Youths and Street War

Homosexuals are worse than terrorists?

Okkkk... so now homosexuals are going to rise up and attack all of us 'normal' folks, eh? Overrun our governments? Good lord, how long have they been conspiring to do this for? How did you find out? Have you infiltrated their ranks? HOW VERY BRAVE OF YOU! WHAT IF THEY KILLED YOU WITH THEIR ALMIGHTY GAY-STARE!!??!!?
thank god for people like you, showing us the way with your sound judgement and.... wait. I can't keep this up any more. You dinosaurs will die out eventually. I can't be bothered to argue with what's been beaten into you from an early age without you being given time to questio it. Perhaps if you'd stewed in your own thoughts for longer you wouldn't be so stubborn, unaccepting and basically dumb.

PS - at least most gays are literate: got something up on you, haven't they, eh? Yes they have. Oh yes. LOLZ. Hope I didn't use a few too many syllables there.

xxxx love ya


rEVILOPOLI

Hello Revilopoli,
If thats your level of literacy,keep it to yourself.I find your end arguement deviates from the beginning and hey presto your arguements "came out" in the second p----aragraph.I have stewed in these thoughts for half a centuary and and salt tastes like salt and shit still smells the same way.
The difference between a childless couple who is infertile and a homosexual one who wants to have children would seem apparent to me.One happened through natures selection(luck),the other a concocted illogical thought that it is possible to have your cake and eat it.Two woman or two men cannot bear children ,I didnt decide this,nature did,so that we have regeneration of species.This is natural as I understand it.You are going to tell me otherwise ,but twist as you might this guy is not bending.I am not for persecution of
other people but they should not churn the stomach of others like myself who is in a majority.If I am illiterate,so be it but I believe Natural is best and so is mommas breast.I am a milk drinker.

Love and Peace
Trumpeter

Every age has a different conception of morality. The fact is morality is contingent. Any attempts to ground it in a universal require an appeal to God - fair enough but unfortunately reason is blown out the picture. What is natural? How is this defined? What is artificial or un-natural ? Without God all we are left with is moral subjectivism of which Trumpeter's rant is a good example.

Hello Marxist Nutter,
I thought I had defined what I thought was natural.Anything which deviates from a relentless occurrence I would say deviates from the natural.I do not need to include God in this definition,because God means a lot of things to different people.One can produce water in the lab by combining two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of oxygen but nature produces water naturally(perpetually) and its existence is guaranteed.For us to understand this we have to be natural(perpetually existing),any action which moves against perpetual consciousness I would deem unnatural.
It is the consciousness of my thought and the desire for perpetuity which guarantees me an inner peace and recognition of purpose of life God included.
I looked in the dictionary for the definition of rant, andI cannot see how you can attribute my statements as
being a rant because it is a thought out philosophy.
Murder of innocents will always be morally wrong,not subjective or whatever unless you eventually strive for a philosophical impasse.

Trumpeter

I grant that in your reply you presented a well constructed philosophical position (however one I wholly disagree with) and not a rant.

( On the other hand:

'we are moving away from normality and justifying homosexual relationship as normal' does sound rather like a rant to me.It is a very general statement employing a very emotive tone. It relies very heavily on the concept of normality (not defined at the time) on both sides of the sentence. I have not looked up 'rant' in the dictionary and if you object to the term, I happily withdraw it
!)

Not really wanting to enter in to a philosophical debate here, but still. I would argue the way we see the world can be radically different. We can have radically divergent 'truths' even in science. Science is a way of 'wording' the natural world and is still an interpretation. I do not have to go into all the historical examples of science completely changing its view of the world (from flat to round, from atoms to quanta to strings, from Newton to Einstein) - Kuhn called it 'paradigm shift', I think. I would put it to you that your view of the world forecloses the possibility, that someone else's interpretation of reality, may be just as 'true' or 'normal' in its own right, as yours. It denies any other type of normal, and thus a universal truth. I, could never be that sure in my knowledge, intellect, understanding of the universe, to make such bold claims about what is 'normal'. I assumed that you referred to holy texts, in these matters, as many do. I should not assume so much, perhaps. God is often the basis for such universal claims on good and evil, right /wrong and normal/ not normal. But let us not forget that many cultures do not share this notion of God, as you rightly point out, nor, often to their share our ideas of good/evil or 'normality'. I would just allow for the possibility homosexuals have a valid interpretation on what is 'normal' as well.