NationStates Jolt Archive

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**

Or

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**
"That's..it? The kids at school-"
"If the kids at school have a problem I'll talk to their parents. And if that doesn't work, I'll kick their parents' ass."

:D

Rock on!

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**

Or

"Dad...I'm homosexual"
"Ok" **flips through newspaper**
"That's..it? The kids at school-"
"If the kids at school have a problem I'll talk to their parents. And if that doesn't work, I'll kick their parents' ass."

:D

You are a god. Truly. :D

Whilst you're entitled to your view of parenting, ultimately it is not one that is universally shared. Some parents would view instilling correct morals in their children as more important than happiness or health. Some would regard saving their soul as more important. Equally not everyone would accept the notion of innate human rights, or even if they do they may not accept that they are of paramount importance. The question still remains, then, can anyone justify condemning the shunning of a child in a way that sn't based on moral preconceptions?

I think that trying to instill ANYTHING in children is an aspirational ideal rather than what actually happens in how we form our beliefs and moral codes. I certainly can track how my parents' beliefs have influenced mine - but I am not simply a duplicate or carbon copy of them. I do believe that one of the tasks of parenting is to foster independence/adulthood - which presumably also contains the ability to think for oneself.

I think that trying to instill ANYTHING in children is an aspirational ideal rather than what actually happens in how we form our beliefs and moral codes.

I can't agree here, if that were the case then moral and religious beliefs would be spread far more unifromly than they actually are.

I certainly can track how my parents' beliefs have influenced mine - but I am not simply a duplicate or carbon copy of them.

They don't have to be an exact copy, just share certain fundamental beliefs. In fact they don't need to even do that, we're thinking in terms of the end product. Others could just as legitimately argue (as some on this thread have) that it's not what you accomplish that's important, rather the fact that you try. It's the whole virtue ethics vs consequentialism conundrum which is pretty bloody tricky to solve.

I do believe that one of the tasks of parenting is to foster independence/adulthood - which presumably also contains the ability to think for oneself.

And others (probably most people I'd say) would argue that one of the tasks is to raise the child to be a morally good person, which entails to some extent reacting if they do something you consider immoral. The definition of immorality may differ from parent to parent, it may include violence, sexist behaviour, racist behaviour, theft, drug taking, swearing, blasphemy or homosexuality, depending on the parent's own personal convictions. Of course the other option is to stand by and do nothing whatever your child does, but I don't think you or I would consider that an option. Some may even argue that the ability to think for oneself is irrelevant or even dangerous if it leads the child to turn away from what they consider the right path, especially if turning away entails an eternity of punishment. Before I could condemn anyone for acting on such a belief I'd have to be pretty damn sure I could find some wholly objective justification for my own beliefs, and I'm not sure I can (which is largely the reason for these questions, since there seems a large number of posters with whom I broadly agree on this issue I wanted to see if anyone could offer a decent justification since I can't).

Do you know why teenagers discriminate so easily? Because they have weak minds that are easily molded by the media and their friends and so if your friends say being gay is weird and that you should pick on the gay kid, chances are you will.

if they were molded by todays media they would think that only gay men have fashion sense, the ability to cook, and are much much happier than straight men...look at all the pro gay programming on the tube...
to quote a scene from sealab 2021 "gay,gay,gay,gay,gay"..
thanx

Bringing religious rhetoric that no one else agrees with into this discussion to justifiy a position you can't support any other way is doing you absolutely no good. You just sound silly.


i agree with christian rhetoric.. you would support everyones right to do whatever they please...oh wait except christians..oooh you wicked intolerant person

i agree with christian rhetoric.. you would support everyones right to do whatever they please...oh wait except christians..oooh you wicked intolerant person

Incorrect. Zero points for you.

They're allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else.

Incorrect. Zero points for you.

They're allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else.

oh no i dont get points..wait i have already won..wait til the game is over and see where you place..
aside from that i was addressing the senates..but nice way to hop on with your own 2 cents...

i agree with christian rhetoric.. you would support everyones right to do whatever they please...oh wait except christians..oooh you wicked intolerant person

I beleive that if you actually studied his philsophy, she/he would support everyone's right to do what they want in their own life--not their right to interfere with others. When Christians step out and try to force their beliefs on others, they give up the right not to be interefered with.

oh no i dont get points
That's right. Shame on you.
..wait i have already won
Not without any points you don't :D
..wait til the game is over and see where you place..
I have twenty points. That's a lot more then you, mister no points.
aside from that i was addressing the senates..but nice way to hop on with your own 2 cents...
It's called an "open forum." As surprising as this might be, I can actually see your post and respond to it. If you learn how this miracle of science works, you might earn a point or two.

if they were molded by todays media they would think that only gay men have fashion sense, the ability to cook, and are much much happier than straight men...look at all the pro gay programming on the tube...
to quote a scene from sealab 2021 "gay,gay,gay,gay,gay"..

Have you stopped to consider that this as stereotyping? Maybe gay men don't want to be seen as fitting neatly into a little box. Maybe they'd like to be seen as individuals, just like the rest of us?

Maybe putting people into convenient boxes is a way for us to deal with our own insecurities and fears? "Oh, all gay guys are like Carson Kressley, they're fashionable, funny and entertaining, so that's ok."

It also perpetuates the idea that they're in some way different. It's comparable to "orientalism" in art and literature.

That's right. Shame on you.

Not without any points you don't :D

I have twenty points. That's a lot more then you, mister no points.

It's called an "open forum." As surprising as this might be, I can actually see your post and respond to it. If you learn how this miracle of science works, you might earn a point or two.

i have sent an e-mail to al gore..since he invented it all maybe he will teach me...
now when responding to a question not put to you..you dont win either...

see i can make up rules also.

oh wait
that just earnd me 30 points

i have sent an e-mail to al gore..since he invented i all maybe he wil teach me...
Good, that's taking initiative. I'll let you have half a point for that.
now when responding to a question not put to you..you dont win either...
Sure I do. My opinion is heard, it's relevant and logical, and you don't comment on it. Bonus points for me, maybe next time you'll actually respond to the point?

see i can make up rules also.
Watch it, you might lose that 1/2 a point...

oh wait
that just earnd me 30 points
If you want to be that arrogent, I'm putting you back at zero points.

If you want some real points, respond to my point (if you can)?

Have you stopped to consider that this as stereotyping? Maybe gay men don't want to be seen as fitting neatly into a little box. Maybe they'd like to be seen as individuals, just like the rest of us?

Maybe putting people into convenient boxes is a way for us to deal with our own insecurities and fears? "Oh, all gay guys are like Carson Kressley, they're fashionable, funny and entertaining, so that's ok."

It also perpetuates the idea that they're in some way different. It's comparable to "orientalism" in art and literature.

i agree completely i have known..(not biblically..ha)..plenty of gay men who were just plain ol rednecks except for the liking men part..i am from mississippi don't ya know

i agree completely i have known..(not biblically..ha)..plenty of gay men who were just plain ol rednecks except for the liking men part..i am from mississippi don't ya know

You mean there are more than two us in Mississippi who have computers? Go figure.

Okay, yes I am joking. Don't anyone else make fun of Mississippi. It's one of those, I can make fun of my family but you can't things. . .

Hey I know how the mississipians (is that even a word?) feel. I'm from Durban originally. You should hear my Johannesburg cousins laughing at "Durban people."

Just for the record, I don't wear socks with sandals. :p

Incorrect. Zero points for you.

They're allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else.

youre original point..aside from the attempt to be funny at my expense...was on infringement on others which i have never done...you see i belief the true word which says hate the sin but love the person..i live in mississippi which recently passed this gay mess...and guess what i didn't even vote on it cause it effects my salvation none..but if you ask me i will tell you i think homosexuality much like pedophilia is a temptation that must be overcome...and no i do not think homosexuality is anywhere near as evil pedophilia..just both are temptations that some are burdened with..possibly even from birth..

Hey I know how the mississipians (is that even a word?) feel. I'm from Durban originally. You should hear my Johannesburg cousins laughing at "Durban people."

Just for the record, I don't wear socks with sandals. :p

Mississippians is the gneerally accepted term for someone from Mississippi. And I'm glad you don't wear socks with sandals--its mostly only old white men with blue socks and sandals and shorts that dress that way.

youre original point..aside from the attempt to be funny at my expense...was on infringement on others which i have never done...you see i belief the true word which says hate the sin but love the person..i live in mississippi which recently passed this gay mess...and guess what i didn't even vote on it cause it effects my salvation none..but if you ask me i will tell you i think homosexuality much like pedophilia is a temptation that must be overcome...and no i do not think homosexuality is anywhere near as evil pedophilia..just both are temptations that some are burdened with..possibly even from birth..

You said "christians arn't allowed to do what they want"

I said "Yes they do, so long as it doesn't attack others"

When did I say "OMG all christians are teh EVIL! ROFFLL!ONE!"

You said "christians arn't allowed to do what they want"

I said "Yes they do, so long as it doesn't attack others"

When did I say "OMG all christians are teh EVIL! ROFFLL!ONE!"


how is preaching a religion an attack..now if i held you down and beat you with a cross and bible that would be an attack..
or maybe if i jumped on you rpost trying to be funny that might be an attack..
where are my points

oh wait i see the counter just ticked to 40..thanx

how is preaching a religion an attack..now if i held you down and beat you with a cross and bible that would be an attack..
Preaching isn't. You're allowed to preach. You are not allowed to FORCE things on others, including morality.
or maybe if i jumped on you rpost trying to be funny that might be an attack..
I couldn't care less, as long as you had a point
where are my points
Bloody hell, what do you want me to do, make it a part of my sig and update it ever second?

oh wait i see the counter just ticked to 40..thanx
you HAD 7, but it's 6 now. What did I tell you about arrogence regarding your points?

Preaching isn't. You're allowed to preach. You are not allowed to FORCE things on others, including morality.

I couldn't care less, as long as you had a point

Bloody hell, what do you want me to do, make it a part of my sig and update it ever second?


you HAD 7, but it's 6 now. What did I tell you about arrogence regarding your points?
considering you have heard my point and twisted this whole conversation if not this whole thread..then you are the arrogant one..

Before I could condemn anyone for acting on such a belief I'd have to be pretty damn sure I could find some wholly objective justification for my own beliefs, and I'm not sure I can

This sentence seems to be at the heart of it for me. I don't think anyone, on either side of this debate, can claim true "objectivity". Which is OK by me, because I think I believe that we all bring different perspectives to any topic.

The problem seems to arise when people deny they are subjective and seek to impose their "normal" on others. When they are also parents, with all the power difference that implies, the potential exists for them to not ever have to acknowledge their children's views on anything.

And this goes beyond instilling virtues or anything else - we just have to look at generational change on issues like slavery, women in the workforce, the 60s, drug use, etc to be able to argue that parents don't have all the answers all the time on what is "right".

...I'd say "Hey, you too? Let's go and check out guys."

Just for the record, I don't wear socks with sandals. :p

I do! Birkenstocks forever! :p

where are my points

Do I get points? :( :p

They're allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else.

Define "infringe".

EDIT: now I read this again it seems very argumentative. It's not intended that way, just asking for clarification.

This sentence seems to be at the heart of it for me. I don't think anyone, on either side of this debate, can claim true "objectivity". Which is OK by me, because I think I believe that we all bring different perspectives to any topic.

Well they can claim it, and do 90% of the time, but whether they're right or not is a different matter ;)

The problem seems to arise when people deny they are subjective and seek to impose their "normal" on others.

I agree fully. Which is why I have a problem with others stating "you should not turn away your homosexual child, it is evil (or lesser terms of moral condemnation)." Granted one could argue that is not seeking to impose values, but then a parent who says they would kick their gay child out could say they are not seeking to "impose" either, just refusing to condone in any way such a lifestyle.

When they are also parents, with all the power difference that implies, the potential exists for them to not ever have to acknowledge their children's views on anything.

True, but that's their choice. I for one am not going to force people to be open minded. I may argue that their particular brand of parenting is unlikely to produce a well-balanced child/adult but if they disagree they're entitled to their view. Ultimately how they raise their child is up to them, not me.

And this goes beyond instilling virtues or anything else - we just have to look at generational change on issues like slavery, women in the workforce, the 60s, drug use, etc to be able to argue that parents don't have all the answers all the time on what is "right".

Ah, but here comes the rub. If moral values truly are subjective then we can't actually argue legitimately that the views of past generations were wrong, just that we disagree with them. So the actions of future generations are no more right or wrong than those of the past, thus there's nothing inherantly wrong with maintaining the status quo (though the option of arguing on the basis of pragmatics is still open).

If, on the other hand, they're at least partly objective then the onus is on those who would argue that a particular course of action is right/wrong to find objective justification before stating their case.

Going back to the original question, if I had a child (which I don't), and they became a homosexual, I would most definitely disown them. I don't condone it personally, and I'd never be able to accept a homosexual as one of my relatives.

I have no problem working my ass off to provide a kid with the necessities of life. I'd be happy to buy them a car, put them through college, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them the eighteen years they'd live with me. However, if I'm going to do all that; if I'm going to pour time, energy, money, and most important of all, love, into my child, all I ask of them is that they don't become a homosexual. That isn't a whole lot to ask for of a child, considering what I'd be putting forth.

That's just the way I feel about it. And no, I'm not some bible-thumping right-wing extremist with a lust for my sister and a mouth with one tooth in it.

Going back to the original question, if I had a child (which I don't), and they became a homosexual, I would most definitely disown them. I don't condone it personally, and I'd never be able to accept a homosexual as one of my relatives.

I have no problem working my ass off to provide a kid with the necessities of life. I'd be happy to buy them a car, put them through college, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them the eighteen years they'd live with me. However, if I'm going to do all that; if I'm going to pour time, energy, money, and most important of all, love, into my child, all I ask of them is that they don't become a homosexual. That isn't a whole lot to ask for of a child, considering what I'd be putting forth.

That's just the way I feel about it. And no, I'm not some bible-thumping right-wing extremist with a lust for my sister and a mouth with one tooth in it.

You keep referring to them "becoming a homosexual" as if its a choice. You do realize its not for the VAST majority of homosexuals. I can't speak for everyone, but every gay male or lesbian I've known says it wasn't (I say it myself) and the APA and pretty much every scientific group (AMA, AAP, ANA, etc.) also say that based on the studies performed by members, it is NOT a choice. Whether its genetic or not remains to be seen, but lots of things that are not genetic are still not choices.

Until it's a proven fact that homosexuality is genetic, I'd still disown my kid. Anyway, every homosexual I'VE met (and believe me, I've met TONS. I go to an art school, everybody's crooked) told me it was their choice. I know at least three people who made the choice to become homosexual on their own because of personal reasons. One girl I know became a lesbian because she had trouble getting a boyfriend.

Until it's a proven fact that homosexuality is genetic, I'd still disown my kid. Anyway, every homosexual I'VE met (and believe me, I've met TONS. I go to an art school, everybody's crooked) told me it was their choice. I know at least three people who made the choice to become homosexual on their own because of personal reasons. One girl I know became a lesbian because she had trouble getting a boyfriend.

Again, it does not have to be genetic to NOT be a choice. Of course, most studies point to at least a genetic component. And while you may know some people who chose to be gay, I guarantee you that they make up less than 5% of gay people--if that. I have never met anyone who chose to be gay and believe me, I have lots of gay friends (thank god for liberal arts colleges) and am gay myself.

I guess our opinions differ. It's as simple as that. I stand by what I said though. I think homosexuality is a choice, and if my child chose that path, I'd disown their ass faster than they could lock lips with their same-sex partner. Studies are exactly that. Studies. I want concrete proof. And until I get that, I can only rely on my opinion.

As far as im concerned the more gay men there are thats more straight ladies for me. ;)

I guess our opinions differ. It's as simple as that. I stand by what I said though. I think homosexuality is a choice, and if my child chose that path, I'd disown their ass faster than they could lock lips with their same-sex partner. Studies are exactly that. Studies. I want concrete proof. And until I get that, I can only rely on my opinion.

First off, science doesn't provide proof. It provides studies. These studies provide evidence. This isn't math, proofs don't exist. The overwhelming evidence so far supports the conclusion that homosexuality is not a choice.

Secondly, if you do know so many gay people then what is your problem with them? What is so horrible about gays that you would not want a child to become one? Just an aside, I don't know what kind of gay people your hanging around with, I've never heard someone say they chose to be gay. I'm not calling you a liar, just saying thats odd.

i would probably be shocked...

and then i'd get over that and be like "so, you're still going to give me grandkids, right?" and then probably be like any annoying mother and insist that they settle down with someone when they hit 30 or so.

I know at least three people who made the choice to become homosexual on their own because of personal reasons. One girl I know became a lesbian because she had trouble getting a boyfriend.
Perhaps those people were actually bisexual all along?

Going back to the original question, if I had a child (which I don't), and they became a homosexual, I would most definitely disown them. I don't condone it personally, and I'd never be able to accept a homosexual as one of my relatives.

I have no problem working my ass off to provide a kid with the necessities of life. I'd be happy to buy them a car, put them through college, and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on them the eighteen years they'd live with me. However, if I'm going to do all that; if I'm going to pour time, energy, money, and most important of all, love, into my child, all I ask of them is that they don't become a homosexual. That isn't a whole lot to ask for of a child, considering what I'd be putting forth.

That's just the way I feel about it. And no, I'm not some bible-thumping right-wing extremist with a lust for my sister and a mouth with one tooth in it.

Oh my god what a cow. It's only a choice to be open about it, a choice that should be promoted. It was never a choice for me thats for sure. What a horrible person you are, I hope you never have children. And yes it is to much to ask, it's like saying to your son "Can you wear a dress for me, ya know I put alot forth for you and I wanted a girl. So hop in the dress."

And for someone who goes to an Art school, your pretty close minded.

Oh my god what a cow. It's only a choice to be open about it, a choice that should be promoted. It was never a choice for me thats for sure. What a horrible person you are, I hope you never have children. And yes it is to much to ask, it's like saying to your son "Can you wear a dress for me, ya know I put alot forth for you and I wanted a girl. So hop in the dress."

And for someone who goes to an Art school, your pretty close minded.

This is exactly what it is, well said. Sunshine seems to be a ridiculously self-centered person. Because s/he finds homosexuals icky (admittedly, s/he has no other basis for the aversion), the child should have to live a life that is not theirs. What makes you so damn special, Sunshine, that your child couldn't be themselves (who they were born to be, of your blood) because they need to make you happy?

I'd love them the same exact way I always did.
For those who would disown their children, how unfortunate and I really do wish your children don't have to grow up with that perverse, homophobic attitude. Discrimination and prejudice can distroy a country, but appearently some people haven't learnt that yet.

True, but that's their choice. I for one am not going to force people to be open minded. I may argue that their particular brand of parenting is unlikely to produce a well-balanced child/adult but if they disagree they're entitled to their view. Ultimately how they raise their child is up to them, not me..

do you really think that?

I'm not sure that I do believe in the 'sacredness' of the nuclear family model. And we do have laws about acceptable parental behaviour - child abuse, physical punishment limits, etc - which means that the raising of children is not just an individual endeavour.

If we know that parental 'shunning' is harmful (for whatever reason)- why wouldn't we condemn it?

I guess our opinions differ. It's as simple as that. I stand by what I said though. I think homosexuality is a choice, and if my child chose that path, I'd disown their ass faster than they could lock lips with their same-sex partner. Studies are exactly that. Studies. I want concrete proof. And until I get that, I can only rely on my opinion.

so what proof would you classify as concrete?

Bringing religious rhetoric that no one else agrees with into this discussion to justifiy a position you can't support any other way is doing you absolutely no good. You just sound silly.

Don't say no one. I agree with him.

Until it's a proven fact that homosexuality is genetic, I'd still disown my kid. Anyway, every homosexual I'VE met (and believe me, I've met TONS. I go to an art school, everybody's crooked) told me it was their choice. I know at least three people who made the choice to become homosexual on their own because of personal reasons. One girl I know became a lesbian because she had trouble getting a boyfriend.

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

1. Genetic determinism for ANY sexual orientation, including holy heterosexuality, has NOT been proven.

2. It is interesting those who need to back up their idea sexual orientation is a choice has nothing to go by but hearsay of someone they claim to know. Now suppose IF homosexuality is really a choice, why do so many psychiatrists often with religious affiliations, offer treatment for it when the easiest thing would be to do is "unchoose" homosexuality? *scratches head* To even imply choice is incredibly ignorant.

Lastly, don't be so sure your child wouldn't disown you first, regardless of his or her sexual orientation.

I'm old and ugly enough to know that it is my childs life and it is not up to me to tell them who to fall in love with . I would probably worry about them a bit more but I would love and accept them as I would have done since i had had them.

When my gay(well lesbian if you want to be accurate) friend told her mother that she's a lesbian, her mother just said: You think I haven't known that for years?
well, she hadn't been so sure until that. It can be harder to admit it to yourself than to tell your parents about it.

do you really think that?

Yes. My basic point is that if one preaches tolerance it doesn't start and finish with race, sex or sexuality but also extends to differing moralities. Of course it's not always as cut and dry as that, my moral beliefs run pretty deep and I can't always just shut them off, but that's what I try for, anyway.

I've noticed there seems to be an inconsistency in the belief of some who call themselves liberal, and argument along the lines of "I don't believe we should alienate others simply because we have our own prejudices, that's why I could never have a racist or a homophobe as a friend."

I'm not sure that I do believe in the 'sacredness' of the nuclear family model. And we do have laws about acceptable parental behaviour - child abuse, physical punishment limits, etc - which means that the raising of children is not just an individual endeavour.

Sorry, I wasn't making myself clear here. I wasn't talking about the sacredness of the family per se, I believe that whether someone shuns their friends, neighbours etc. is equally their own concern. Actually that's badly phrased, it's not their own concern necessarily (so if I knew the kid I'd have no qualms about taking them in) but that I wouldn't argue that what they did was immoral, or shun them in return. Unless they were annoying.

As for the laws, they're just that, laws. Not absolute arbiters of moral right or wrong. Strange as it may sound I'm not entirely comfortable labling someone who beats their kids immoral either, though I thoroughly detest such action, because I can't find a strong enough basis on which to do so. Not that that would stop me doing everything I could to try to get them to stop, but on the basis that I personally cannot condone such behaviour, not on the basis that it is immoral.

If we know that parental 'shunning' is harmful (for whatever reason)- why wouldn't we condemn it?

Well, not everyone agrees that harm is the most important element, or even an element, in morality. So it's still just a moral preconception.

so what proof would you classify as concrete?

Anything that is backed up by proven facts. I can study a math book all I want, but I still might not know anything by the time I'm finished.

As for that bullshit psychiatry bit someone mentioned earlier, people will call anything a disease these days. I don't give a shit who does what...your grandma could've churned out a whole study on the nature of homosexuals and their tendencies and I wouldn't even give it two glances. Unless it's a PROVEN FACT...unless some scientist has said, "Yes indeed, homosexuals are born that way because of this or that," we can only rely on our opinions. And from my past experiences with homosexuals, my opinion is it all comes down to choice.

And as for my child disowning me before I them, if they're gay, better for me.

Anything that is backed up by proven facts. I can study a math book all I want, but I still might not know anything by the time I'm finished.

As for that bullshit psychiatry bit someone mentioned earlier, people will call anything a disease these days. I don't give a shit who does what...your grandma could've churned out a whole study on the nature of homosexuals and their tendencies and I wouldn't even give it two glances. Unless it's a PROVEN FACT...unless some scientist has said, "Yes indeed, homosexuals are born that way because of this or that," we can only rely on our opinions. And from my past experiences with homosexuals, my opinion is it all comes down to choice.

And as for my child disowning me before I them, if they're gay, better for me.

The only concrete fact available here is that you know nothing about science and the way that it works.

And scientists have said "Yes indeed, homosexuals are born that way because of this or that." So if one scientist saying that is what you define as proof, I guess your child won't be getting disowned.

I'm sorry, I meant to say the scientific community as a whole. And who gives a shit what I know about science? What the fuck do you know? I haven't heard any scientific proof spill out of your mouth, just your opinion, so get off your high horse buddy.

I'm sorry, I meant to say the scientific community as a whole. And who gives a shit what I know about science? What the fuck do you know? I haven't heard any scientific proof spill out of your mouth, just your opinion, so get off your high horse buddy.

I know how science works because I happen to have a degree in it and am working on my MD. Science does NOT provide proof. Ever. There is no such as proof when science in concerned, so you cannot ask fo rit. What science does provide is evidence and disproof. Even then you have to question.

And if you meant the scientific community as a whole, you should say it otherwise people won't know what you mean.

Oh, and it is the general conscensus of the scientific community that homosexuality is NOT a choice.

And from my past experiences with homosexuals, my opinion is it all comes down to choice.

How the hell would you know? How can you possibly have any knowledge of that? Surely an actual gay would know better than you would... being gay and all. And I say, I didn't choose it, full stop.

I had a good friend in middle school named J.R. He was a great kid, true pal. And until his sophomore year in high school, he was straight. I asked him straight up if it was his choice, and he told me it sure as hell was. I go to an arts school, and I know plenty of homosexuals who have said the same thing. Many of them dated members of the opposite sex before they finally succumbed to homosexuality. When I asked them why, I got different answers. Many of the gay folks I know have an easier time relating to members of the same-sex. I was told it was their choice. Maybe you think differently. I can respect that. But you're not the only homosexual in the world, and I have met plenty of folks who have told me it was their choice.

It all comes down to opinion. I wish you'd respect mine.

I had a good friend in middle school named J.R. He was a great kid, true pal. And until his sophomore year in high school, he was straight. I asked him straight up if it was his choice, and he told me it sure as hell was. I go to an arts school, and I know plenty of homosexuals who have said the same thing. Many of them dated members of the opposite sex before they finally succumbed to homosexuality. When I asked them why, I got different answers. Many of the gay folks I know have an easier time relating to members of the same-sex. I was told it was their choice. Maybe you think differently. I can respect that. But you're not the only homosexual in the world, and I have met plenty of folks who have told me it was their choice.

It all comes down to opinion. I wish you'd respect mine.

I have respect for you as a human being. I have no respect for your opinion.

Why not?

Because I *AM* gay. So where you have second hand knowledge, I have personal experience. IT IS NOT A CHOICE.

It doesn't come down to opinion, it's a fact and you can't have an opinion about something that's factual.

Think about this, why would it be a choice? Why would someone choose to be part of a minority that is variously maligned, oppressed, discriminated against, have rights taken away from them, and find it ten times harder to find a partner? Does that sound like a sensible thing to do?

I dunno what your aquaintances were on about, maybe they were pulling your chain.

Oh, okay; you said it, that means it's a fact. Anyway, you support what you believe in, regardless of how harshly you may be treated. The Americans believed in freedom, and the Boston Massacre and Intolerable Acts didn't keep them from supporting what they believe in.

And you're the first gay person I've met who told me it wasn't their choice. Maybe YOU'RE yanking my chain.

I would be deeply ashamed and disown them.

Kudos to you, I would as well.

Oh, okay; you said it, that means it's a fact.

Didn't say that. I meant that it's matter of fact, and not something you can opine on. If I had the opinion that pigs could fly, you wouldn't respect that.

It isn't a fact, buddy. It's your opinion. Though I'm sure there are plenty of psychologists and scientists out there who say homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm willing to bet there are plenty who think otherwise. The scientific community as a whole can't agree on which theory is correct, therefor it is not a fact.

Yes, the Empire of Presidency has encountered less than 1:1000000000th of a percentage of its children being gay. Further studies indicated that gayness had begun imediatly after birth. Garbeled and or slured speech from the male infants was the primary triger along with obsessive analfixation. The Female gay children had to be shown how to be gay; they could not figure this out on thier own as females are born with 2 holes that both have discharge. To correct for this child gayness problem, our scientists invinted a chemical that was able to alter brain chemistry as well as behavior. After a rather short treatment time with the medication the children were returned to normal gender behavior and thought patterns. There are no gay citizens of The Empire of Presidency.

Whatever. Anyhoo, did you choose to be straight?

It isn't a fact, buddy. It's your opinion.

An *educated* opinion, however, is better than an ignorant one.

Though I'm sure there are plenty of psychologists and scientists out there who say homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm willing to bet there are plenty who think otherwise.

And you would lose that bet. A quick search of credible, peer-reviewed journals demonstrates a clear consensus that sexuality is not a choice. The only articles that say otherwise are from over 20 years ago and have been demonstrated to be based on false premises, flawed, or simply misinterpretation.

Even the one guy who claims to be able to "change" sexuality doesn't claim that it is a choice in the first place. And he didn't demonstrably change anything anyways.

The scientific community as a whole can't agree on which theory is correct, therefor it is not a fact.

You say "I don't know but I'd bet on X" and then you use X to make a point. However, X was wrong, so your point is not justified.

Whatever. Anyhoo, did you choose to be straight?

Just like you chose to be gay (though I think you're confused, and don't understand you were presented with a choice), I chose to lust after women rather than men.

Just like you chose to be gay (though I think you're confused, and don't understand you were presented with a choice), I chose to lust after women rather than men.
Surely that mean he didn't make a choice?

Just like you chose to be gay (though I think you're confused, and don't understand you were presented with a choice), I chose to lust after women rather than men.

At exactly what moment was this choice given to you?

By the way, if at any time you are attracted to both men and women, that makes you *bisexual*, not heterosexual.

Just like you chose to be gay (though I think you're confused, and don't understand you were presented with a choice), I chose to lust after women rather than men.

That's not at all condescending. :rolleyes:

If I don't understand a choice, I didn't make it. Choices are consciously made, if not, they're not choices.

What do you mean, you choose to lust after women? To paraphrase someone earlier, when you look at a woman and get aroused, do you choose be be aroused? No. It just happens.

First off, I believe Gayness isnt a "choice" nor is genetic. Its a product of ones up bringing. For example, If a male was raised in an envirment deviod of strong straight male influences, perhaps thier father was never a large part of thier life, or they didnt have peer pressure from alot of straight male peers. Thus not adopting straight male tendincies. And/Or maybe the female influence was to strong meaning they grew up surrounded by them and adopted thier tendencies and beliefs. Or maybe its just a sick fetish that went to far. Another theory that would probably only apply to militant lesbian feminist is they grew to hate men so much they became lesbian.

Back to the topic, If i had a child that turned gay, i would feel i failed as father. I wouldn't disown it, but that fact that it did turn gay would torment my soul till the day i die. If i read made my opion say a month ago it would be nochellant to the gayness. However my roomate woke me up when he was having gay sex, and the sight changed my beliefs significantly. Its never to late to be traumatized.......... :(

First off, I believe Gayness isnt a "choice" nor is genetic. Its a product of ones up bringing. For example, If a male was raised in an envirment deviod of strong straight male influences, perhaps thier father was never a large part of thier life, or they didnt have peer pressure from alot of straight male peers. Thus not adopting straight male tendincies. And/Or maybe the female influence was to strong meaning they grew up surrounded by them and adopted thier tendencies and beliefs. Or maybe its just a sick fetish that went to far. Another theory that would probably only apply to militant lesbian feminist is they grew to hate men so much they became lesbian.

Back to the topic, If i had a child that turned gay, i would feel i failed as father. I wouldn't disown it, but that fact that it did turn gay would torment my soul till the day i die. If i read made my opion say a month ago it would be nochellant to the gayness. However my roomate woke me up when he was having gay sex, and the sight changed my beliefs significantly. Its never to late to be traumatized.......... :(



He was having gay sex while you were asleep in the room?

Oh, okay; you said it, that means it's a fact. Anyway, you support what you believe in, regardless of how harshly you may be treated. The Americans believed in freedom, and the Boston Massacre and Intolerable Acts didn't keep them from supporting what they believe in.

And you're the first gay person I've met who told me it wasn't their choice. Maybe YOU'RE yanking my chain.

New poll for gay people. Is it a choice?

He was having gay sex while you were asleep in the room?
Yes, sad but true........aparenty they thought i was a vey heavy sleeper. but the smell of lotion and a*s and slow methodical noise woke me(they were trying to do it quietly perhaps the risk made it more exiting to them)............... :( :(

It isn't a fact, buddy. It's your opinion. Though I'm sure there are plenty of psychologists and scientists out there who say homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm willing to bet there are plenty who think otherwise. The scientific community as a whole can't agree on which theory is correct, therefor it is not a fact.

Actually the only ones I've ever heard of that say it is a choice are the ones who have a conflict of interest--they want it to be a choice because they are on a religious vendetta or are supported by a religious group. Check out the information from the various scientific organizations. None of them (and these are BIG GROUPS of scientists) hold that it is a choice.

First off, I believe Gayness isnt a "choice" nor is genetic. Its a product of ones up bringing. For example, If a male was raised in an envirment deviod of strong straight male influences, perhaps thier father was never a large part of thier life, or they didnt have peer pressure from alot of straight male peers. Thus not adopting straight male tendincies. And/Or maybe the female influence was to strong meaning they grew up surrounded by them and adopted thier tendencies and beliefs. Or maybe its just a sick fetish that went to far. Another theory that would probably only apply to militant lesbian feminist is they grew to hate men so much they became lesbian.

Why do people completely ignore science and continue to state whatever rubbish springs out of their little brains?

Back to the topic, If i had a child that turned gay, i would feel i failed as father. I wouldn't disown it, but that fact that it did turn gay would torment my soul till the day i die. If i read made my opion say a month ago it would be nochellant to the gayness. However my roomate woke me up when he was having gay sex, and the sight changed my beliefs significantly. Its never to late to be traumatized.......... :(

Well, since you apparently wouldn't have the urge to *RESEARCH* the subject first, you would deserve feeling like a failure, even though the only way you could be a failure would be to spout the bullshit you wrote above at your child.

Yes, sad but true........aparenty they thought i was a vey heavy sleeper. but the smell of lotion and a*s and slow methodical noise woke me(they were trying to do it quietly perhaps the risk made it more exiting to them)............... :( :(



I'd better make sure I don't have a gay roomate or one that has alot of sex (straight or gay) because I'm a very light sleeper.

First off, I believe Gayness isnt a "choice" nor is genetic. Its a product of ones up bringing. For example, If a male was raised in an envirment deviod of strong straight male influences, perhaps thier father was never a large part of thier life, or they didnt have peer pressure from alot of straight male peers. Thus not adopting straight male tendincies. And/Or maybe the female influence was to strong meaning they grew up surrounded by them and adopted thier tendencies and beliefs. Or maybe its just a sick fetish that went to far. Another theory that would probably only apply to militant lesbian feminist is they grew to hate men so much they became lesbian.

Back to the topic, If i had a child that turned gay, i would feel i failed as father. I wouldn't disown it, but that fact that it did turn gay would torment my soul till the day i die. If i read made my opion say a month ago it would be nochellant to the gayness. However my roomate woke me up when he was having gay sex, and the sight changed my beliefs significantly. Its never to late to be traumatized.......... :(

You don't think its a choice. That is a step in the right direction. However, its our parents fault? PLEASE! I had two wonderful parents. They followed gender rolls rather perfectly (despite the fact that my mother worked). MY being gay has nothign to do with any resentment towards a parent, towards their absence, or towards anything they did. Its just a fact of who I am. Its not my parents fault that I didn't grow up to be seven feet tall, and its not their fault I am gay.

It isn't a fact, buddy. It's your opinion. Though I'm sure there are plenty of psychologists and scientists out there who say homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm willing to bet there are plenty who think otherwise. The scientific community as a whole can't agree on which theory is correct, therefor it is not a fact.
I think people mix up, when it comes to sexual preference, what we are talking about is a "choice". I don't think one can choose one's preferences - I didn't choose to love Mexican food, I just do. The choice is what one does with those preferences. A person may have a tendency or desire or preference, whatever you want to call it, to have sex with a member of the same sex, but still has the choice whether to act on it or not. Many criminals have been shown to have an extra Y chromosome that seems to produce more criminals, as a percentage of that population, than the population as a whole. However, not all people who have this extra chromosome become criminals: they have a choice. And before anybody jumps on me, I am NOT equating homosexuality with criminal behavior.

You don't think its a choice. That is a step in the right direction. However, its our parents fault? PLEASE! I had two wonderful parents. They followed gender rolls rather perfectly (despite the fact that my mother worked). MY being gay has nothign to do with any resentment towards a parent, towards their absence, or towards anything they did. Its just a fact of who I am. Its not my parents fault that I didn't grow up to be seven feet tall, and its not their fault I am gay.


You didn't make any choice, you just "knew" thats the way you were right?

You didn't make any choice, you just "knew" thats the way you were right?

Yeah, basically. I was eleven years old when I realized I had gotten my first erection looking at a guy's ass. Quite the sick and twisted perv of a kid I was, but was gay right from the beginning none the less. I never said "hey, I wanna get turned on by guys."

I didn't think much of it till time went by and it kept happening and it never happened aroudn girls. And then around age 13 I realized what it meant for me and my life. Wasn't a happy few years. It wasn't until Ir ealized I was being a twit and what others thought of me didn't matter. I had brains and would make it on my own.

Of course, when I came out to my parents during college, they had no trouble accepting me. Well, no trouble that they blamed on me. Some of their dreams had been lost, but as they expressed it that was their problem, not mine.

So yeah, I pretty much knew from the very begtinning of my sexual feelings that I was attracted to guys.

Yeah, basically. I was eleven years old when I realized I had gotten my first erection looking at a guy's ass. Quite the sick and twisted perv of a kid I was, but was gay right from the beginning none the less. I never said "hey, I wanna get turned on by guys."

I didn't think much of it till time went by and it kept happening and it never happened aroudn girls. And then around age 13 I realized what it meant for me and my life. Wasn't a happy few years. It wasn't until Ir ealized I was being a twit and what others thought of me didn't matter. I had brains and would make it on my own.

Of course, when I came out to my parents during college, they had no trouble accepting me. Well, no trouble that they blamed on me. Some of their dreams had been lost, but as they expressed it that was their problem, not mine.

So yeah, I pretty much knew from the very begtinning of my sexual feelings that I was attracted to guys.



While I appreciate the detailed and honest explanation, I don't know what to make of the first part about when you were 11. Otherwise, you have helped confirm my belief that being gay is not a choice and therefore should be no more condoned or called a "sin" than hetrosexuality.

In answer to the question (and I actually have children, so I know what that attachment is really like. I'm sorry but if you don't have kids you don't know. You just can't) I do and always will love and support my kids no matter what. No child of mine will ever be unwelcome in my home, or ever think that I have any feelings other than love for them.

Since it's come up so much, I will say I am a Christian. I think homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think it's any MORE wrong than say... living and sleeping with somebody you aren't married to. And I certainly wouldn't think of not inviting my kid and their straight partner over for the holidays or whatever if they lived with that person and weren't married. I would just ask that they not sleep together in my house. The same would hold true for a gay son or daughter. You are loved, you are both welcome here anytime, but please respect the rules of my home while you are here.

One other thing, I find it interesting that so many on the left rant and rave about tolerance while they themselves call names and ridicule those whose beliefs don't coincide with their own. Is that tolerance? Think about it.

I think people mix up, when it comes to sexual preference, what we are talking about is a "choice". I don't think one can choose one's preferences - I didn't choose to love Mexican food, I just do. The choice is what one does with those preferences. A person may have a tendency or desire or preference, whatever you want to call it, to have sex with a member of the same sex, but still has the choice whether to act on it or not. Many criminals have been shown to have an extra Y chromosome that seems to produce more criminals, as a percentage of that population, than the population as a whole. However, not all people who have this extra chromosome become criminals: they have a choice. And before anybody jumps on me, I am NOT equating homosexuality with criminal behavior.

This is true, one can always decide not to attempt to pursue a relationship with someone one is attracted to.

However, saying to homosexuals, "You guys don't get to pursue relationships and find life-long partners to be in love with, but we're going to encourage heterosexuals to do so," is like saying to someone who likes chocolate, "You aren't allowed to eat deserts, but we're going encourage people who like vanilla to do so."

This is true, one can always decide not to attempt to pursue a relationship with someone one is attracted to.

However, saying to homosexuals, "You guys don't get to pursue relationships and find life-long partners to be in love with, but we're going to encourage heterosexuals to do so," is like saying to someone who likes chocolate, "You aren't allowed to eat deserts, but we're going encourage people who like vanilla to do so."
I just want to get the terminology straight (no pun intended). I happen to believe that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong. Many disagree with that stance. Saying that homosexuality is not a choice and use that to justify the "rightness" of the behavior is not a valid argument. I submit that whether one is attracted to the same sex or not is not the issue. The issue is the action one takes. It boils down to this - is homosexual sex right or wrong, not is it ok or not to desire a member of the same sex.

While I appreciate the detailed and honest explanation, I don't know what to make of the first part about when you were 11. Otherwise, you have helped confirm my belief that being gay is not a choice and therefore should be no more condoned or called a "sin" than hetrosexuality.

What don't you know what to make of it? From the beginning of when I was aware of sexuality, I was turned on by guys. It's pretty much that simple. The reason I bring it up, is because when I think back to when I realized I was gay, taht is when it happened. I didn't fully realize the implications until a few years later, but that is when the beginning started.

In answer to the question (and I actually have children, so I know what that attachment is really like. I'm sorry but if you don't have kids you don't know. You just can't) I do and always will love and support my kids no matter what. No child of mine will ever be unwelcome in my home, or ever think that I have any feelings other than love for them.

Since it's come up so much, I will say I am a Christian. I think homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think it's any MORE wrong than say... living and sleeping with somebody you aren't married to. And I certainly wouldn't think of not inviting my kid and their straight partner over for the holidays or whatever if they lived with that person and weren't married. I would just ask that they not sleep together in my house. The same would hold true for a gay son or daughter. You are loved, you are both welcome here anytime, but please respect the rules of my home while you are here.

One other thing, I find it interesting that so many on the left rant and rave about tolerance while they themselves call names and ridicule those whose beliefs don't coincide with their own. Is that tolerance? Think about it.





I am also a Christian but they are attacking us for having intolerance about something we base on a few passages in our scriptures.

In answer to the question (and I actually have children, so I know what that attachment is really like. I'm sorry but if you don't have kids you don't know. You just can't) I do and always will love and support my kids no matter what. No child of mine will ever be unwelcome in my home, or ever think that I have any feelings other than love for them.

Since it's come up so much, I will say I am a Christian. I think homosexuality is wrong. But I don't think it's any MORE wrong than say... living and sleeping with somebody you aren't married to. And I certainly wouldn't think of not inviting my kid and their straight partner over for the holidays or whatever if they lived with that person and weren't married. I would just ask that they not sleep together in my house. The same would hold true for a gay son or daughter. You are loved, you are both welcome here anytime, but please respect the rules of my home while you are here.

One other thing, I find it interesting that so many on the left rant and rave about tolerance while they themselves call names and ridicule those whose beliefs don't coincide with their own. Is that tolerance? Think about it.

The tolerance most of us espouse mean that we believe people should be allowed to live their own lives and not interfere with others. We do get angry and "intolerant" as you call it when people begin trying to force other people to live by their rules.

And for the record, many of those people on the other side have quite frequently called us names. Not a defense I know, but we are hardly the only guilty ones.

What don't you know what to make of it? From the beginning of when I was aware of sexuality, I was turned on by guys. It's pretty much that simple. The reason I bring it up, is because when I think back to when I realized I was gay, taht is when it happened. I didn't fully realize the implications until a few years later, but that is when the beginning started.


That came across badly, didn't it?

That came across badly, didn't it?

It did when I first started reading it but I had calmed down by the end. I'd just like it if you could explain yourself a little bit more for me. Sorry if I came across as an ass.

I based my first theory on the lives some of gay people i know. Despite others protest, i still believe that upbringing has an influence on wether a person turns out to be gay or not. It was wrong of me to say children turn gay because thier parents failed in some way. I would guess there alot less gay people who come from the families of Evangelical christains than from say a very gay tolerant family.

It did when I first started reading it but I had calmed down by the end. I'd just like it if you could explain yourself a little bit more for me. Sorry if I came across as an ass.



No, I'm sorry. To be quite honest, I'm what you'd call a redneck dumbass sometimes but what would you like me to explain?

I based my first theory on the lives some of gay people i know. Despite others protest, i still believe that upbringing has an influence on wether a person turns out to be gay or not. It was wrong of me to say children turn gay because thier parents failed in some way. I would guess there alot less gay people who come from the families of Evangelical christains than from say a very gay tolerant family.

You would guess wrong. Studies have shown that homosexuals come fairly equally from families of all types of philsophies. Now, the children of evangelicals might be less likely to come out and live a lie the rest of their lives, but that doesn't make them any less gay.

No, I'm sorry. To be quite honest, I'm what you'd call a redneck dumbass sometimes but what would you like me to explain?

Lol, I'm from the land of rednecks and you aren't acting like one at all. I jsut would like you to explain why you didn't understand the part about my being eleven years old so I can clarify if you still need clarification.

I just want to get the terminology straight (no pun intended). I happen to believe that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong. Many disagree with that stance. Saying that homosexuality is not a choice and use that to justify the "rightness" of the behavior is not a valid argument. I submit that whether one is attracted to the same sex or not is not the issue. The issue is the action one takes. It boils down to this - is homosexual sex right or wrong, not is it ok or not to desire a member of the same sex.

What the hell is "homosexual sex?"

I've never heard of any one position that ONLY homosexuals can do.

Lol, I'm from the land of rednecks and you aren't acting like one at all. I jsut would like you to explain why you didn't understand the part about my being eleven years old so I can clarify if you still need clarification.


Oh geez, I was kind saying "too much information" but don't worry, it's not because you're gay, my friend was talking about when he was 8 or 9 and he saw this girl and well, had an erection and I told him "Ya, that's great but kind of don't tell me that story again". So it's nothing against gays. When I think about it, I'm surprised I'm not anti-gay, after all I'm quite conservative and a regular church goer but my parents are both very annoyed with anyone who's anti-gay because one of their best friends is gay, so it's probably a blessing I've got the Liberal parents I have.

Oh geez, I was kind saying "too much information" but don't worry, it's not because you're gay, my friend was talking about when he was 8 or 9 and he saw this girl and well, had an erection and I told him "Ya, that's great but kind of don't tell me that story again". So it's nothing against gays. When I think about it, I'm surprised I'm not anti-gay, after all I'm quite conservative and a regular church goer but my parents are both very annoyed with annoyone who's anti-gau because one of their best friends is gay, so it's probably a blessing I've got the Liberal parents I have.

Sounds rather like my parents. They are both conservative Republicans, but when it comes to gay equality they are all for it. They've made it clear that I am their son and they want to celebrate any love that comes into my life.

What the hell is "homosexual sex?"

I've never heard of any one position that ONLY homosexuals can do.
Homosexual sex = sex between two members of the same sex
Heterosexual sex = sex between two members of the opposite sex

If it is true that gay people come equally from all types of families and is genetic, wouldnt that make it a disorder?Considering human bodies are cleary not designed for homosexual intercorse and according to darwinist theory gayness would be a waist their of genes.

If it is true that gay people come equally from all types of families and is genetic, wouldnt that make it a disorder?Considering human bodies are cleary not designed for homosexual intercorse and according to darwinist theory gayness would be a waist their of genes.
It actually was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Associaton up until the late 70's, I believe.

If it is true that gay people come equally from all types of families and is genetic, wouldnt that make it a disorder?Considering human bodies are cleary not designed for homosexual intercorse and according to darwinist theory gayness would be a waist their of genes.

This has been gone over a lot and I'm low on time, so I'm going to give you the short short version. I hope you don't mind.

1. Not everything that is genetic is a disorder. To be a disorder it has to cause damage or problems living your life as a result of it. Its no more a disorder than being black is.

2. The only way to stimulate the major male G-spot is through anal penetration. Seems kind of like we are designed for it.

3. According to Darwinian theory YOU do not have reproduce to be fit. There is a thing called altruism where one organism forgoes reproduction to assist the species as a whole. Homosexulity has been seen in many, many species. In these, the homosexual members assist in raising the young of their siblings while not bringing any of their own into the world to use more resources. So homosexuals actually serve to increase the fittness of a group for reproduction.

Sounds rather like my parents. They are both conservative Republicans, but when it comes to gay equality they are all for it. They've made it clear that I am their son and they want to celebrate any love that comes into my life.



Ya so sometimes I might say things that sound homphobic but they aren't meant to be. My cousin is gay but he has the greatest personality in my family.

It actually was listed as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Associaton up until the late 70's, I believe.

That is correct. But that is because the only experience they had with homosexuality was with those who had other disorders. Since mental disorders tend to run in groups, they thought it was associated. In the seventies, however, a group of scientists realized that there were far more homosexuals out there that were living healthy lives than there were in institutions. As it was not affecting their lives (which is required for something to be a clinical disorder) they correctly realized that it is not a disease.

If I had a child who was gay, I would disown him/her and remove him/her from my will.

Serious.

i hope a astroid falls on ur house

If I had a child who was gay, I would disown him/her and remove him/her from my will.



God, they only come out at night............

If it is true that gay people come equally from all types of families and is genetic, wouldnt that make it a disorder?

redheads come equally from all types of families, and red hair is genetic. do you consider red hair a disorder?


Considering human bodies are cleary not designed for homosexual intercorse and according to darwinist theory gayness would be a waist their of genes.
human bodies aren't designed for playing the piano, waterskiing, or chatting on internet forums, either. does that mean it is a disorder for any of us to enjoy such activities? we use our body parts for dozens (if not hundreds) of activities other than what those parts originally evolved to accomplish.

hell, most of heterosexual intercourse isn't going to pass on any genes. wait, let me ammend that: between heterosexuals who are good in bed, most sexual contact will not pass on any genes.

furthermore, "darwinist theory" strongly supports homosexuality as a viable evolutionary solution. there are many different ways that homosexuality can be a BETTER reproductive strategy than heterosexuality. you just need to remember that reproductive success is not defined by how many babies you personally produce, but rather by how much of your genetic material makes it into the next generation.

one more thing I have to add:

Homosexuals claim to be the way they are due to a genetic disorder. So, if they lack a gene they causes a human being to find a member of the opposite sex and have intercourse, they are clearly not part of the human species.

one more thing I have to add:

Homosexuals claim to be the way they are due to a genetic disorder. So, if they lack a gene they causes a human being to find a member of the opposite sex and have intercourse, they are clearly not part of the human species.
1. lacking a particular gene does not mean that somebody is not human. you yourself have thousands of mutations in your genetic code at this very second, and are likely missing at least 3 significant genes that your nextdoor neighbor has (just as he is missing at least 3 genes that you have).

2. i have never met a homosexual who claimed to be gay due to a genetic disorder.

3. having a genetic disorder does not make somebody a non-human

4. read a book, for pity's sake. you are an embarassment.

redheads come equally from all types of families, and red hair is genetic. do you consider red hair a disorder?

I guess i can see your point........exspecialy becuase red heads are hot :)

one more thing I have to add:

Homosexuals claim to be the way they are due to a genetic disorder. So, if they lack a gene they causes a human being to find a member of the opposite sex and have intercourse, they are clearly not part of the human species.
You know, people like you really give those of us who have serious, thoughtful objections to homosexuality a bad name. That has got to be some of the most faulty logic I have seen yet. Would you call someone who has Hunt's syndrome not "part of the human race" because they have a faulty gene that causes them to die early? :mad:

I guess i can see your point........exspecialy becuase red heads are hot :)
bisexual redheads are, in my opinion, the strongest evidence supporting the existence of a loving God.

You've never met a gay person who claimed his condition was due to a genetic disorder. Want to know why? You've never met a gay person, that's why.

You've never met a gay person who claimed his condition was due to a genetic disorder. Want to know why? You've never met a gay person, that's why.
hahahahahaha.

honey bunny, i AM a gay person. of course, i am also a straight person. so, happily, i get the best of all worlds!

You've never met a gay person who claimed his condition was due to a genetic disorder. Want to know why? You've never met a gay person, that's why.
How many have you met? How much time did you spend with them? What observations were you able to make? I would be willing to bet you have met none, other than in this forum.

one more thing I have to add:

Homosexuals claim to be the way they are due to a genetic disorder. So, if they lack a gene they causes a human being to find a member of the opposite sex and have intercourse, they are clearly not part of the human species.



Yes because the sole purpose of human existance is to find a mate (opposite sex) and have sex? Hence why some people don't get married or have children but they musn't be humans either then.

Yes because the sole purpose of human existance is to find a mate (opposite sex) and have sex? Hence why some people don't get married or have children but they musn't be humans either then.
Which brings me to an interesting point: why do both sides in this argument seem to believe that who a person has sex with defines who they are? If I never have sex my entire life, does that make me a "unisexual"? If I am a male attracted to another male, and never have sex with another male, does that make my life meaningless? Sex is given a far bigger role in defining who we are as people than it should, IMHO.

The same way I'd react if my kid bought a Mac instead of a PC, or started listening to country music. "Whatever." Well, I might be a little more upset about the country music thing...

I kill any child of mine who dares to listen to Billy Ray Cyrus, but I will show compassion for anything else. As for Macs, I'd be surprised if my kid even KNEW what a PC was in my house. Mac and Linux all the way.

Ge-Ren (Proud Mac User) :cool:

Which brings me to an interesting point: why do both sides in this argument seem to believe that who a person has sex with defines who they are? If I never have sex my entire life, does that make me a "unisexual"? If I am a male attracted to another male, and never have sex with another male, does that make my life meaningless? Sex is given a far bigger role in defining who we are as people than it should, IMHO.
quite. homophobes seem very eager to reduce all human interaction to the squishing of genitals, and i personally find that quite comical. i don't let a person's genitals determine whether or not i will love them...i love the PERSON, not what they have between their legs. i don't value people based on how able they are to produce children (especially since i never plan to have children), and i certainly don't determine their value by how fertile their relationships may be.

if only homophobes had sex lives of their own. perhaps then they would be willing to stop fixating on mine :P.

quite. homophobes seem very eager to reduce all human interaction to the squishing of genitals, and i personally find that quite comical. i don't let a person's genitals determine whether or not i will love them...i love the PERSON, not what they have between their legs. i don't value people based on how able they are to produce children (especially since i never plan to have children), and i certainly don't determine their value by how fertile their relationships may be.

if only homophobes had sex lives of their own. perhaps then they would be willing to stop fixating on mine :P.

Not even genital squishing(an enjoyable and honorable pastime). To pumping out new units. Like we're factories. Is that what the whole purpose of human interaction is? Procreation? I thought we were more advanced than animals. *shrug*

Not even genital squishing(an enjoyable and honorable pastime). To pumping out new units. Like we're factories. Is that what the whole purpose of human interaction is? Procreation? I thought we were more advanced than animals. *shrug*
yeah, aren't homophobes usually also of the Creationist bent? aren't these the same folks who insist humans never evolved from another form of animal life, but that we were created supreme and above all other animals? so why do they keep using a warped vision of "evolution" to justify their fear of pleasurable, non-baby-producing genital squishing?

As a Christian, let me just say that I am comfortable with homosexuality and would support my children, gay or straight. Secondly, the Council of Jerusalem, in addressing if gentiles converting to Christianity needed to become Jewish first, decided that the only cultural issues the gentiles needed to rectify amongst themselves was idolatry and "sexual immorality." That term, as you can tell, is very ambiguous as to what is sexually immoral. Looking at the letters of Paul (specifically to the Corinthians), the original Greek, while vague itself, implies adultery. Homosexuality may be assumed from its ambiguouity, but the actual term most likely addresses adultery. And, since gays are statistically more loyal to their partners than heterosexuals, I don't see the problem. That, and Christ never addressed the issue Himself. If it was worth fighting for a constitutional amendment, I think the Lord would have bothered to mention it, or if He did, the Gospel writers would have bothered to record it. That having been said, are liberal Christians a minority or just silent?

one more thing I have to add:

Homosexuals claim to be the way they are due to a genetic disorder. So, if they lack a gene they causes a human being to find a member of the opposite sex and have intercourse, they are clearly not part of the human species.

I always knew we were a distinct species! Homo superior here we come!

But seriously . . .

We do not claim it is a genetic disorder. We claim that it is a genetic variation that is influenced by environment, same as hair color, eye color or height.

And by your reasoning a straight person who lacks a gene that prevents them from producing sperm or ova is also not a member of the human species.

I dunno what your aquaintances were on about, maybe they were pulling your chain.

Or, perhaps, they gave Sunshine a real answer and s/he just heard what s'he wanted to hear. Confirmation bias can be a b-tch that way.

"Why'd you choose to be gay?"
"Well, I was in 7th grade, and..."
"I knew it was a choice!"

-or perhaps-

"<Background> So I decided at the end of my senior year to come out..."
"Ah-ha! You chose!"

Quite frankly, I think this is likely the case...I don't know a single homosexual person who has said that they just decided to be gay, so I'm not about to buy a claim that there's a whole campus of people who say that.

Speaking as a gay child... I'd probably disown my children if they were straight. ;)

Equal opportunities for all children, no matter what their "social quirks" may be.

It isn't a fact, buddy. It's your opinion. Though I'm sure there are plenty of psychologists and scientists out there who say homosexuality isn't a choice, I'm willing to bet there are plenty who think otherwise. The scientific community as a whole can't agree on which theory is correct, therefor it is not a fact.

Actually, the only debate is over whether it's genetically hardwired or not, and that's only between those who support an either socialization or biology-based theory. General concensus is that it's somewhere in the middle. As for what is and is not a disorder in the field of psychological medicine, you can stop spouting off anytime, because it's clear that you have no idea how such things are determined.

You want scientific proof? Stick these in your pipe and smoke 'em:

Homosexuality in animals, who can't choose and follow instinct:
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html

Neurological Science:
http://www.xq28.net/article/answer.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1887219
tp://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html

I have more, but I think that'll do to refute your opinion.

I always knew we were a distinct species! Homo superior here we come!


...yes. The time for insurrection and rebellion is nigh!

hahahahahaha.

honey bunny, i AM a gay person. of course, i am also a straight person. so, happily, i get the best of all worlds!

Indeed. There isn't really a downside here...

As a Christian, let me just say that I am comfortable with homosexuality and would support my children, gay or straight. Secondly, the Council of Jerusalem, in addressing if gentiles converting to Christianity needed to become Jewish first, decided that the only cultural issues the gentiles needed to rectify amongst themselves was idolatry and "sexual immorality." That term, as you can tell, is very ambiguous as to what is sexually immoral. Looking at the letters of Paul (specifically to the Corinthians), the original Greek, while vague itself, implies adultery. Homosexuality may be assumed from its ambiguouity, but the actual term most likely addresses adultery. And, since gays are statistically more loyal to their partners than heterosexuals, I don't see the problem. That, and Christ never addressed the issue Himself. If it was worth fighting for a constitutional amendment, I think the Lord would have bothered to mention it, or if He did, the Gospel writers would have bothered to record it. That having been said, are liberal Christians a minority or just silent?

Well, actually it does say rather explicitly in Leviticus that, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death,” (Leviticus 20:13). However the bible also states (in the same book of Leviticus) that touching a menstruating woman, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, eating pork, touching pigskin, or getting your sideburns cut are all sins. Hell must be getting pretty crowded. Oh, reading horoscopes is also a sin :rolleyes: I think the point here is fairly obvious...even if you believe that it was God's word, people still wrote it, and there's gotta be some interperetation. Personally, I believe it's silly to view homosexuality as wrong whether or not you view it as a choice (and I don't view it as a choice you can make). So it's different. How is it hurting you? Sheesh.

Well, actually it does say rather explicitly in Leviticus that, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death,” (Leviticus 20:13). However the bible also states (in the same book of Leviticus) that touching a menstruating woman, wearing clothing of mixed fabric, eating pork, touching pigskin, or getting your sideburns cut are all sins. Hell must be getting pretty crowded. Oh, reading horoscopes is also a sin :rolleyes: I think the point here is fairly obvious...even if you believe that it was God's word, people still wrote it, and there's gotta be some interperetation. Personally, I believe it's silly to view homosexuality as wrong whether or not you view it as a choice (and I don't view it as a choice you can make). So it's different. How is it hurting you? Sheesh.

Actually, part of my post was to point out that, if you're a Christian who at all adheres to various church councils throughout history, Leviticus doesn't appy. This certainly doesn't resolve the issues for Jews or Christians who love to hate, I'm simply justifying my position. It's just that people will quote Leviticus to say that homosexuality is wrong, then go and eat pork chops. I'm gonna go with the Council of Jerusalem's decision and say that Leviticus doesn't really count. But I think I'm alone in that.

Actually, the only debate is over whether it's genetically hardwired or not, and that's only between those who support an either socialization or biology-based theory. General concensus is that it's somewhere in the middle. As for what is and is not a disorder in the field of psychological medicine, you can stop spouting off anytime, because it's clear that you have no idea how such things are determined.

You want scientific proof? Stick these in your pipe and smoke 'em:

Homosexuality in animals, who can't choose and follow instinct:
http://www.jrn.columbia.edu/studentwork/cns/2002-06-10/591.asp
http://www.rnw.nl/lifestyle/html/gayanimals000808.html

Neurological Science:
http://www.xq28.net/article/answer.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/bulgarians/nih-nyt.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1887219
tp://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web1/Rana.html

I have more, but I think that'll do to refute your opinion.

Well shit, looks like I've been learned right and proper. Guess you fellas were right. My apologies for being so bull-headed and ignorant, and even more apologies for getting nasty with you guys. Looks like I'd be keeping my homosexual kids after all. Once again, sorry for what may have appeared as rudeness earlier.

You posted links, backed your shit up, and there ain't jack left to refute. Just for clarification, I do know homosexuals (or maybe pretend homosexuals) who have told me it was their choice. I just didn't make that shit up to back my argument...I wouldn't lie about that. I'd name names, but for the sake of their privacy, I won't. Once again, apologies all around guys. I been served a piece of humble pie.

Well shit, looks like I've been learned right and proper. Guess you fellas were right. My apologies for being so bull-headed and ignorant, and even more apologies for getting nasty with you guys. Looks like I'd be keeping my homosexual kids after all. Once again, sorry for what may have appeared as rudeness earlier.

You posted links, backed your shit up, and there ain't jack left to refute. Just for clarification, I do know homosexuals (or maybe pretend homosexuals) who have told me it was their choice. I just didn't make that shit up to back my argument...I wouldn't lie about that. I'd name names, but for the sake of their privacy, I won't. Once again, apologies all around guys. I been served a piece of humble pie.

Unless you are being sarcastic, I would just like to begin a round of applause for you for actually admitting when you have been proven wrong, instead of the usual fare of repeating invalidated arguments that is seen here far too often.

*applause*

Unless you are being sarcastic, I would just like to begin a round of applause for you for actually admitting when you have been proven wrong, instead of the usual fare of repeating invalidated arguments that is seen here far too often.

*applause*

When you're wrong, you're wrong. That's how I see things. And when you're as young a fella as I am, you should be able to admit your mistakes. I still got a lot to learn about life.

The links are there, and the gay folks on Nationstates have been saying the same shit all along. Nothing left to do except to apologise for my blatant ignorance. Should've known what I was talking about before I opened my mouth. If my kid became a homosexual, I suppose I'd just have to except it. Good thing you fellas pointed this shit out to me before I had any kids...:)

Despite this, I still think I'd feel uneasy about having homosexual children; no offense to anybody here.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. That's how I see things. And when you're as young a fella as I am, you should be able to admit your mistakes. I still got a lot to learn about life.

The links are there, and the gay folks on Nationstates have been saying the same shit all along. Nothing left to do except to apologise for my blatant ignorance. Should've known what I was talking about before I opened my mouth. If my kid became a homosexual, I suppose I'd just have to except it. Good thing you fellas pointed this shit out to me before I had any kids...:)

Despite this, I still think I'd feel uneasy about having homosexual children; no offense to anybody here.

A. I'd like to nominate you to receive a medal or award or statue or something.
B. I think all parents would be uneasy, especially if they are straight. They are in uncharted territories for them. My parents were uneasy at first because they knew that they had no experience with the things I was going through. As they came to understand that the only thing I needed was their unconditional love, they grew to accept the idea. They've even told me that anyone I have a relationship with is welcome in their home. My father even offered to give me away if I got married. Granted, I pointed out to him that I won't be a "bride" and that was sort of silly. We still laugh about it. The best advice I could give to a parent of a gay child is to love unconditionally and keep your sense of humor. Oh wait, that's the best advice I can give about any situation in life.

I happen to believe that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong.

And why is that?

Will magical faeries come and spoil your milk?

If it is true that gay people come equally from all types of families and is genetic, wouldnt that make it a disorder?Considering human bodies are cleary not designed for homosexual intercorse and according to darwinist theory gayness would be a waist their of genes.

My understanding is that the 'gay gene' when present in a female increases her fertility. She is more likely to have many sons, thus increasing her chances of passing on her genes. If the 'gay gene' is passed onto her sons, they have a slightly increased chance of being gay.

If you want links for this go to google news and search for 'gay genes' or something similar.

My father even offered to give me away if I got married. Granted, I pointed out to him that I won't be a "bride" and that was sort of silly. We still laugh about it. The best advice I could give to a parent of a gay child is to love unconditionally and keep your sense of humor. Oh wait, that's the best advice I can give about any situation in life.

It took my folks a bit of time to get really come to acceptance as well - they were always verbally supportive, but it took some years before they moved into being really comfortable. My dad didn't "give me away" at the commitment ceremony my g/friend and I had - but he did joke during the speeches that one of the benefits of having a lesbian daughter was not having to pay for the wedding!

Well shit, looks like I've been learned right and proper. Guess you fellas were right. My apologies for being so bull-headed and ignorant, and even more apologies for getting nasty with you guys. Looks like I'd be keeping my homosexual kids after all. Once again, sorry for what may have appeared as rudeness earlier.

It's alright, there's a lot of info out there to parse through. It's far more admirable to leave an opinion when you find it wrong than to stick to it merely because of comfort or conviction. That you checked out the sources and were willing to change your mind is very commendable.

As far as any nastiness, well, that happens on the forums, and most don't apologize. So, no worries, you've certainly gotten my respect.

You posted links, backed your shit up, and there ain't jack left to refute. Just for clarification, I do know homosexuals (or maybe pretend homosexuals) who have told me it was their choice. I just didn't make that shit up to back my argument...I wouldn't lie about that. I'd name names, but for the sake of their privacy, I won't. Once again, apologies all around guys. I been served a piece of humble pie.

I honestly didn't think you were making it up; but like I said, maybe it was just a matter of your perception of what they said. There'e no denying that there was a choice to come out, to date people of the same sex, and so forth...but in the urges such desires spring from, there is no choice. Some, as you say, may have just been pretending or trying to get attention. That's not unheard of, either. It's a complicated issue, after all.

The important thing is to keep learning to better understand your fellow man.

When you're wrong, you're wrong. That's how I see things. And when you're as young a fella as I am, you should be able to admit your mistakes. I still got a lot to learn about life.

The links are there, and the gay folks on Nationstates have been saying the same shit all along. Nothing left to do except to apologise for my blatant ignorance. Should've known what I was talking about before I opened my mouth. If my kid became a homosexual, I suppose I'd just have to except it. Good thing you fellas pointed this shit out to me before I had any kids...:)

Despite this, I still think I'd feel uneasy about having homosexual children; no offense to anybody here.
*JAW DROPS*

WOW. i never, NEVER thought i would hear a homophobe admit they were wrong so opennly. honestly, this gives me fresh hope...let me add my applause to Anbar's.

The tolerance most of us espouse mean that we believe people should be allowed to live their own lives and not interfere with others. We do get angry and "intolerant" as you call it when people begin trying to force other people to live by their rules.

Like you said, you "believe" that people should be allowed to live their own lives, not everyone shares that belief. So why not allow others to live by their own moral rules?

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.


I wouldn't care. I'm atheist and I could not care less whether someone is gay or not. Your kid doesn't have to be gay to be picked on, and you should stand up for your child if he or she is being bullied regardless of his/her sexual orientation.

quite. homophobes seem very eager to reduce all human interaction to the squishing of genitals, and i personally find that quite comical. i don't let a person's genitals determine whether or not i will love them...i love the PERSON, not what they have between their legs. i don't value people based on how able they are to produce children (especially since i never plan to have children), and i certainly don't determine their value by how fertile their relationships may be.

if only homophobes had sex lives of their own. perhaps then they would be willing to stop fixating on mine :P.

That was the best post I've ever seen. :O.


perceptions may be a little fucked at the moment, but that was brilliant!

If i had a kid and he turned out to be gay it wouldnt be a problem, he's my son and i just learned somthing new about him.

Some religious people on the other hand will disown him, kicking him out the house into the cold rainy night causing the kid to be emotionly damaged for the rest of his life, all because his parents god told them to.

Now compared to gay sex, THATS SICK!

Is anyone else sick of the fact that every time a person says they are against homosexuality, people call them homophobes?!

Why is it, at least on these forums, alright to be for gay rights, but if you are against them you are flamed and insulted?

Does anyone else understand that regardless of how one feels about gay rights, it shouldn't make them a target for hate.

That said, I believe in most gay rights with the exception of the marriage thing. I have the 'liberatrian' view. I think that everyone(straight or gay) should get civil unions, and if your religious, get married. Both should be completely equal, but marriage should just be a religious title for civil unions.

One of my friends is gay, and he agrees with me. My girlfriend does too. If people of different sexual orientations can agree on this, doesn't it make sense?

But to recap, I am mad at people flaming anti-gay rights people. A different opinion doesn't make them evil.

I would have to see what he/she ended up doing. I could not accept a permanent switch to homosexuality in my child: for this I would disown him/her. If my kid was repentant and stopped, I would be willing to forget about it. But my religious beleifs would not let me accept their "preference" in any sort of good concience. And yes, I beleive that they are, unfortunately, going to hell.

Is anyone else sick of the fact that every time a person says they are against homosexuality, people call them homophobes?!

Why is it, at least on these forums, alright to be for gay rights, but if you are against them you are flamed and insulted?

homophobia is defined as the fear of OR CONTEMPT FOR homosexual and/or homosexuality. a person who devalues others based on sexuality is most certainly showing contempt, and a person who believes homosexuals don't deserve equal rights is also showing contempt. calling such people "homophobes" isn't flame, it's simply the accurate use of that term.


But to recap, I am mad at people flaming anti-gay rights people. A different opinion doesn't make them evil.
again, calling a homophobe what they are is not flame. if they believe that disliking homosexuality and removing rights from homosexuals is the right course of action then they should not be insulted by being called a homophobe...that's what they are, and what they claim they are proud to be.

Well, I'd be one child less, I mean I wouldn't stop loving them as a parent, and I would forgive them for their sin, but they wouldn't be allowed to practice it in my house around any other children I might have.

I'd disown them. Honestly, I don't have a problem with other people in other families being gay, I can work with gays, I can be friends with gays. However, no child of mine will be homosexual. I refuse to allow myself to raise that type of person. (They actually recently found a gene that is part of the cause of homosexuality, you can read up on it on CNN.com, use their search function...it was reported about...1.5 months ago)

Frankly put, I for the most part am entirely tolerant of homosexuals. However, when it comes to my personal family there are some things I won't accept. I won't accept homosexuality, nor would I accept conversion to some religions (mormonism, zoroastrianism, any cult for instance), nor would I accept them to make certain choices (like not going to college if I can afford to get them there). You raise your child, and there are some things I refuse to raise.



You said your self, and I quote " (They actually recently found a gene that is part of the cause of homosexuality,) " Then you said "You raise your child, and there are some things I refuse to raise.[/QUOTE] " I think you need to think about what you just wrote! If its a Gene then there's nothing you can do about it. It has nothing to do with the way you raise your child. If there going to be gay or homosexual or however you want to label it , it has nothing to do with you . Other then the fact that the Gene may have been passed down by you. You need to learn to love unconditionally period!

Well, I'd be one child less, I mean I wouldn't stop loving them as a parent, and I would forgive them for their sin, but they wouldn't be allowed to practice it in my house around any other children I might have.

What do you mean by "practice"? Date someone of the same sex? Kiss someone of the same sex? Have sex with someone of the same sex?

Because I wouldn't let any of my children, straight or gay, have sex around "any other children I might have", if that's what you mean. ;)

I'd buy him a dozen prostitutes and make him straight

I'd buy him a dozen prostitutes and make him straight

because meaningless sex with strangers that you're paying is much more morally right than same sex attraction and desire???????

because meaningless sex with strangers that you're paying is much more morally right than same sex attraction and desire???????

yeah, that about sums it up. I don't know if I'd call it meaningless though.

A. I'd like to nominate you to receive a medal or award or statue or something.

I'd like to second that nomination. Congratulations, The Sunshine State. :)

I think that all the people in this thread claiming they would disown/abuse/kick out of the house a child thats gay dont actually have children yet. Because if they had, they wouldnt say such incredibly INSENSITVE things, you truly have no heart and i hope you never get children, i dont want them to be exposed to your views.

My son was born on the 1st of this month. I used to laugh at the people who claimed that their baby was the most beautiful in the world, but my son is. Must be the daddy instincts kicking in. If in 10-20 years he comes up to me and tells me hes gay, i wont love him any less. Hes my son now, hell be my son in 50 years, nothing will ever make me love him less.

I think that all the people in this thread claiming they would disown/abuse/kick out of the house a child thats gay dont actually have children yet. Because if they had, they wouldnt say such incredibly INSENSITVE things, you truly have no heart and i hope you never get children, i dont want them to be exposed to your views.

I think that those people shouldn't even be allowed to have kids in the first place.

Like you said, you "believe" that people should be allowed to live their own lives, not everyone shares that belief. So why not allow others to live by their own moral rules?

Who said I didn't want you to live by your moral rules? I said "don't force your moral rules on me." You are free to live whatever you like in your own life.

Is anyone else sick of the fact that every time a person says they are against homosexuality, people call them homophobes?!

Why is it, at least on these forums, alright to be for gay rights, but if you are against them you are flamed and insulted?

Does anyone else understand that regardless of how one feels about gay rights, it shouldn't make them a target for hate.

That said, I believe in most gay rights with the exception of the marriage thing. I have the 'liberatrian' view. I think that everyone(straight or gay) should get civil unions, and if your religious, get married. Both should be completely equal, but marriage should just be a religious title for civil unions.

One of my friends is gay, and he agrees with me. My girlfriend does too. If people of different sexual orientations can agree on this, doesn't it make sense?

But to recap, I am mad at people flaming anti-gay rights people. A different opinion doesn't make them evil.


A homophobe is a person who hates or fears homosexuals. Calling someone what they are is not an insult, its the truth. A snake is a snake regardless of if it doesn't like being called that.

Onto your other points, while I think its silly that people cannot separate the legal implications of marriage from the religious ones, I would be happy to agree to your compromise (as I think most gay people would) provided that everyone, gay or straight, had a civil union in the government's eyes.

I just want to get the terminology straight (no pun intended). I happen to believe that engaging in homosexual sex is wrong. Many disagree with that stance. Saying that homosexuality is not a choice and use that to justify the "rightness" of the behavior is not a valid argument. I submit that whether one is attracted to the same sex or not is not the issue. The issue is the action one takes. It boils down to this - is homosexual sex right or wrong, not is it ok or not to desire a member of the same sex.

And, as I pointed out, saying "You people who are attracted to the same sex can never pursue a sexual relationship, but you people who are attracted the opposite sex should do it" is just like saying "You people who like chocolate shouldn't eat, but you people who like vanilla should."

If sex is not wrong on its face, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that one type of sex is wrong.

Someone's insecure about their own sexual orientation, eh?

I´ve always wondered what that stupid argument came from?

I was very homophobic when I was younger, until one of my friends came out and I realized how inane my view was, but that didn´t mean that I was gay then and straight now! :)

By the way, that thing about animal homosexual behaviour is not so correct. I`ve been through a lot of these discussions, but in most cases, those behaviours are NOT SEXUAL. One must never confuse behavioral patterns and certain actions with sex, just because we humans see anything concerning genitalia as sex.

But aside that, yes, homosexuality IS natural, otherwise it wouldn´t exist for starters :) And for all religious people out there, since you believe in god´s creation, then you should accept that he has created people who are different from some of you. I know it must be very hard, but please try, for all our sakes.

Who said I didn't want you to live by your moral rules? I said "don't force your moral rules on me." You are free to live whatever you like in your own life.

Just for reference, I doubt your moral rules would be much different from my own. Basically my whole point in the posts I've made to this thread has been to point out the (needless) paradox of tolerance that many semi-liberals suffer. Namely "we should tolerate each other's choices and lifestlyes. That's why you shouldn't be a homophobe/racist/fundamentalist (delete as appropriate)."

Just for reference, I doubt your moral rules would be much different from my own. Basically my whole point in the posts I've made to this thread has been to point out the (needless) paradox of tolerance that many semi-liberals suffer. Namely "we should tolerate each other's choices and lifestlyes. That's why you shouldn't be a homophobe/racist/fundamentalist (delete as appropriate)."

I have no problem with someone being a homophobe, racist, or fundamentalist. I have a problem with them trying to force others to live life by their views (IE bans on gay marriage, making African Americans second class citizens, etc.)

I know I wouldn't. One because I don't care if a person is gay or not. And two because I would be that childs parent. To me a parent is supposed to be a pillar of love and support. The kid is going to have to face a lot of crappy things in their life because of being gay. No need to make it come from the person that is supposed to love them no matter what.

I wouldn't care, and I'd accept them, AND their partner as part of the family. I think it's important to encourage your offspring to be themselves and to not be ashamed of who they are. Putting conditions on your love for a child, whether they are grown or not, is really ****ed up and causes all kinds of costly psycological problems.

If you had a child that was gay....

Wouldn't make a bit of difference to me, I would love them the same no matter what. Being gay is not a choice, so how could any one fault their child for being who they were born to be.

I´ve always wondered what that stupid argument came from?

I was very homophobic when I was younger, until one of my friends came out and I realized how inane my view was, but that didn´t mean that I was gay then and straight now! :)
No, it doesn't mean that, but often homophobia is exhibited by in-denial homosexuals.
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html

By the way, that thing about animal homosexual behaviour is not so correct. I`ve been through a lot of these discussions, but in most cases, those behaviours are NOT SEXUAL. One must never confuse behavioral patterns and certain actions with sex, just because we humans see anything concerning genitalia as sex.
Well, the majority of the evidence I've seen concerning animals was their having homosexual intercourse, which I would consider to be fairly sexual. However, I'm willing to believe that what you're saying here is most likely accurate.

No, it doesn't mean that, but often homophobia is exhibited by in-denial homosexuals.
http://www.apa.org/releases/homophob.html


Well, the majority of the evidence I've seen concerning animals was their having homosexual intercourse, which I would consider to be fairly sexual. However, I'm willing to believe that what you're saying here is most likely accurate.

Read up on penguins. The mate for life--and some of them are homosexuals. Sex, living together, they do everything. Gayness is not just about sex ya know.

Read up on penguins. The mate for life--and some of them are homosexuals. Sex, living together, they do everything. Gayness is not just about sex ya know.
Not sure if you were directing this comment to me or Kristovia...
Given that I'm a bisexual male, more interested in a loving emotional relationship than sex no matter which gender the individual is (which is not to say I'm uninterested in sex, of course), I understand this point fairly well. However, those who argue against homosexuality's base in the natural world tend to be unconvinced by anything less than physical homosexual intercourse. I think it's unfortunate that it's thought of that way, but it seems the only way to get the point across is to "play by their rules," so to speak, when debating the matter.

I must admit that it would be hard to swallow for me, because you expect/hope for a child that doesn't deviate from the norm to much, only because that makes life easier for them, but I would not judge them: I cannot -and will not- blame my kids if they deviate from the image I had in my mind. Furthermore, if we start passing judgement on our own children, what are we doing?

I believe the whole idea behind raising children is ensuring that they can be happy, that they can live their life the way they want, not to create a younger copy of ourselves.

To all the people who would disown them: I can understand your reaction as an impulse, but please, show that you are members of a (somewhat) evolved species and think before you act.

If something doesn't meet your expectations, perhaps your expectations were wrong.

Well, if it was my only son I would be a bit disappointed... you know, since I really want my perfect genes to spread out through the world and stuff. But other than that, I would be proud.

Do you know why teenagers discriminate so easily? Because they have weak minds that are easily molded by the media and their friends and so if your friends say being gay is weird and that you should pick on the gay kid, chances are you will.

I don't have a weak mind - I have iron will (except with WORK), I hate most of the Media, I have odd (theodemosoc.) political beliefs, I don't pick on gays but I believe homosexual acts are wrong (but should NOT be met with stoning or burning), and I don't like your comments on teenagers. Why are we always picked on? It's like everyone picking on Christians because of Jerry Falwell the Apostate.

Not sure if you were directing this comment to me or Kristovia...
Given that I'm a bisexual male, more interested in a loving emotional relationship than sex no matter which gender the individual is (which is not to say I'm uninterested in sex, of course), I understand this point fairly well. However, those who argue against homosexuality's base in the natural world tend to be unconvinced by anything less than physical homosexual intercourse. I think it's unfortunate that it's thought of that way, but it seems the only way to get the point across is to "play by their rules," so to speak, when debating the matter.

Believe me, I understand the need to play within their rules--to a point. There's comes a point where if a system refuses to adapt, then it must cease to exist.

I don't have a weak mind - I have iron will (except with WORK), I hate most of the Media, I have odd (theodemosoc.) political beliefs, I don't pick on gays but I believe homosexual acts are wrong (but should NOT be met with stoning or burning), and I don't like your comments on teenagers. Why are we always picked on? It's like everyone picking on Christians because of Jerry Falwell the Apostate.

I think a large reason we often to refer to teenagers in the way that so inflamed you is because many of us were teenagers and remember what it was like back then. Certainly this does not mean that all teenagers are like that, but well . . . .most do. I'm sorry. I'm not attacking teenagers--its only been six or so years since I was one myself. Most teenagers do follow under that "weak mind" premise. This doesn't mean they are stupid, but that they are easily led astray--esp. in the early teenage years (13-16 or so). You simply don't have the life experiences yet. So again, I'm not insulting you nor say that all teenagers are weak minded (you certainly may not be) and of course its not fair to assume they all are because some are--but there is a reason there are so many programs geared towards helping teens combat peer pressure, etc.

For my child, it would depend upon which age he/she came to me with it. Obviously ages 7-11, being psychologically non-sexual, I wouldn't put much stock into it. Any declaration of sexuality at that age would be an interesting quirk, but nothing more. If they were pubescent or post-pubescent, yet still under the age of 18, I would support them, yet challenge the declaration with compassionate inquiry. Why? Because I have known too many people, from aquaintences to close friends, who have made declarations ("No, I'm straight", "I think I'm gay", "I'm bi cause I kissed a girl") that they later re-evaluated and realized weren't true. Sometimes people -can- be confused about their sexuality, on any point of the spectrum. Personally, unless you are certain of your feelings, I believe that any declaration of "I am x" should be challenged and examined. A knee-jerk reaction towards such a defining characteristic is unbecoming of an intelligent species.

Now, assuming that my child was adult, or a mature teen, and after much discussion held to their convictions regarding their sexual identity, I would thank them for trusting me and leave it at that. As long as my child was happy and harming no-one, their sexuality would be irrelevant to me.

For those of you who are judging the "I'd disown them camp", I have this to say: When would you disown your own child? When would their identity become intolerable? There is also evidence that psychosis, subversion, antisocial behavior, criminal impulse, and violence are genetically inhereted traits and therefore outside of a person's control. Would you still love and support your child if they murdered your spouse? What if they attacked you with a deadly weapon in a fit of rage? What if they said that they had sexual feelings towards animals? Young children? What if they insisted that the voices told them they had to eradicate all the homosexuals on the earth? What if they were racist?

The point here is not that homosexuality is comparable to mental illness. Rather, it is that each of us has a limit with what we could tolerate. We all have different limits on our tolerance. Some may cling to and support their murderous son or daughter. Others might draw the line at devout racism. No matter what that limit is, know that you, too, have one. To say that one person's limit is unacceptable, morally wrong, or invalid is to be unaware of the nature of human morality. We are socially adaptive creatures. Our views of right and wrong change through time and have infinite variation on the individual level.

So, while I would not personally disown my child over a preferred gender, I respect the rights of others to feel that they would.

I have no problem with someone being a homophobe, racist, or fundamentalist. I have a problem with them trying to force others to live life by their views (IE bans on gay marriage, making African Americans second class citizens, etc.)

Here's the paradox, though. By arguing, and I assume voting on or in other ways supporting legislature to the effect, that some people shouldn't force their views on others you are in effect forcing your views on them. Not all moral systems are based on tolerance or the primacy of freedom of choice/lifestyle, some would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to force others to conform to a greater good.

Anyone who isn't prepared to not see eye to eye with their children on many issues should probably rethink having kids in the first place. For me personaly I'd rather have my gay child home for christmas than to not see them at all.

I'd react how I hope my parent'd react if I met them with such an announcement. With understanding and praise for being open about it.


praise?! are you fucking serious? Lets like saying "If I were convicted of murder I would expect praise and a pardon for pleading guilty!"

And before you start with the "You're exaggerating!" remarks, if you want to bring the Holy Bible aspects into this thread, The Bible says a sin is a sin. Fantasizing about cheating on your spouse is as sinful AS cheating, because in your heart, you have cheated. So following the religious aspect, homosexuality is an abomination to God and also sinful. Which is why, marriage (a holy institution of union before God (which implies between a man and woman, because man and man or woman and woman is an abomination to Him) ruins the sanctity of the institution). Not to mention the fact the very basic (non-religious) point of sex is the outcome of reproduction. Homosexuals lack the ability to reproduce with eachother. So aside from money, there is no reason to allow homosexual marriages as it serves no purpose to either God (church) or society (state).

But, thats just my 2 cents.

Read up on penguins. The mate for life--and some of them are homosexuals. Sex, living together, they do everything. Gayness is not just about sex ya know.

Yes, I never denied the phenomenon, but it is a very complicated issue, involving a lot of factors which can be interpreted very freely if the desire to do so exists. Animals can perform intercourse without it being sex (humans too - some tribes have/had rituals where they made their children swallow the father´s semen after having had intercourse with him as a manhood ritual, without it being a sexual or erotic phenomenon for either parties), it could for example be a mean to ascertain dominance. Or, you have the gay penguins in the zoo (and in the wild I´m sure).

Both cases can be argued, but my bottom line is that one should be very careful with the basing or underlining of moral values by taking examples from animals. They are prone to infanticide, they kill each other indiscriminately and they do not care about their old. I don´t feel that this is the right way to convince people.

Here's the paradox, though. By arguing, and I assume voting on or in other ways supporting legislature to the effect, that some people shouldn't force their views on others you are in effect forcing your views on them. Not all moral systems are based on tolerance or the primacy of freedom of choice/lifestyle, some would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to force others to conform to a greater good.
Not really, because you're not forcing them to have a gay marriage or anything. They don't even have to LIKE it. They just have to allow you to have one.

Forcing others to conform to something that only you believe is a greater good is clearly not the right way to be going about things.

What the hell is the problem? So they'd be gay, who cares? And does this apply to both genders, so if I had a daughter with a girlfriend, would I care? Hell no. Same if my son enjoyed screwing guys, no problem. I admit I wouldn't share his tastes, although I would certainly share my daughter's tastes. :D

:D That reminds me of something Lewis Black said on the Daily Show.
He was talking about some of our newly elected senators and one of them was quoted saying, "Lesbianism is so rampant in some high schools that they only let one girl go to the bathroom at a time. Now think about that. Think about that issue."

Here's the paradox, though. By arguing, and I assume voting on or in other ways supporting legislature to the effect, that some people shouldn't force their views on others you are in effect forcing your views on them. Not all moral systems are based on tolerance or the primacy of freedom of choice/lifestyle, some would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to force others to conform to a greater good.

And there's the crux. The only compromise is for everyone to live their own lives. Would you like the Taliban to force you to conform for what they see as the greater good? That's hwat your viewpoint allows.

I must admit that it would be hard to swallow for me, because you expect/hope for a child that doesn't deviate from the norm to much
are you kidding? if i ever had a kid i'd like them to deviate as much as they wanted! the more the better! homogeneity is for insects.

Here's the paradox, though. By arguing, and I assume voting on or in other ways supporting legislature to the effect, that some people shouldn't force their views on others you are in effect forcing your views on them. Not all moral systems are based on tolerance or the primacy of freedom of choice/lifestyle, some would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to force others to conform to a greater good.

If only the greater good was actually 'a greater good' not driven by the politics of "morality".

My son was born on the 1st of this month. I used to laugh at the people who claimed that their baby was the most beautiful in the world, but my son is. Must be the daddy instincts kicking in. If in 10-20 years he comes up to me and tells me hes gay, i wont love him any less. Hes my son now, hell be my son in 50 years, nothing will ever make me love him less.

Congratulations on the birth of your son!! He's certainly picked a great family to be born into!!

are you kidding? if i ever had a kid i'd like them to deviate as much as they wanted! the more the better! homogeneity is for insects.


Yeah!! Totally agree - creativity, innovation, adventure and growth are usually found on the edges and margins, not in the very safe centre

What do you mean by "practice"? Date someone of the same sex? Kiss someone of the same sex? Have sex with someone of the same sex?

Because I wouldn't let any of my children, straight or gay, have sex around "any other children I might have", if that's what you mean. ;)

What I mean is that no child of mine who is Gay, would be allowed to sit at the Table with his/her partner. While my house would be one of love and forgiveness, there is somethings I would not accept into it.

praise?! are you fucking serious? Lets like saying "If I were convicted of murder I would expect praise and a pardon for pleading guilty!"

And before you start with the "You're exaggerating!" remarks, if you want to bring the Holy Bible aspects into this thread, The Bible says a sin is a sin.

You're exaggerating, and take your tracts elsewhere. Likening a few outdated references to one of the 10 Commandments is exaggerating, even from a religious perspective. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, so I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Christians bring this uip as if it's one of the cornerstones of their faith.

Coming out has no parallel in murder - that's just stupid.

Fantasizing about cheating on your spouse is as sinful AS cheating, because in your heart, you have cheated. So following the religious aspect, homosexuality is an abomination to God and also sinful. Which is why, marriage (a holy institution of union before God (which implies between a man and woman, because man and man or woman and woman is an abomination to Him) ruins the sanctity of the institution).

We're arguing state marriage, so religious arguments have no place here.

Not to mention the fact the very basic (non-religious) point of sex is the outcome of reproduction.

Well, if you're Catholic, that's the line. A few of us have other reasons.

Homosexuals lack the ability to reproduce with eachother.

Wrong. They can adopt or take advantage of certain medical procedures. Amazing what science can do these days...

So aside from money, there is no reason to allow homosexual marriages as it serves no purpose to either God (church) or society (state).

Wrong again, even ignoring those hundreds of financial benefits you so casually brush away as beside the point (which, of course, is not the case). A homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to society as a heterosexual marriage.

If one of my kids came home and said "Dad! I'm engaged!" I'd respond "Congratulations! A boy or a girl?".

What I mean is that no child of mine who is Gay, would be allowed to sit at the Table with his/her partner. While my house would be one of love and forgiveness, there is somethings I would not accept into it.

Oh teh noes! All these crazy sitting-at-tables-while-being-gay antics that homos get up to will warp our children's minds!

Why can't we all just get along? :p

Wow ... all you people who Say you would disown your Kids if they were Gay ... YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BURN IN HELL...
WHY ???

WHY ???
Because I swear On everything Holy or spiritual in this universe that I will wait for you in the afterlife and make you Pay for your Dispicable sins against your Children...
You think your God is Wraithful ... You ain't seen nothign yet .. Your god is a pussy bitch compare to me.
How Dare you Disown your Kids over such a insignificant Issue How Dare you!

You think the Bible is right ??? Well heres some logic for your Dumb Arses!

The Bible by its own admission is bullshit

Why ???

Man is Corrupt .. the bible says so
The Bible was written by man ... therefore the Bible is corrupt
Your "man" and you read the Bible therefore anything you read from it is Corrupt by interpretation
The bible has been rewritten by man many many times therefore making it even more corrupt each time
It has been translate BY MAN ... making any translations Corrupt !

Therefore in conclusion .. anything you read or see in the Bible is Corrupt and Your a fucktard for believeing it and disowning your kids you dispicable people.

Now to All you Good Decent Chrisitans out there Because I know for fact you make up the LARGE majority of Christians. Thank you very much for providing us with a pretty decent set of morals to live our lives by, Our laws are generally based on Good common sense Christian standards.
Good on you guys.

You are free to believe in anything you want and do anything you want as long as it does not impact on the lives of others ... Disowning your kids will severly fuck them up and I swear You'll pay for it in this life or the next You will pay!

Signed,
God, One of many.

Oh teh noes! All these crazy sitting-at-tables-while-being-gay antics that homos get up to will warp our children's minds!

Exactly! When I was younger, I spent the night at my friend's sister's house, and her sister was a lesbian, and now I'm gay! Do you see the connection? We ate from the same birthday cake!

Signed,
God, One of many.

Dear God,

I want a pony.

If only the greater good was actually 'a greater good' not driven by the politics of "morality".

So you only believe disowning gay children is pragmatically bad, then? Or not bad at all?

And there's the crux. The only compromise is for everyone to live their own lives.

How is stating how others should and should not behave a compromise?

Would you like the Taliban to force you to conform for what they see as the greater good?

No. Personally I detest any regime or group of people that tries to inflict their own narrow version of morality on others. However, I accept that's a personal aversion that I cannot back up with any concrete objective truth. In that respect it's no different from those who find homosexuality repugnant.

That's hwat your viewpoint allows.

Allows only in the sense that I do not condemn it in moral terms. That does not mean I condone it in any way, nor that I wouldn't try my hardest to stop it. I would certainly vote in favour of gay marriage, for example. I just wouldn't pretend that I could justifiably claim that doing so was a better moral action than voting against.

Not really, because you're not forcing them to have a gay marriage or anything. They don't even have to LIKE it. They just have to allow you to have one.

No-one's forcing you to disown your gay child. You don't even have to LIKE it. You just have to let others do it.

Forcing others to conform to something that only you believe is a greater good is clearly not the right way to be going about things.

Ignoring the obvious "why not?" I fail to how telling others that they shouldn't disown gay children is much different, just here the greater good(s) is/are "tolerance", "equality" and/or "human rights". Of course we could argue the semantics of "force" but then it can equally be argue that disowning a child is not "forcing" them to do anything.

What I mean is that no child of mine who is Gay, would be allowed to sit at the Table with his/her partner. While my house would be one of love and forgiveness, there is somethings I would not accept into it.

Then it would not be a home of love and forgiveness. It would be a home of conditions and margins.

No-one's forcing you to disown your gay child. You don't even have to LIKE it. You just have to let others do it.

nobody here is arguing that you don't have the RIGHT to do that. just that it is a horrible thing to do. i, personally, would prefer that somebody like you disown their gay child IMMEDIATELY, so that child can get out of such a harmful environment.


Ignoring the obvious "why not?" I fail to how telling others that they shouldn't disown gay children is much different, just here the greater good(s) is/are "tolerance", "equality" and/or "human rights". Of course we could argue the semantics of "force" but then it can equally be argue that disowning a child is not "forcing" them to do anything.
the argument can be made that when you choose to have a child you choose to come on board for the long haul, and you aren't allowed to just jump ship if your kids doesn't turn out the way you wanted. many people believe that a parent has an obligation to nurture their child indefinitely, even if that child does something the parent believes is very very wrong. i'm not saying that is necessarily true, but that is one way that a case can be made against the decision to disown a child for being gay...especially if that child is underage.

That child can't be mine. But if it was mine... :sniper:

How is stating how others should and should not behave a compromise?


The compromise is that everyone gives up the right to force others to conform to their narrow morality and in turn gets the protection that they will not be forced to do something that conforms to someone else's narrow morality.



No. Personally I detest any regime or group of people that tries to inflict their own narrow version of morality on others. However, I accept that's a personal aversion that I cannot back up with any concrete objective truth. In that respect it's no different from those who find homosexuality repugnant.


I can. People are free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. No one has a right to interfere in that.


Allows only in the sense that I do not condemn it in moral terms. That does not mean I condone it in any way, nor that I wouldn't try my hardest to stop it. I would certainly vote in favour of gay marriage, for example. I just wouldn't pretend that I could justifiably claim that doing so was a better moral action than voting against.

I wouldn't believe I was acting on morals. I don't believe the government should be involved in those except to guarantee everyone can have their own set and go to destruction in their own way. What I do believe should be acted upon is rights. A uniform set of rights for everyone. I suppose this is a very libertarian point of view, maybe I should join the party.

Then it would not be a home of love and forgiveness. It would be a home of conditions and margins.
now now, let's be fair. ALL good homes have conditions for behavior. i'm not allowed to talk politics with my mother during dinner any more, for example. my brother is forbidden from bringing his CD player to the table. when i was younger and experimented with drugs my parents set the rule that i was NEVER to come to the table intoxicated in any way.

bottom line is that it is their house, their rules. as my dad pointed out to me, when i have a house of my own i can invite them round and expect them to abide my rules at table, so mom and dad are pretty careful about what rule they make because they know the proverbial tables shall turn :).

No-one's forcing you to disown your gay child. You don't even have to LIKE it. You just have to let others do it.


No one has proposed forcing people to keep and raise their gay children. They just expressed their dislike. Getting to express your dislike is something even KKK members, skinheads, and blackpanthers get to do. It when you try to legislate those rights away that problems present. Of course since the parents are trampling on the rights of the child. . . . . . hmmmm, that one's gonna take some though so I"m not gonna say more on it for a while.

now now, let's be fair. ALL good homes have conditions for behavior. i'm not allowed to talk politics with my mother during dinner any more, for example. my brother is forbidden from bringing his CD player to the table. when i was younger and experimented with drugs my parents set the rule that i was NEVER to come to the table intoxicated in any way.

bottom line is that it is their house, their rules. as my dad pointed out to me, when i have a house of my own i can invite them round and expect them to abide my rules at table, so mom and dad are pretty careful about what rule they make because they know the proverbial tables shall turn :).

Then I respectfull take out the word margins. However the conditions stand as s/he is prescribing a certain set of conditions where s/he will love the child. Of course, since love in unconditional, one has to wonder if s/he ever really loved the child to begin with.

I couldn't disown them. I'd feel like a hypocrite. Many of my friends are LGBT, so... yea. If I can accept them as friends, I should be able to accept my own son/daughter. Savvy? Another reason I support gay marriage & equal rights.

Both cases can be argued, but my bottom line is that one should be very careful with the basing or underlining of moral values by taking examples from animals. They are prone to infanticide, they kill each other indiscriminately and they do not care about their old. I don´t feel that this is the right way to convince people.

No one is basing moral values on animals. We are simply pointing out that a range of sexuality *is* a natural occurrence for all those idiots who scream "It's a choice!" or "It's unnatural!" both of which are clearly untrue.

There are, quite clearly, animals who are heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and transsexual. These terms do not imply any type of morality, simply the focus of the sexual behavior that said animal exhibits.

Wow ... all you people who Say you would disown your Kids if they were Gay ... YOU ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WILL BURN IN HELL...
WHY ???

WHY ???
Because I swear On everything Holy or spiritual in this universe that I will wait for you in the afterlife and make you Pay for your Dispicable sins against your Children...
You think your God is Wraithful ... You ain't seen nothign yet .. Your god is a pussy bitch compare to me.
How Dare you Disown your Kids over such a insignificant Issue How Dare you!

You think the Bible is right ??? Well heres some logic for your Dumb Arses!

The Bible by its own admission is bullshit

Why ???

Man is Corrupt .. the bible says so
The Bible was written by man ... therefore the Bible is corrupt
Your "man" and you read the Bible therefore anything you read from it is Corrupt by interpretation
The bible has been rewritten by man many many times therefore making it even more corrupt each time
It has been translate BY MAN ... making any translations Corrupt !

Therefore in conclusion .. anything you read or see in the Bible is Corrupt and Your a fucktard for believeing it and disowning your kids you dispicable people.

Now to All you Good Decent Chrisitans out there Because I know for fact you make up the LARGE majority of Christians. Thank you very much for providing us with a pretty decent set of morals to live our lives by, Our laws are generally based on Good common sense Christian standards.
Good on you guys.

You are free to believe in anything you want and do anything you want as long as it does not impact on the lives of others ... Disowning your kids will severly fuck them up and I swear You'll pay for it in this life or the next You will pay!

Signed,
God, One of many.


I'm sorry, but I can't take your "wrath" serisouly if you don't even know the difference between "your" and you're." Thanks for the laugh though...

You're exaggerating, and take your tracts elsewhere. Likening a few outdated references to one of the 10 Commandments is exaggerating, even from a religious perspective. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, so I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Christians bring this uip as if it's one of the cornerstones of their faith.

Coming out has no parallel in murder - that's just stupid.



We're arguing state marriage, so religious arguments have no place here.



Well, if you're Catholic, that's the line. A few of us have other reasons.



Wrong. They can adopt or take advantage of certain medical procedures. Amazing what science can do these days...



Wrong again, even ignoring those hundreds of financial benefits you so casually brush away as beside the point (which, of course, is not the case). A homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to society as a heterosexual marriage.


Wow. I rebutted everything you said, in the post you posted this to. Its amazing, really. I especially like how you can't back up anything that you said. The Bible clearly states that man shall not lay with man. I don't feel like repeating myself, so take the time to actually read what I wrote before you start grasping at straws to make excuses for yourself...

Wow. I rebutted everything you said, in the post you posted this to. Its amazing, really. I especially like how you can't back up anything that you said. The Bible clearly states that man shall not lay with man. I don't feel like repeating myself, so take the time to actually read what I wrote before you start grasping at straws to make excuses for yourself...
perhaps you will help clarify for me, then: i don't see where you have rebutted any of what Anbar said, or how you have refuted his points. could you perhaps try again?

"There's nothing wrong with being one of God's homosexual children," said Mr. Kerry, an openly-heterosexual veteran of foreign war who is also a U.S. Senator, "And far be it from me to pry into the private life of Mr. Cheney's lesbian child, who is gay and a homosexual. People can't choose whom they will love."

"There's nothing wrong with being one of God's homosexual children," said Mr. Kerry, an openly-heterosexual veteran of foreign war who is also a U.S. Senator, "And far be it from me to pry into the private life of Mr. Cheney's lesbian child, who is gay and a homosexual. People can't choose whom they will love."

No wonder he lost.

perhaps you will help clarify for me, then: i don't see where you have rebutted any of what Anbar said, or how you have refuted his points. could you perhaps try again?


I would be glad to, if you could identify anything resembling a "point" that he made. I think if you re-read the post all the answers are there, and he didn't rebutt them, rather just made timid, biased, un-supported, personal attacks on them...

I would be glad to, if you could identify anything resembling a "point" that he made. I think if you re-read the post all the answers are there, and he didn't rebutt them, rather just made timid, biased, un-supported, personal attacks on them...

But you never misused 'your' and 'you're'. :D

I would be glad to, if you could identify anything resembling a "point" that he made. I think if you re-read the post all the answers are there, and he didn't rebutt them, rather just made timid, biased, un-supported, personal attacks on them...
ahh, i see. that answers my questions, actually.

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.

Yet more name calling. Expected.

Anyway,.. my reaction would be "I have a gay kid."

Just a simple statement.

It's the same as a kid with red hair. Being picked on would be BAD for those picking on him/her, as the pickers would soon find their teeth being picked up and crushed by my kid.

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.

I would cry...



because of the current views of some people in this country, I might not be able to see them get married.

I would cry...



because of the current views of some people in this country, I might not be able to see them get married.



They could always get married in Canada and while it may not be "valid" in the US, it's symbolic in another way,

They could always get married in Canada and while it may not be "valid" in the US, it's symbolic in another way,

..or a wide selection of other liberal democracies, though the symbolism represented by having to opt for a foreign LEGALLY VALID marriage not recognised in the individual's native country is ironically ignoble.

Wow. I rebutted everything you said, in the post you posted this to. Its amazing, really. I especially like how you can't back up anything that you said. The Bible clearly states that man shall not lay with man. I don't feel like repeating myself, so take the time to actually read what I wrote before you start grasping at straws to make excuses for yourself...

Uh, no, you didn't. If you want to address my arguments against your points, do it so I can smack you down like a red-headed step child. Your statements are not shimmering nuggets of truth, proof unto themselves. Here, when someone challenges our arguments, we back them up. I know this is likely foreign to you (the idea of challenging ideas and all), but hey, that's the way it works.

praise?! are you fucking serious? Lets like saying "If I were convicted of murder I would expect praise and a pardon for pleading guilty!"

And before you start with the "You're exaggerating!" remarks, if you want to bring the Holy Bible aspects into this thread, The Bible says a sin is a sin.

You're exaggerating, and take your tracts elsewhere. Likening a few outdated references to one of the 10 Commandments is exaggerating, even from a religious perspective. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, so I'm getting pretty tired of hearing Christians bring this uip as if it's one of the cornerstones of their faith.

Coming out has no parallel in murder - that's just stupid.

Seems pretty straightforward...I pointed out that your likening of coming out to marriage is bunk and why. Go ahead, prove why the two are even remotely similarl, Biblically or otherwise. It's a stupid example, and I really don;t care if you take offense that I call it as I see it.

Fantasizing about cheating on your spouse is as sinful AS cheating, because in your heart, you have cheated. So following the religious aspect, homosexuality is an abomination to God and also sinful. Which is why, marriage (a holy institution of union before God (which implies between a man and woman, because man and man or woman and woman is an abomination to Him) ruins the sanctity of the institution).

We're arguing state marriage, so religious arguments have no place here.

Once again, no insults, and pretty straightforward - refute it or shut up.

Not to mention the fact the very basic (non-religious) point of sex is the outcome of reproduction.

Well, if you're Catholic, that's the line. A few of us have other reasons.

The Catholic reason for being against things like contraception is because sex ought to have the potential to bring forth life. Thusly, a point such as what you made is certainly valid to Catholics. However, I think there's more than enough non-childbearing sex going on in this country to prove that, from a non-ideological standpoint, you are utterly full of crap.

Hmm, until just now, no insult.

Homosexuals lack the ability to reproduce with eachother.

Wrong. They can adopt or take advantage of certain medical procedures. Amazing what science can do these days...

Yet another perfectly straightforward point, and not even a hint of an attack or insult. Hmm...anyone else seeing a pattern here?

So aside from money, there is no reason to allow homosexual marriages as it serves no purpose to either God (church) or society (state).

Wrong again, even ignoring those hundreds of financial benefits you so casually brush away as beside the point (which, of course, is not the case). A homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to society as a heterosexual marriage.

And, yet again, another point you seem to have avoided. Why, exactly, is it OK for you to totally disregard on of the major points of the debate (financial reasons)? And how, exactly, have you refuted that last line?

Pony up some intellectual substance or retreat from the thread with your tail between your legs. This "He didn't say anything, he just attacked me!" nonsense is pathetic. You made claims and I countered them. Now, you provide proof. My turn to crush it follows. Grow a pair and argue your points.

nobody here is arguing that you don't have the RIGHT to do that. just that it is a horrible thing to do. i, personally, would prefer that somebody like you disown their gay child IMMEDIATELY, so that child can get out of such a harmful environment.

Just to re-iterate, for the umpteenth time, I would not personally disown a gay child. Just because I question certain assumptions does not mean I am teh gay-hater.

the argument can be made that when you choose to have a child you choose to come on board for the long haul, and you aren't allowed to just jump ship if your kids doesn't turn out the way you wanted. many people believe that a parent has an obligation to nurture their child indefinitely, even if that child does something the parent believes is very very wrong. i'm not saying that is necessarily true, but that is one way that a case can be made against the decision to disown a child for being gay...especially if that child is underage.

I agree. My point is, however, that it is a case based on certain moral assumptions that others may not necessarily share.

The compromise is that everyone gives up the right to force others to conform to their narrow morality and in turn gets the protection that they will not be forced to do something that conforms to someone else's narrow morality.

Except for being forced not to force others to into conforming to their morality. You can only argue that this is a morally legitimate measure if you can support the rightness of not forcing others to confrim objectively. You haven't so far, however (see below).

I can. People are free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. No one has a right to interfere in that.

That's not an objective truth, that's a personal moral assumption. The question is can you support it in terms that don't rely on your other moral or political assumptions?

I wouldn't believe I was acting on morals. I don't believe the government should be involved in those except to guarantee everyone can have their own set and go to destruction in their own way. What I do believe should be acted upon is rights. A uniform set of rights for everyone. I suppose this is a very libertarian point of view, maybe I should join the party.

And what are rights if not an ethical concept? By saying that the government should act on the basis of rights you are making a moral argument. Unless you can support this in objective terms then you're no different than those who would vote against gay marriage (in terms of justification, that is, obviously there are other differences).

Did you more than the first sentence? I stated that, religiously speaking, sin is sin. Lying will send you to hell just as quick as killing, or divination. I won't bore you with quotes and such but... According to the Bible's descriptions of sin, homosexuality is no different than killing. SIN = SIN... bottom line.

FACT: Sex is the ONLY manner of NATURAL reproduction between people...

Simply that. Before all this new medical technology came about, you fucked to reproduce. So this has no basis whatsoever on Catholicism. I don't know whose ass you pulled that out of. I didn't say the ONLY reason was for reproduction, but simply put - that tends to be the end-state for sex.

as far as the argument of state marriage. I understand seperation of church and state, but marriage is a religious institution... Need I explain more?

"Wrong again, even ignoring those hundreds of financial benefits you so casually brush away as beside the point (which, of course, is not the case). A homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to society as a heterosexual marriage."

You asked why I left financial reasons out...

God/Bible says man shall not lay with man. You choose to ignore God and religion, so aside from money why would partake in a religious ceremony? If you will step back to the Bible thing again we see that, due to your perverse actions you are condemned by God, so what point is there in asking for a union under Him? Money? Popular approval?

Personaly, I don't give a shit if you're a faggot or not, but when you ask people to openly approve of it and accept it you are wrong. You have the right fuck who/whatever you want, but everyone else has the right to disagree with it.


As it is, I truly feel sorry for you... I hope you get your "wake up call" soon. And not to mention that your obvisouly boring life revolves deeply enough around this thread that you post two pitiful attempts to insult me in less than an entire day.... My advice: Experience the real world once in awhile. Make some real friends... I'm not going to dignify your "grow a pair" with a comment, because that in itself has something to say about you.

If you will step back to the Bible thing again we see that, due to your perverse actions you are condemned by God, so what point is there in asking for a union under Him? Money? Popular approval? Um, condemned by the old testament, along with a thousand other things Jesus said were not important in achieving the kingdom of heaven. The bible argument is just stupid; it can be interpreted any way you like.

Oh, and the reason gays want marriage is for equal treatment under the law. Most of them don't give two cents for your god, but it's hard to live under a government that not only lets society treat you dispicably, but actively restricts your rights.

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.

Religion aside. Gayness is a biological and evolutionary dead-end. It destroyed the Greek and Roman civizilations, and is spreading AIDS + ? across the (mostly-third) world. You can call me a bigot, but you Kerry-lovers lost, and so did your "right-to-marry-anything" initiatives.

Gayness is a biological and evolutionary dead-end. It destroyed the Greek and Roman civizilations, and is spreading AIDS + ? across the (mostly-third) world.
Actually, in the third world, HIV is mostly spread through hetero sex.
OMG let's ban heterosexuality!!! :rolleyes:

Actually, in the third world, HIV is mostly spread through hetero sex.
OMG let's ban heterosexuality!!! :rolleyes:

Actually, its spread mostly by a-sexual rape.

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.


I´d support it nonetheless, just like you could expect it from good parents. It´s my child, my own "blood and flesh" afterall. I´d be watchful, kick out the guys/ gals he/ she things who are "do-able" and I don´t, etc. .

And most importantly, I´d tell anyone who tries to pick on my child for being gay where he can shove up his prejudices...

Actually, its spread mostly by a-sexual rape.
So it's not homosexual sex? Way to backflip.

But I still disagree. While I acknowledge that rape is a huge problem, particularly in Southern Africa, I think regular consensual unprotected sex is a greater contributor to the AIDS epidemic.

So it's not homosexual sex? Way to backflip.

But I still disagree. While I acknowledge that rape is a huge problem, particularly in Southern Africa, I think regular consensual unprotected sex is a greater contributor to the AIDS epidemic.

I learned it from John KerFLIPerry. Anyway, we both have "I thinks". But facts are more important, "I think".
FACT #1 of ONLY 1: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. (Addendum, and opinion, FORTUNATELY.)

How would you react? Would you treat them any differently than if they were straight? Would you tell them they were going to hell? (if you are evangelical, that is) Honestly, I really wouldn't treat them any differently, and I certanly wouldn't disown them. I guess I'd need time to think about how to deal with them coming home and talking about having a crush on someone of the same gender. If they got picked on because they were gay though, I'd arrange a meeting with the kid's parents and raise hell. If my children are picked on for things they cannot control, well I don't put up with bs like that. Anyways, how would you out there handle this situation if it happened to you? I'm not trying to make it sound weird, it's just that different challenges come for parents that have gay children and yes, I know people who have gay children.

Should one of my children (when I have them) be homo-sexual, well I might need time to fully accept it if I never suspected something but I shall not treat them any differently, aside from the fact that I would now go and bother them by seeking out appropiate partners of their own gender now. And since I live in the Netherlands were it's legal for them to get married (assuming the radical muslims, that are way out of proportion here, don't manage to take over) that should not be a problem.

Should one of my children (when I have them) be homo-sexual, well I might need time to fully accept it if I never suspected something but I shall not treat them any differently, aside from the fact that I would now go and bother them by seeking out appropiate partners of their own gender now. And since I live in the Netherlands were it's legal for them to get married (assuming the radical muslims, that are way out of proportion here, don't manage to take over) that should not be a problem.

A ray of sunshine. Accepting "gayness" is the number 2 problem in the Netherlands. Cowering under the radical muslims (that they openly invited) is now a bigger problem. "What ye sow, ye shall reap".

Actually, its spread mostly by a-sexual rape.
wrong. the VAST majority of HIV transmition world-wide is through consentual heterosexual intercourse.

wrong. the VAST majority of HIV transmition world-wide is through consentual heterosexual intercourse.

I yield to "UberSpamGirl", but I do not concede (or conceal) my POINT. Also, she (I assume) is wrong, unless African-Truckdriver-Rape is now legally consentual. This is possible, considering the role of law, and the UN in Africa.

I yield to "UberSpamGirl", but I do not concede (or conceal) my POINT. Also, she (I assume) is wrong, unless African-Truckdriver-Rape is now legally consentual. This is possible, considering the role of law, and the UN in Africa.
"UberSpamGirl" is one of the autotitles generated by the site, just FYI. male and female players alike may be given it, since it's just based on your post count and not on any personal data.

but to the point: what are you basing your statements on? i am basing my statements in statistics from the World Health Organization, the American Medican Association, and UNAIDS. worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. unless you can cite a source and show that figure to be wrong, it doesn't matter whether you "concede" the point...you are simply mistaken, whether you choose to admit it or not.

but to the point: what are you basing your statements on? i am basing my statements in statistics from the World Health Organization, the American Medican Association, and UNAIDS. worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. unless you can cite a source and show that figure to be wrong, it doesn't matter whether you "concede" the point...you are simply mistaken, whether you choose to admit it or not.
Thanks Bottle. I couldn't be bothered doing the research since I'm supposed to be studying for my last exam tomorrow. I knew it was true though. :p

"UberSpamGirl" is one of the autotitles generated by the site, just FYI. male and female players alike may be given it, since it's just based on your post count and not on any personal data.

but to the point: what are you basing your statements on? i am basing my statements in statistics from the World Health Organization, the American Medican Association, and UNAIDS. worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse. unless you can cite a source and show that figure to be wrong, it doesn't matter whether you "concede" the point...you are simply mistaken, whether you choose to admit it or not.

You dare to quote UN statistics! They would have given the "Humanitarian" award to Hitler for providing heat in the winter. Also, Yessir(No sir)Airyfart got the Nobel PIECE Prize (with Jimminy Carter). In hindsight, I credit Carter, and his nephew Clinton, for returning the south-east to the Republicans.

You dare to quote UN statistics! They would have given the "Humanitarian" award to Hitler for providing heat in the winter. Also, Yessir(No sir)Airyfart got the Nobel PIECE Prize (with Jimminy Carter). In hindsight, I credit Carter, and his nephew Clinton, for returning the south-east to the Republicans.

Is there any real point arguing with you? You don't seem to be motivated by rational enquiry, but some sort of groundless generalisational hatred.

Is there any real point arguing with you? You don't seem to be motivated by rational enquiry, but some sort of groundless generalisational hatred.

And your logical respose to my post is???

Is there any real point arguing with you? You don't seem to be motivated by rational enquiry, but some sort of groundless generalisational hatred.

no there isn't. all he does is rant like so short little faschist with a moustace, never giving evidence, eluding to his ever present knowledge, avoiding the issue etc etc

no there isn't. all he does is rant like so short little faschist with a moustace, never giving evidence, eluding to his ever present knowledge, avoiding the issue etc etc
And he likes calling people names.

And your logical respose to my post is???

....er, that was logical enough, in my opinion. Ok, how about this - the UN wouldn't have given an award to Hitler, and you have no logical base for making that remark or disregarding UN statistics. Here's an idea: why don't *you* make a rational criticism of the UN which has enough force to falsify their research. The burden of proof isn't on me here.

no there isn't. all he does is rant like so short little faschist with a moustace, never giving evidence, eluding to his ever present knowledge, avoiding the issue etc etc

Ah! KillGuy returns to badmouth, but with no facts.

Ah! KillGuy returns to badmouth, but with no facts.

never asserted that i had any in the first place. my point was you argue with no reference, no basis, no facts and no sources to back up what you argue. You flame others (slight hypocrasy here considering my last post i know) without reason and generally act badly untoward others as well.

And he likes calling people names.

yeah that too :D

I learned it from John KerFLIPerry.
Anyway, we both have "I thinks". But facts are more important, "I think".

OK, then, here goes:

http://www.healthsquare.com/aids_stats.htm
"Worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections result from heterosexual intercourse." (Source: Quinn, T. Global burden of the HIV pandemic. Lancet 1996;348:99-106)
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.html "Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse" (Sources: UNAIDS. Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic: December 2001)
http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/GAR2004_03_en.htm#P237_35114
Asia: "Epidemics in this region remain largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers and their sexual partners." (note, homosexual sex is not even mentioned in relation to China, the largest country).
Sub-Saharan Africa: "But today there are, on average, 13 infected women for every 10 infected men—up from 12 infected women for every 10 infected men in 2002." So unless lesbianism is rampant in Burundi et al, it's likely not gay sex that is doing the spreading.
North Africa: "Sudan is by far the worst-affected country in the region. Heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission." "In some countries in the region, HIV infection appears concentrated among injecting drug users."
Eastern Europe and Central Asia: "The main driving force behind epidemics across the region is injecting drug use"
Latin America: "In most South American countries, almost all infections are caused by contaminated drug-injecting equipment or sex between men"
Caribbean: "the Caribbean epidemic is predominantly heterosexual"
High-income countries: "In many high-income countries, sex between men plays an important role in the epidemic. For example, it is the most common route of infection in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, New Zealand and the United States."

So, the only region where homosexual sex is listed as being the primary cause of HIV is high-income countries, hardly meshes well with your assertion that homosexuality "is spreading AIDS + ? across the (mostly-third) world." And "a-sexual rape" (what the hell is that, BTW?, is that when someone tells you to go fuck yourself and you take it too literally?) is not even mentioned.

FACT #1 of ONLY 1: Homosexuality is an evolutionary dead-end. (Addendum, and opinion, FORTUNATELY.)

I suggest you go and read up on evolution. To get you started here's a little factoid: not producing children does not equal failiure from an evolutionary perspective.

OK, then, here goes:

http://www.healthsquare.com/aids_stats.htm
"Worldwide, more than 75 percent of all adult HIV infections result from heterosexual intercourse." (Source: Quinn, T. Global burden of the HIV pandemic. Lancet 1996;348:99-106)
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/artic/hiv_aids_statistics_niaid_fact_sheet_niaid.html "Worldwide, more than 80 percent of all adult HIV infections have resulted from heterosexual intercourse" (Sources: UNAIDS. Report on the global HIV/AIDS epidemic: December 2001)
http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/GAR2004_html/GAR2004_03_en.htm#P237_35114
Asia: "Epidemics in this region remain largely concentrated among injecting drug users, men who have sex with men, sex workers, clients of sex workers and their sexual partners." (note, homosexual sex is not even mentioned in relation to China, the largest country).
Sub-Saharan Africa: "But today there are, on average, 13 infected women for every 10 infected men—up from 12 infected women for every 10 infected men in 2002." So unless lesbianism is rampant in Burundi et al, it's likely not gay sex that is doing the spreading.
North Africa: "Sudan is by far the worst-affected country in the region. Heterosexual intercourse is the principal mode of transmission." "In some countries in the region, HIV infection appears concentrated among injecting drug users."
Eastern Europe and Central Asia: "The main driving force behind epidemics across the region is injecting drug use"
Latin America: "In most South American countries, almost all infections are caused by contaminated drug-injecting equipment or sex between men"
Caribbean: "the Caribbean epidemic is predominantly heterosexual"
High-income countries: "In many high-income countries, sex between men plays an important role in the epidemic. For example, it is the most common route of infection in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, New Zealand and the United States."

So, the only region where homosexual sex is listed as being the primary cause of HIV is high-income countries, hardly meshes well with your assertion that homosexuality "is spreading AIDS + ? across the (mostly-third) world." And "a-sexual rape" (what the hell is that, BTW?, is that when someone tells you to go fuck yourself and you take it too literally?) is not even mentioned.



I suggest you go and read up on evolution. To get you started here's a little factoid: not producing children does not equal failiure from an evolutionary perspective.

you do know he will call you socialist, retarded etc etc despite what you have put up. he just dismisses people's sources and opinions, theres no point in arguing with him. he even claimed dictionaries were socialist.

he even claimed dictionaries were socialist.
Oh! He's that person.
Who want to make him a tinfoil hat then?

We have three daughters... if one (or more) of them wanted to bring home their girlfriend/s to meet their folks, we have no problem with that.

Oh! He's that person.
Who want to make him a tinfoil hat then?

i see his legend preceedes him. :D

As I said earlier, a parent should love their child, always. I personally would not care if my child told me that he/she was gay, I would probably be glad that they didn't try to hide it within themselves. But even if one doesn't hold the same opinions as me, I think any would be parent should remember that there is a big difference between loving someone and approving of their actions.

Also, Blindliberals, it appears to me that you found your arguments on simple assertions, and disregard any facts that don't suit you. Please grow up, that is how spoiled children behave. Don't bother replying to this, I'm not going to pay attention to any more of your drivel.

To everyone else, I would advise that you stop bothering to argue with above mentioned poster, as you won't get anywhere, and you'll be wasting your time.

Well i firmly believe, through blind hope perhaps more than evidence, that many of those people who say that they would reject or disown their children now would not in fact does so should they be confronted with the actual situation. Whilst i know this is not always the case i hope that in 10 or 20 years time it will be, or i will be spining in my grave.

he even claimed dictionaries were socialist.

LOL!! Genius!! In some ways I wish I could make amazingly idiotic statements like that and actually believe them....ignorance is bliss eh.

I wonder what he does for a living? Hopefully nothing that has a lot of influence....

Did you more than the first sentence? I stated that, religiously speaking, sin is sin. Lying will send you to hell just as quick as killing, or divination. I won't bore you with quotes and such but... According to the Bible's descriptions of sin, homosexuality is no different than killing. SIN = SIN... bottom line.

Hmm, last I knew, this was a debate forum...so go ahead and bore me with quotes, seeing as that's what you do to prove an argument. This "and that's the bottom line" stuff may work in your head, but some of us don't live there. Now, as I recall, you need to prove that homosexuality is akin to murder in consequence. Also, describe how it pertains to Christianity, you know, the teachings of Christ.

Of course, the secular side of this argument is the only one that really matters here, so you might want to get crackin' on that one, too.

FACT: Sex is the ONLY manner of NATURAL reproduction between people...

Simply that. Before all this new medical technology came about, you fucked to reproduce. So this has no basis whatsoever on Catholicism. I don't know whose ass you pulled that out of. I didn't say the ONLY reason was for reproduction, but simply put - that tends to be the end-state for sex.

Yes, and you clubbed people over the head with blunt objects to settle disputes. Certainly we need to get back to the good old days...sorry, but society's come a bit farther, and like it or not, things change. I likened what you said to the Catholic position, because it's founded on belief and tradition, whereas your position is founded on a flimsy idea of "natural" law.

Here's a clue for you - the human race violated natural law millenia ago. People today have sex for pleasure, and unless you have an ideological basis for opposing such a thing (i.e. the Catholics), it's just as good a reason as reproduction, which needn't be the "end-state" (whatever that means). Judging by the proportions of sex acts resulting in pregnancies to those not, I'd say it's held as a far better reason by most people. ;)

Since your point was that gay unions can't result in children, you're back to the drawing board, it seems. They can, and the means is irrelevant.

as far as the argument of state marriage. I understand seperation of church and state, but marriage is a religious institution... Need I explain more?

You really don;t have a clue what this issue is about, do you? No one, not one person, has called for the government to mandate that churches perform ceremonies for gay couples. That is the only place such a point as you're fumbling with would have any merit. The issue involves state marriage, which is completely detached from religious marriage (and which religion would that be, pray tell?). Marriage in this context is a government institution.

If you don't like it, write your congressman and tell them to have the government drop marriage recognition entirely. Then it's only a church issue.

"Wrong again, even ignoring those hundreds of financial benefits you so casually brush away as beside the point (which, of course, is not the case). A homosexual marriage provides the same benefits to society as a heterosexual marriage."

You asked why I left financial reasons out...

God/Bible says man shall not lay with man. You choose to ignore God and religion, so aside from money why would partake in a religious ceremony? If you will step back to the Bible thing again we see that, due to your perverse actions you are condemned by God, so what point is there in asking for a union under Him? Money? Popular approval?

*Bzzt* Oh, I'm sorry, we just established that your religious argument is hollow. State marriage, God has nothing to do with it...perhaps we have a parting gift for you?

By the way, I may be bisexual now, but I've been arguing for this issue since long before I made that transition. I argue this from a civil rights standpoint, that of a Libertarian, not for my own future. I think marriage is a sham, but it's a sham that affords benefits and rights to some, and thusly, the sham needs to be extended to all.

Personaly, I don't give a shit if you're a faggot or not, but when you ask people to openly approve of it and accept it you are wrong. You have the right fuck who/whatever you want, but everyone else has the right to disagree with it.

So marriage is all about sex, then. How interesting.

Of course people have the right to disagree with the aspects of another's life, but not to deny them equal benefits in the system. That's discrimination, and your right to disapprove of the lifestyles of others does not extend that far.

As it is, I truly feel sorry for you... I hope you get your "wake up call" soon. And not to mention that your obvisouly boring life revolves deeply enough around this thread that you post two pitiful attempts to insult me in less than an entire day.... My advice: Experience the real world once in awhile. Make some real friends... I'm not going to dignify your "grow a pair" with a comment, because that in itself has something to say about you.

Hah, now we have the pathetic personal attacks - the "I know what I've written here is poorly thought out, of little substance and less merit, so I'm going to try to talk down to you about posting. Yeah, that'll show you who's the big man here." Quit your squeaking, little mouse...anyone reading your posts can see you have very little to say that's of any value. Anyone can see that my posting here is very infrequent, so it's pretty apparent how sad your little ad-hominem attack is. One has to wonder who you're trying to convince with this out-of-left-field "get a life" crap...especially since *dramatic chord* you post here too!

I must admit that I myself am not fully comfortable around homosexuals. I've had one homosexual friend in my life, we knew each other for many years and became very close. At some point, it seemed that this friend of mine became obssessed with sleeping with me. We had several lengthy conversations on the subject, and it seemed I was more capable of accepting my friend's homosexuality than my friend was able to accept my heterosexuality. We had a falling out. This was my only experience with homosexuality, and is the reason for my current mildly negative reaction to it.

But going back to the original question, I think that, if I did have a homosexual child, I would adapt. Perhaps it would be difficult, but I think ultimately it would be a growing experience. Its not something I would like to experience, but I think it would make me a better person if I did. I wouldn't freak out or disown my child, that's for sure.

I must admit that I myself am not fully comfortable around homosexuals. I've had one homosexual friend in my life, we knew each other for many years and became very close. At some point, it seemed that this friend of mine became obssessed with sleeping with me. We had several lengthy conversations on the subject, and it seemed I was more capable of accepting my friend's homosexuality than my friend was able to accept my heterosexuality. We had a falling out. This was my only experience with homosexuality, and is the reason for my current mildly negative reaction to it.

That's understandable. I do think that you're confusing the "acceptance" of each others' lifestyles as the issue, however. I don't see the part in bold above being the same kind of acceptance, since it's likely that he was attracted to you. Thusly, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he couldn't accept that he couldn't have you (rather than it being a simply matter of acceptance of lifestyles). History and literature are filled with such unrequited emotions, after all.

I would love him/her just the same and be sure to support him/her