The Homosexual Thread AKA The Gay Agenda

Jitka · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:52 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Jitka wrote:

PLEASE don't do that

I don't see any reason why he can't. *bat with broom*

Well, he CAN, but furries are just...well, they're furries. eurgh.

just explain what you think you should explain in this thread, and then let's paint some toast.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:54 pm

Jitka wrote:

Well, he CAN, but furries are just...well, they're furries. eurgh.

just explain what you think you should explain in this thread, and then let's paint some toast.

It's ok, I understand. But some people feel that about homosexuality, so...

See how I tied that all together? I'm ON it!

Jitka · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:58 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Jitka wrote:

Well, he CAN, but furries are just...well, they're furries. eurgh.

just explain what you think you should explain in this thread, and then let's paint some toast.

It's ok, I understand. But some people feel that about homosexuality, so...

See how I tied that all together? I'm ON it!

GOOD JORB! You're very clever sometimes, you know, keepin' us on track like that.

but seriously, furries and homosexuality are way different. Homosexuality is something you're born with. Being a furry, not so much. Being a furry is just creepy and weird and eurgh.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:59 pm

Jitka wrote:

GOOD JORB! You're very clever sometimes, you know, keepin' us on track like that.

but seriously, furries and homosexuality are way different. Homosexuality is something you're born with. Being a furry, not so much. Being a furry is just creepy and weird and eurgh.

You might be able to tie it all to nature. Just as we have homosexual animals, we also have animals that seem to tie very closely to humanity. Such as my cockatiel is CONVINCED he's a Human. Who knows if this is genetic, or just a mind set, but I don't think you could talk him out of it.

Askingforachallenge · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:02 pm

really? I always thought that being gay was a choice rather than a gene of some type. another theory i had was that it's the way you're raised. either way, i dont have a problem with people being gay.

Jitka · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:06 pm

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Jitka wrote:

GOOD JORB! You're very clever sometimes, you know, keepin' us on track like that.

but seriously, furries and homosexuality are way different. Homosexuality is something you're born with. Being a furry, not so much. Being a furry is just creepy and weird and eurgh.

You might be able to tie it all to nature. Just as we have homosexual animals, we also have animals that seem to tie very closely to humanity. Such as my cockatiel is CONVINCED he's a Human. Who knows if this is genetic, or just a mind set, but I don't think you could talk him out of it.

Well, I don't know much about neurobiology, so I suppose it's possible that furry-ness is some sort of genetic thing. I get the feeling it's a deep-seated mental issue, though, moreso than a genetic predisposition.

Also, yeah, they pretty much figured out that being gay is a genetic thing. I think. Don't know much about the topic, I assume Teef does.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:06 pm

Askingforachallenge wrote:

really? I always thought that being gay was a choice rather than a gene of some type. another theory i had was that it's the way you're raised. either way, i dont have a problem with people being gay.

It's not a choice, that's been scientifically proven. Links provided in the first post.

I don't think a lot of people 'choose' to make their life more difficult, anyway...

My partner and I were raised in two completely different enviroments. She was raised in an unstable, Religion-switching, liberal, divorced parents, lesbian-mom, drugs, etc... I was raised Roman Catholic, parents who loved each other, very stable, conservative, strict, etc... There was nothing in common other then we were poor.

And unless you're saying that all poor people are gay-- ...

IantheGecko · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:10 pm

Wikipedia: Biology and sexual orientation wrote:

APA: Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.

AGLP: However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

So we can't really argue either way, that it's a choice or it's genetic, right?

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:14 pm

IantheGecko wrote:

So we can't really argue either way, that it's a choice or it's genetic, right?

The research I've noticed seems to lean more in the favor of genetics, but not really the specifics of what the difference is.

sci-fi greg · **Joined:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm **Posts:** 1347

Actually, I have a theory that everyone is bi, but some people choose to ignore one side. But that's just so controversial that I'm not even going to argue it.

EDIT: Oh, also I don't mean they choose literally, I think it's more of a subconscious thing.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:41 pm

sci-fi greg wrote:

Actually, I have a theory that everyone is bi, but some people choose to ignore one side. But that's just so controversial that I'm not even going to argue it.

I could go for that theory.
Makes me wonder why history would choose to reject it, though. Who made the decision that this act is 'digusting' and therefore laws should be made against it.

sci-fi greg · **Joined:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm **Posts:** 1347

I'm going to guess Christianity.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:01 pm

sci-fi greg wrote:

I'm going to guess Christianity.

Go earlier, before Jesus.

sci-fi greg · **Joined:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm **Posts:** 1347

Homosexuality was discouraged before Christianity? I know Romans and Greeks were fine with it. Not sure about other civilizations.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:03 pm

sci-fi greg wrote:

Homosexuality was discouraged before Christianity? I know Romans and Greeks were fine with it. Not sure about other civilizations.

The question was less 'who' but more 'why'.

sci-fi greg · **Joined:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm **Posts:** 1347

Well if there is no who then there is no need for a why.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:09 pm

sci-fi greg wrote:

Well if there is no who then there is no need for a why.

I didn't say there was NO NEED, dude. I said 'who' is LESS important then the WHY they decided that this was something wrong. Stemming back to way way way back, WHY did they believe that God or whatever force decided that this was a WRONG act?

In my opinion, the 'why' does NOT get answered by 'the who'. Unless you're trying to encompass all Religious decisions based on 'divine inspiration'.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:09 pm

There is a need for why. There is always a need for why.

sci-fi greg wrote:

Homosexuality was discouraged before Christianity? I know Romans and Greeks were fine with it. Not sure about other civilizations.

The Greeks yes, but the Romans, no. The Romans were not fine with it. If you were found to be in a homosexual relationship in Ancient Rome, you were executed.

As for your question TFE, the reason why homosexuality has been condemned for centuries is because it is outside the perceived norms of society.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:11 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

As for your question TFE, the reason why homosexuality has been condemned for centuries is because it is outside the perceived norms of society.

But why is it perceived that way? It is an act found in nature. Is it purely reproduction paranoia, you think? Like, we don't have enough populace therefore we need to frantically breed and therefore homosexuality should be stifled?

sci-fi greg · **Joined:** Tue Jul 25, 2006 4:02 pm **Posts:** 1347

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

sci-fi greg wrote:

Well if there is no who then there is no need for a why.

I didn't say there was NO NEED, dude. I said 'who' is LESS important then the WHY they decided that this was something wrong. Stemming back to way way way back, WHY did they believe that God or whatever force decided that this was a WRONG act?

In my opinion, the 'why' does NOT get answered by 'the who'. Unless you're trying to encompass all Religious decisions based on 'divine inspiration'.

Oh sorry, I read that wrong.

Since the Bible states "Be fruitful and multiply" that could be the reasoning behind condemning homosexuality, and the basis of "Be fruitful and multiply" is simply human nature and survival of the fittest.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:17 pm

sci-fi greg wrote:

Since the Bible states "Be fruitful and multiply" that could be the reasoning behind condemning homosexuality, and the basis of "Be fruitful and multiply" is simply human nature and survival of the fittest.

True, but I'm arguing from the point that the Bible was written by people who are within nature's scope. Therefore what inspired them to write that - Did God touch them to write that, or did the fear of the populace of their village dying out inspire that? If it was some sort of 'Divine God' then why didn't the people, who are from nature, reject this?

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:18 pm

TFE wrote:

But why is it perceived that way? It is an act found in nature. Is it purely reproduction paranoia, you think? Like, we don't have enough populace therefore we need to frantically breed and therefore homosexuality should be stifled?

Knowing humanity's track record, it's a fear of something different and people manipulating that fear into hatred and condemnation.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:20 pm

Beyond the Grave wrote:

Knowing humanity's track record, it's a fear of something different and people manipulating that fear into hatred and condemnation.

Hmmm, good point. Because even though it is in nature, it is 'less common' and therefore something 'different' and ultimately the natural reaction towards something different is to fear it. And that's not just humanity, that's natural instinct.

Go figure. Nature works FOR and AGAINST us at the same time. :eek:

furrykef · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 10:34 pm

Jitka wrote:

but seriously, furries and homosexuality are way different. Homosexuality is something you're born with. Being a furry, not so much. Being a furry is just creepy and weird and eurgh.

I don't get why so many people hate furries as a whole. The general concept of it is not any weirder or creepier than, say, Star Trek fandom. There are creepy Trekkies and creepy furries, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing is creepy in either case.

sci-fi greg wrote:

Homosexuality was discouraged before Christianity? I know Romans and Greeks were fine with it.

It's not quite that simple. Ancient Greece practiced pederasty, not homosexuality as we know it today. (Rome did practice both pederasty and homosexuality, though.) Two adult males in a sexual relationship could easily draw a lot of criticism or worse in Ancient Greece and in some periods of ancient Rome.

Beyond the Grave wrote:

The Romans were not fine with it. If you were found to be in a homosexual relationship in Ancient Rome, you were executed.

Depends on the time period.

- Kef

Inverse Tiger · **Posted:** Mon Jun 02, 2008 11:53 pm

Jitka wrote:

...I suppose it's possible that furry-ness is some sort of genetic thing. I get the feeling it's a deep-seated mental issue...

Furries often have very similar psychological quirks, usually relating to a need for social and physical closeness that isn't being fulfilled, usually for self esteem reasons. The animal identification allows us to act like it's not the same us that's getting close to others as the us that is afraid of getting close, so basically we have to trick ourselves to allow ourselves to connect deeply with others. It's not genetic, but it's not really a choice either, since everyone needs to get those deep connections somehow. (Also not saying all furries are necessarily like that, but pretty much every one that I've got to know seems to fit, including myself)

sci-fi greg wrote:

Actually, I have a theory that everyone is bi, but some people...[subconsciously] ignore one side. But that's just so controversial that I'm not even going to argue it.

Actually, that's a very popular alternative theory in anthropological circles: People are bi by default at a certain level, but are pushed one way or another along a sliding scale by genetic and experience factors, with most genes and society set up to push toward heterosexuality. I've found it true for me, when I can actually be honest with myself. My dreams, for instance, are 50/50 male/female when they're sexual. I'm very attracted to women physically, but find the personality type that attracts me almost exclusively among men (and lesbians

). Given a choice between female body and terrible-matching personality and great personality and male body, I go for the personality. Hence, I have a boyfriend now, and I'm extremely happy

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

Beyond the Grave wrote:

As for your question TFE, the reason why homosexuality has been condemned for centuries is because it is outside the perceived norms of society.

But why is it perceived that way? It is an act found in nature. Is it purely reproduction paranoia, you think? Like, we don't have enough populace therefore we need to frantically breed and therefore homosexuality should be stifled?

I'm a fan of the societal concern for reproduction theory. With harsher conditions back then than now, they really had to pop out the babies just to maintain a steady population. They didn't even have to have been thinking about that when they came up with these rules (it could have been the fear of difference that generated them), but the societies that for one reason or another had these rules were the ones that produced more children and thus won out over other social possibilities in the harsh environment.

Ninti · **Joined:** Sat Nov 12, 2005 5:35 pm **Posts:** 3094

TheFacelessEvil wrote:

ninti wrote:

This surprises you?

I'm not a furry, if that's what you're implying...

Oh no, I would never insult you in such a way.

StrongRad · **Posted:** Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:25 am

I might have missed a bit, but I'm a little confused as to why you're all talking about furries in a thread about gays.
That's like talking about screwdrivers in a thread about laser printers.

Beyond the Grave · **Posted:** Tue Jun 03, 2008 2:26 am

StrongRad wrote:

I might have missed a bit, but I'm a little confused as to why you're all talking about furries in a thread about gays.
That's like talking about screwdrivers in a thread about laser printers.

Blame Ian.

TheFacelessEvil · **Posted:** Tue Jun 03, 2008 3:48 am

StrongRad wrote:

I might have missed a bit, but I'm a little confused as to why you're all talking about furries in a thread about gays.
That's like talking about screwdrivers in a thread about laser printers.

Interestingly enough, it all connected quite nicely.

IT wrote:

I'm a fan of the societal concern for reproduction theory. With harsher conditions back then than now, they really had to pop out the babies just to maintain a steady population. They didn't even have to have been thinking about that when they came up with these rules (it could have been the fear of difference that generated them), but the societies that for one reason or another had these rules were the ones that produced more children and thus won out over other social possibilities in the harsh environment.

I'm with you on that one. I just wish society could let go of 'tradition' and conform to the norms of today. But everybody needs security, I guess. Cling to what you know, and loathe change, and all that.

IT wrote:

Actually, that's a very popular alternative theory in anthropological circles: People are bi by default at a certain level, but are pushed one way or another along a sliding scale by genetic and experience factors, with most genes and society set up to push toward heterosexuality. I've found it true for me, when I can actually be honest with myself. My dreams, for instance, are 50/50 male/female when they're sexual. I'm very attracted to women physically, but find the personality type that attracts me almost exclusively among men (and lesbians ). Given a choice between female body and terrible-matching personality and great personality and male body, I go for the personality. Hence, I have a boyfriend now, and I'm extremely happy

I can relate to this! I have the same 50/50 on the dreams. And there are times where my preference on personality/body can be mixed.

furrykef · **Posted:** Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:20 am

StrongRad wrote:

That's like talking about screwdrivers in a thread about laser printers.

They may be unrelated, but they're not that unrelated. Especially if you remember that furrydom has a huge proportion of gay people compared to most subcultures.

It's more like getting in a discussion about oranges in a thread about apples. They're still fruits (pun not intended).

Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

The Homosexual Thread AKA The Gay Agenda

Who is online