US: Democrat or Republican

[Neutrino]

I did not call anyone names, I was expressing an opinion.

Obviously you have no concrete facts so you resort to calling people homophobic. You lose.

Actually, Luns was being homophobic. Not as the dictionary definition, but as the more commonly used version (I.E. Descriminating against homosexuals in any way, shape and form)

[luns101]

Well, you really have no proof to offer then if you're just going to say "I believe my homosexual friends but I won't consider any other source".

Ya just gotta believe Luns! It's all about FAITH!

There is no gay gene.

The mechanism is not understood...true.

Alright, I want to know who this is. How did you hack into Backglass' account? Everyone knows that the real Backglass keeps saying that he will only believe something if he can see it. Since you're accepting something by blind faith we all know you're an imposter.

[moomaster2000]

Where's the Communist option for all the commies like me =D

[got tonkaed]

since its fun to hash out the whole whether or not people are gay because they want to or because they were born that way, its important to realize few if any nature/nurture issues are resolved especially not that one. We really do not seem to conclusively know one way or the other if many of our behaviors are genetic or social (which all the cool people like me tend to believe).

Now luns im not going to suggest im more into to the lgbt community than you are, but im going to suggest i know more about lgbt issues (more because i hear about the stuff in class a lot, not because im some increidble sensitive person).

For a lot of people the gay gene issue (in and out of the community) is a hostile issue. I would be willing to argue that many of those who you would be citing believe the gay gene issue to be a strong identity issue that they dont agree with. Since it conflicts with their sense of self of course they are going to reject it when there isnt overwhelming evidence....and they may still even if there was.

To use individuals who are heavily vested in their not being a gay gene, to conclude that homosexuality is immoral, is a bit cheating intellectually.

[Neoteny]

I did not call anyone names, I was expressing an opinion.

Obviously you have no concrete facts so you resort to calling people homophobic. You lose.

The example of slavery wasn't a concrete fact? Poverty and overpopulation aren't visible all over the world? Were there not religious references throughout the post? I know I didn't post links to any journal articles for references, but I assumed appeals to common sense would suffice. Apparently not. Sorry beezer.

[bryguy]

what about the ppl who vote for bryguy??

[beezer]

The example of slavery wasn't a concrete fact? Poverty and overpopulation aren't visible all over the world? Were there not religious references throughout the post? I know I didn't post links to any journal articles for references, but I assumed appeals to common sense would suffice. Apparently not. Sorry beezer.

No, you're comparing two separate things. Slaves didn't have a choice in the matter because they were forced to be slaves. Homosexuals are not born that way, they choose to engage in perverted sexual practices.

What's your version of common sense - people who agree with you. If they don't I guess they just aren't as smart as you. Apology accepted.

[Guiscard]

The example of slavery wasn't a concrete fact? Poverty and overpopulation aren't visible all over the world? Were there not religious references throughout the post? I know I didn't post links to any journal articles for references, but I assumed appeals to common sense would suffice. Apparently not. Sorry beezer.

No, you're comparing two separate things. Slaves didn't have a choice in the matter because they were forced to be slaves. Homosexuals are not born that way, they choose to engage in perverted sexual practices.

What's your version of common sense - people who agree with you. If they don't I guess they just aren't as smart as you. Apology accepted.

Did you choose to be straight at any point?

[heavycola]

The example of slavery wasn't a concrete fact? Poverty and overpopulation aren't visible all over the world? Were there not religious references throughout the post? I know I didn't post links to any journal articles for references, but I assumed appeals to common sense would suffice. Apparently not. Sorry beezer.

No, you're comparing two separate things. Slaves didn't have a choice in the matter because they were forced to be slaves. Homosexuals are not born that way, they choose to engage in perverted sexual practices.

see, you guys give yourselves away when you use language like that.
Perverted? Subjective.
Stephen Fry - a UK national treasure - he has been openly gay his entire life. For many years he was also celibate. Does that make him not gay?
I know what you are thinking about when you talk about 'perverted sexual practices'; well, many hetero couples do exactly the same thing. And many gay men don't.

...But, continue to assume away.

[Napoleon Ier]

hetero-sexuality is the course of nature (or, in function of whether or not you are Christian, the course ordained by God).
Homosexuality is the result of a poorly constructed society pushing people nabletofind an identity to psychological illness.

[Backglass]

Homosexuals are not born that way, they choose to engage in perverted sexual practices.

Your opinion...nothing more and only perverted by YOUR pompous standards. What is it about homosexuals that bothers you so? Two people loving each other? Two people pleasing one another? None of which you must witness or watch. What other "perversions" should we stamp out? Oral sex? Masturbation?

Suggestion: actually speak to a homosexual and see what they say instead of assuming you know what they think.

hetero-sexuality is the course of nature (or, in function of whether or not you are Christian, the course ordained by God).

It would seem to me that your sky-daddy also invented homosexuality, did it not? Or is this another convenient cop out like disease, etc.

Homosexuality is the result of a poorly constructed society pushing people nabletofind an identity to psychological illness.

Wishful thinking on your part with no proof whatsoever. It's real, has been around since man walked the earth and it's not going away. Fill your belly with hatred if you must, but they aren't going to stop loving each other on your account.

[got tonkaed]

hetero-sexuality is the course of nature (or, in function of whether or not you are Christian, the course ordained by God).
Homosexuality is the result of a poorly constructed society pushing people nabletofind an identity to psychological illness.

putting religious issues aside, i believe homosexuality is found in other species as well, including ones with somewhat complex (by comparison to other animals) social structures. And given that in many species asexuality isnt uncommon id wonder if heterosexuality is in any way nature.

Out of curiosity, what is the explanation for people born with different sexual organs or those who feel the dont have a clear gender. Im sure youd charge mental illness for the 2nd, but the first wouldnt seem to be a natural thing at all to necessarily choose one way or the other.

[luns101]

since its fun to hash out the whole whether or not people are gay because they want to or because they were born that way, its important to realize few if any nature/nurture issues are resolved especially not that one. We really do not seem to conclusively know one way or the other if many of our behaviors are genetic or social (which all the cool people like me tend to believe).

Yet people conclusively state that they were born that way and they had no choice in the matter. When you ask for actual proof to back up that claim they usually either (1) have no answer and tell you it has to be common sense, (2) cite that there is a gay gene which controls their attractions, or (3) go off on some rant that you're a homophobe in the hopes of making you be quiet.

Now luns im not going to suggest im more into to the lgbt community than you are, but im going to suggest i know more about lgbt issues (more because i hear about the stuff in class a lot, not because im some increidble sensitive person).

Fair enough, it's closer to your field of study at whatever university you attend. You probably read more literature as part of your studies. I'm going to suggest that I know people who are licensed therapists down in San Diego who know more about the issue than you. Despite what you see in the media, SSA is treatable and reparative therapy does work. When people like myself suggest that they throw up their arms and say, "how can you believe such a thing!"..."it causes anxiety and guilt". From my friends who are now practicing therapists and have been helping people overcome this disorder, their success stories are almost never told in the media.

...and please don't tell me that the media has no influence on how people view this subject.

For a lot of people the gay gene issue (in and out of the community) is a hostile issue. I would be willing to argue that many of those who you would be citing believe the gay gene issue to be a strong identity issue that they dont agree with. Since it conflicts with their sense of self of course they are going to reject it when there isnt overwhelming evidence....and they may still even if there was.

I would be willing to argue that many of the people who would reject those facts are also biased against believing it. I'm assuming you go to a state university and almost all of them have a secular humanist basis for how they teach each discipline. They have an interest in redefining homosexual behavior as a civil right. Once you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples...other groups are going to start protesting and saying that their behavior should also be granted legal status.

To use individuals who are heavily vested in their not being a gay gene, to conclude that homosexuality is immoral, is a bit cheating intellectually.

To casually dismiss facts that don't support a predisposed view that homosexuality is normal is just as disingenuous.

[Napoleon Ier]

because in a healthy organism, building block of the healthy society, the homosexual instinct is a perversion of the individual'spsychology that leads him to be a corrupted member of society,or more so than others, who may be for various reasons.
I dont believe people are gay. Its an unnaturalinstinct we all have, but are able, in most cases, to suppress with ease, hardly noticing it, in others, various enviromental factors push into this decadent state further.Through the process of metanoia, a total reconstruction of the self, into a fuller, stronger, capable man, this can be overturned.
Its all your 'ead, Mr. Tweedy.

[Backglass]

Once you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples...other groups are going to start protesting and saying that their behavior should also be granted legal status.

And what exactly is wrong with that? How does this affect YOUR marriage? What terrible fate awaits heterosexual couples if two women are allowed to legally marry?

because in a healthy organism, building block of the healthy society, the homosexual instinct is a perversion of the individual'spsychology that leads him to be a corrupted member of society

LOL. Homosexuals are no more corrupt than heterosexuals...you are fantasizing again. Unless you are talking about the thousands of homosexual priests & ministers throughout the world.

I dont believe people are gay. Its an unnaturalinstinct we all have, but are able, in most cases, to suppress with ease, hardly noticing it, in others, various enviromental factors push into this decadent state further.

Your opinion, which you are entitled to...but nothing more.

Through the process of metanoia, a total reconstruction of the self, into a fuller, stronger, capable man, this can be overturned.

Let me know when you get to "clear" Mr. Cruise.

[Napoleon Ier]

Out of curiosity, what is the explanation for people born with different sexual organs or those who feel the dont have a clear gender. Im sure youd charge mental illness for the 2nd, but the first wouldnt seem to be a natural thing at all to necessarily choose one way or the other.

True, but that is an entirely different case to ths issue of defintevliy male or female persons engaging in homosexual acts.

[Napoleon Ier]

Once you redefine marriage to include homosexual couples...other groups are going to start protesting and saying that their behavior should also be granted legal status.

And what exactly is wrong with that? How does this affect YOUR marriage? What terrible fate awaits heterosexual couples if two women are allowed to legally marry?

The fact is, homosexuality is a problem, and is mental, which is detrimental to society.

And whats wrong with other groups? This :

[url]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 09,00.html[/url]

make amends for faggots, and you get zoophiles, paedophiles, and Lord knows what else demanding rights. I know I seem extreme, you probably think of me as some bizarre neoNazi, but try and understand my way of thought. To me Paedophilia is a problem more grave, but similar t homosexuality.

[got tonkaed]

ill avoid quoting everything to make a long mess to read.

I certainly grant there are many who are attempting to treat individuals, and that in some cases they may be able to effectively do something. I must admit i find the idea a bit disconcerting though, because where exactly would one draw the line. Homosexuality as far as i know is currently out of the DSM, so in essence if as a society you suggest you try and cure things which are not currently percieved as illness, where does one draw the line?

I do not disagree in any way that many are trying to make homosexuality or gay marriage a civil right. Or that in fact there are groups including the media which give homosexuality in some cases positive attention. Nor will i argue that groups which disagree with homosexuality on fundamental levels get the same amount of positive attention.

However, i will make an argument against this family structure issue. Frankly over the past 50 or so years, the structure of the American family has changed drastically. Some studies have claimed that 60 percent of children if not more will at some point live in a single parent home. To suggest that in some way, especially heterosexual marriage is therefore the only one that deserves protection, seems unnecessary. There have not been any conclusive studies as far as i know that have suggested that children adopted by gay parents have any higher prevlance of being gay. To suggest in the current american culture than one style of family deserves benefits or protection (especially when its not a dominant majority) diserves millions of people.

I dont know if i was casually dismissing the facts that you had by the way, i was simply arguing that you are taking information that clearly was not taken for the intent you were using it for and using it as conclusive proof. I do not argue there is a lot of information out there that suggests in some way homosexuality is immoral or not natural. On the balance i dont believe that information, especially as i have come into contact with more people who are homosexual and the groups that advocate on their behalf. However it is perhaps not the most critical set of opinions ive ever had, its rather experiential in nature.

I will say this however...those who stand against homosexuality are in a tricky spot. Much like abortion, when a large portion of society doesnt really stand for moving something in one direction, little can be accomplished. I dont think there are nearly enough people who stand against homosexuality passionatley enough to go in the opposite direction. And i do think there is obviously a civil liberties issue, even if people cannot wrap their minds around marriage yet. Im not really sure how at the moment those who want rights limited to homosexuals will be able to win that debate.

[got tonkaed]

Out of curiosity, what is the explanation for people born with different sexual organs or those who feel the dont have a clear gender. Im sure youd charge mental illness for the 2nd, but the first wouldnt seem to be a natural thing at all to necessarily choose one way or the other.

True, but that is an entirely different case to ths issue of defintevliy male or female persons engaging in homosexual acts.

and at the same time however, if you are going to discount individuals who have in some ways deviant from the norm sexual practices, you have to realize you are going to include quite a large number of people that you didnt even realize, who dont fit quite into the norm.

[heavycola]

make amends for faggots, and you get zoophiles, paedophiles, and Lord knows what else demanding rights. I know I seem extreme, you probably think of me as some bizarre neoNazi, but try and understand my way of thought. To me Paedophilia is a problem more grave, but similar t homosexuality.

what? are you sayign that NAMBLA is about to be granted charitable status?

Again you people give yourselves away. This 'thin end of the wegde' argumetn usually begins with 'faggots' and ends with paedophiles. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and poisonous, and it gives you away as hateful and/or confused rather than thoughtful and considered about this issue.

[Napoleon Ier]

The last paragraph indeed makes sense. In some years, no doubt paedophiles will be allowed to "adopt". And people like me will be awful nasty paedophobes.

[heavycola]

The last paragraph indeed makes sense. In some years, no doubt paedophiles will be allowed to "adopt". And people like me will be awful nasty paedophobes.

do you ever think before you post? Is this actually where you see the world heading?

[Backglass]

The fact is, homosexuality is a problem, and is mental, which is detrimental to society.

No, you have no facts. You have a very biased and puritan opinion.

make amends for faggots, and you get zoophiles, paedophiles, and Lord knows what else demanding rights.

How do you live with such paranoia? If anyone here needs mental health counseling, I would say it is you my friend. You need to figure out what it is in your psyche that makes you think these groups are all out to get you.

So, allowing two women to marry is now a "gateway marriage" to child abuse?! Just like alchohol is the gateway to heroin...right? Please. You need to join Xtratabascos tin foil hat club.

I know I seem extreme, you probably think of me as some bizarre neoNazi, but try and understand my way of thought. To me Paedophilia is a problem more grave, but similar t homosexuality.

I do think you are extreme. I also think you were raised very religious and when the homosexual feelings creep up inside you (as you yourself admitted earlier) you are filled with shame, hatred & loathing. You then suppress any such feeling and re-direct your emotions in this hateful manner. Please seek help before it eats you up inside.

Pedophiles are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who have sex with animals are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who commit murder or do drugs are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who hate cauliflower are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual.

Don't be so afraid of them. They are your neighbors, friends, coworkers, mechanics, firefighters and priests. They are not interested in YOUR sex life. Try not to be interested in theirs.

[Napoleon Ier]

The last paragraph indeed makes sense. In some years, no doubt paedophiles will be allowed to "adopt". And people like me will be awful nasty paedophobes.

do you ever think before you post? Is this actually where you see the world heading?

do you think?

[Napoleon Ier]

No, you have no facts. You have a very biased and puritan opinion.

I have my reason, which tells me that homosexuality hasno biological function, that it is unhealthy for society by forming individuals who have the natural fanily-founding instinct removed from them replaced by abhorrant and purposeless perversion.

How do you live with such paranoia? If anyone here needs mental health counseling, I would say it is you my friend. You need to figure out what it is in your psyche that makes you think these groups are all out to get you.

I believe they damage society. Indirectly, that affects me.

So, allowing two women to marry is now a "gateway marriage" to child abuse?! Just like alchohol is the gateway to heroin...right? Please. You need to join Xtratabascos tin foil hat club.

Yes it is. Gay marriage leads, in France indeed comes with, the right to adopt. Two women raising a kid is perverse. Children aren't toys for the gay community to try and get rights to, they deserve, wherever possible, a mummy and a daddy, without which they are irrevcably scarred.

I do think you are extreme. I also think you were raised very religious and when the homosexual feelings creep up inside you (as you yourself admitted earlier) you are filled with shame, hatred & loathing. You then suppress any such feeling and re-direct your emotions in this hateful manner. Please seek help before it eats you up inside.

I wasn't raised religious, neither my parents attend serviceson Sunday, in fact, I only know one Christian in my family, who is methodist anyway. My grandmother,if anything, is insanely anti-Catholic in French socialo-secular humanist tadition.
I hve never felt gay impulses, I just believe I hve them subconciously, others do feel them. There is no clear line, only a progressie scale, like in terms of psycholigical health.

Pedophiles are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who have sex with animals are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who commit murder or do drugs are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual. People who hate cauliflower are BOTH heterosexual & homosexual.

Don't be so afraid of them. They are your neighbors, friends, coworkers, mechanics, firefighters and priests. They are not interested in YOUR sex life. Try not to be interested in theirs.

I am afraid of paedophies and zoophiles. I should hope you dont approve of them either.