US: Democrat or Republican

[2dimes]

How you can sit on your high horse and honestly believe that ANYONE would actually CHOOSE to be completely different, misunderstood in school, ridiculed, scorned and ostracized...often by their own parents, is beyond me and simply asinine. If it were a simple choice, nobody would make it.

Yeah I never got this.

I think this argument alone disproves everything about homosexuality being a choice.

Snorri, if I remember jr. High School correctly he means when I was the overweight kid with greasy hair that reads alot.

Of course that was before my life became just like pr0n, constantly doing hot women in the behind in all sorts of exotic locals.

brb the repair lady with huge silicone filled breasts is here to fix the dishwasher.

[got tonkaed]

Yes. The children's needs always come first. ONLY if separation is best or negligably bad for them isit acceptable

To say hat "divorce is ok on the kids, more or less, so give gays te rights to f*ck em up too" is outrageous.

actually to equate having a stable home with two gay parents as automatically equal to divorce is more outragoues than anything i can come up with. Im just trying to play by your rules.

[luns101]

Because why the f*ck wouldn't anyone choose to be gay?

Would you be willing to look at a report on this? If you're just going to start swearing, getting angry because I don't agree with you on this, or label me as a dogmatic homophobe (or another word) then what's the use.

Obviously, but what you're arguing against is homosexuals having the same rights as other people.

What I'm saying is if you're going to give same-sex marriage legal status, then how do you stop just there. Eventually other groups will claim their behavior needs to be constitutionally protected.

[Napoleon Ier]

to tonked
I believe the absence of a father figure is what scars the kids. Certainly it differs case to case, but I think in most, the loss of ths identity is prevalently dangerous. You cant put the pathetic demands of disgusting little obnoxious freaks demanding rights they dont understand before a child's needs

[Snorri1234]

Yes. The children's needs always come first. ONLY if separation is best or negligably bad for them isit acceptable

To say hat "divorce is ok on the kids, more or less, so give gays te rights to f*ck em up too" is outrageous.

As tonkaed already mentioned, it's more to do with the parents being there for the kids than them needing to live together. I know a lot of kids with single parents who are just as well adjusted as me. (Which ofcourse doesn't mean I'm well adjusted, but I did grow up in a loving family.)

You're basically saying that people who grow up with gay parents are somehow damaged. This would only hold a little truth if there was a big social stigma on it, which I'm actually in favor of not having!

I believe the absence of a father figure is what scars the kids.

What? Are you saying there is no fatherfigure in a homosexual marriage?

[got tonkaed]

to tonked
I believe the absence of a father figure is what scars the kids. Certainly it differs case to case, but I think in most, the loss of ths identity is prevalently dangerous. You cant put the pathetic demands of disgusting little obnoxious freaks demanding rights they dont understand before a child's needs

i find it very difficult to believe that homosexuals of any gender (or those who are transgendered) are less capable of understanding childrens needs than you or i.

However, i dont think ill be able to discuss this with you any farther as i dont think we really can discuss this civily much farther.

[Snorri1234]

Because why the f*ck wouldn't anyone choose to be gay?

Would you be willing to look at a report on this? If you're just going to start swearing, getting angry because I don't agree with you on this, or label me as a dogmatic homophobe (or another word) then what's the use.

Sure I'm willing. But I don't see any reasonable argument whatsoever.

What I'm saying is if you're going to give same-sex marriage legal status, then how do you stop just there. Eventually other groups will claim their behavior needs to be constitutionally protected.

Like?
Because if you're going with pedophiles and zoöphiles again you better just read about the the concept of "consent".

[2dimes]

to tonked
I believe the absence of a father figure is what scars the kids. Certainly it differs case to case, but I think in most, the loss of ths identity is prevalently dangerous.

So when you have two guys adopt a child it makes them into like a superhuman from the extra father figure?

[Napoleon Ier]

seeing as we've already succumbed to paraphiliac's demands which harm children, its no small stepto see society decide that a child "consenting" under 12 is perfectally acceptable (cf. link Iposted earlier)

[Snorri1234]

seeing as we've already succumbed to paraphiliac's demands which harm children, its no small stepto see society decide that a child "consenting" under 12 is perfectally acceptable (cf. link Iposted earlier)

That's your definition of paraphilia though.

I do not buy your argument. It's a HUGE step from consenting adults marrying other consenting adults towards pedophilia being super-OK!

[Napoleon Ier]

to tonked
I believe the absence of a father figure is what scars the kids. Certainly it differs case to case, but I think in most, the loss of ths identity is prevalently dangerous. You cant put the pathetic demands of disgusting little obnoxious freaks demanding rights they dont understand before a child's needs

i find it very difficult to believe that homosexuals of any gender (or those who are transgendered) are less capable of understanding childrens needs than you or i.

However, i dont think ill be able to discuss this with you any farther as i dont think we really can discuss this civily much farther.

I'm more than happyto discuss.I calledradical hamosexualactivists bnoxious and disgusting, not you.

[Neutrino]

I'm more than happyto discuss.I calledradical hamosexualactivists bnoxious and disgusting, not you.

So? Radical Anything is obnoxious and irritating.
You seem to be judging an entire groupd of people on what your Bible says, supported by the actions of a very small but vocal group.

Suprisingly enough, this isn't the best way to generate an enjoyable discussion.

[Backglass]

They came in and disrupted APA meetings starting in 1970. They grabbed the microphone from psychiatrists attending conventions and screamed at them and ridiculed them. Some forged their APA credentials to gain entrance. They made threats against psychiatrists who thought homosexuality could be cured. A "special" committee dismissed homosexuality as a mental disorder behind closed doors in 1973. The main body of the APA could still have overturned their decision but The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list. They sent out mailers encouraging acceptance of the committee's decision. No APA member was informed that it was the NG&LTF really sending the letters. The motion carried.

There you go: no proof needed...just yell, scream, call names, and intimidate in order to get your way.

You mean like all the christians screaming and protesting in front of the womens clinics? But that's different isn't it. It just sounds like passionate people standing up for what they believe in. You just don't care for the subject matter.

And I suppose the APA today is still quaking in fear of these militant homosexuals? They all secretly know it's a disease but are afraid to speak out? The entire body is just an easily swayed political organization?

I certainly hope these gays don't get a hold of the REPUBLICAN mailing list as we all know how easily fooled THEY are. THE CARNAGE! THE HORROR!

[unriggable]

Napoleon, you're an idiot. There aren't much more imposing characters than dick cheney yet look at his daughter.

[Neoteny]

Wow, I missed out on a lot, but it looks like you gentlemen have a handle on the situation.

What I'm saying is if you're going to give same-sex marriage legal status, then how do you stop just there. Eventually other groups will claim their behavior needs to be constitutionally protected.

Hey! You're starting to get a handle on what we're trying to say. If it isn't hurting anyone, by all means. Let them do it!

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.

Do I have to explain everything to you? I used slavery as an example for the normal=good, abnormal=bad. Slavery was normal. And bad. Homosexual is not the primary form of coupling in our world. That does not automatically make it bad. Please, stop. Your posts are painful to me.

As for this whole gay is a choice thing, has the recent study that was getting all the publicity about gay twins been published yet? That was the supposed "definitive" study. Even if it has, and there was no evidence that there is a gay gene, there isn't any evidence, other than anecdotal, that homosexuality is a choice. Even if it weren't genetically inherited, the hormones involved in sexuality are nowhere near completely understood. So any assertion that homosexuality is or isn't a choice is done by fiat. So all these requests for references are absurd. Let's use our logic, and see where we get from there. My hopes aren't very high. I think this is where beezer comes in and vomits on the thread...

[The Gunslinger]

anyway back on topic.....Im an extreme liberal. Obama in 08!

If you're very liberal take a look at dennis kucinich.

I know i really like Kucinich but he doesnt have much of a shot at winning the nomination otherwise he would be my pick.

[heavycola]

the pathetic demands of disgusting little obnoxious freaks

Great! More balanced treatment of a sensitive and divisive. issue. I'm sure gonna read and consider your arguments carefully!

[beezer]

by 'you guys' i mean bigots, obviously. Another thing that gives you away is your equation of homosexuality with anal sex. 'he's not gay - he's homosexual'? WTF does this mean? Since when does someone who believes thios is all fire and brimstone and an evil perversion get to redefine these terms? absolutely ludicrous.

Oh, and you're not a religious bigot. Yes, either agree with the secularists or be branded a bigot. I'm not going along with your little redefinition of homosexuals as gay because that attempts to paint the lifestyle in a positive way.

Listen - the 'gay gene' question is really immaterial here. It doesn't matter either way, except i suppose for the flippant way it dismisses the suffering of so many men and women over the preceding centuries. I don't know where 'gayness' comes from, and neither do you. The fact is that your church teaches you that being gay is a 'perversion', and that's the bottom line.

It's VERY material. I see that since you can't produce any evidence that a gay gene exists you're trying to get away from that now. Your side says they were born that way. OK, let's see the evidence that proves they were born that way. Even if I didn't go to church I can see that homosexuality is a perversion of what's natural. Nobody needs a Bible to see that.

God creates mankind - the bible says homosexuality is a sin - therefore god cannot have created naturally gay people - therefore it's a choice. if that isn't your reasoning, please show me where i am wrong. If it is, and i believe it is, then it sucks. No pun intended. Think for your damn self.

Homosexuality is just one way that man shows contempt towards God. You can believe whatever you want. If you believe it sucks so be it. Think for myself? This implies that if someone doesn't believe like you then they couldn't possibly be capable of rationale thought. I could say the same thing to you but alter it a little bit - think for yourself and stop repeating homosexual activist talking points.

(BTW these ideas that all gay men do is shag each other up the arse all the time came, i have to say, from your own fevered imagination...)

No, but a majority of them do, and with multiple partners. There are many studies in which homosexuals admit to this. If you think all they do wink at each other then you've got your own delusions to deal with.

There is also no scientific basis for your assertion either.

But if there's no evidence that a gay gene makes people gay, then it would have to be a choice. The burden of proof falls upon you to provide evidence of this gay gene since you're claiming they were born that way.

Homosexuals have existed since time began.

You're arguing from omniscience again, Backglass. This is typical of your posts. Were you there when time began? If not, then you can't make that claim.

Homosexuals activity has been seen in every animal. Sounds to me like it is completely "natural".

If you want to compare yourself to an animal with no rationality who is a helpless victim of his impulses be my guest but I will not be following you down that path.

True. You have every right to be a close minded ass.

Insults directed at me by Backglass: 1
Evidence produced for me by Backglass: 0

Obviously you can't handle people disagreeing with you.

Gay=Homosexual. The same thing. AIDS kills more heterosexuals than homosexuals annually. Please skip ahead to 2007.

No, the homosexual movement co-opted that term gay in the 1970's. Skip ahead to 2007?

Insults directed at me by Backglass: 2
Evidence produced for me by Backglass: 0

MEN are highly promiscuous. Gay men just have an easier time finding partners. As for sodomy, more heterosexuals practice it than homosexuals. Just look at ANY porn site/movie.

Wrong. Homosexual men practice it far more than heterosexual men. I'm sorry but Ron Jeremy is not a legitimate source of research. Here's a couple of sources I found that dispute that.

Robert T. Michael, et al., Sex in America: a Definitive Survey, pp. 140-141, Table 11, Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1994

Gabriel Rotello, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men, pp. 75-76, New York: Penguin Group, 1998

“Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners,” Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg,

Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

As you can continue to falsely assume that homosexuality is simply a choice.

Then show us the proof that a gay gene controls homosexuals. We're still waiting.

How you can sit on your high horse and honestly believe that ANYONE would actually CHOOSE to be completely different, misunderstood in school, ridiculed, scorned and ostracized...often by their own parents, is beyond me and simply asinine. If it were a simple choice, nobody would make it.

How can you sit on your high horse and honestly believe there's a mythical gay gene and preach to us that you've just gotta believe that they were born that way?

Look, I would never condone a homosexual person being ridiculed or beaten up. That's just wrong. I'm not saying it's a simple choice, but they still choose to engage in it. OK, you want to call me asinine - fine.

Insults directed at me by Backglass: 3
Evidence produced by Backglass: 0

Direct Question Beezer: Honestly...How many gay people have you actually spoken to about this subject?

Let's see: My step-brother, a friend whose backyard is caddy-corner to my backyard, and 2 co-workers (that I know of who are openly homosexual and have told me so).

I see what you're doing. You're playing the old 'I've got gay friends & you don't - so I can speak with authority on the issue and you can't' card. I don't care if you have 1,000 homosexual friends & I have none [or vice versa]. You having more homosexual friends than me or me having more homosexual friends than you doesn't mean a thing. I talk to my step-brother about it and he knows what I believe. He would hardly label me as intolerant or homophobic. He's part of our family.

Backglass and whoever else, it's easy for you guys to preach tolerance and 'let's be accepting of same-sex marriage'. When homosexuals contract AIDS and are dying because of their behavior I never see people like you coming around and helping in the hospices. Let's see you come out and show how tolerant you all are when homosexuals need you the most - when they're dying and need someone to tell them their still loved.

[Neutrino]

Oh, and you're not a religious bigot. Yes, either agree with the secularists or be branded a bigot. I'm not going along with your little redefinition of homosexuals as gay because that attempts to paint the lifestyle in a positive way.

Redefinition? Wha...?

1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.

In fact, on that page, it had a link to it's definition of Gay.

7. a homosexual person, esp. a male.

I think we've come past the 1900's here when gay still meant happy...

It's VERY material. I see that since you can't produce any evidence that a gay gene exists you're trying to get away from that now. Your side says they were born that way. OK, let's see the evidence that proves they were born that way. Even if I didn't go to church I can see that homosexuality is a perversion of what's natural. Nobody needs a Bible to see that.

Not really. Whether there is a "Gay Gene" or not really dosen't matter.
Really, would you shoose to stop having sex just because some wierdo told you it was wrong, especially if you saw nothing wrong with it?

Anyway, that's this automatic relation between Natural/normal and good? It's natural for a large percentage of your children to be stillborn or die young. It's natural for you to live a rough and hard life and die at the age of 50. It's natural for an epidemic to sweep through and kill your entire family, slowly and painfully.

I don't see you embracing all these exceedingly natural events.

Homosexuality is just one way that man shows contempt towards God.

Despite the fact that it, by definition, invented it.

But if there's no evidence that a gay gene makes people gay, then it would have to be a choice. The burden of proof falls upon you to provide evidence of this gay gene since you're claiming they were born that way.

And you're claiming they're not. The burden falls to both of you.

You're arguing from omniscience again, Backglass. This is typical of your posts. Were you there when time began? If not, then you can't make that claim.

Ummm, no. This is a pretty reasonable assumption (assuming he is speaking of the "Dawn of Humanity" of course). What would it be about this particular time that causes a decent percentage of the population to become homosexual? Are you seriously suggesting there were absolutely no homosexuals at all until a few decades ago, when it became no longer a hugely heinous crime? Not one of the 60 billion previous humans decided to "experiment"

How can you sit on your high horse and honestly believe there's a mythical gay gene and preach to us that you've just gotta believe that they were born that way?

Answer the question

Backglass and whoever else, it's easy for you guys to preach tolerance and 'let's be accepting of same-sex marriage'. When homosexuals contract AIDS and are dying because of their behavior

Huh? We should campaign against sky or bungie divers too? Those sports are pretty risky too.

I never see people like you coming around and helping in the hospices

Who's arguing from omniscience now? How do you know he's never helped out? Have you? What is the relivance?

Let's see you come out and show how tolerant you all are when homosexuals need you the most - when they're dying and need someone to tell them their still loved.

I think they're likely to find a visit from Blackglass much more comforting than someone who declares their entire life has been an act of "contempt towards god" and a "perversion of what is natural".

Step 1: Think. Step 2: Post.
The order is important.

[heavycola]

by 'you guys' i mean bigots, obviously. Another thing that gives you away is your equation of homosexuality with anal sex. 'he's not gay - he's homosexual'? WTF does this mean? Since when does someone who believes thios is all fire and brimstone and an evil perversion get to redefine these terms? absolutely ludicrous.

Oh, and you're not a religious bigot. Yes, either agree with the secularists or be branded a bigot. I'm not going along with your little redefinition of homosexuals as gay because that attempts to paint the lifestyle in a positive way.

This is about your use of language in this thread, which smacks of fear and prejudice. And it's not really 'my little redefinition', is it?? I THINK you'll find teh term 'gay' has had a rather larger take up than by me. And often in a (for you) suitably pejorative sense.

Listen - the 'gay gene' question is really immaterial here. It doesn't matter either way, except i suppose for the flippant way it dismisses the suffering of so many men and women over the preceding centuries. I don't know where 'gayness' comes from, and neither do you.

EDIT it's interesting that you declare there is no gene to account for gayness, and yet you believe that gay men are much more promiscuous than straight. Is markedly increased promiscuity not a genetic trait?

It's VERY material. I see that since you can't produce any evidence that a gay gene exists you're trying to get away from that now. Your side says they were born that way. OK, let's see the evidence that proves they were born that way. Even if I didn't go to church I can see that homosexuality is a perversion of what's natural. Nobody needs a Bible to see that.

no.. my point was that since nobody knows either way, it's not important here. And i would contend that you DO Need a bible to tell you that homosexuality is an abomination. Very much so. It is perhaps telling that most of the anti-gay posters in this thread are christians. That's not bigotry, simply an observation.
Haircuts - a perversion of what is natural. Clothes- likewise. And of is this about nature, and not just humanity, then spoken language is also a perversion of nature.

God creates mankind - the bible says homosexuality is a sin - therefore god cannot have created naturally gay people - therefore it's a choice. if that isn't your reasoning, please show me where i am wrong. If it is, and i believe it is, then it sucks. No pun intended. Think for your damn self.

Homosexuality is just one way that man shows contempt towards God. You can believe whatever you want. If you believe it sucks so be it. Think for myself? This implies that if someone doesn't believe like you then they couldn't possibly be capable of rationale thought. I could say the same thing to you but alter it a little bit - think for yourself and stop repeating homosexual activist talking points.

I came up with that all by myself! Where does this assumption about homosexual actviism come from? I speak only as someone with plenty of gay friends of both sexes - some in long-term relationships, others single - who really can't see the irreperable damage these evil perverts are doing to society...

[joecoolfrog]

The Middle East is one of the regions of the world where it is a cultural taboo for a women to have sex before marriage,consequently it is far from uncommon for adolescent males to indulge in a certain amount of homosexual activity. This would certainly also have been the case 2000 years ago so many of the early Christians may well have participated in the 'sexual perversions ' that some of you so despise. Does this mean they were bad people hell bent on undermining society,were they warped in some manner, perhaps so but not necessarily because at some stage they worked off a bit of sexual tension.

[Napoleon Ier]

Precisely. The homosexual manifestations in men are always stemmed from some form of constraint or abnormal enviromenal factor (which could nclude repressive parents like Cheney, note to unriggable).

How can anyone possibly believe in a "gay" gene. Do you people who bash creationists and persecute and revile them (then call them intolerant) really have so little grasp of basic biology?

The gay gene has absolutly no function whatsoever, and given the fact that it excludes reproduction when manifested it would have been entirely eradicated in no time evolution-wise.
Furthermore, this would mean certain communities and families wouldbe predonminantly gay while others would not be. This is clearly not the case.

[Snorri1234]

Precisely. The homosexual manifestations in men are always stemmed from some form of constraint or abnormal enviromenal factor (which could nclude repressive parents like Cheney, note to unriggable).

How can anyone possibly believe in a "gay" gene. Do you people who bash creationists and persecute and revile them (then call them intolerant) really have so little grasp of basic biology?

The gay gene has absolutly no function whatsoever, and given the fact that it excludes reproduction when manifested it would have been entirely eradicated in no time evolution-wise.
Furthermore, this would mean certain communities and families wouldbe predonminantly gay while others would not be. This is clearly not the case.

Wow this post is filled with so much epic fail and total misunderstanding of biology it's not even funny anymore.

1. The gay-gene could have a very usefull function. If a girl's brother is gay, he can help her take care of the children which means that more of her children surivive. A gene doesn't have to be only usefull to the individual itself, it can be usefull to a family which means it still gets passed along.
2. Why the hell would some communities be predominately gay?

[unriggable]

How can anyone possibly believe in a "gay" gene. Do you people who bash creationists and persecute and revile them (then call them intolerant) really have so little grasp of basic biology?

You'd be surprised what genes do.

Two identical twins separated at birth. One lived in Nazi Germany, the other in the Caribbean. They met each other eventually but they were both very old adults. They both read magazines back to front, wore rubber bands on their wrists, among tons of other things.

That's not coincidence, that's genetic. So what's stopping a gay gene?

[comic boy]

Precisely. The homosexual manifestations in men are always stemmed from some form of constraint or abnormal enviromenal factor (which could nclude repressive parents like Cheney, note to unriggable).

How can anyone possibly believe in a "gay" gene. Do you people who bash creationists and persecute and revile them (then call them intolerant) really have so little grasp of basic biology?

The gay gene has absolutly no function whatsoever, and given the fact that it excludes reproduction when manifested it would have been entirely eradicated in no time evolution-wise.
Furthermore, this would mean certain communities and families wouldbe predonminantly gay while others would not be. This is clearly not the case.

I personally could care less whether a person is gay because of genetics or simply social preference, what does it matter if somebody chooses to have sex with men,women or indeed both sexes. The World would be a far healthier place if we were all less quick to judge others and stopped attempting to put everybody in cozy little boxes.