Turn on thread page Beta

Leave the homosexuality threads to fade away. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    Very long quote... blah
    You really are a bit boring. But, as I suspected, your reasoning appears to be based in you imagination-

    "believes that homosexual people are inferior to heterosexual people"
    -Where did I say this?
    "the fact that you clearly have a problem with gay people makes you a bigot"
    -Again, where?
    "your inferior brain and outlook on things in general"
    -Based on what, the fact that I can argue with you?
    "The fact that you are bigotted"
    -Once again, how am I bigoted? (oh, and LEARN TO SPELL before you criticise my spelling)
    "morally object to everything in order to make yourself appear extremely enlightened, perhaps to counteract your lack of intelligence one suspects"
    -Moral objection? When/where?
    "constant over-compensation for the fact that you are apparently straight"
    -Constant over-compensation? Could you show a few dozen examples then?
    "Belief that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals"
    -You're repeating yourself, and once again, with no evidence.
    "Accusations that I am a "heterophobe" which demonstrates your complete lack of logic"
    - Oh, and "homophobe" is totally logical. :rolleyes: Your head is obviously too far in the clouds to see that both words are equally illogical and that I used the word "heterophobe" to demonstrate this, but you failed to see the connection.

    Change a couple words and your own paragraph provides an ideal response -"You really are extremely idiotic and blatantly thick. How many times have I said this? If I hated you because you are gay, then I would be a homophobe. But the reason I hate you is because you are a bigotted person - not because you are gay. Get this into your thick skull. If you claim that I am "homophobic" once more then I can conclude that you are a genuine retard who has very little logic.".

    You my friend ARE a bigot. Look the word up on Google - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.". You have been totally intolerant of myself and my argument, which was simply that homosexuality can be considered a mental illness, and decided based on no apparent evidence whatsoever that I had "19th century bigoted opinions". You reject my argument purely because it is different to your opinion, and are incapable of providing any counter-arguement, and instead resort to personal insults. It really is pathetic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayG)
    An AP bio teacher of mine brought the subject of blue people to discussion one day - the article he used went into more genetic detail, but since that was a good two years ago I dont remember the specific URL.

    http://www.people.virginia.edu/~rjh9u/fugate.html
    I had been unaware there actually was such a condition (Though I had been meaning if the skin was actually blue, as opposed to appearing blue due to the blood underneath), but a quick search reveals it is an inherited disorder called methemoglobinemia. As I had suspected, if someone was born blue we would naturally assume there was something wrong with them, which was the point I was getting at at the time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    Some would call you rather petty.
    But they'd be as wrong as you are. Have fun living in your bubble.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    But they'd be as wrong as you are. Have fun living in your bubble.
    Please stop arguing and spamming up the forums, use the PM function instead. Else a mod will be called in and the thread closed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    Please stop arguing and spamming up the forums, use the PM function instead. Else a mod will be called in and the thread closed.
    Sorry, I was just defending myself from some uncalled-for comments. I'm surprised to see such little response from others apart from vienna, there are obviously less intelligent free-thinking people on the board than I thought.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    You really are a bit boring.
    The irony.

    (Original post by calumc)
    "believes that homosexual people are inferior to heterosexual people"
    -Where did I say this?
    It was not mentioned explicity, but how about this:

    I hate to say to say it, but it certainly looks like political correctness once again - while a great many people still have objections/reservations about homosexuals, especially if in their own home, the "official" view is apparently "not allowed" to show this, and instead refects on some idealised PC world which simply does not exist.
    This suggests that you believe that homosexuals should not have the right to share a bed in a hotel. This therefore implies that you believe homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals, hence are inferior to heterosexuals. I suppose you'll claim that this post does not prove that you believe homosexual people should not have this right. If this were the case, you would not show such support for the guest-house owners.

    (Original post by calumc)
    "the fact that you clearly have a problem with gay people makes you a bigot"
    -Again, where?
    Here are a few quotes of yours which I have retrieved from the archives:

    most men who moisturise are gay
    Fact? No. Sweeping generalisation? Yes.
    girly guys are just pathetic and generally very annoying They should be subjected to hourly injections of testosterone directly into their brain combined with electric shock treatment, or alternatively given full sex changes on the NHS so that they can finally be the women they act like.
    Need I say more?! And you say you're not bigoted? I can predict that you'll claim that this comment was a joke, though it still reveals an awful lot about your attitude towards gay people.

    (Original post by calumc)
    "your inferior brain and outlook on things in general"
    -Based on what, the fact that I can argue with you?
    Based on the fact that you called me a heterophobe for disliking you, even though the dislike has nothing to do with your sexuality and I would hate you even if you were gay (which you probably are).
    (Original post by calumc)
    "The fact that you are bigotted"
    -Once again, how am I bigoted?
    The above comments prove this.
    (Original post by calumc)
    "morally object to everything in order to make yourself appear extremely enlightened, perhaps to counteract your lack of intelligence one suspects"
    -Moral objection? When/where?
    You claim you've never morally objected against anything. What are you doing at the moment?

    [QUOTE = calumc]
    -Constant over-compensation? Could you show a few dozen examples then?[/quote]
    I could show many examples:
    1. I'm confortable with my sexuality, but that doesn't mean I call people darling, grab guys asses and wear makeup.
    2.No, I'm about as straight as they come I'm afraid.
    3.I'm not gay.
    4.he obviously fancies me, otherwise he wouldn't have said anything. I'm now rather scared! (This is an example of you emphasising how much you fear gay people [you've even used the word "scared" for God's sake] - homophobia. It also shows you emphasising the fact that you are straight, which is the over-compensation I'm talking about).
    5.you're just a great big bigoted heterophobe. (once again, you enforce your heterosexuality).

    How many comfortably-straight members do this? Answer: 0.


    (Original post by calumc)
    Oh, and "homophobe" is totally logical. :rolleyes: Your head is obviously too far in the clouds to see that both words are equally illogical and that I used the word "heterophobe" to demonstrate this, but you failed to see the connection.
    For the last time, you are a homophobe because you use disparaging, belittling terms such as "******" to describe homosexual people. Do I do the same for straight people? No.

    (Original post by calumc)
    Change a couple words and your own paragraph provides an ideal response -"You really are extremely idiotic and blatantly thick. How many times have I said this? If I hated you because you are gay, then I would be a homophobe. But the reason I hate you is because you are a bigotted person - not because you are gay. Get this into your thick skull. If you claim that I am "homophobic" once more then I can conclude that you are a genuine retard who has very little logic.".
    This really is rather pointless.

    (Original post by calumc)
    You my friend ARE a bigot. Look the word up on Google - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.". You have been totally intolerant of myself and my argument, which was simply that homosexuality can be considered a mental illness, and decided based on no apparent evidence whatsoever that I had "19th century bigoted opinions". You reject my argument purely because it is different to your opinion, and are incapable of providing any counter-arguement, and instead resort to personal insults. It really is pathetic.
    However, you must remember the following paradox:
    "In order to be considered a tolerant person, one must be intolerant of those who are intolerant."
    So basically, in order to promote tolerance, you must be intolerant of bigoted attitudes. Hence why I have been intolerant of you and your "argument", whatever that was.

    The entire substance of your argument is that those who promote tolerance of gay people and other minority groups must tolerate your bigoted opinions because if we don't, then we are in effect being intolerant and hence hypocritical. This is an extremely poor excuse for your arrogant attitude, I'm afraid.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think my previous post actually sums up this argument quite nicely. Could somebody please close this thread now?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    Sorry, I was just defending myself from some uncalled-for comments. I'm surprised to see such little response from others apart from vienna, there are obviously less intelligent free-thinking people on the board than I thought.
    I haven't replied because this thread has become little more than a slanging match between yourself and musicman, something of which I don't have the time for. I'm all for choice of sexuality, but petty arguing is not what is wanted here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I haven't replied because this thread has become little more than a slanging match between yourself and musicman, something of which I don't have the time for. I'm all for choice of sexuality, but petty arguing is not what is wanted here.
    It was merely standing up for myself and showing calumc that his opinions are far-fetched, bigoted and pedantic that I was guilty of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It was not mentioned explicity, but how about this:

    This suggests that you believe that homosexuals should not have the right to share a bed in a hotel. This therefore implies that you believe homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals, hence are inferior to heterosexuals. I suppose you'll claim that this post does not prove that you believe homosexual people should not have this right. If this were the case, you would not show such support for the guest-house owners.


    -No it doesn't. This suggests that I think official/government bodies often speak for the population in a politically correct manner which does not properly represent the population as a whole. In any case, your suggests/implies/hence idea is so contrived that you could try and relate it to anything.

    Here are a few quotes of yours which I have retrieved from the archives:

    Fact? No. Sweeping generalisation? Yes.

    Need I say more?! And you say you're not bigoted? I can predict that you'll claim that this comment was a joke, though it still reveals an awful lot about your attitude towards gay people.


    -:rolleyes:Your "prediction" is correct, because it was obviously a joke, genius. You wouldn't have "predicted" that if you hadn't realised it was. Even if those comments were to be taken seriously, I will restate the definiton of bigot - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" - please tell me how these comments make me fit this definition?


    Based on the fact that you called me a heterophobe for disliking you, even though the dislike has nothing to do with your sexuality and I would hate you even if you were gay (which you probably are).


    -I called you a heterophobe as a joke because you called me a homophobe, even though MY dislike ALSO has nothing to do with your sexuality. Therefore if I were as childish as you to say so then by using your own logic it appears you are the one with the "inferior brain".

    You claim you've never morally objected against anything. What are you doing at the moment?

    -Having an argument. There's nothing moral about it.

    I could show many examples:
    1. I'm confortable with my sexuality, but that doesn't mean I call people darling, grab guys asses and wear makeup.
    2.No, I'm about as straight as they come I'm afraid.
    3.I'm not gay.
    4.he obviously fancies me, otherwise he wouldn't have said anything. I'm now rather scared! (This is an example of you emphasising how much you fear gay people [you've even used the word "scared" for God's sake] - homophobia. It also shows you emphasising the fact that you are straight, which is the over-compensation I'm talking about).
    5.you're just a great big bigoted heterophobe. (once again, you enforce your heterosexuality).

    How many comfortably-straight members do this? Answer: 0.


    -Damn, you got me. Saying I'm straight more than once obviously means I'm really gay in disguise. :rolleyes:
    What a ridiculous idea. If a gay person mentions their sexuality does that mean they must be straight, or is it "different" that way round? Given your bizarre reasoning, you probably think so, but you're wrong, it's just as absurd either way. There's not really anything I can say here, either way you'll say I'm gay.


    For the last time, you are a homophobe because you use disparaging, belittling terms such as "******" to describe homosexual people. Do I do the same for straight people? No.


    -That doesn't prove anything. It's like saying if I use the word "*****" to describe a woman then I must be a "femophobe" or something.

    However, you must remember the following paradox:
    "In order to be considered a tolerant person, one must be intolerant of those who are intolerant."
    So basically, in order to promote tolerance, you must be intolerant of bigoted attitudes. Hence why I have been intolerant of you and your "argument", whatever that was.

    The entire substance of your argument is that those who promote tolerance of gay people and other minority groups must tolerate your bigoted opinions because if we don't, then we are in effect being intolerant and hence hypocritical. This is an extremely poor excuse for your arrogant attitude, I'm afraid.


    -Rubbish. I am not intolerant and yet again you have found no evidence to show this. You are clearly the intolerant one - you reject my argument entirely without even knowing what it is!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    It was not mentioned explicity, but how about this:

    This suggests that you believe that homosexuals should not have the right to share a bed in a hotel. This therefore implies that you believe homosexuals should have fewer rights than heterosexuals, hence are inferior to heterosexuals. I suppose you'll claim that this post does not prove that you believe homosexual people should not have this right. If this were the case, you would not show such support for the guest-house owners.


    -No it doesn't. This suggests that I think official/government bodies often speak for the population in a politically correct manner which does not properly represent the population as a whole. In any case, your suggests/implies/hence idea is so contrived that you could try and relate it to anything.

    Here are a few quotes of yours which I have retrieved from the archives:

    Fact? No. Sweeping generalisation? Yes.

    Need I say more?! And you say you're not bigoted? I can predict that you'll claim that this comment was a joke, though it still reveals an awful lot about your attitude towards gay people.


    -:rolleyes:Your "prediction" is correct, because it was obviously a joke, genius. You wouldn't have "predicted" that if you hadn't realised it was. Even if those comments were to be taken seriously, I will restate the definiton of bigot - "One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ" - please tell me how these comments make me fit this definition?


    Based on the fact that you called me a heterophobe for disliking you, even though the dislike has nothing to do with your sexuality and I would hate you even if you were gay (which you probably are).


    -I called you a heterophobe as a joke because you called me a homophobe, even though MY dislike ALSO has nothing to do with your sexuality. Therefore if I were as childish as you to say so then by using your own logic it appears you are the one with the "inferior brain".

    You claim you've never morally objected against anything. What are you doing at the moment?

    -Having an argument. There's nothing moral about it.

    I could show many examples:
    1. I'm confortable with my sexuality, but that doesn't mean I call people darling, grab guys asses and wear makeup.
    2.No, I'm about as straight as they come I'm afraid.
    3.I'm not gay.
    4.he obviously fancies me, otherwise he wouldn't have said anything. I'm now rather scared! (This is an example of you emphasising how much you fear gay people [you've even used the word "scared" for God's sake] - homophobia. It also shows you emphasising the fact that you are straight, which is the over-compensation I'm talking about).
    5.you're just a great big bigoted heterophobe. (once again, you enforce your heterosexuality).

    How many comfortably-straight members do this? Answer: 0.


    -Damn, you got me. Saying I'm straight more than once obviously means I'm really gay in disguise. :rolleyes:
    What a ridiculous idea. If a gay person mentions their sexuality does that mean they must be straight, or is it "different" that way round? Given your bizarre reasoning, you probably think so, but you're wrong, it's just as absurd either way. There's not really anything I can say here, either way you'll say I'm gay.


    For the last time, you are a homophobe because you use disparaging, belittling terms such as "******" to describe homosexual people. Do I do the same for straight people? No.


    -That doesn't prove anything. It's like saying if I use the word "*****" to describe a woman then I must be a "femophobe" or something.

    However, you must remember the following paradox:
    "In order to be considered a tolerant person, one must be intolerant of those who are intolerant."
    So basically, in order to promote tolerance, you must be intolerant of bigoted attitudes. Hence why I have been intolerant of you and your "argument", whatever that was.

    The entire substance of your argument is that those who promote tolerance of gay people and other minority groups must tolerate your bigoted opinions because if we don't, then we are in effect being intolerant and hence hypocritical. This is an extremely poor excuse for your arrogant attitude, I'm afraid.


    -Rubbish. I am not intolerant and yet again you have found no evidence to show this. You are clearly the intolerant one - you reject my argument entirely without even knowing what it is!
    I can't be bothered to reply to each of your quotes - I'm off out in a min. However, I will put foward the following scenarios. How would you act if:

    1. One of your closest friends told you he was gay.
    2. You met this really nice guy at uni, and he told you he was gay.
    3. You saw two men holding hands in the street.
    4. You saw a man and woman holding hands in the street.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    I can't be bothered to reply to each of your quotes - I'm off out in a min. However, I will put foward the following scenarios. How would you act if:

    1. One of your closest friends told you he was gay.
    2. You met this really nice guy at uni, and he told you he was gay.
    3. You saw two men holding hands in the street.
    4. You saw a man and woman holding hands in the street.
    I know this isn't to me, but Ill answer anyway.

    1 - Nothing
    2 - Nothing
    3 - Nothing
    4 - Nothing
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    I can't be bothered to reply to each of your quotes - I'm off out in a min. However, I will put foward the following scenarios. How would you act if:

    1. One of your closest friends told you he was gay.
    2. You met this really nice guy at uni, and he told you he was gay.
    3. You saw two men holding hands in the street.
    4. You saw a man and woman holding hands in the street.
    I wouldn't bother, it's not worth it as we're going round in circles. I just think you're labelling me rather unfairly without good reason.

    As for your scenarios:

    1. Hasn't happened with a friend so it's hard to say, though it has happened with classmates - the only other person in my AH maths class was gay. It didn't bother me to be honest. Out of the year of 32 (around half male), there were at least 4 gay males (if I remember correctly) by the end of the year, which I think took many of us by surprise, but I can't say it really bothered anyone.

    2. Again I doubt it'd bother me, though I would make it clear I wasn't.

    3. A double take perhaps, simply because I've never seen it before (must be where I live or something). However I will admit that if they did much more than this in public I probably wouldn't be totally comfortable with it, though this would also be the case if it was a heterosexual couple. "Get a room" springs to mind.

    4. No reaction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I haven't replied because this thread has become little more than a slanging match between yourself and musicman, something of which I don't have the time for. I'm all for choice of sexuality, but petty arguing is not what is wanted here.
    neither is insult, rudeness and bad language. i feel obliged to point out the difference.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by calumc)
    One word - hypocrit.

    You refuse to even consider anything I say, yet claim it is ME who is the "narrow-minded ********"? Well, that really is quite amusing.

    You have no more reason to call me a "homophobe" than I do to call you a "heterophobe", yet you immidiately dismissed the latter as ridiculous. You appear to be under the deluded impression that it would be impossible for someone to be disliked or prejudiced against due to them being straight, despite demonstrating an example of this with your attitude towards me. Please, get a grip, you're making a fool of yourself and being extremely childish.

    You appear to be contradicting vitrually everything you say - or perhaps it's just my inferior heterosexual brain struggling to comprehend your "far too sophisticated" posts. After all, despite your apparent failure to notice the tone of sarcasm in my previous post, it is obviously my fault for having such a sub-standard grasp of english in the first place and not making it sufficiently clear. Or perhaps not, and you've just got your head in the clouds, which looks like a far more realistic explanation.


    Please explain your reason for loathing me and evidence of me being a "narrow minded ********", or I shall be forced to believe that the only reason is that I am straight, which would make you no better than the bigoted fascist of a caricature you appear to have dreamt up for me out of the ether.
    this is certainly my assessment of the facts. an assessment without insult or rude language
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by musicman)
    Learn to spell.
    You really are extremely idiotic and blatantly thick. How many times have I said this?. But the reason I hate you is because you are a bigotted person - . Get this into your thick skull. I can conclude that you are a genuine retard who has very little logic.

    I would say that your lack of comprehension is due to your inferior brain
    Reasons for loathing you:
    1. The fact that you are over-opinionated on an issue that does not affect you.
    3. The fact that you morally object to everything in order to make yourself appear extremely enlightened, perhaps to counteract your lack of intelligence one suspects.
    4. The constant over-compensation for the fact that you are apparently straight, perhaps leading me to think otherwise.
    All in all, you're just an irritating pratt really, and the fact that I have received numerous PMs and positive rep from other members agreeing with everything that I've said about you and vienna95 somewhat suggests that I am with the majority here.
    not really one for a civilised discussion?
    which majority is that?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    neither is insult, rudeness and bad language. i feel obliged to point out the difference.
    I'd just like to point out that I've notified the mods using the alarm button asking for the thread to be closed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carldaman)
    I'd just like to point out that I've notified the mods using the alarm button asking for the thread to be closed.
    why? there only needs to be deletion of irrelevant posts and warnings for poor language. there is plenty of other good points raised by plenty of other people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    why? there only needs to be deletion of irrelevant posts and warnings for poor language. there is plenty of other good points raised by plenty of other people.
    Answer via PM.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.