon they will be able to choose it s sex c but that s another arguement so it s more of a lifestyle decision again by your arguement since homosexuals can not or choose not to reproduce they must be akin to people who decide to have sex but not children both are as unnatural as each other yet another non sequitur sex is an evolutionary function that exists for procreation that it is also recreation is incidental that homosexuals don t procreate means that sex is only recreation and nothing more they serve no evolutionary purpose since homosexuals have come out the closet and have convinced some policy makers that they have civil rights they are now claiming that their sexuality is a preference a life style an orientation a choice that should be protected by law now if homosexuality is a mere choice and if it is both contrary to nature and anti social then it is a perverse choice they have even less credibility than before they became prominent people are people are people who are you to tell anyone else how to live their life are you god tm if so fancy a date here s pretty obvious dodge do you really think you ve said anything or do you just feel obligated to respond to every statement i am not telling anyone anything i am demonstrating that there are arguments against the practice of homosexuality providing it s a merely an alternate lifestlye that are not homophobic that one can reasonably call it perverse in a context even a atheist can understand i realize of course that this comes dangerously close to establishing a value and that atheists are compelled to object on that basis but if you are to be consistent you have no case in this regard to characterize any opposition to homosexuality as homophobic is to ignore some very compelling arguments against the legitimization of the homosexual life style but since the charge is only intended to intimidate it s really just demogoguery and not to be taken seriously fact is jim there are far more persuasive arguments for suppressing homosexuality than those given but consider this a start again crap all your arguments are based on outdated ideals likewise the bible would any honest christian condemn the ten generations spawned by a bastard to eternal damnation or someone who crushes his penis either accidently or not both are in deuteronomy i m sure your comment pertains to something but you ve disguised it so well i can t see what where did i mention ideals out dated or otherwise your arguments are very reactionary do you have anything at all to contribute as to why homosexuals should be excluded from participation in scouting the reasons are the same as those used to restrict them from teaching by their own logic homosexuals are deviates social and biological since any adult is a role model for a child it is incumbent on the parent to ensure that the child be isolated from those who would do the child harm in this case harm means primarily social though that could be extended easily enough you show me anyone who has sex in a way that everyone would describe as normal and will take of my hat puma baseball cap to you one man s meat is another man s poison what has this got to do with anything would you pick a single point that you find offensive and explain your objections i would really like to believe that you can discuss this issue intelligibly bill
