NationStates Jolt Archive

I havne't, but would love for you to telegram it to me.
i shall endevor to do so, if i can find it :).

LOL, probably Bottle. I was just pointing out that it only appears to say that in the English translation. When you look at the texts in their original language, however, it is less clear (if not outright wrong).
It calles homosexuality a "misguided" act, and calls wearing mixed garments an offense before the Lord.

It calles homosexuality a "misguided" act, and calls wearing mixed garments an offense before the Lord.

It calls male temple prostitution a misguided act. It never mentioned homosexuality--the concept of homosexuality didn't exist back then!

It calls male temple prostitution a misguided act. It never mentioned homosexuality--the concept of homosexuality didn't exist back then! It says men lying with men is misguided. It doesn't make mention of temple prostitutes, but I can't speak for the Christain Bible.

Where did you get this information? Now we have to kill you. Please telegram me your name, location, and bank account numbers. Someone will arrive in approx 280days.

That's funny. I was just trying out this free sample of tea tree conditioner that someone left in my mailbox and all of a sudden I feel like fixing a margarita and watching a little Bravo.

What's that Pracus?

Where do they...Who the hell...Where are you from that they teach this in school?
They do... I'm a teacher and, yes, we do teach openmindedness to all sexualities. We can also get fired for discimigating based on race, sexuality, gender, etc... Im home economics the first that is taught it families and gay families are included, as with high school life plannin courses, health, biology, etc.

That's funny. I was just trying out this free sample of tea tree conditioner that someone left in my mailbox and all of a sudden I feel like fixing a margarita and watching a little Bravo.

What's that Pracus?

That's cause tea tree oil is good stuff. It totally relaxes you so that you can feel free to release your inner thoughts instead of hiding them under so much societally induced gender role BS :)

You should try the tea tree oil stuff they make that is used as a body wash. I can't think of the company right now, but its a sort of teal green. Plop some on a body puff and rub yourself down. It smells great (but not feminine, not all gays are) and is very relaxing and good for your skin.

That's funny. I was just trying out this free sample of tea tree conditioner that someone left in my mailbox and all of a sudden I feel like fixing a margarita and watching a little Bravo.

What's that Pracus?
Sounds like heaven, actually... especially if your movie choice is quite as interesting as my own might be.

That's cause tea tree oil is good stuff. It totally relaxes you so that you can feel free to release your inner thoughts instead of hiding them under so much societally induced gender role BS :)

You should try the tea tree oil stuff they make that is used as a body wash. I can't think of the company right now, but its a sort of teal green. Plop some on a body puff and rub yourself down. It smells great (but not feminine, not all gays are) and is very relaxing and good for your skin.
In my own experience, I've noticed that most gays aren't feminine, actually...

In my own experience, I've noticed that most gays aren't feminine, actually...

I like you more and more. You sure you don't want to swing from my side of the sexuality tree?

I like you more and more. You sure you don't want to swing from my side of the sexuality tree?
I've experienced everything... I've been with every type of person you can imagine. Well, not really, hence I'm rather secluded when it comes to sexual relationships, I have a very hard time attaching to people to that extent, but that's besides the point... To cut to the chase, I'm engaged to a woman, but I've dated men before and I really don't see how pwoplw could be sour to homosexuals. Overall, gay relationships are more stable than straight ones, there is a lower divorce rate, lower abuse rate, higher happiness rate, lower depression rate, etc... Not to mention the openmindedness usually affects people on many aspects of life, including race, making epople less racist, etc.

I've experienced everything... I've been with every type of person you can imagine. Well, not really, hence I'm rather secluded when it comes to sexual relationships, I have a very hard time attaching to people to that extent, but that's besides the point... To cut to the chase, I'm engaged to a woman, but I've dated men before and I really don't see how pwoplw could be sour to homosexuals.

Many congratulations to you on your engagement. I always think its wonderful when someone meets someone else they want to spend their lives with, regardless of sexuality. I mean, sure the straight act makes me nauseated, but still, I can be happy fo ryour being happy :)

I've experienced everything... I've been with every type of person you can imagine. Well, not really, hence I'm rather secluded when it comes to sexual relationships, I have a very hard time attaching to people to that extent, but that's besides the point... To cut to the chase, I'm engaged to a woman, but I've dated men before and I really don't see how pwoplw could be sour to homosexuals. Overall, gay relationships are more stable than straight ones, there is a lower divorce rate, lower abuse rate, higher happiness rate, lower depression rate, etc... Not to mention the openmindedness usually affects people on many aspects of life, including race, making epople less racist, etc.

Good for you, on your engagement, and good luck. I'm a lesbian, and me and my wife got hitched a couple months back, greatest thing i've ever done.
Congratulations.

Many congratulations to you on your engagement. I always think its wonderful when someone meets someone else they want to spend their lives with, regardless of sexuality. I mean, sure the straight act makes me nauseated, but still, I can be happy fo ryour being happy :)
Thank you very much... technically we already got married (long story) but it isn't legal in the US yet. (We got married on vacation out of the country.) And you are free to that opinion. To be completely honest, I just spent a weekend in NYC with my ex boyfriend, actually... Got back about 2 hours ago. and we had a great time.

Good for you, on your engagement, and good luck. I'm a lesbian, and me and my wife got hitched a couple months back, greatest thing i've ever done.
Congratulations.
Thank you also...

If gayness is spread through kids imitating gay people than how did gay culture survive the homophobic years of 100,000 BC - 2005 AD?

Actually, widespread homophobia didn't begin until the crusades when the catholic church began spreading propeganda to gather support for the war.

Just to be clear here, this has never been done in a higher order mammal, either with two females or two males. It *has* been tried, and has failed.

It actually works with two female gametes, but not study I have ever seen has used two male gametes, as there would be no mitochondria involved at that point. If it were to work with two male gametes, an egg from somewhere would probably still be needed.

Femeal/female It has been done in mice. Albeit, the success rate is only about 2/457, those 2 were perfetly healthy. As for male/male fertilization, I remember reading a reaport that stated that it had been done successfully, I just can't find it at the moment. 2/457 isn't ready for human use, certainly, but it can be refined.

Aren't you getting them in too deep too soon? They'd be better starting off with shounen-ai and shoujo-ai; at least warm them up to the concept of same sex-love (sans the sexual nature; just the basic human love aspect and a little kissing)...

Well, to some people the kissing and holding hands is worse than hardcore sex.

Well, to some people the kissing and holding hands is worse than hardcore sex.
How strange...
I'll explain my feelings of seeing sexual acts... There is never a time when I would choose to see people snogging, dry humping, or other common affection in public. However, in the privacy of my own home, I may. Just to put it bluntly, if someone wants to be sexual they should keep it private, not for the good of the children but for the good of soiety as a whole. I'm a grown man and (usually) I don't like to see public affection when I'm out somewhere. I'll watch a porno and I still would rather not see people snog at a restaurant, but it happens, and I'm being very hypocritical because I do these things also, knowing that other people are probably not fond of seeing them. After rambling on a bit, I would hope you got the point out of this that the argument "for the sake of the children" is invalid.

Think about it bud. If you make marriage legal in the the U.S., make a constitutional right or whatever for anyone to marry anyone.

People are going to get pissed and offended if their constitutional right isn't taught in school - the right to be gay and marry. They will be forced in schools to not only bring up subjects such as straight sex in the classroom, but also gay sex.

I believe if it was fully legal to have gay marriages, they should have to teach that if they teach stuff about straight marriages and sex...

What your saying is like "Sure, we made the black free, but lets not teach that in our schools!"

First of all, no one needs a constitutional amendment for marriage. A marriage now is nothing more than a contract between two people. No, and I repeat, NO sanctity is left to marriage in America. If you wanted to you could consider the wording of a marriage license to be protected by the First Amendment, and so if the name of two men or two women should show up on it, it could be considered legal.

Second of all, your argument works both ways. If you have your way and a law is passed against gay marriage, people are still going to have to talk about such a law in a civics class. The only difference from your free blacks point is that they'll be teaching about how they didn't extend civil rights in this case. Small difference, I admit. And, as someone who just took a health class at the highschool level two years ago I can tell you that gay sex is already discussed alongside straight sex.

Jews consider this to mean the name of the supreme being should not be destroyed or obliterated - which is also one of the reasons Hebrew texts are treated with reverence and contain JHWH instead of the name written out. Writing it down just anywhere, like on a forum, is showing contempt by that reasoning.



surely writing G-d is to obliterate the word god and therefor is showing contempt by treating your god in the same way as you are instructed to treat others. also as far as i know the original hebrew had no vowel characters so Yaweh would have been written JHWH. but i got that from an indiana jones film - i may be worng

surely writing G-d is to obliterate the word god and therefor is showing contempt by treating your god in the same way as you are instructed to treat others. also as far as i know the original hebrew had no vowel characters so Yaweh would have been written JHWH. but i got that from an indiana jones film - i may be worng
I thought it was Yod He Vau He, YHWH.
But I got that from occult works, so I may be more wrong.
:D

That's cause tea tree oil is good stuff. It totally relaxes you so that you can feel free to release your inner thoughts instead of hiding them under so much societally induced gender role BS :)

You should try the tea tree oil stuff they make that is used as a body wash. I can't think of the company right now, but its a sort of teal green. Plop some on a body puff and rub yourself down. It smells great (but not feminine, not all gays are) and is very relaxing and good for your skin.
hmm, I'm surprised I've never heard of tea tree oil products. I should go get some, sounds intriguing.

Is the Old Testiment now just some Book? In it, it says " Man shall not lay with Man. " I rest my case.

Yes, it says exactly that. In fact, there is no need to translate from Hebrew to English, because they are the same language! Oh, wait...

Femeal/female It has been done in mice. Albeit, the success rate is only about 2/457, those 2 were perfetly healthy. As for male/male fertilization, I remember reading a reaport that stated that it had been done successfully, I just can't find it at the moment. 2/457 isn't ready for human use, certainly, but it can be refined.

Mice aren't higher order mammals, however.

I work with mice and let me tell you two things. First of all, if it's 2/457 in mice, trying it in humans would make that an even worse ratio, probably at least 5 fold, maybe 10. Second of all, there are things we have been able to do in mice for *decades* that we haven't even been able to move into rats on a large scale, much less anything out of the rodent family.

I can't agree more, but it is not enough!


Ban homosexuality totaly!

It's lovely to see how no one protests about teenage boys and girls groiping each other and flat out gyrating against each other, making out in public. No one complains about that meanwhile we have eleven year old girls getting pregnant from their thirteen year olf boyfriends. No, this is okay but god forbid two consentual adults show an ounce of emotion and affection in public! It's an outrage.

Get over it. There's a reason this is the "land of the free," it dosen't hurt anyone for two people in love/ or liking each other in such a manner to show their affection for each other in fact it may just bring joy to them and others who see their joy.

I can't agree more, but it is not enough!


Ban homosexuality totaly!

Should we start murdering people at puberty, then?

It says men lying with men is misguided. It doesn't make mention of temple prostitutes, but I can't speak for the Christain Bible.

Which Bible are you speaking of then? I'm talking about translations I've had handed to me by people who speak Hebrew. Maybe they missed this one, maybe they didn't give it to me, I won't deny the posisbility. But I sure as hell need to know about it.

Which Bible are you speaking of then? I'm talking about translations I've had handed to me by people who speak Hebrew. Maybe they missed this one, maybe they didn't give it to me, I won't deny the posisbility. But I sure as hell need to know about it.

Those who I have spoken to who can actually read Hebrew/Greek/etc have made it clear that they couldn't find a single clear reference against homosexuality in the Bible.

Of course, that's a good thing, since homosexuality being a sin would be like menstruating being a sin.

Personally, I can't believe that this thread is still going. And that that bigots out there are still using the bible as a shield, proclaiming that their faith tells them to be hateful and intolerant, and because gawd said so, its ok. This is by far the biggest bullshit excuse in the universe.

"I don't like that gays kiss each other in public, so I'm gonna find a passage in the [insert religious text] that confirms that I don't have to treat them with respect."

That's like muslim terrorists saying that it's ok to chop off people's heads because they're "infidelds". NO religious dogma makes hatred of other people ok, or even speaks of it in their holy books. None. And to you ignant bible-brains out there, GET OVER IT, and ask yourself this. How does the fact that gays exist, and that they in fact find love with each other, truly and/or viscerally have any effect on your life? (other than the phantom fears that in the end amount to nothing at all like, "but they will teach it to our children in school" and so on)

Personally, I can't believe that this thread is still going. And that that bigots out there are still using the bible as a shield, proclaiming that their faith tells them to be hateful and intolerant, and because gawd said so, its ok. This is by far the biggest bullshit excuse in the universe.

"I don't like that gays kiss each other in public, so I'm gonna find a passage in the [insert religious text] that confirms that I don't have to treat them with respect."

That's like muslim terrorists saying that it's ok to chop off people's heads because they're "infidelds". NO religious dogma makes hatred of other people ok, or even speaks of it in their holy books. None. And to you ignant bible-brains out there, GET OVER IT, and ask yourself this. How does the fact that gays exist, and that they in fact find love with each other, truly and/or viscerally have any effect on your life? (other than the phantom fears that in the end amount to nothing at all like, "but they will teach it to our children in school" and so on)

I completely agree on all points. :) What it is that makes people so upset about people being gay I don't understand. (It would almost be funny hadn't it been for the fact that the leader of the most powerful country in the world, which ironically calls itself "the land of the free" :), was actually elected on the basis of moralistic sexual phobias like this one. :( )

If people like me weren't around, America would be called "France".
maybe, and if English people didn't exist The Big Apple would still be called Nieuw Amsterdam... you can go on for hours like that :rolleyes:

It's lovely to see how no one protests about teenage boys and girls groiping each other and flat out gyrating against each other, making out in public. No one complains about that meanwhile we have eleven year old girls getting pregnant from their thirteen year olf boyfriends. No, this is okay but god forbid two consentual adults show an ounce of emotion and affection in public! It's an outrage.

Get over it. There's a reason this is the "land of the free," it dosen't hurt anyone for two people in love/ or liking each other in such a manner to show their affection for each other in fact it may just bring joy to them and others who see their joy.

Excellent post.

The only thing I would say is... so long as it stays fairly audience friendly... it gets beyond PG13 level.. it should probably be taken somewhere less crowded.

This thread is still going on?


Man... Those who condemn homosexuality out of ignorance or religious fanaticism really ought to get a life.

This thread is still going on?


Man... Those who condemn homosexuality out of ignorance or religious fanaticism really ought to get a life.


I don't even think it's a religious argument anymore. These people just use the bible as a way of feeling like they're better than the rest of us "godless sinners". If they really READ the book they might actually do something constructive with their faith, like helping the homeless, or the ill, or protesting war. There are sooooo many pusuits that are soooo much more worthy of their time and energy. But, what do they dwell on? Gays, guns, and abortion. And they call themselves "christian". I submit that Jeebus would be REALLY pissed off if he saw what was being perpetrated in his name today.

If they really READ the book they might actually do something constructive with their faith, like helping the homeless, or the ill, or protesting war.

...

I submit that Jeebus would be REALLY pissed off if he saw what was being perpetrated in his name today.


Man, tell me something I don't know.

Can you even imagine how scandalized those folks would be if they learned the "J man" always hanged out with prostitutes, thieves, beggars, and other less-than-respectable members of society? And that he warned against the abuse of Churches and organized religion?

I would just love to see their face :P

I can't agree more, but it is not enough!


Ban homosexuality totaly!
Yes, let's!
Let's make a government decision based on hate!

Oh wait, I remember waht happened last time. The whole thing with those silly african-americans wanting equal rights.

Hmm. I wonder if maybe it's not such a good idea to impose on the rights of a minority simply because they are different?

Those who I have spoken to who can actually read Hebrew/Greek/etc have made it clear that they couldn't find a single clear reference against homosexuality in the Bible.

Of course, that's a good thing, since homosexuality being a sin would be like menstruating being a sin.


That's what I've heard too--from PhDs no less. But if someone has one, I'd like to know about it.

That's what I've heard too--from PhDs no less. But if someone has one, I'd like to know about it.

Me too... so I could smash it apart, and show them why they are wrong.

I'm just mean like that. :)

The Right: Jesus says, retarded gays should be excecuted.

The Left: Man on pumpkin sex is an inalienable right, and should be taught to childeren.

Which side are you on?

The Right: Jesus says, retarded gays should be excecuted.

The Left: Man on pumpkin sex is an inalienable right, and should be taught to childeren.

Which side are you on?


This is, quite possibly, the most extraordinarily idiotic thing I've ever read in these forums to date....

If it's a joke, I appologize now. But if not, well... ^^^^^

The Right: Jesus says, retarded gays should be excecuted.

The Left: Man on pumpkin sex is an inalienable right, and should be taught to childeren.

Which side are you on?

Mmmm...pumpkin sex :D

Originally posted by Molnervia

This is, quite possibly, the most extraordinarily idiotic thing I've ever read in these forums to date....

If it's a joke, I appologize now. But if not, well... ^^^^^

Well, it was a joke. Its from America: The Book, by John Stewart (his writers probably, with his name stamped on it). I'm not angry though, your reaction gave me a good laugh. However, I apologize if I upset you.

:)

It's lovely to see how no one protests about teenage boys and girls groiping each other and flat out gyrating against each other, making out in public. No one complains about that meanwhile we have eleven year old girls getting pregnant from their thirteen year olf boyfriends. No, this is okay but god forbid two consentual adults show an ounce of emotion and affection in public! It's an outrage.

Get over it. There's a reason this is the "land of the free," it dosen't hurt anyone for two people in love/ or liking each other in such a manner to show their affection for each other in fact it may just bring joy to them and others who see their joy.

The only form of true love is male/female genital-squishing (man I love that word :) ) with the intent of making babies, unless either partner is sterile, in which case pretending you want to make babies is fine.[/sarcasm]

The only form of true love is male/female genital-squishing (man I love that word :) ) with the intent of making babies, unless either partner is sterile, in which case pretending you want to make babies is fine.[/sarcasm]
how right you are! clearly, we need to re-specify our definition of marriage, making it clear that the only essential feature of a marital union is procreative heterosexual sex. minor details such as love, commitment, and companionship should not be allowed to overshadow the true meaning of marriage: straight people having sex without protection!

I wish this thread would just go away. It's the zombie thread from Hell.

So, two people of the same sex are affectionate in public? Whats the harm? Sheltering children from homosexuality is much more harmful than the latter. Homophobia could be less of an issue in society if we would simply let it be known that different lifestyles exist, and that it is okay to be different.

Why Threads Like These Are A Negative Influence:
They're stupid and bigoted.

Agree with Schiggidy !

I'm heterosexual and Roman Catholic.

The simple fact to see than people could consider homosexual as a negative influence make me sick. It's only disgusting to see how some are unable to accept differences.

Homosexuality is not a problem, the only problem is with a few homosexual people who are acting like homosexual in public. You think the problem is because they are homosexual, no ! Te real probleme is to act in public, heterosexal should better not be demonstrative in public. Evertbody could sexualy do what he want, the only restriction is to not impose anything to others people. No way your liberty stop where other's liberty start. No sexual activities in public that's the only problem, homosexual, heterosexual, bno differences.

I wish this thread would just go away. It's the zombie thread from Hell.
*pulls out her zombie-executing shotgun*
Did somebody call for a zombie-slayer?
:p

I thought it was Yod He Vau He, YHWH.
But I got that from occult works, so I may be more wrong.
:D

"Walk in the name of the Lord..."

"okay.. J..."

*CRUNCH* *SMASH* *dangle from precipice*

"shit.. Iehovah begins with an I!"

Y'know I really meant to quote the Indiana Jones post...

But tell me this: Were you in the other person's shoes - were homosexuality the norm, and HETEROSEXUALS couldn't display their affection in public, or marry, or do any of those things which people like you deny gays - would you not be incensed?
Calenth

If gays were the norm the human race would have long ago ceased to exist. They cannot reproduce and continue their species which is the purpose of all life. Think about that all of you know that is the sole purpose of life.

I thought this thread would be dead by now :(

If gays were the norm the human race would have long ago ceased to exist. They cannot reproduce and continue their species which is the purpose of all life. Think about that all of you know that is the sole purpose of life.

False. Logic. Yet. Again.

Just because gays are not attracted to members of the opposite sex does not mean that we could not reproduce. Let me assure you, were gays the only ones in the world, the human race would get along quite well. Gay mena nd lesbians can go at it, even if its not the most fun thing we can think of, but we could still do it.

Just like you could have sex with a member of your own gender, even if its disgusting. You just do like the Elizabethan mom advised her daughter on her wedding day "Close your eyes and think of England."

So, yeah, try again.

And of course the fact remains that gays aren't the majority of the population and therefore your entire arguement is moot.

And the sole purpose of life is breeding? That's a very morbid viewpoint. Why do we bother fighting wars, making inventions, or going to work? We coudl all farm adn breed.

And the sole purpose of life is breeding? That's a very morbid viewpoint. Why do we bother fighting wars, making inventions, or going to work? We coudl all farm adn breed.
wars-to get more of other people's kids to die so our kids will do better
inventions-to do better at going to war
work-to get more inventions
if you just farmed, the guys w/ guns are going to shoot you so you will not be able to breed and their kids could take your land

This godforsaken thread has seen one three quarters thousand posts... Will it never die?

The funney thing is that the sheer fact that homosexuals don't tend to reproduce, when coupled with genetics, shows that gays obviously have some large positive influence on society, causing their families, who also carry the genes for potential homosexuality, to be more likely to survive and raise children who will go on to reproduce. A positive influence of some kind is necessary to balance out the clear negative of not reproducing.

This is of course supposing that there are genes which cause a predisposition to homosexuality, but since in identical twins who have been studied 40% of the time when one is gay, both are gay, it seems likely.

If gays were the norm the human race would have long ago ceased to exist. They cannot reproduce and continue their species which is the purpose of all life. Think about that all of you know that is the sole purpose of life.

Uhh "gays" are not a seperate species nor are individuals. This definition of the meaning of life here applies to species and for some reason not all humans are heterosexual just as not all members of lower species reproduce, insects particularly, but they don't seem to be dying off.

I'll be sure to make out and dry hump with some girl in front of the kids waiting for Santa at my local mall. Because we all know that that's socially acceptable.

I think guys and girls, guys and guys, and girls and girls should all be socially acceptable. It used to be bad for a white and black person to be together.

Lemme rephrase for ya: in front of a line full of kids going to spend $20 to sit on the lap of some drunken hobo with a red suit on.



Easy (and I am a dad): "Because they love each other, son. People who love each other sometimes kiss."



You're right. It would be better if they focussed solely on the drunken hobo in the red suit who has a "surprise" for them if they sneak out back.



I wasn't aware marriage was taught in school at all since marriage tends to be a religious or legal institution. Perhaps it is given passing mention in a high school civics class. Anyway, though, I can assure you that children are being taught in our public schools that the defintion of a family is "a group of people who love each other, take care of each other, and are devoted to each other". Guess what's not mentioned: gender, color, creed.

Next thing you know, though, the negroes will be stealing our fair white princesses and violatin' them with their poisonous seed!!

It must really, really, really suck to be you.

ummm.... people who play santa clauses aren't drunken hobos.... they're usually people who have to work in tiring, hot, frustrating conditions, and aren't very well paid for it :sniper:

I would hate my child to see that and it would probably take awhile for me to think of a way to explain it other than a disease. I would not have my child immitating some thing like that and I would make sure he knew how wrong it is. I would have a straight child or no child (but im not going to have bloody children any way so it doesnt matter).

I hope some one can come up with a decent reply to this (please try to make yourself sound angry cause its funnier)

Cheers for your time

I would have a straight child or no child
Would you really kill your children if they turned out to be gay?

No I wouldnt not kill my child, I would probably just disown it or sell it or some thing.

Easy (and I am a dad): "Because they love each other, son. People who love each other sometimes kiss."It would be easy for me too. "Because they are degenerate, lost and insecure, and they feel the need to validate their insecurities in public by grossing people out with a lifestyle that they call "alternative" but which they recognize is "revolting and wrong." Still, you shouldn't hate them son, just realize they are misguided and don't know it, yet."

I thought this thread would be dead by now :(
This thread has been around forever, I posted weeks ago...

It would be easy for me too. "Because they are degenerate, lost and insecure, and they feel the need to validate their insecurities in public by grossing people out with a lifestyle that they call "alternative" but which they recognize is "revolting and wrong." Still, you shouldn't hate them son, just realize they are misguided and don't know it, yet."
wtf? thats a horrible way to think...

Ahhh! the fundamnetalists are invading! HOLD THE WALLS!

Omgz My Cat Was Gay Then It Gayed Me And Now Im Gay And I Go Round Gaying Other Ppl Cause Im A Big Crazy Evil Gay

No I wouldnt not kill my child, I would probably just disown it or sell it or some thing.
That's horrible... sickeningly horrible.

Omgz My Cat Was Gay Then It Gayed Me And Now Im Gay And I Go Round Gaying Other Ppl Cause Im A Big Crazy Evil Gay
wtf? you treat it like a disease...

wtf? thats a horrible way to think...
Not really. It keeps me from being as LLMF in the area of morality as you probably are.

twenty years ago, people would be outraged if a kid sees a black man and a white woman kissing. what's wrong with a dad explaining that love is love, regardless of race? what's wrong with a dad explaining that love is love, regardless of gender? twenty years ago, you would be one of those people complaining about interracial marriage.

It would be easy for me too. "Because they are degenerate, lost and insecure, and they feel the need to validate their insecurities in public by grossing people out with a lifestyle that they call "alternative" but which they recognize is "revolting and wrong." Still, you shouldn't hate them son, just realize they are misguided and don't know it, yet."

Great way to put it, I will have to write that down incase I ever have to explain it to any one.

twenty years ago, people would be outraged if a kid sees a black man and a white woman kissing. what's wrong with a dad explaining that love is love, regardless of race? what's wrong with a dad explaining that love is love, regardless of gender? twenty years ago, you would be one of those people complaining about interracial marriage.Your comparison of race and sexual preference makes any member of a minority based on genetics sick. You are disgusting.

Your comparison of race and sexual preference makes any member of a minority based on genetics sick. You are disgusting.
...right. You make me sick.

Great way to put it, I will have to write that down incase I ever have to explain it to any one.
Thanks.

Not really. It keeps me from being as LLMF in the area of morality as you probably are.
hey, im married and shes preganant, dont make assumptions, i jsut dont think being homophobic a good way to think

Your comparison of race and sexual preference makes any member of a minority based on genetics sick. You are disgusting.


You too can be counted among ignorant white folk as long as you sound like one. Minorites are sociological in origins, not genes.

Being gay is how God made me. I don't question his motives. He probably wants to test YOU.

Personally, I don't mind if people hate it or not, just don't pass that hate onto your children. Really, they don't need to be psychologically neutered just because you have some issues with homosexuals.

You too can be counted among ignorant white folk as long as you sound like one. Minorites are sociological in origins, not genes.
You don't have any idea. Counting someone as white because of the way they think? It is people like you that are what is wrong with this world. I said minorities based on genes because that is what I meant. Homosexuality is a choice (and don't give me the highly disputed references you think say otherwise. It hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of anyone who isn't a partisan) and being black, or any other color, is not.

Your comparison of race and sexual preference makes any member of a minority based on genetics sick. You are disgusting.

you say that racial minorities shouldnt be compared to sexual minorities because it's offensive? i'm asian, and i think that gays are far more discriminated against than asians. alabama didnt remove its ban on interracial marriage until 2000. 49 states do not have gay marriage. explain to me HOW my comparison of racial and sexual minorities is invalid.

OK, let's see. How many gay people could have real kids in the past? I don't think any! Oh right...artificial insemination. One question: is that a natural way to have kids? Oh, and if people still think it's alright to be gay, then make a society made up of gay people only, and NO ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION exists. I wonder if it will survive. Oh right, gays can't have kids, I guess that means their society will die then! Too bad for them!

That's my justification for homophobia!

:fluffle: :mp5:

you say that racial minorities shouldnt be compared to sexual minorities because it's offensive? i'm asian, and i think that gays are far more discriminated against than asians. alabama didnt remove its ban on interracial marriage until 2000. 49 states do not have gay marriage. explain to me HOW my comparison of racial and sexual minorities is invalid.
Sexuality is a choice. Race is not.

You don't have any idea. Counting someone as white because of the way they think? It is people like you that are what is wrong with this world. I said minorities based on genes because that is what I meant. Homosexuality is a choice (and don't give me the highly disputed references you think say otherwise. It hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of anyone who isn't a partisan) and being black, or any other color, is not.

I can't believe what I am reading. Thank you for your time.

You don't have any idea. Counting someone as white because of the way they think? It is people like you that are what is wrong with this world. I said minorities based on genes because that is what I meant. Homosexuality is a choice (and don't give me the highly disputed references you think say otherwise. It hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of anyone who isn't a partisan) and being black, or any other color, is not.

so being gay is a choice now? i know a great way to prove your assertion. why dont you CHOOSE to be gay? can you do it? no? then being gay isnt a choice. i wish people would reassess their claims just a little bit, so that i dont have to do their thinking for them.

so being gay is a choice now? i know a great way to prove your assertion. why dont you CHOOSE to be gay? can you do it? no? then being gay isnt a choice. i wish people would reassess their claims just a little bit, so that i dont have to do their thinking for them.
Aside from your appaling arrogance, your argument is a strawman. Sure, I could choose to be a sodomite. I wouldn't, but I could. And anyone who says they are a sodomite could choose not be, or at least to be celibate. Stop trying to think for people, and stop answering for them, you'll get a lot farther in life.

choose to be gay, and if you really can manage it, i'll believe you. if you cant, then you have been spewing verbal diarrhea. oh look at that, people all over the place have been spewing diarrhea. go get a bib, retards!

go get a bib, retards!I think this wins the "Best all around contribution to intelligence in discourse" award for 2005.

Aside from your appaling arrogance, your argument is a strawman. Sure, I could choose to be gay. I wouldn't, but I could. And anyone who says they are gay could choose not be, or at least to be celibate. Stop trying to think for people, and stop answering for them, you'll get a lot farther in life.

HOW CONVENIENT! you wouldnt choose to be gay, and thus you are never able to prove yourself incorrect. btw just to establish my credentials: 800 on SAT II U.S. History, 790 on Verbal, 740 on Math, 5 on AP english, 5 on AP U.S. history, and top scorer on the school's academic decathlon. what about you?

sore loser?

sore loser?
sore loser my ass! i just proved that being gay isnt a choice. the person who made the claim was completely unwilling to prove his claim, because he knew that it had absolutely no substance. you can choose to be gay, but you would still be straight. gay people never chose to be gay. do you think people LIKE being discriminated against?

Your supposed intelligence doesn't help the fact that you can't string a coherent argument together. But if you must know, I got three 5's on AP tests, 1500 something on the SAT (800 verbal) and a 34 on the MCAT. I am in medical school, and I don't really care about your academic decathalon, and no-one else will when you are in the real world either.

sore loser my ass! i just proved that being gay isnt a choice. the person who made the claim was completely unwilling to prove his claim, because he knew that it had absolutely no substance. you can choose to be gay, but you would still be straight. gay people never chose to be gay. do you think people LIKE being discriminated against?
This is kinda funny. I think you are about 16. You didn't prove anything, and if you need help figuring out why not, go ask your high school debate teacher.

sore loser my ass! i just proved that being gay isnt a choice. the person who made the claim was completely unwilling to prove his claim, because he knew that it had absolutely no substance. you can choose to be gay, but you would still be straight. gay people never chose to be gay. do you think people LIKE being discriminated against?

if sexual orientation was a behavioral choice I'd suspect certain therapists would have a much easier time "treating" what was once considered mental illness.

Your supposed intelligence doesn't help the fact that you can't string a coherent argument together. But if you must know, I got three 5's on AP tests, 1500 something on the SAT (800 verbal) and a 34 on the MCAT. I am in medical school, and I don't really care about your academic decathalon, and no-one else will when you are in the real world either.
your supposed intelligence doesnt change the fact that you don't support your claims (an integral part of argument). you claimed that gay is a choice. i merely asked you to confirm your claim. you refused. in a debate, your claim is completely void. and i'm the one who cant string an argument together?

This is kinda funny. I think you are about 16. You didn't prove anything, and if you need help figuring out why not, go ask your high school debate teacher.

for someone who says i cant prove anything, you are quite blind to your own shortcomings. go ask your professors to explain why the claim "being gay is a choice" is completely unsupported in this thread, AND by psychiatrical studies. i apologize for taking for granted the fact that most studies confirm my stance. i merely felt that i did not carry the burden of the doubt.

your supposed intelligence doesnt change the fact that you don't support your claims (an integral part of argument). you claimed that gay is a choice. i merely asked you to confirm your claim. you refused. in a debate, your claim is completely void. and i'm the one who cant string an argument together?
Actually let me explain something to you. It is called the "null hypothesis" and those of us in science (real science, not Ms. Grady's 3rd period chemistry) use it all the time. When you have to apparently different objects, you assume they are the same, until you can prove otherwise. Look it up. Now the null hypothesis in this case is that people are pretty much the same and choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. The burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise. So yes, you are the one who can't string an argument together.

Actually let me explain something to you. It is called the "null hypothesis" and those of us in science (real science, not Ms. Grady's 3rd period chemistry) use it all the time. When you have to apparently different objects, you assume they are the same, until you can prove otherwise. Look it up. Now the null hypothesis in this case is that people are pretty much the same and choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. The burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise. So yes, you are the one who can't string an argument together.
you're a simple person. appropriately, you oversimplify. your "null hypothesis" hardly applies in this situation. even identical twins have different fingerprints. even identical twins cannot be raised with identical formative experiences. besides, you did not invoke the "null hypothesis" when you lodged your claim. i asked to prove your claim in the easiest way possible: choose to be gay. you could not.

Actually let me explain something to you. It is called the "null hypothesis" and those of us in science (real science, not Ms. Grady's 3rd period chemistry) use it all the time. When you have to apparently different objects, you assume they are the same, until you can prove otherwise. Look it up. Now the null hypothesis in this case is that people are pretty much the same and choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. The burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise. So yes, you are the one who can't string an argument together.


actually your 'null hypothesis' relies on the assumption sexual orientation is a behavioral choice... not very scientific.

There are many reasons why people become gay.
Sometimes choice, other times rebellion, other times its forced upon them, other times its confusion.

(And when I say forced upon them, I mean it to mean on how society treats people who don't fit the stereo-heterosexual mold.)

You are both correct, there are many answers.

the claim "being gay is a choice" is completely unsupported in this thread, AND by psychiatrical studiesThis thread is hardly the end-all of the scientific community. And as far as studies go, the jury is still very much out (haha, no pun intended) on the matter. Noone has done a conclusive study, and because of the nature of the issue and how politicized it has become, it is doubtful that anyone ever will. You can apologize, and that is ok, I accept, because it is easy for someone who doesn't actually read the papers, and who depends on the media for the summary, to get the wrong impression.

actually your 'null hypothesis' relies on the assumption sexual orientation is a behavioral choice... not very scientific.
Actually it is scientific. Look what I am saying. Until you can prove otherwise, you have to assume the difference between two sets is 0.

This thread is hardly the end-all of the scientific community. And as far as studies go, the jury is still very much out (haha, no pun intended) on the matter. Noone has done a conclusive study, and because of the nature of the issue and how politicized it has become, it is doubtful that anyone ever will. You can apologize, and that is ok, I accept, because it is easy for someone who doesn't actually read the papers, and who depends on the media for the summary, to get the wrong impression.
actually one of your own conservative papers (which i regularly read), the economist, endorsed the position of gay marriage.

and you leave unaddressed your convenient refusal to choose to be gay. you also leave my reply to your "null hypothesis" unaddressed.

Actually it is scientific. Look what I am saying. Until you can prove otherwise, you have to assume the difference between two sets is 0.
EXACTLY what i wanted you to say. first of all, no two humans can possibly be considered two sets, as we are complicated by everything from genes to the events we experienced as children, so no, your null hypothesis does not apply. furthermore, i ASKED YOU TO PROVE OTHERWISE, and you refused.

Actually it is scientific. Look what I am saying. Until you can prove otherwise, you have to assume the difference between two sets is 0.

rrrrigght and people choose to be colour blind, have perfect pitch, be left handed ;)

rrrrigght and people choose to be colour blind, have perfect pitch, be left handed ;)
lol i think that ciryar goes to a community college. or maybe cal state la.

Actually let me explain something to you. It is called the "null hypothesis" and those of us in science (real science, not Ms. Grady's 3rd period chemistry) use it all the time. When you have to apparently different objects, you assume they are the same, until you can prove otherwise. Look it up. Now the null hypothesis in this case is that people are pretty much the same and choose to be either homosexual or heterosexual. The burden of proof is on those who would claim otherwise. So yes, you are the one who can't string an argument together.

I know what a null hypothesis is, but I don't see why "being gay is a choice" rather than "being gay isn't a choice" is the null hypothesis.

Being heterosexual myself, I can say for certain that there was never a point where I "chose" to be attracted to girls; there was never the thought of "hmm, should I like him or her," there was the thought of "damn she's hot, I want to bang her."

So, the logical assumption, to me, is that the groups of people are pretty much the same - they don't have a choice, and simply end up attracted to whoever they end up attracted to.

Of course, just because the assumption seems logical to me, doesn't mean it's right. But it hasn't been proven either way, and it's not clear what position we should take if nothing has been proven... the correct answer is "we don't know."

righto. i'm going to grab a bite now. good night. and ciryar. it is very, very convenient that you refuse to prove your own claim. and the null hypothesis does not apply. no human is or ever has been identical, a central prerequisite for the application of your argument-fuddling device--oops i mean "null hypothesis.

Why would someone choose to be gay when society is completely geared against it? It would be much easier to pretend to be straight (which many seem to do). Must be that innate desire for companionship with the same sex.

EXACTLY what i wanted you to say. first of all, no two humans can possibly be considered two sets, as we are complicated by everything from genes to the events we experienced as children, so no, your null hypothesis does not apply. furthermore, i ASKED YOU TO PROVE OTHERWISE, and you refused.Not exactly. See you are assuming too much. (And as a complete aside, the Economist is not a conservative paper. It is actually slightly left-wing, much like the Wall Street Journal is slightly right-wing)
you're a simple person. appropriately, you oversimplify. your "null hypothesis" hardly applies in this situation. even identical twins have different fingerprints. even identical twins cannot be raised with identical formative experiences. besides, you did not invoke the "null hypothesis" when you lodged your claim. i asked to prove your claim in the easiest way possible: choose to be gay. you could not.
I actually said, if you remember (I know it was a good half hour ago, it could be tough) that I COULD choose to be homosexual, I just wouldn't. And I am not oversimplifying. I am showing you that the burden of proof in this case is on your side. Your putting the words null hypothesis in scare quotes is as quaint as your assumption that your test scores had anything to do with your credibility. Yes, identical twins have different fingerprints. Hooray, you disproved the null hypothesis that the same genes would lead to the same exact fingerprints. Now it is you who over-simplifies by extrapolating from there to assume that sexual orientation is as simple as fingerprints. So I say again, that you have steadfastly refused to provide any proof of your claim that being homosexual is a choice. You can't, because like I said, no one has done or will ever be able to do a conclusive study because of the nature of the problem. If you want to act like a high school student and jump to conclusions, by all means, go for it, but realize you do so without the basis of scientific support.

Here is a stake...

http://distefano.com/GRAPHICS/stake4.jpg

Someone please grab it and drive it through the heart of this stupid thread so that it stops rising from the grave.

Actually it is scientific. Look what I am saying. Until you can prove otherwise, you have to assume the difference between two sets is 0.

...actually, there's a very simple reason why the null hypothesis is not applicable here as you described it.

We CAN prove that the difference between the two sets is nonzero.

We can look at their behavior. Gay men are attracted to other men. Straight men are attracted to women. That's your difference right there.

What we want to know is the CAUSE of this difference.

What YOU are claiming is that you know the cause of this difference - that it's a choice. The null hypothesis, in this case, would be that "personal choice is not the cause of the difference." And currently, we cannot disprove this null hypothesis.

lol i think that ciryar goes to a community college. or maybe cal state la.
At least you are doing some thinking. This is a change. And in response to the above, about colorblindness, until tests were done to prove that colorblind people couldn't see colors the same way normal-vision people could, it was definitely the scientific null hypothesis to assume that their vision was the same. In the abscence of proof, two things are assumed to be the same. When you all actually start taking real classes (if you ever do) you'll be taught this. Good luck on the college apps Dauph, but just a tip, don't try to impress anyone with your reasoning or your grasp of scientific statistics. You'll kill your chances right there.

Here is a stake...

http://distefano.com/GRAPHICS/stake4.jpg

Someone please grab it and drive it through the heart of this stupid thread so that it stops rising from the grave.

No, really. Kill it now.

Actually, why would somebody choose to be discriminated against all his life, and especially during adolescence?

And well, if someone got forced into homosexuality, aka raped, why would he come to like it and practise it all his life?


And why are there homosexual animals around?
And since they are not forced by animal society into a marriage, how come their "Gay genes" still exist?

...actually, there's a very simple reason why the null hypothesis is not applicable here as you described it.

We CAN prove that the difference between the two sets is nonzero.

We can look at their behavior. Gay men are attracted to other men. Straight men are attracted to women. That's your difference right there.

What we want to know is the CAUSE of this difference.

What YOU are claiming is that you know the cause of this difference - that it's a choice. The null hypothesis, in this case, would be that "personal choice is not the cause of the difference." And currently, we cannot disprove this null hypothesis.
Excuse me while I sit down. Someone with a brain actually attempted to address the issue. Reasonabilitiness, I applaud you. I may disagree with you, but you at least, have a mind and know how to use it. I think you are wrong though, and I'll explain.
Gay men are attracted to other men. Straight men are attracted to women. That's your difference right there. True, you have proved there is a difference. However, that was never in doubt. We are, as you said, looking for the cause of this difference though. My assumption is that beneath this outward difference, the homosexual male and the heterosexual male are the same, with the same abilities for choices and actions, and therefore their choices in sexual partners are just that, choices. WE make lots of other choices in life, and humans seem to have free will in almost every other arena, so the null hypothesis, I maintain, is that this is like other areas, a choice, and that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different only because of that choice.

Useless discussion. Wrong use of the rectus is wrong doing. Point.
How many years BC is this happening? Many? It just prove human race is not perfect! We have mutant genes that produces that kind of behavior!
Have you ever see similar generalized behavior in other animals? No! Human race is a virus (as "Matrix" said). Of course we have to respect those mutant genes but please don't tell me it is "progress". :headbang:

At least you are doing some thinking. This is a change. And in response to the above, about colorblindness, until tests were done to prove that colorblind people couldn't see colors the same way normal-vision people could, it was definitely the scientific null hypothesis to assume that their vision was the same. In the abscence of proof, two things are assumed to be the same. When you all actually start taking real classes (if you ever do) you'll be taught this. Good luck on the college apps Dauph, but just a tip, don't try to impress anyone with your reasoning or your grasp of scientific statistics. You'll kill your chances right there.


Ciryar? Can I ask you something?

Do you think it is possible to take one's heterosexual attractions along with all those physiological responses that go with arousal, delete them and rewire their brain to fire these responses for the same sex instead? Choosing to be colour blind might be easier.

Anybody think that the original poster feels really dumb for posting his message, I would. Poor fool, I suppose we should pity him really. Then again maybe I'll just pity myself, don't know why but wallowing with ice cream sounds very attractive right now :fluffle: nothing better than a kiss eh?

@#$*!#...want something done right....

Grabs mallet (http://www.sculpturecenter.org/img/mallet.gif).

Picks up stake (http://distefano.com/GRAPHICS/stake4.jpg).

Drive stake through the heart of this narrow-minded, bigoted, idiotic thread.

Sprinkles holy water on the corpse (http://www.forwardinfaith.com/resources/images/sheepdip6.jpg).

Declares this thread officially dead. All who continue to post are necrophiliacs.

Aside from your appaling arrogance, your argument is a strawman. Sure, I could choose to be a sodomite. I wouldn't, but I could. And anyone who says they are a sodomite could choose not be, or at least to be celibate. Stop trying to think for people, and stop answering for them, you'll get a lot farther in life.

"Sodomite".

Okay, now I know you're just seeing what kinds of insults you can lace your text with. Being gay is not a choice. If it were, a lot less people would be gay, mostly due to people such as yourself making life intolerable at best for those who don't hide themselves away and live a life of secrecy.

Notice how your rantings and hatred are doing little or nothing to decrease the number of gay people. Use your brain. Yes, I know you've got one. You are the negative influence. Do something about it.

Declares this thread officially dead. All who continue to post are necrophiliacs.

Pah, nothing wrong with that. Just a little drier. Nothing a little vaseline can't fix.

Here's a novel idea... How about NOBODY shows affection in public, regardless of their sexual orientation. Gays feel oppressed every time they see straights kissing in public, straights find gays either immoral or gross when they kiss, and single people of ALL sexual orientations hate looking at public displays of affection.

Besides, the act of making out with your significant other in a mall is a rude and selfish act, engaged in by people who can't control their hormones long enough to finish their shopping. I'm not saying it should be illegal; I'm just saying that it's impolite behavior. Think about it: anyone who chooses their actions based on empathy, a tolerance of others, and a desire to promote understanding, would certainly not pick a highly-congested public place to start a make-out session. Logistically, there'd be no way to assure yourself that you weren't offending at least one person there with your lip-locking, for whatever reasons. And that's what this is, right... An argument of tolerance and empathy?

Therefore, I say the gay couple was, indeed, in the wrong to kiss in front of strangers' children -- but would be no less right if they were a man and a woman. Gays are as equally offensive as straights when they kiss in the mall.

Ogiek, you are my god.

Omgz My Cat Was Gay Then It Gayed Me And Now Im Gay And I Go Round Gaying Other Ppl Cause Im A Big Crazy Evil Gay

Ix-1986 Rules.

That is all.

If gays were the norm the human race would have long ago ceased to exist. They cannot reproduce and continue their species which is the purpose of all life. Think about that all of you know that is the sole purpose of life.

Man, do I really pity you.

If you think the only purpose you serve is procreation... makes me wonder what you are doing typing at a computer... wasting good 'baby-making' time.

You do know that gay people CAN have sex with members of the opposite gender, yes?

Just as you COULD have sex with your own gender.

You might not WANT TO... but you could, if it was a matter of life and death.

Not really. It keeps me from being as LLMF in the area of morality as you probably are.

You spelled LMAO wrong.

Just wondering, do you realise you have confused "Bigoted Hatred" with "Morality"? Simple mistake to make, I understand.

SO - how about rising above the petty slurs, and baseless hatred - and giving an actual supportable argument?

Good luck.

True, you have proved there is a difference. However, that was never in doubt. We are, as you said, looking for the cause of this difference though. My assumption is that beneath this outward difference, the homosexual male and the heterosexual male are the same, with the same abilities for choices and actions, and therefore their choices in sexual partners are just that, choices. WE make lots of other choices in life, and humans seem to have free will in almost every other arena, so the null hypothesis, I maintain, is that this is like other areas, a choice, and that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different only because of that choice.

Yes, the assumption is that homosexual and heterosexual men are the same - except you're claiming that heterosexual men and homosexual men both have a CHOICE of who to be attracted to.

From my own experience, I can say that I never made a "choice" to be attracted to girls; it just happened. Or at least that's how it seems to me. I can assume it's the same for homosexual guys - they don't "choose" to be attracted to men, they just find that men turn them on and women don't. I never thought about it and decided "hmm, I think I'll choose to have erections when thinking of women and not men." The choice was never there - there was never the other option. I remember when I fell in love with my girlfriend - and as far as I can remember, there was never a "choice" of "hmm, should I be attracted to her or to a guy."

Humans have free will in many of their attributes, but not all. You can't "choose," for example, your height. It's affected by lots of factors - genetics, nutrition, types of physical exercise in childhood, who knows what else. And sure, people have control over some of them. You can choose to eat differently, you can choose to play sports instead of being a couch potato, and so on. Will that all make a difference? If done early enough in life, probably. But can you claim that you can "choose whether to be tall or not" - not really. And if people tried to argue that it's okay to require all tall people to stoop down and never stand up straight in public places, and of course never work for the government because they don't make uniforms of their size, basing that on the claim that height is a choice... well, it would clearly not stand.

Likewise, you can't choose your race or skin color, you can't choose to not be allergic to certain foods, you can't choose how fast your hair grows...

Being gay may be an analogous situation. It's influenced by lots of factors, probably including genetics, probably including prenatal conditions and conditions before/during puberty... but is it a "choice?" Not necessarily. Now, it's always possible to repress the attraction - it's possible for somebody to never marry in their entire life, because they're not attracted to women and aren't allowed to marry someone they actually love - but is that the way it should be?

I would claim that no, it is not right to deprive them of the ability to make a certain contract because of their sexual orientation.

I was walking through the mall today, just finishing up a little bit of late christmas shopping. The mall was packed with people, individuals buying for their families and couples searching for gifts together. The line for the kids to take a picture with Santa Claus was almost out the door. There was a gay couple holding hands and window shopping at rings, then they continued on and kissed each other. RIGHT IN FRONT OF A LINE FULL OF KIDS GOING TO SEE SANTA.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?

And that's only the start, kids copy what they see, next thing you know they will be trying to COPY that!!

If Gay Marriage isn't banned, next thing you know they will be having to teach this shit to our kids in school!!

I will tell you exactly how to explain that question. If I were the father, while I would be upset my child had to witness people making out in public (straight or gay) I would answer truthfully. I would explain to the child how there are boys in the world who like other boys more than other girls and that there's nothing wrong with that. While most boys like girls, some just happen to like other boys best. It is something they feel down inside of them and it can't be helped. Then I would warn the child about the bad, evil people who hate these innocent people who are trying to live normal lives like everyone else. Who criticize them and try to take away rights that other Americans get just by loving the "right" gender. The answer I would dread answering is, "Why do they hate these people so much, daddy? You said they were just trying to fit in like us." I would fear it because I have no answer. What the hell is wrong with people? What does it matter that two men kiss in a mall? I'm sure kids can see just as many young, slutty teenagers locking lips. But THAT'S a good example because they're straight. Bah.

Useless discussion. Wrong use of the rectus is wrong doing. Point.
How many years BC is this happening? Many? It just prove human race is not perfect! We have mutant genes that produces that kind of behavior!
Have you ever see similar generalized behavior in other animals? No! Human race is a virus (as "Matrix" said). Of course we have to respect those mutant genes but please don't tell me it is "progress". :headbang:

There are plenty of animals that enguage in homoexual behavior. The Bonobo is quite famous for matriarchial societies that resolve inter-tribal disputes through lesbian sex.

We could learn a lot from Bonobos, actually. Imagine if our governments had lesbian sex instead of wars.

Excuse me while I sit down. Someone with a brain actually attempted to address the issue. Reasonabilitiness, I applaud you. I may disagree with you, but you at least, have a mind and know how to use it. I think you are wrong though, and I'll explain.
True, you have proved there is a difference. However, that was never in doubt. We are, as you said, looking for the cause of this difference though. My assumption is that beneath this outward difference, the homosexual male and the heterosexual male are the same, with the same abilities for choices and actions, and therefore their choices in sexual partners are just that, choices. WE make lots of other choices in life, and humans seem to have free will in almost every other arena, so the null hypothesis, I maintain, is that this is like other areas, a choice, and that homosexuals and heterosexuals are different only because of that choice.

So you could choose spiritually, mentally, and physically to be attracted to members of the same sex? And if you can (meaning you are actually bisexual) you assume that the rest of us can do the same?

Ogiek, you are my god.

You know there is a simple solution for those of you who seem to have a problem that this thread is still going.

Stop. reading. it.

You know, I just reread the original post for the first time in a while and I saw something that I did not notice before. Maybe its been commented on and I just missed it, maybe not.

The poster says that the two men in this situation were window shopping--for rings. It just makes me wonder, were they ring shopping because they had perhaps decided to spend their lives together in a loving and committed relationship that I won't call a marriage lest it bring in even more fundamentalists. They were perhaps shopping for a symbol of that relationship that is commonly employed in our society. Would you folks complaining about this PDA have a problem with a straight couple kissing after they had found the rings that were going to symbolize their union?

I must admit, that even as a gay man, I cringe a little bit when I see two men engaged in PDA while I don't get as upset when straight people perform similiar acts. Perhaps it is my Southern upbringing that I have no completely shaken or more than likely it is because I still live in Mississippi and such levels of affection between two men is a good way to get hanged. However, when I think about it logically, why should two gay men be unable to do something in a situation where I would not blame two straight people at all?

I have a lot of soul searching to do about my own guy reactions. The difference between me and you bigots on here--I at least realize that I hold the prejudices and am willing to explore what I do, if they are worth holding, and to let go of them when I can't find a good reason for them.

Imagine if our governments had lesbian sex instead of wars.

Ellen for President!

What will the father tell his kids?
How bout he puts aside his nervousness and does some parenting?
Im guessing the people that feel this way also think that homosexuals are "sub-humans"?
Would you be as outraged if a man and a woman were kissing RIGHT IN FRONT OF KIDS WAITING TO SEE SANTA!
Or maybe this justifies why people should be allowed to carry as many guns as they want anywhere? Because you never know when you might need a bullet to do the gods work for him!
That was sarcasm.
i hate gun nuts and i hate homophobic people.

I'll be sure to make out and dry hump with some girl in front of the kids waiting for Santa at my local mall. Because we all know that that's socially acceptable.
aha ahaha ahahhahahahhahahahhahhahhhahaha.
totally awesome.

aha ahaha ahahhahahahhahahahhahhahhhahaha.
totally awesome.

Wow. Didn't I post that like a month ago?

Wow. Didn't I post that like a month ago?
yeah. i just wondered why the thread was so damn long, and so i read the first page, and there you were, being hysterical. do you have some kind of alert when i post or something? :D

yeah. i just wondered why the thread was so damn long, and so i read the first page, and there you were, being hysterical. do you have some kind of alert when i post or something? :D

No, I just stalk you. Nothing to be concerned with.

Actually, I assumed you'd have some hysterical comment about the thread I'd want to read.

No, I just stalk you. Nothing to be concerned with.

Actually, I assumed you'd have some hysterical comment about the thread I'd want to read.
wicked. love mea stalker. make sure you park outside of my house and jerk off when i weed the garden. and cover your walls with my picture. i added you to my buddy list, but it seems to perform no other function than saying you are on mylist. what is the damn thing supposed to do?

I love to tell the story about my mildly homophobic ex.

A gay male friend of mine came to stay with me. My ex asked me if my friend had ever had sex with a woman. I told him "no" so he wanted to know how my friend could possibly know he was gay. I asked my ex if he'd ever had sex with a guy. He gave a slightly indignant "No."
So how do you know rather or not your gay? I asked. I think he got the point.

There's evidence toward this belief, but there's also evidence against it. The truth is there's no gene that says hey I'm gay. It just happens, the gay gene was a hope for some scientific fools who wanted to find a way to ex out homosexuality. Problem is, it's been around a lot longer than people think, so even if it was genetic almost everyone has this gene anyway.

not entirely correct, but the new information is completely knew as in the last couple days. they have now found groupings of genes in a few different areas that are common among gay brothers. strongly suggesting that sexual prefrence is likely a genetic inclination.

not entirely correct, but the new information is completely knew as in the last couple days. they have now found groupings of genes in a few different areas that are common among gay brothers. strongly suggesting that sexual prefrence is likely a genetic inclination.

Or maybe brothers have some common genes anyway?

How about that theory that there is a hormone imbalance during pregnancy during the time when the gender is formed? That would explain why the sexual orientation is fixed at birth, why homosexuality exists in animal kingdom, why it still exists even after centuries of religiously motivated extinction practices, and also, why twins likely have the same sexual orientation.

Or maybe brothers have some common genes anyway?

statistically significant genetic correlations have been found between non-related gay individuals, though this research is still very very preliminary.


How about that theory that there is a hormone imbalance during pregnancy during the time when the gender is formed? That would explain why the sexual orientation is fixed at birth, why homosexuality exists in animal kingdom, why it still exists even after centuries of religiously motivated extinction practices, and also, why twins likely have the same sexual orientation.
that is certainly a theory being addressed by modern research, though it's not being very well supported by empirical study...basically, it's possible to induce "homosexuality" in lab rats using hormone treatments in utero, but there has been no clinical study that confirms such hormone fluctuations actually occur naturally in human women who give birth to children that will become homosexuals. also, the "homosexuality" that can be induced in rats is merely improper sexual positioning instincts, and it may not be valid to compare something like instinctive sex postures to complex human sexuality.

As I passed by the line, I heard a boy go "Why did those two men kiss daddy?", I felt sorry for the dad that had to answer that question. How are you supposed to explain that?


Like this:

Kid: "Why did those two men kiss, daddy?"

Kid's Father: "They probably love each other, son".

If the kid is young enough to ask that kind of question, then that answer will be enough for them.

If the kid is old enough to know why the two men kissed each other, then he isnbt going to ask you, now is he?

There's evidence toward this belief, but there's also evidence against it. The truth is there's no gene that says hey I'm gay. It just happens, the gay gene was a hope for some scientific fools who wanted to find a way to ex out homosexuality. Problem is, it's been around a lot longer than people think, so even if it was genetic almost everyone has this gene anyway.

There is no single gene for homosexuality, but there may be a combination of different genes that cause it.

Mothers of gay men tend to have more daughters than average and those daughters tend to be more fertile than average. This would suggest that, if there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality then, it also has evolutionary advantages and so isn't bred out of the population.

Homosexual behaviour has also been observed in every mammalian species that has been studied.

Also, it's been reported on newscientist.com that there is a gene for super-attraction to men. This lies on the X chromosome, mothers with this tend to have more children because they are sluts :D and if the gene is passed to a son he's more likely to be gay.

I'm not so sure about lesbianism, but my own personal theory is that women don't have the same repulsion to other women as straight men do to other men. After all female babies have to suckle from their mother as well.

Oh, Goddess above, this thread is *still* here?

*wraps thread in bubble-wrap and mails it to Zanzibar*

You spelled LMAO wrong.

Just wondering, do you realise you have confused "Bigoted Hatred" with "Morality"? Simple mistake to make, I understand.

SO - how about rising above the petty slurs, and baseless hatred - and giving an actual supportable argument?

Good luck.Actually, check above for my argument. And before you correct someone's spelling, make sure you know what they are trying to say. I fully intended to say LLMF, and LMAO wouldn't make any sense in context. Try paying attention next time.
The confusion, I am afraid, is on your side. However, as we already settled in a thread on Islam, you are the one who tends to make unsupported statements and refer vaguely to "all the evidence" in order to "prove" your point. I am still waiting on a response to that one, but hey, you've lost that argument, so admitting it would be tough.

Actually, check above for my argument. And before you correct someone's spelling, make sure you know what they are trying to say. I fully intended to say LLMF, and LMAO wouldn't make any sense in context. Try paying attention next time.
The confusion, I am afraid, is on your side. However, as we already settled in a thread on Islam, you are the one who tends to make unsupported statements and refer vaguely to "all the evidence" in order to "prove" your point. I am still waiting on a response to that one, but hey, you've lost that argument, so admitting it would be tough.

I did check above. I have yet to find what it is you think you have as an 'argument'.

I did find lots of hate-fuelled rhetoric, though? Perhaps you have confused the two?

YES - you are correct. LMAO makes no sense in the context. Whereas, of course LLMF makes perfect sense, being a real word, and all?

I thought PERHAPS it was supposed to be an acronym... but the only acronym I could think of to fit the bill, would have been of the level of erudition of a mouth-breathing neanderthal - so I assumed I must be wrong.

Regarding a thread on Islam.... I'm sorry, friend - if you think there is something unresolved between us... I have no idea who you are, or if I have EVER argued against you before...

Don't mean to hurt your feelings, amigo. I guess you just weren't that memorable.

I'll tell you what... I'm feeling generous - you have some other issue, find me a link, and I'll see if I can ease your pain. What do you say?

Regarding a thread on Islam.... I'm sorry, friend - if you think there is something unresolved between us... I have no idea who you are, or if I have EVER argued against you before...Actually your memory was a problem last time too, so I am not surprised you don't remember me. You were making a lot of claims about Islam, based on a reading of the Koran you admitted was 20 years ago, and while I was citing the Suras in context and providing excerpts from commentary showing how they are interpreted in the present day, you were giving me a lot of empty platitudes about peace, and you kept claiming I was quoting out of context without providing any of your own. I can't find the link, but it doesn't really matter, like I said, you weren't able to support your argument.
As far as mine in this thread goes, maybe you missed my discussion about the null hypothesis. I'll admit I was over the top in some of my earlier posts here, but hey, we all make mistakes. It isn't like I care too much about this issue anyway, since it isn't an argument that matters in the long run.

Actually your memory was a problem last time too, so I am not surprised you don't remember me. You were making a lot of claims about Islam, based on a reading of the Koran you admitted was 20 years ago, and while I was citing the Suras in context and providing excerpts from commentary showing how they are interpreted in the present day, you were giving me a lot of empty platitudes about peace, and you kept claiming I was quoting out of context without providing any of your own. I can't find the link, but it doesn't really matter, like I said, you weren't able to support your argument.
As far as mine in this thread goes, maybe you missed my discussion about the null hypothesis. I'll admit I was over the top in some of my earlier posts here, but hey, we all make mistakes. It isn't like I care too much about this issue anyway, since it isn't an argument that matters in the long run.

Oh, okay - I remember you. But, I said post a link... not "let's discuss it in this thread".

I think you had problems with context that time, too.

Well, if you ever post a link, maybe I'll set you to rights on all your obvious errors. Until then, I'll leave it - since it is so far off topic.

The null hypothesis has already been shown to be irrelevent, by others in the thread. It was a weak argument to start with, and I'm not about to dignify it with a further refutation.

All of which is irrelevent anyway - since the 'null hypothesis', and your own vociferous homophobia - have no direct relation to why "Gays are a Negative Influence"...

The end point is that even were you to prove that homosexuality was a choice, do you have any reason to believe that homosexuals are somehow wrong or immoral? Without using reproductive ability and unsupported claims that it is "Unnatural."

HOLY SHIT DEATH TO THIS STUPID THREAD!!! :mad:

HOLY SHIT DEATH TO THIS STUPID THREAD!!! :mad:
don't like it? don't read it.

you guys realize, of course, that every time you post to complain about this thread still living, you bump it back to the top?

The end point is that even were you to prove that homosexuality was a choice, do you have any reason to believe that homosexuals are somehow wrong or immoral? Without using reproductive ability and unsupported claims that it is "Unnatural."
Well it depends. Prima facie, no, the fact that it is a choice doesn't make it wrong. It is when you consider religious/legal/ethical proscriptions that the question of right vs wrong comes up.

you guys realize, of course, that every time you post to complain about this thread still living, you bump it back to the top?

Augh! Ohh! Don't say that word.

What word?

I cannot tell, suffice to say is one of the words the Knights of Ni cannot hear.

How can we not say the word if you don't tell us what it is?

Aaaaugh!

You said it again!

What, 'is'?

No, not 'is'. You wouldn't get vary far in life not saying 'is'.

My liege, it's Sir Robin!
-He is packing it in and packing it up
-And sneaking away and buggering up
-And chickening out and pissing off home,
-Yes, bravely he is throwing in the sponge.

Sir Robin!

-My liege! It's good to see you.

Now he's said the word!

Surely you've not given up your quest for the Holy Grail?

-He is sneaking away and buggering up--
-Shut up! No, no. No. Far from it.

He said the word again!

Aaaaugh!

-I was looking for it.

Aaaaugh!

-Uh, here-- here in this forest.

No, it is far from this place.

Aaaaugh! Stop saying the word! The word...

Oh, stop it!

...we cannot hear! Ow! He said it again!

Patsy!

Wait! I said it! I said it!
Ooh! I said it again! And there again! That's three 'it's! Ohh!

------

Um... there was a point to this when I began...

Oh well :D

you guys realize, of course, that every time you post to complain about this thread still living, you bump it back to the top?
Yes.
I'm still going to whine about it though.

*wraps thread in bubble wrap and mails it to Tajikistan*

I, for one, am surprised that the moderators have let a thread grow this long, to almost 2,000 posts. Then again, it does seem to now have some useful discussion going on, unlike the earlier flamewar.

Eee! Intelligent discussion!
:)

EDIT:
I just realized this was one of the first few threads I ever posted to, and the first bigdebate I got into.
And the first grudge someone had against me, and my first time being flamed...

Such wonderful memories.
Or something like that, I think.