NationStates Jolt Archive

Heterosexual Questionnaire

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When a and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible you heterosexuality is justa phase you may grow out of?

4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?

7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you feeel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

15. heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

16. How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experiance or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious physical, biological, and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman sexually or vice-versa?

17. Why do all heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

18. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is plumetting. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

19. HOw could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

20. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really wanted to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

21. A disproportionate number of criminals, welfare recipients, and other irresponsible or antisocial types are heterosexual. Why would anyone want to hire a heterosexual for a responsible position?

22. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

23. Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?

24. Why do you make a point of attributing heterosexuality to famous people? Is it to justify you own heterosexuality?

25. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counselor ro be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?

No, I didn't make this, but I have it saved from a friend. That's all I have to say.

I guess, I'd argue against the "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" mentality. I do know there are very specific physiological elements to alcohol addiction, but I still have a hard time defining someone by something they are not currently, actively participating in. The "once an alcoholic always an alcoholic" mentality comes from one treatment paradigm and fits the medical/disease model very well, but there are aspects of that mentality that are somewhat lacking IMO. It is possible for someone who was once considered an "alcoholic" to return to being a "social drinker" albeit those cases tend to be rare.

I'm not saying I would define someone as hetero or homo sexual. I would only say that someone is behaving in a hetero or homo sexual manner. This creates a delema for those who insist on catagorizing people, but I prefer not to or at the very least, not according to their sexual behavior.

BAh.. well my line of argument was based on those broad sweaping classifcations you dont belive in.. and considering your argument has now fallen in line with what I also feel (on classifcations) i can no longer argue it.. only that I do not belive sexual orientation to be a choice

This then becomes a question of the motives behind the chioce.. TECHNICALLY everything is a choice sexual orientation included.. but the motives behind the choice is another thing.. if we work within the generalized classifcations of being hetero or homosexual then suppression of desires comes into play.. however outside of this its more about motives then the choice itself.. technically eating and breathing is a choice... we can stop ourselves even though these are instinctual... Does a person choose orientation for sexual preference ? social pressure? political pressure ? is it informed or impuslive ?? in this context the importance shifts from the decsion itself to the movtives behind it.

you can be a sexual, hell, look at the Sea Horse.

or get no sex at all - all those dairy cows that are impregnated AI these days - pedigree dogs and cats, thoroughbred race horses....

:headbang: :mad: :headbang: first bit's good:

Mat. 5:28 "but I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfuly has already commited adultery with her in his heart."

Jesus Himself never decreed homosexuallity specificaly as a sin. Paul, however, did, hence giving us scriptural backing.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

"9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

And to the Sam hell are you to preach? All you type of people do is preach your religion, and spread the word that your religion is all right. That anyone who doesnt follow your word is wrong. BUT I AINT F***ING CHRISTIAN, IM A WICCAN. I DONT FOLLOW YOUR BS, NOR WILL I EVER. YOU ALL PREACH THAT IF YOU ARE NOT PERFECT YOU GO TO HELL, TO HELL WITH YOU THEN. NOT EVERYONE IS WITH YOUR GOD, NOR IS EVERYONE GOING TO BE. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, TOUGHT SHIT. I LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE LAND OF THE FREE. IF I WANT RIGHTS TO DO WHAT I PLEASE THATS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, IF PEOPLE DONT LIKE LETTING THE LAND OF THE FREE BE FREE, THEN MOVE OUT. THIS LAND IS NOT TO BE FREE JUST TO THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE RIGHT, ITS FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTRY. :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :mad: :headbang:

BAh.. well my line of argument was based on those broad sweaping classifcations you dont belive in.. and considering your argument has now fallen in line with what I also feel (on classifcations) i can no longer argue it.. only that I do not belive sexual orientation to be a choice

This then becomes a question of the motives behind the chioce.. TECHNICALLY everything is a choice sexual orientation included.. but the motives behind the choice is another thing.. if we work within the generalized classifcations of being hetero or homosexual then suppression of desires comes into play.. however outside of this its more about motives then the choice itself.. technically eating and breathing is a choice... we can stop ourselves even though these are instinctual... Does a person choose orientation for sexual preference ? social pressure? political pressure ? is it informed or impuslive ?? in this context the importance shifts from the decsion itself to the movtives behind it.

Reasonable, however, motivation for doing something still doesn't address or at least not completely address the issue of causality in behavior. Also, you imply that a choice is generated via an external control. Personally, I believe that there are both interal, non-inate and inate, as well as external causal factors to most behaviors. Testing for causality in human subjects is well nigh impossible given current (IMO appropriate) ethical standards.

you don't have to be heterosexual to produce children

No, you don't. However, if a male sparrow/monkey/whatever attempts to mate with nothing but other male sparrows/monkies/whatevers, chances of it actually carrying on its own genes to sucessive generations are exactly nil.

No, you don't. However, if a male sparrow/monkey/whatever attempts to mate with nothing but other male sparrows/monkies/whatevers, chances of it actually carrying on its own genes to sucessive generations are exactly nil.


But what is the chance all life forms to be gay. Its not a matter of having everyone become a homo, but to just accept us. Im sure there will always be a hetero out there somewhere, not everyone will be a homo.

No, you don't. However, if a male sparrow/monkey/whatever attempts to mate with nothing but other male sparrows/monkies/whatevers, chances of it actually carrying on its own genes to sucessive generations are exactly nil.

but then you're assuming that they are exclusively (100%) engaged in homosexual sex. Even if I tell you I'm a lesbian, that DOESN'T tell you that I've never had sex with men

but then you're assuming that they are exclusively (100%) engaged in homosexual sex. Even if I tell you I'm a lesbian, that DOESN'T tell you that I've never had sex with men

Again, true. However, the point I was arguing against was that heterosexuality wasn't the predominant sexual behavior among animals. If it wasn't, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have quite the numbers of animal populations worldwide that we do. It makes sense from a biological standpoint. The entire point of sex (from a completely biological view) is to reproduce. The vast majority of animals have specific seasons in which mating occurs, and sex does not occur outside of those cycles.

Human beings, of course, break that whole mold, not only by having sex for pleasure, but by getting extremely argumentative and upset over who is having sex with whom...which is really rather silly if you think about it.

Human beings, of course, break that whole mold, not only by having sex for pleasure, but by getting extremely argumentative and upset over who is having sex with whom...which is really rather silly if you think about it.

totally agree!!

Heterosexual Questionnaire

1. What do you think caused your heterosexuality?

2. When a and how did you first decide you were a heterosexual?

3. Is it possible you heterosexuality is justa phase you may grow out of?

4. Is it possible your heterosexuality stems from a neurotic fear of others of the same sex?

5. Isn't it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

6. Heterosexuals have histories of failures in gay relationships. Do you think you may have turned to heterosexuality out of fear of rejection?

7. If you've never slept with a person of the same sex, how do you know you wouldn't prefer it?

8. If heterosexuality is normal, why are a disproportionate number of mental patients heterosexual?

9. To whom have you disclosed your heterosexual tendencies? How did they react?

10. Your heterosexuality doesn't offend me as long as you don't try to force it on me. Why do you feeel compelled to seduce others into your sexual orientation?

11. If you choose to nurture children, would you want them to be heterosexual, knowing the problems they would face?

12. The great majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose your children to heterosexual teachers?

13. Why do you insist on being so obvious, and making a public spectacle of your heterosexuality? Can't you just be what you are and keep it quiet?

14. How can you ever hope to become a whole person if you limit yourself to a compulsive, exclusive heterosexual object choice, and remain unwilling to explore and develop your normal, natural, healthy, God-given homosexual potential?

15. heterosexuals are noted for assigning themselves and each other to narrowly restricted, stereotyped sex-roles. Why do you cling to such unhealthy role-playing?

16. How can you enjoy a fully satisfying sexual experiance or deep emotional rapport with a person of the opposite sex, when the obvious physical, biological, and temperamental differences between you are so vast? How can a man understand what pleases a woman sexually or vice-versa?

17. Why do all heterosexuals place so much emphasis on sex?

18. With all the societal support marriage receives, the divorce rate is plumetting. Why are there so few stable relationships among heterosexuals?

19. HOw could the human race survive if everyone were heterosexual like you, considering the menace of overpopulation?

20. There seem to be very few happy heterosexuals. Techniques have been developed with which you might be able to change if you really wanted to. Have you considered trying aversion therapy?

21. A disproportionate number of criminals, welfare recipients, and other irresponsible or antisocial types are heterosexual. Why would anyone want to hire a heterosexual for a responsible position?

22. Do heterosexuals hate and/or distrust others of their own sex? Is that what makes them heterosexual?

23. Why are heterosexuals so promiscuous?

24. Why do you make a point of attributing heterosexuality to famous people? Is it to justify you own heterosexuality?

25. Could you really trust a heterosexual therapist/counselor ro be objective and unbiased? Don't you fear s/he might be inclined to influence you in the direction of her/his own leanings?

No, I didn't make this, but I have it saved from a friend. That's all I have to say.


HA HAHA HA and also HA where to start, where to start... oh I know how about number 1

1. Being human.
2. When I saw that hot chick and said "damn shes hot, I'm gonna bone her."
3. It's also a possibility I might explode in the next ten seconds.
4. I fear no man.
5. No.
6. I always get the girl.
7. It'd have to be pretty damn good to be better than girls.
8. Because there are more heterosexuals in the general population.
9. Every single girl I've screwed. They're not complaining.
10. It's fun, you should try it sometime.
11. Hell yes.
12. See the answer to number 8.
13. It's sexy.
14. Laziness... being a horny teenager helps.
15. See 13
16. Experience, and it's sexy. The biology is that way for a reason, the temperment keeps us on our toes.
17. It's fun.
18. Guys are easily distracted by insert straight fetish\preference here.
19. Very carefully.
20. You just don't think we're happy.
21. See 8
22. I trust noone, man or woman.
23. It's sexy.
24. They are, so we attribute it to them.
25. Our leanings are the same, no point to this question.

It makes sense from a biological standpoint. The entire point of sex (from a completely biological view) is to reproduce. The vast majority of animals have specific seasons in which mating occurs, and sex does not occur outside of those cycles.

yes...however, part of what we see is informed by what we expect to see, and by definitions of sex that are limited to acts which might produce offspring. So, if two monkeys are cuddling and caressing each other, or even rubbing themselves 'agressively' against each other - unless 'insertion' occurs - it won't be called sex.

yes...however, part of what we see is informed by what we expect to see, and by definitions of sex that are limited to acts which might produce offspring. So, if two monkeys are cuddling and caressing each other, or even rubbing themselves 'agressively' against each other - unless 'insertion' occurs - it won't be called sex.

Exactly, because it doesn't fit the definition of sex. This is kind of what Clinton tried to do with the whole Lewinsky thing. He was arguing from the viewpoint of sex as per the reproductive definition, which doesn't fly when speaking about humans because our own definitions of what constitutes sexual behavior go well beyond simple reproductive activity.

However, two monkeys cuddling and caressing each other probably doesn't arouse sexual feelings in them. What you're looking at is simple social bonding behavior. As humans, we associate certain sexual attributes to such behavior. Now the "agressive rubbing" may well be sexual in nature...or perhaps it's simply a tactic to assert dominance over another animal.

We both screwed up. 14 protects from removal of property without due process and eligibility for government service. It would actually be 15 and that only protects from discrimination because of race and previous condition of servitude, so you are still wrong.

No, I was right. Amendment XIV Section 1 reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. And that goes for all citizens. It's not based on anything beyond that. Either you have a wacked version of the Constitution or you thought I wouldn't look it up as soon as my internet started semi-working again.

Well, as someone who has been bored and painstakingly read through this ENTIRE thread, which took some doing, I have several things to say.

1) I think that a major flaw to most people's reasoning here is te fact that everyone seems to think that science either a) has all the answers or b) will eventually find the answers. I simply don't think that this is true. There are so many things that science will never even come close to explaining, like why we percieve sunsets as overwhelmingly beautiful, or what happens to all of the socks that go into the washing machine. Open you minds, people!

2) Some of my friends are gay. and I have noticed that they seem to have a more relaxed attitude to the whole 'being faithful' kind of thing. I wonder if any of you smarty-pants can come up with a scientific reason for this?

3) I'm female, and heterosexual, undoubtedly. I have no problem with homosexuality in general, and as I mentioned, some of my friends are gay. But I often feel uncomfortable around lesbians, for no apparent reason. I think it's possibly because I find the whole concept of sleeping with another girl extremely strange, but it could be social conditiong. It could be the fact that a lot of my guy friends have a 'thing' about lesbians. I don't know.

4) Again, homosexuality is not, I believe, a disease, nor should we be discussing causes or 'cures' for it. We should be encouraging it in third world countries, to prevent economically damaging population explosions!! If more Chinese people were gay, it would not have been force to implement it's brutal one-child policy. I think this is a point worth noting.

2) Some of my friends are gay. and I have noticed that they seem to have a more relaxed attitude to the whole 'being faithful' kind of thing. I wonder if any of you smarty-pants can come up with a scientific reason for this?

I have friends who are gay as well. They've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for about 8 years now, which is longer than many heterosexual folks I know.

A scientific reason? Sure. By direct observation, it can be seen that human beings have a wide variety of reactions to social situations. Some are faithful to their partners, some aren't. See, that was simple, wasn't it?

I have friends who are gay as well. They've been in a committed, monogamous relationship for about 8 years now, which is longer than many heterosexual folks I know.

A scientific reason? Sure. By direct observation, it can be seen that human beings have a wide variety of reactions to social situations. Some are faithful to their partners, some aren't. See, that was simple, wasn't it?

Could be that there is no reason to be faithful. They generally don't have children, until recently do not take the '''til death de we part vow" and society generally pressures them to not even be together in the first place but instead to have heterosexual relations or simply stay in the closet and depending upon mood, seek discrete anonymous encounters.

Reasonable, however, motivation for doing something still doesn't address or at least not completely address the issue of causality in behavior. Also, you imply that a choice is generated via an external control. Personally, I believe that there are both interal, non-inate and inate, as well as external causal factors to most behaviors. Testing for causality in human subjects is well nigh impossible given current (IMO appropriate) ethical standards.

Well yes i agree.. Motivation doesn't resolve the entire issue of causality.. however, I argue that it is the main element in causality. Proper motivation acts as a perfect facilitator between cause and effect. And I belive while there may be some interneral causal factors in play Society and the external factors there in (including social conditioning) create and dictate the enviornment by which the choices are made, reguardless of internal causal factors. And given that causality can't be tested in humans efficently, the question may never "truely" be answered.

But I maintain my position then... seeing motiviation as a key elementin causality given your context of the situation the choice itself becomes unimportant.. but rather that element of causality (or motivation) is what is important

Okay. I'll cop to being homophobic. I was taught to be. Taunts on the playground and throughout school centered on abusing your peers' attributes. Sexualiity is high on the list. How an eight-year-old calling another eight-year-old a "faggot" when neither understands what the word means can be taken seriously, I couldn't tell you, but we develop our aversions early. Boys are terrified of being called fairies and fags and homos.

So, even today, as I intellectually accept my brothers and sisters for who they are and respect their right to their own lives and loves, I still have a queasy visceral response that was hammered into me throughout my early life, whenever I see gays and lesbians on the street. I forgive myself for the response, but I am trying to do better, and I always strive to treat everyone civilly and equally.

For Christians who believe in free will and personal responsibility, and a Lord who retains all judgement unto himself, you should not be judging others nor condemning them. One of the Commandments is to not covet they neighbor's wife (nor, depending on the citation, anything else of theirs). Live your own life, love your own wife, husband or lover, and quit worrying about what your neighbor has that you may or may not want. Nor should you forget the admonition to Love Thy Neighbor. If they sin, it is their sin and the Lord's business, not yours.

As for the subject of marriage, the "sanctity" thereof, and various societal justifications for it, I would like to point out some facts that do not fit in the nice neat framework of the "Defense of Marriage Act" proponents:

1) Marriage is not mandatory. Many "straight" couples live together without the benefit of the institution, quite happily. Some, for their whole lives, and raise a family as well. Many individuals choose to live their lives solitarily. We do not arrest those who choose not to marry.

2) Marriage is not a requirement for children. Children are born whenever a woman gets pregnant and carries the baby to term. Most states require the father to bear some responsibility for the financial support of the child, whether inside or outside of marriage. While there are deadbeats outside of marriage, there are also neglectful, abusive, corrosive people in marriages. While society does have an interest in helping children grow to useful adulthood, perhaps spending a little more money on social work and support of children's welfare, housing, health, nutrition, and education would be a worthier response to the problem.

3) Having children is not a requirement for marriage. There are no fertility requirements for a marriage license. There are no contracts requiring the couple to produce any offspring in the course of their marriage. There is no statement required that a couple even have to want to produce offspring. There is no law against a post-menopausal woman remarrying a young fertile man. Nor do we dissolve a marriage if the baby is stillborn or dies later.

4) A household consisting solely of a man and a woman and their children is not a legal requirement for the raising of children. The State does not sieze children with an insufficient assortment of parental units. Parents die, divorce, remarry, or remain single, as a matter of course. Children remain with those who care for them and love them. Nor is a household strictly limited to a single family. Many families live together in an extended family, or a family may share housing with siblings or roommates to help make the rent. Or neighbors in an apartment house may share each other's lives to the extent that they share their childcare activity. Or, children may be packed off to boarding school at an early age. The State accords great latitude in the raising of children, and only gets involved if the child is abandoned, orphaned, or clearly and repeatedly abused.

The above 4 items clearly demonstrate that marriage is not an essential part of any of the core principles of public governance or child-rearing. Sorry, but that's a fact. Using an imaginary ideal, with no current legal basis, as a public justification for denial of rights is totally disingenuous.

As for extending the rights and privileges of civil marriage to any two adults who seek it:

5) Church ceremonies are held under the aegis of the church in question. Extending civil rights will not cause any Church to do something which goes against their doctrine. Those who continue to shun outsiders or selectively treat their congregants differently will always be free to do so as long as the separation of Church and State holds. No church will be forced to hold gay weddings.

6) Civil ceremonies and other official acts of government which accord the affected individuals added rights or particular treatment, and which are offered on an on-demand basis, must be subject to the principles of fair and equal public access. If the State currently allows each person to marry one single other person at a time, then merely allowiing that person to select someone without regard to sex does not seem to break anything essential about the institution, and does seem to be more consistent with the principles of our Constitution and those of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness oft-cited from our own Declaration of Independence. It may cause that queasy visceral response in the pit of your belly, but you really ought to ask yourself where that came from and try to overcome it.

For the record, I'm straight, married only once, in a religious ceremony to someone outside my religion, and soon to celebrate a 24th anniversary. We have no children.

Ekland, you seem to have been doing alot of research on the subject of homosexuality...are you a queer?

Well yes i agree.. Motivation doesn't resolve the entire issue of causality.. however, I argue that it is the main element in causality. Proper motivation acts as a perfect facilitator between cause and effect. And I belive while there may be some interneral causal factors in play Society and the external factors there in (including social conditioning) create and dictate the enviornment by which the choices are made, reguardless of internal causal factors. And given that causality can't be tested in humans efficently, the question may never "truely" be answered.

But I maintain my position then... seeing motiviation as a key elementin causality given your context of the situation the choice itself becomes unimportant.. but rather that element of causality (or motivation) is what is important


For me, I believe that a more important issue, even greater than that of causality, is responsibility. I see passing of responsibility for actions and decisions to either the environment (including social learning) or genetics as a cop out and an abdication of the one thing that makes us more than complex robots, that being free will.

Why is it important with whom anyone chooses to have sexual intercourse and/or emotional attachments (providing that both are consenting adults)?

The religious stance is purely a means of justifying irrational prejudice. Those who like to parade out Leviticus like to ignore the parts about not eating pork and making women who are minstruating live in tents so many cubits from the main house. There can be no religious justification against same-sex intercourse. What about David and Jonathan?

If one does not like the idea of two people of the same sex enagaging in sexual relations, then one should avoid thinking about and/or doing it. It is as simple as that. Those who engage in same-sex intercourse on a regular basis are always a relatively small sampling of the whole populace. Let them be and let them find what happiness they can. Love is a rare enough commodity in this world.

There are far more worthy issues meriting one's attention.

K

For me, I believe that a more important issue, even greater than that of causality, is responsibility. I see passing of responsibility for actions and decisions to either the environment (including social learning) or genetics as a cop out and an abdication of the one thing that makes us more than complex robots, that being free will.

there are things even stronger then "free will" which is instinct.. you yourself have admited that the "so called choice" to oppress and supress your instincts is a rare one at best.. I will say this is because of the great difficulty in it.. to suppress things like physical attraction and likes/dislikes is to try and suppress something like breathing and eating... you simply cannot choose who you are attracted to... because this is regulated by things such as pheramones which are biological in nature and not submitten to free will.

Heterosexual Questionnaire
-snip-

No, I didn't make this, but I have it saved from a friend. That's all I have to say.
:D
That was hilarious.

:headbang: :mad: :headbang:

And to the Sam hell are you to preach? All you type of people do is preach your religion, and spread the word that your religion is all right. That anyone who doesnt follow your word is wrong. BUT I AINT F***ING CHRISTIAN, IM A WICCAN. I DONT FOLLOW YOUR BS, NOR WILL I EVER. YOU ALL PREACH THAT IF YOU ARE NOT PERFECT YOU GO TO HELL, TO HELL WITH YOU THEN. NOT EVERYONE IS WITH YOUR GOD, NOR IS EVERYONE GOING TO BE. IF YOU DONT LIKE IT, TOUGHT SHIT. I LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THE LAND OF THE FREE. IF I WANT RIGHTS TO DO WHAT I PLEASE THATS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE, IF PEOPLE DONT LIKE LETTING THE LAND OF THE FREE BE FREE, THEN MOVE OUT. THIS LAND IS NOT TO BE FREE JUST TO THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE RIGHT, ITS FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THIS COUNTRY. :mad: :headbang: :headbang: :mad: :headbang:

Chill out. Don't flame in response to views you don't like -- refute them logically.

there are things even stronger then "free will" which is instinct.. you yourself have admited that the "so called choice" to oppress and supress your instincts is a rare one at best.. I will say this is because of the great difficulty in it.. to suppress things like physical attraction and likes/dislikes is to try and suppress something like breathing and eating... you simply cannot choose who you are attracted to... because this is regulated by things such as pheramones which are biological in nature and not submitten to free will.

While I agree it is rare and difficult, I don't agree that those are sufficiently mitigating circumstances to justify the abdication of the rights and responsibilities for free will in personal decision making. That would be, essentially, to say that it is acceptable for a sociopathic person to commit murder or rape simply because they are biologically or environmentally predisposed to said actions.

Instead of taking the 'christian' cop out for things, "the devil made me do it", it is taking the secular cop out, "the environment or genetics made me do it". Frankly, I see both as unacceptable.

While I agree it is rare and difficult, I don't agree that those are sufficiently mitigating circumstances to justify the abdication of the rights and responsibilities for free will in personal decision making. That would be, essentially, to say that it is acceptable for a sociopathic person to commit murder or rape simply because they are biologically or environmentally predisposed to said actions.

I agree, because murder and rape don't hurt anyone, just like homosexuality.

What if this continues, and we get to the stage where people are doing things like eating bananas and buying purple cars because they are predisposed to prefer that taste/colour? Oh the horror!

Just as a comment, the argument presented in that paper way, way back at the beginning of this thread is fallacious, because it's basically an affirming-the-consequent argument. The argument breaks down as follows:

1) If people freely chose their sexual orientation, there would be no evidence to support the conclusion that it's innate.

2) There is no evidence to support the conclusion that it is innate.

3) People freely choose their sexual orientation.

The reason why it's a fallacy is fairly obvious: there are plenty of ways in which the consequent can still be true without the first part of the conditional being true as well: we may simply have not found the "gay gene", we may have an inadequate understanding of genetics, etc.

Moreover, a lot of the arguments presented were sophomoric or demonstrated a fundamental lack of knowledge about biology. Eating children is "natural"? Well yes, it is, but this is an attack on Thomas Aquinas, not gays, because it was Thomas Aquinas who argued that sodomy is sinful because it's "unnatural". If sodomy is natural, then it fits Thomas Aquinas' definition, and therefore is not sinful. If natural law is a poor way to judge whether homosexuality is sinful, and it is also the only standard of sin that the Christian religion has used for 800 years, then homosexuality is still not a sin. Game over.

Even further, sex in the animal kingdom is not equivalent to rape. Animals have sex when they are in oestrus (that time of month/year when they ovulate), and only when they are in oestrus. The fact that women can have sex at any time and do not go into oestrus, in my view, is powerful evidence to the fact that Aquinas was wrong to say that the purpose of sex in humans is reproduction; if that were the case, then an oestrus-like reproductive cycle would have been far more likely built into us.

In my view, however, the most powerful direct refutation against the idea that homosexuality is a learned behavior is simple demographic evidence. If people learned to be homosexual, then the rate at which people identified themselves as homosexual would be variable, going up in more liberal times, and declining in eras when it is less acceptable. Yet in good times and bad for homosexuality, the rate at which people identify themselves as homosexual remains fairly constant: about 8 percent of the population. This indicates that it is not, in fact, a learned behavior, or at the very least, that there is some other factor at work that far outweighs any kind of learning influence.

No, I was right. Amendment XIV Section 1 reads:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. And that goes for all citizens. It's not based on anything beyond that. Either you have a wacked version of the Constitution or you thought I wouldn't look it up as soon as my internet started semi-working again.


EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAWS. Thats a two edged sword buddy, cuts both ways, you see what that means is all laws affect everyone equally, so VA's law not recognizing same sex unions affects me and it affects you just as much. I can't marry a man, you can't marry a man; there does that make you feel better you dirty grabasstic piece of amphibian shit. See the law affects everyone the same, if there was a law that said Islam was the state religion we'd both suddenly be muslim. Either way you're screwed because you want extra protections based on homosexuality but they wouldn't affect everyone and as such would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but without them you're right were you are now, and in both situations, no one but queers and queerbait cares one way or the other until you try to affect MY, or someone elses religion by being allowed to infringe on the holy institution of MARRAIGE. See now ya done gone and made me mad and I'm not gonna be polite no more you dirty stinking malodorous perverts.

Jesus Himself never decreed homosexuallity specificaly as a sin. Paul, however, did, hence giving us scriptural backing.


Sorry - I don't think Paul was anyone...

Basically - I don't CARE what Paul liked or disliked... he was just some guy... and a guy with some weird gender hang-ups, at that.

that is the physical reason why Jesus died, yes. but the reason Jesus LET them kill Him was so save all from their sins. He did not suicide, He allowed Himself to be executed. He could have prevented it, either simply by denying He was the Christ, or

"Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?" - Matthew 26:53

He couldn't have prevented it. Not if his purpose was to die for our sins.

Thus, he had to die.

Thus - even if his wounds had not been fatal - he had to be dead.

Thus - the normal three-day crucifixion, which was massively truncated, MUST have been hurried by his own intervention - to match the requirement for a crucified messiah.

Thus - he willed himself dead.

Thus - Suicide.

paul is not talking about homosexuals. he is talking about normal people. that is, people who have sex with the kinds of people God designed them to have sex with. the actual quote is that it is "better to marry than to burn with passion", and it has nothing to do with gays.

First - Paul does not specify 'normal people'.

Second - Paul doesn't say that 'normal people' are those who "have sex with the kinds of people God designed them to have sex with"

Third - I don't actually recall seeing any evidence that says 'god' DIDN'T design men to have sex with men, for example...

Fourth - the quote says "better to marry than burn"... it doesn't specify gender orientation... it is a straightforward pronunciation that lust unfettered is less preferable than some kind of formalised association.

Fifth - your pronunciations regarding 'normal people' are unfortunate, in my opinion... since they show a very clear prejudice.

Now GI, you know as well as anyone, if an individual accepts the Genisis account of creation, marriage was essentially instituted by God Himself. (man leaving father and mother, cleaving to wife with whom he becomes one flesh and Christ later added that God joined them and man shouldn't pull them apart). If the Bible is considered accurate world history, Neo's perspective isn't ungrounded.

Quite frankly, I don't think the Gov. should provide special favors for "married" or "civil unioned" people, verses others anyway. Its just another demographic group that demands special treatment. It makes no sense.

I think it depends HOW you accept Genesis.

I think it is important to consider the Hebrew implications of Genesis... the union of 'Adam and Chavvah (Adam and Eve), being the union of flesh and breath, of the earth and the spirit.

If anyone ACTUALLY accepts that Adam was a 'real man', and Eve his real bride... I think they STILL have to take account of the fact that, while they may have been the 'perfect couple'... there were NO OTHER choices supposed to be around. Also - it is commonly accepted practise to substitute earthly 'versions' of the heavenly - e.g. tabernacle for heavenly temple, perhaps.

Thus - even if Adam and Eve WAS the 'perfect' wedding, it is still no reason to IGNORE any OTHER models.

Lastly - I DO agree with you. The government shouldn't give any special rights to the union of marriage, that it will not ALSO allow for - for example - platonic life partners, or extended families.

No, it just defines it as man leaving father and mother and becoming one flesh with a woman. If that is its definition, it is hard to say that it has another, "Biblically" acceptable definition.

One man.

The story only refers to one man - and I see flaws there anyway.

But - regardless, the bible has no 'acceptable' definition of telephones, either... or machine-guns... carbonated drinks, facsimilies, or tank-warfare....

There is a wealth of things NOT 'defined' by the bible.

I can tell you something is a sin without trying to help you remove it or convert you UT :p ;)

As for the trying to convert (make disciples), Christ gave very explicit commands that every Christian is to engage in this activity, though I don't think that means trying to ram stuff down someones throat who has already stated they aren't interested. I think Jesus said something to His disciples about shaking the dust off of their feet or something like that that pertains here...

Anyway, not every 'c'hristian is going to allow you the freedom to chose that every 'C'hristian should know they have to allow you. :rolleyes:

And this ONE post... is a perfect example of why Personal Responsibilit is ALWAYS welcome in my debates. :)

Thank you, PR... for what seems to be a 'less-than-popular' voice... but appreciated nonetheless.

As far as I can tell, Jesus wanted people to 'convert' others by example, more than anything else... but that could JUST be my vision of it.

there does that make you feel better you dirty grabasstic piece of amphibian shit.

no one but queers and queerbait cares one way or the other until you try to affect MY, or someone elses religion by being allowed to infringe on the holy institution of MARRAIGE.

See now ya done gone and made me mad and I'm not gonna be polite no more you dirty stinking malodorous perverts.
Miehm, knock off the trolling and flaming!. I've been reviewing your post history, and only the apparent lack of a pattern is preventing me from making this an official warning. I don't know where this came from, but put it back there and don't let it out again.

Are we completely understood?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Well if that's the case, everyone's opinion on the subject is equal and no one has a moral authority on the subject and what ever the majority wants rules I suppose. So, if there's more people that agree with Neo, that's how it is, until there's more people that agree with some other idea. Frankly, I think majority rule is a poor way to govern.

However, I disagree very strongly with GI and Bottle on the "historical" definition and very much see society past as having greatly distorted marriage when it defined a wife as property and the other 'rules' humanity has attached to "marriage".

Incidentally, do civil rights change just because society changes or are they absolute?

'Civil rights' not only 'change' because society changes, but are, in fact, purely artifacts OF society/societies.

What we call our 'civil rights' or our 'fundamental human rights'... are just the terms we agree with tbhose around us.... those we either barter with our words, or liberate with our swords.

See a man standing eye to eye with a tiger debate the 'fundamental right' to life...

The problem with the 'historical perversion' of marriage - is that it IS the historical version. Hebrew women were little more than chattels, as they have been at many other points in our glorious and civilised history.

However - the union of persons existed before the Hebrew concept, long before, and over a whole world.

I think it depends HOW you accept Genesis.

I think it is important to consider the Hebrew implications of Genesis... the union of 'Adam and Chavvah (Adam and Eve), being the union of flesh and breath, of the earth and the spirit.

If anyone ACTUALLY accepts that Adam was a 'real man', and Eve his real bride... I think they STILL have to take account of the fact that, while they may have been the 'perfect couple'... there were NO OTHER choices supposed to be around. Also - it is commonly accepted practise to substitute earthly 'versions' of the heavenly - e.g. tabernacle for heavenly temple, perhaps.

Thus - even if Adam and Eve WAS the 'perfect' wedding, it is still no reason to IGNORE any OTHER models.

Lastly - I DO agree with you. The government shouldn't give any special rights to the union of marriage, that it will not ALSO allow for - for example - platonic life partners, or extended families.

--off-topic--sorry--

Um, Grave, you've become addicted to CAPITAL LOCK. It starts with parody and the next thing you know your using capitals all the time. Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery. :D

--off-topic--sorry--

Um, Grave, you've become addicted to CAPITAL LOCK. It starts with parody and the next thing you know your using capitals all the time. Admitting your problem is the first step to recovery. :D

lol.

I can actually explain....

I am too lazy to insert Bold or Italic key-stroke thingies...

But, yes... shhh, there may be a slight tendency towards capitals... :)

(Actually - looking back at that post... I did hit it up pretty heavy with the 'big-letters', didn't I....? I'd best go hang my head in shame...)

I think the whole gay thing is just a way for people to get attention. Its even worse for the for the younger people who think they are "gay". Honestly these kids have no idea what they are talking about, they have no reasoning capapbilities as to what they think they are.

You can look at it like this from any perspective: What purpose does being homosexual serve? It does not cause reproduction therefor would be pointless to an expanding society. It is just there for the fun of it. If everyone and everything was meant to be gay then there would be no life forms on Earth other than single cell organisms who can reproduce by "budding" or splitting. If maybe everyone had both sets of reproductive genes then homosexuality would prosper. The fact is they don't, and being "gay" is nothing more than a way for unkown people to have there 15 minutes of fame.

I think the whole gay thing is just a way for people to get attention. Its even worse for the for the younger people who think they are "gay". Honestly these kids have no idea what they are talking about, they have no reasoning capapbilities as to what they think they are.
I see someone does not have any real world experience with gay people :p

Chill out. Don't flame in response to views you don't like -- refute them logically.

While I am not excusing the flame you are responding too, I just would like to share that I understand where it comes from. I too have a lot of anger at the unfairness and ignorance surrounding the treatment of gays. Yes, life is unfair--but that doesn't mean you just accept something that is wrong.

UpwardThrust: I see someone does not have any real world experience with gay people



I have some "gay" friends i just feel it is rude to openly ask them if there is even a point to homosexuality, please read my next post for more info.

I see someone does not have any real world experience with gay people :p

And for the record to the person you were responding too--I knew I was different about the time I was eight and I realized I was gay when I was 11. And gues what? I was right. And I knew exactly what I was dealing with--I was smart enough to keep my mouth shut so that I wouldn't be verbally or physically assaulted by the ignorant of the world who think being gay is from the devil, a choice, or something that I couldn't possibly understand.

i have nothing against gays, as i said before some of my best friends are gay. I do not care if they are gay or if anyone is gay. I'm just showing logical reasoning that there is really no point in homosexuality. I am sorry if i offended anybody, i really didn't mean to make it a personal thing.

i have nothing against gays, as i said before some of my best friends are gay. I do not care if they are gay or if anyone is gay. I'm just showing logical reasoning that there is really no point in homosexuality. I am sorry if i offended anybody, i really didn't mean to make it a personal thing.

To have an evolutionary or biological point, one does not have to directly reproduce. Homosexual members of a species are more likely to help care for their younger siblings or their sibilings children. Doing this increases the liklihood that their family will carry on without greating a greater scarcity of resources.

Altruism already exists in nature--perhaps this is an extension of it. Just because homosexuals do not reproduce does not mean that there is not a point.

To have an evolutionary or biological point, one does not have to directly reproduce. Homosexual members of a species are more likely to help care for their younger siblings or their sibilings children. Doing this increases the liklihood that their family will carry on without greating a greater scarcity of resources.

Altruism already exists in nature--perhaps this is an extension of it. Just because homosexuals do not reproduce does not mean that there is not a point.

Yes i see that it would help care for the siblings but it wouldnt continue on from there. There would be no one else to care for it everyone was gay. Humans and Animals alike would not be able to continue on forword in life or the evolutionary process.

Yes i see that it would help care for the siblings but it wouldnt continue on from there. There would be no one else to care for it everyone was gay. Humans and Animals alike would not be able to continue on forword in life or the evolutionary process.

Actually, gay people can and do reproduce. It would hardly be the end of the human race if we were all homosexual. However, ti really doesn't matter as there is pretty much zero change of everyone being homosexual. Why is it people always speak in these grand, sweeping generalizations "If everyone were gay" when most people aren't gay and there isn't a chance of the whole world changing.

Actually, gay people can and do reproduce. It would hardly be the end of the human race if we were all homosexual. However, ti really doesn't matter as there is pretty much zero change of everyone being homosexual. Why is it people always speak in these grand, sweeping generalizations "If everyone were gay" when most people aren't gay and there isn't a chance of the whole world changing.

Entertainingly enough, we'd have a far bigger problem if everyone was male...

Entertainingly enough, we'd have a far bigger problem if everyone was male...

Oh no! Then we must ban maleness. . .they might try to convert others to their ways!

Oh no! Then we must ban maleness. . .they might try to convert others to their ways!

Exactly! I think I'm turning into a maleophobe.

He couldn't have prevented it. Not if his purpose was to die for our sins.

Thus, he had to die.

Thus - even if his wounds had not been fatal - he had to be dead.

Thus - the normal three-day crucifixion, which was massively truncated, MUST have been hurried by his own intervention - to match the requirement for a crucified messiah.

Thus - he willed himself dead.

Thus - Suicide.

He had the ability to stop it but he knew that he had to do it any way. It was why he was on Earth

Suicide means you actively kill yourself. That is not what this is.

If you will yourself dead but dont actively kill yourself but instead you go somewhere that you are likely to be killed and are indeed killed that does not mean you commited suicide.

You can't prove that he hurried his own death, all you can prove is that he died.

He had the ability to stop it but he knew that he had to do it any way. It was why he was on Earth

Suicide means you actively kill yourself. That is not what this is.

If you will yourself dead but dont actively kill yourself but instead you go somewhere that you are likely to be killed and are indeed killed that does not mean you commited suicide.

You can't prove that he hurried his own death, all you can prove is that he died.

Neo, Neo, Neo.

If you are having problems with your faith, feel free to start a new thread.

If you are having problems with your sexuality... or with the sexuality of others, this one may be more to your liking.

I've told you already - I don't want to debate YOUR religious issues with 'homosexuality' in this 'scientific' thread.

I've also told you, I'll happily mop up the mess of 'assumptions' you have, if you just care to start a 'religion versus gay' thread.

On the topic you just raised: I can prove he hurried his own death, as could you, if you knew a little more about history, or had perhaps read the scripture a little more closely. But, I'm not going to discuss it any further with you in this thread!

if anybody would like to tell me how homosexuals reproduce please do so now

if anybody would like to tell me how homosexuals reproduce please do so now
same way heterosexuals do. a homosexual can have heterosexual sex, just like a heterosexual can have homosexual sex. a homosexual can also use any of the many reproductive technologies currently available.

if anybody would like to tell me how homosexuals reproduce please do so now

Okay - let's skip the formalities... and... shall we assume you know how heterosexuals reproduce?

Okay.... you do know that homosexuals have the same 'parts' as heterosexuals, yes?

So - even if every individual on the planet was gay, if we had a lesbian who REALLY wanted a child, and a gay male who also REALLY wanted a child... you can see that they MIGHT be able to work out a mechanism by which such a miracle could be achieved, yes?

Okay - let's skip the formalities... and... shall we assume you know how heterosexuals reproduce?

Okay.... you do know that homosexuals have the same 'parts' as heterosexuals, yes?

So - even if every individual on the planet was gay, if we had a lesbian who REALLY wanted a child, and a gay male who also REALLY wanted a child... you can see that they MIGHT be able to work out a mechanism by which such a miracle could be achieved, yes?
I believe it's called a turkey baster.... and a picture of david beckham

I believe it's called a turkey baster.... and a picture of david beckham

That's just gross....

Sorry, I just can't imagine a picture of Becks working for ANYONE....

<need a little sick-looking smiley guy> :(

I was actually thinking... toys and trinkets aside... of the more familiar route.

Two of my very good friends (lesbians) have a child arrived at by the 'old technology'... and it doesn't seem that uncommon.

Homosexuals might not cross the gender-barrier by choice most of the time, but I suspect many can make the occasional trip across when they want a child.

That's just gross....

Sorry, I just can't imagine a picture of Becks working for ANYONE....

<need a little sick-looking smiley guy> :(

I was actually thinking... toys and trinkets aside... of the more familiar route.

Two of my very good friends (lesbians) have a child arrived at by the 'old technology'... and it doesn't seem that uncommon.

Homosexuals might not cross the gender-barrier by choice most of the time, but I suspect many can make the occasional trip across when they want a child.

Works for us in my area... i know gay men who would have sex with him, i know straight men who would sleep with him, i know straight women who would have sex with him and i know lesbians who if they had to have sex with a man it would be beckham..

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8524769&postcount=43

You will not find Irish pennants to be my tennants. :p

Works for us in my area... i know gay men who would have sex with him, i know straight men who would sleep with him, i know straight women who would have sex with him and i know lesbians who if they had to have sex with a man it would be beckham..

Oh - I've heard it said before, that people found Becks attractive, but I've never been able to see that, myself.

Johnny Depp, I could see.

I hate people who keep going on about the how and the where and the why of being homosexual... just stop overanalyzing it, just respect other people's preferences and move on with your lives, goddamnit.

Oh - I've heard it said before, that people found Becks attractive, but I've never been able to see that, myself.

me neither.

Johnny Depp, I could see.
me too. times ten.

me neither.

me too. times ten.

As a straight guy... looking at men who would tempt me if any were going to... Depp is top of the list...

I mean, he is beautiful... :)

Evidence 1:
"I feel like I cannot change"
This is the most common reason for saying that homosexuality has a biological basis. But the same argument could be used for any learned belief or behavior that becomes deeply ingrained. People often say "I cannot change how I feel" about a person or a topic. But when they find out more about that person or topic, their feelings often do change.

...Okay, it's stupid to think that I just all of a sudden thought, "Hey, I think I'll be gay! That sounds like fun!" I, along with most other gay people, can not physically be "excited" by a girl. I've tested it. I've been to playboy.com, haha. (Ewww!) Don't you say that's pretty reliable? Sure, people might get whacky ideas sometimes about their sexuality, but let's face it—the erection doesn't lie!

Explosive']to tell you the truth i dont give a fuck about the issue on gays cause as long as they dont do anything gay around me (unless thew are lesbos) im fine with them.

Durrr...I don't give a **** about straights as long as they don't do anything hetero around me!

Oh - I've heard it said before, that people found Becks attractive, but I've never been able to see that, myself.

Johnny Depp, I could see.


Oh G_n_I I just lost so much respect for you. I can see not being attracted to Becks. . .but Johnny Depp? Eewwwwwww!

Oh - I've heard it said before, that people found Becks attractive, but I've never been able to see that, myself.

Johnny Depp, I could see.

hmmm Jonnny Depp..... very cute.......... what was my point again????

Oh G_n_I I just lost so much respect for you. I can see not being attracted to Becks. . .but Johnny Depp? Eewwwwwww!

Well... I'm sorry! Maybe it's a straight thing?

Maybe Depp just looks like a good 'gay' prospect to straight men?

:(

Well... I'm sorry! Maybe it's a straight thing?

Maybe Depp just looks like a good 'gay' prospect to straight men?

:(
Dont worry I think he is hot too :p

Dont worry I think he is hot too :p

I might have known you would... :)

:fluffle:

I might have known you would... :)

:fluffle:
:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: 's for every one

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: 's for every one

I second that emoticon!

Well... I'm sorry! Maybe it's a straight thing?

Maybe Depp just looks like a good 'gay' prospect to straight men?

:(


It's okay G_n_I, I've got enough respect for you that losing some still puts you miles ahead of most.

Also, you should check out Drew Fuller for another guy that you would consider if you were going gay. He's known to Charmed fans simply as "The Pretty". And he's not slimy!

Oh G_n_I I just lost so much respect for you. I can see not being attracted to Becks. . .but Johnny Depp? Eewwwwwww!

Hmm. I can see being attracted to Beckham or Depp.

Maybe I just haven't met the right guy .... ;)

if anybody would like to tell me how homosexuals reproduce please do so now
ROFLMAO
Think just a half a second before you type.

Oh G_n_I I just lost so much respect for you. I can see not being attracted to Becks. . .but Johnny Depp? Eewwwwwww!

Oh, Pracus, I've lost so much respect for you. Either that or you have my sympathy for being seriously visually impaired. :p

Oh, Pracus, I've lost so much respect for you. Either that or you have my sympathy for being seriously visually impaired. :p

Either way I still love you Bitchkitten. You and G_n_I and Bottle and The Cat-Tribe are my favorite people on here.

Smooches to you all. :fluffle:

Either way I still love you Bitchkitten. You and G_n_I and Bottle and The Cat-Tribe are my favorite people on here.

Smooches to you all. :fluffle:

Ahhh, shucks. :fluffle:

Ahhh, shucks. :fluffle:

I second that emoticon, too. :)

:fluffle:

Either way I still love you Bitchkitten. You and G_n_I and Bottle and The Cat-Tribe are my favorite people on here.

Smooches to you all. :fluffle:

Now, you see, that made this a happy-smile day. :)

It's okay G_n_I, I've got enough respect for you that losing some still puts you miles ahead of most.

Also, you should check out Drew Fuller for another guy that you would consider if you were going gay. He's known to Charmed fans simply as "The Pretty". And he's not slimy!

Oh, I know who that is... I saw him in a (b-rated) movie a while back.. "Vampire Clan".

To me - he looks kind of like a "Brad Pitt and Jude Law" lovechild... (Jude's eyes and brows, and Brad's chin...)

Which reminds me... Jude Law is kind of pretty.

(Oops... hope I'm not losing more points, there... :))

if anybody would like to tell me how homosexuals reproduce please do so now
You know how cells go through binary fission?
Yeah. That's what gays do.
A gay guy will be sitting there, and then he'll start to strectch apart, and after a few minutes you'll be left with two identical smaller gay guys.

You know how cells go through binary fission?
Yeah. That's what gays do.
A gay guy will be sitting there, and then he'll start to strectch apart, and after a few minutes you'll be left with two identical smaller gay guys.

Damn you, Neo Anarchists!

Once again you have caused me to hurt myself laughing too hard!

Revenge! Revenge!

Oh, I know who that is... I saw him in a (b-rated) movie a while back.. "Vampire Clan".

To me - he looks kind of like a "Brad Pitt and Jude Law" lovechild... (Jude's eyes and brows, and Brad's chin...)

Which reminds me... Jude Law is kind of pretty.

(Oops... hope I'm not losing more points, there... :))

You're gaining them back. It's interesting you mention Jude Law--he sitting very near us at the Hornets game in New Orleans last night with his son. He is as gorgeous in real life, let me assure you.