The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:Your geyser stupidity just doesn't stop!
For the record, Aquarian has never been banned, and has an open active account. Claiming he is banned is a lie.

My apology I thought you had banned him because of your nice so caring words about him.

Your words.......
He had conflict with many people here, not just me. Aquarian, like you have just done, while demanding tolerance for his lifestyle, was as intolerant twards others as it could get. He was as much of a religious bigot twards every religious community, as he claimed he was the victim of as a gay person. We have a lot of discussions including one about the suicide rate in Gay lifestyles, proven to not be casued by religious persecussion, he insisted about.

My words,

Can a waning phenomenon have a waxing effect? If a survey conducted on the relationship between religious messages and homosexual suicide is to be believed, the answer is yes. The survey, conducted jointly by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Religion News Service, found, writes Kirsten Moulton in The Salt Lake Tribune, “Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that messages from U.S. religious pulpits are connected to the rising rates of suicide among gay youths….”

http://www.thenewamerican.com/opinion/s ... al-suicide

You think you not it all greeny 2 but you don't you pulsating gyser.

boss?
really?
have some self respect.
your actual boss wants you to stop calling it boss

Why don't you say that to them, "boss"?
oh..you just did, via me


stop mistaking the conduit/finger for the moon..including YOU, conduit/finger

You're in stage 3: sophomorism.

I refuse to look that word up, along wtht several other, long and annoying words
soft..more?
ain't you had enough, already??
oh..that's your issue and your fixation

you have had enough already
(you'd abandon a whole family to go start another..definately a man in this life, you...families can...merge../suns/sons can heal..if felt validated..or simply seen..just..enough)

you..if you really feel that way
why not just..live in a cave?

that's what all those
Hindu old dudes do

unitl they get sick of the cave and the mountains, that is
and decide to rejoin
the LIVING (alive/dead yin/yang)

in the end, only kindness matters

In my cave there is internet access but it is still very much a cave. Of sorts.

You are living aintchya?

Why keep associating with a stagnant and ungrowing populace?

What if gay is a mental illness, or a genetic defect? It was once classified as such, but then someone decided it was not. But, what if it really is? What if it's bad genetic coding, as evolution, they say, results in extinction of those variants not viable. This makes sense because gays could not reproduce and therefore those genes would perish forever upon the death of the afflicted individual. Certainly gayness imparts no advantage, and no matter what it imparts, it is a doomed course evolution-wise. There's no future for it. A gay species is one generation from extinction, and I think given time, nature would correct this. What if gay is no different than blind or retarded or a midget- just a genetic coding error in-utero? What if we are perpetuating the genetic abnormality at the risk of perpetuating and fostering a cascade effect of future genetic damage triggered by not allowing this one to go the way of all things? Something to think about. I understand, that today, every condition is viable and certain things which are conditions are classified as not, according to the DSM and societal acceptance, but as stated previously, things like schizophrenia and congenital physical defects often run in families, and these, if not fostered, would be automatically scrubbed by nature in due time, and the offending genes deactivated or bred out, resulting in either a healthy and normal specimen next time around, or the termination of that line. Religion is often used to obfuscate this issue, but it is neither here nor there since nature itself self-corrects given the chance. Heterosexuality can not be considered to be an affliction or a genetic defect or mental illness because it propagates the species and passes on the genetic material. It's conducive to survival whereas homosexuality is not. Therefore, looked at through the lens of nature and evolution, being gay could be seen as a flaw in the design which is destined for the scrap heap, or there may be some unseen underlying thing which the homosexuality ensures will never be passed onto the future generations. A lot of times gays like to compare themselves to oppressed races claiming their condition inescapable, however, racial characteristics are a result of adaptation to environment whereas being gay is not. And, while one may indeed be born gay, and I subscribe totally to this position, it in no way bears any resemblance to being born a member of a particular race. There is no parallel whatever.

So people with genetic defects that lead to them not being able to have children should not be allowed to get married?

You may have an excellent point At1. The inability to concieve is not a reason to disallow marriage in hetrosexual marriages. One does not need to proove ability to concieve, and its also acceptable, if they plan to not have kids by choice. Those options are the same in same sex marriages when you think about it. Some people may choose to marry, and just be career oriented, and not want to raise a family. Some people also prefer to adopt, and not go through child bearing/births/ diaper changing stages. They may prefer to adopt a older child who needs good parents. Point being, gay marriage or straight marriage, the issue of children should not be a factor, nor the ability to concieve.

As far as mental illness, nowadays everything is a "condition". As far as birth defects, we come in all shapes and sizes, with intellegence levels to every extreme. When anyone can figure out the human brain what is a defect and what is a inherited trait, who knows. They say heriditary things skip a generation, so look more to your grandparents then parents.

greeney2 wrote:You may have an excellent point At1. The inability to concieve is not a reason to disallow marriage in hetrosexual marriages. One does not need to proove ability to concieve, and its also acceptable, if they plan to not have kids by choice. Those options are the same in same sex marriages when you think about it. Some people may choose to marry, and just be career oriented, and not want to raise a family. Some people also prefer to adopt, and not go through child bearing/births/ diaper changing stages. They may prefer to adopt a older child who needs good parents. Point being, gay marriage or straight marriage, the issue of children should not be a factor, nor the ability to concieve.

Will the species die out if people who are unable and/or unwilling to have kids get married? I doubt it. And it's a moot point since legalizing gay marriage is not going to increase the number of gays. If anything, that was an argument for criminalizing homosexuality on the grounds that too many homosexuals entails the end of the species (not counting artificial fertilization). But if we're going to put away everyone who is unable and/or unwilling to have kids, well, that would be pretty absurd.

As far as mental illness, nowadays everything is a "condition". As far as birth defects, we come in all shapes and sizes, with intellegence levels to every extreme. When anyone can figure out the human brain what is a defect and what is a inherited trait, who knows. They say heriditary things skip a generation, so look more to your grandparents then parents.

Mental illness seems to be defined to be anything that is aberrant. It really seems like thought police at times a la 1984 (or whichever dystopia the thought police were in). The emphasis is on "fixing" people who have aberrant behavioral patterns (including thought patterns), making them less abnormal and alleviating suffering through an abundance of medications. It's a band aid solution at best, though sometimes a simple tourniquet really is needed to stop the flow of blood.