NationStates Jolt Archive

Obvious...but it still made me think...

You know how people say, "I wouldn't want my child to be gay, because it would be so hard for them..."

Well, frankly, isn't it harder to be something you're not? No matter what that 'thing' is? So wouldn't you be better off saying, "I don't care what my kid is, as long as she is able to be herself"?

Here here! You make a very good point!

So wouldn't you be better off saying, "I don't care what my kid is, as long as she is able to be herself"?
Well, unless its a boy...



Sorry, I'm up early because of a stomach ache...I'll stop now...

If by harder you mean more unpleasant, then yes. Sometimes you don't even realise you're not being yourself.

That would be fair enough if they were saying they would want their child to pretend to be straight if they were gay however I think youre looking at it differently. What people mean when they say things like that is that they would not want them to have anything to have to hide, not that they would want them to hide problems

People who refuse to attempt change and expect other people to just accept their shortcomings shortchange society.

What if we were just supposed to accept the faults of others with a nonchalant attitude? Would we ever grow? What would be mankind's impetus for changing and improving their time and talents?

I shall accept that it is easier to be what you are than to change, but that is part of the temperal tempering process.

Also, I do not accept that one can be born homosexual. Most of what we are, we choose according to the environment in which we are raised and the choices proferred to us in our youth.

The army does not settle for the complacency which surrounds this argument instead encouraging its members to be all that they can be. Although this doesn't always happen, it is a good mindset. If we're not trying to move forward and increase ourselves, what then would you say one lives for?

Well, unless its a boy...



Sorry, I'm up early because of a stomach ache...I'll stop now...
Hahahah...I considered he/she himself/herself...or they and their...but I just chose a gender at random to make it clear:).

If you are something, you are something. It's probably best to face it and then build from there. Of course, I can understand a parent saying they wouldn't want their child to be X because they think it would be difficult for the the child, but for many X there is nothing that can be done, so there is often no point in worrying about it. Maybe, "No matter what my kid's characteristics, I hope I can help her lead a fulfilling life," is a helpful attitude to have.

That would be fair enough if they were saying they would want their child to pretend to be straight if they were gay however I think youre looking at it differently. What people mean when they say things like that is that they would not want them to have anything to have to hide, not that they would want them to hide problems
Granted.

I guess this is directed at those who would wish their children to 'pretend' at 'normality', thinking it would be easier that way.

Also, I do not accept that one can be born homosexual. Most of what we are, we choose according to the environment in which we are raised and the choices proferred to us in our youth.
I did not choose to be heterosexual. Yet here I am.

Granted.

I guess this is directed at those who would wish their children to 'pretend' at 'normality', thinking it would be easier that way.

Normality is a myth of conformism. F*** that.

The bottom line is that what you propose is simply one of several competing belief systems. There are those that believe that a person "is" the way he/she believes himself to be (or, claims to be) and that belief/claim or (self-actualization) is what matters. There are others who believe that people are created by God to glorify Him and that certain behaviors or life styles that place one's personal desires above God's are sin.

To me, whether a person who claims that his homosexual desires/conduct are natural or normal because that's simply who he "is" is not living under the Lordship of Christ any more than is a person who is an unrepentant liar, thief, murderer, or heterosexual adulterer.

If someone doesn't believe as I , I do not label them Christophobic. I'll discuss topics with them, but I certainly won't call them names.

So, I think people ought to be who they are -- loved by God and expected to live lives honoring Him.

Also, I do not accept that one can be born homosexual. Most of what we are, we choose according to the environment in which we are raised and the choices proferred to us in our youth.


You know because we can always choose what environment we were raised in :rolleyes:

There are those that believe that a person "is" the way he/she believes himself to be (or, claims to be) and that belief/claim or (self-actualization) is what matters. There are others who believe that people are created by God to glorify Him and that certain behaviors or life styles that place one's personal desires above God's are sin.

In my mind, these are the same things. You believe (claim to be) a child of God, and to you, that belief/claim is what matters.

There is no ONE TRUTH.

So, I think people ought to be who they are -- loved by God and expected to live lives honoring Him.
No. You are saying that you think people ought to be what YOU think they are...loved by God and so on.

I agree 100% with the first post, Sinuhue

In my mind, these are the same things. You believe (claim to be) a child of God, and to you, that belief/claim is what matters.

There is no ONE TRUTH.


No. You are saying that you think people ought to be what YOU think they are...loved by God and so on.


You came out with a testy tone fairly quickly. You missed the beginning of my response: "The bottom line is that what you propose is simply one of several competing belief systems."

I agree that these are my beliefs, just as I acknowledge that your belief system is different.

It would be helpful to advancing the discussion if you would discuss the competing ideas without being angry.

I did not choose to be heterosexual. Yet here I am.

That's because that's the natural order. Homosexuality does not lead to the furtherance of any species. If homosexuality were correct, species that practiced it would die out.

Do not confuse the correct order of things with the removal of choice. Physical principles and biological laws maintain order, without which all is chaos and the universe would cease to exist. This is only fair to everything else in the universe that everything that enters it abides by the rules, sort of like the user agreement we all signed to be on this forum, which, when we violate it, leads to our expulsion.

That's because that's the natural order. Homosexuality does not lead to the furtherance of any species.
not necessarily true...

Do not confuse the correct order of things with the removal of choice. Physical principles and biological laws maintain order, without which all is chaos and the universe would cease to exist.
the only order that exists is that everything is chaos

Well of course I agree with you Sinuhue... I'd be in a bit of a spot if I didn't.

:D

That's because that's the natural order. Homosexuality does not lead to the furtherance of any species. If homosexuality were correct, species that practiced it would die out.

Do not confuse the correct order of things with the removal of choice. Physical principles and biological laws maintain order, without which all is chaos and the universe would cease to exist. This is only fair to everything else in the universe that everything that enters it abides by the rules, sort of like the user agreement we all signed to be on this forum, which, when we violate it, leads to our expulsion.
Pfft homosexual people are not sterile … attraction has nothing to do with your ability to impregnate someone

You came out with a testy tone fairly quickly. You missed the beginning of my response: "The bottom line is that what you propose is simply one of several competing belief systems."

I agree that these are my beliefs, just as I acknowledge that your belief system is different.

It would be helpful to advancing the discussion if you would discuss the competing ideas without being angry.
Don't make assumptions about my emotional state. If I'm angry, I'll let you know it. No need to project.

Yes, I noticed that you mentioned this was a competing belief, one of many. And I was simply addressing that particular belief, which it seems, you endorse. My post acknowledges your beliefs are different than mine, and makes it clear what one of the opposing systems of belief is.

Pfft homosexual people are not sterile … attraction has nothing to do with your ability to impregnate someone

I am not referring to your ability to reproduce only to the fact that were such a practice the rule, no species could further itself.

That's because that's the natural order. Homosexuality does not lead to the furtherance of any species. If homosexuality were correct, species that practiced it would die out.


Sorry. I can't choose to be homosexual. I've tried.

I am not referring to your ability to reproduce only to the fact that were such a practice the rule, no species could further itself.
Like is often stated by believers … humans are an amazing creature with the ability to decide our future

We could as a rule all be homosexual but still make the choice to impregnate someone when necessary for good of the species.
Maybe god gave us this gift of self awareness so we could do something exactly like this … be who we are and still survive

Obvious...but it still made me think...

You know how people say, "I wouldn't want my child to be gay, because it would be so hard for them..."

Well, frankly, isn't it harder to be something you're not? No matter what that 'thing' is? So wouldn't you be better off saying, "I don't care what my kid is, as long as she is able to be herself"?

Yes, exactly. So why do you keep trying to not be a whore? And why do I keep trying to pretend I'm nice? /joking

By the way, I think people mean, I would prefer it if my child were naturally straight and acts straight as that would be easier for them than being naturally gay and acting gay due to biases and prejudices, etc. I personally think it's silly and it's the same argument people make for why they don't want their child to date outside their race (by people, I mean my parents).

Sorry. I can't choose to be homosexual. I've tried.
Yeah, I don't think you can all of a sudden turn Homosexual.

Sorry. I can't choose to be homosexual. I've tried.

Can you support this with evidence? Perhaps a video?

Like is often stated by believers … humans are an amazing creature with the ability to decide our future

We could as a rule all be homosexual but still make the choice to impregnate someone when necessary for good of the species.
Maybe god gave us this gift of self awareness so we could do something exactly like this … be who we are and still survive

God gave you the gift of self awareness so you could recognize activity contrary to his will.

Like is often stated by believers … humans are an amazing creature with the ability to decide our future

We could as a rule all be homosexual but still make the choice to impregnate someone when necessary for good of the species.
Maybe god gave us this gift of self awareness so we could do something exactly like this … be who we are and still survive
Yes. Or we could be heterosexual and choose NOT to be impregnated, or to impregnate someone else...for the good of the species.

God gave you the gift of self awareness so you could recognize activity contrary to his will.
Says you.

I'll believe it when God herself tells me.

Otherwise, it's just you projecting your particular beliefs onto the rest of us.

Can you support this with evidence? Perhaps a video?
Burned.

Of course...I can be mostly heterosexual and engage in homosexual acts...but that doesn't change the fact that I was born with certain preferences.

God gave you the gift of self awareness so you could recognize activity contrary to his will.
Amazing this all powerful god has not yet managed to tell me what his will is … just a lot of very reasonably doubtable texts and people claiming to know what his will is

Yes. Or we could be heterosexual and choose NOT to be impregnated, or to impregnate someone else...for the good of the species.

"Be fruitful and multiply, but only if you won't pass on anything evil to your posterity."

Were that the case, humans would have died out long ago...

Amazing this all powerful god has not yet managed to tell me what his will is … just a lot of very reasonably doubtable texts and people claiming to know what his will is

Have you asked him personally to tell it to you? Why do you rely on others?

"Be fruitful and multiply, but only if you won't pass on anything evil to your posterity."

Were that the case, humans would have died out long ago...
Nope.

Unless you think that we are currenlty in danger of dying out, because plenty of people are choosing not to bring children into such a populated world.

Be fruitful and multiply, if that's what you really want. Don't, if that's what you really want.

Plenty of homosexuals want to have children. Plenty of heteros don't. So?

Have you asked him personally to tell it to you? Why do you rely on others?
I have … nothing but dial tone

Have you asked him personally to tell it to you? Why do you rely on others?
Because people who talk directly to God are often considered 'touched' in a negative way.

I'm really going to resist the temptation to mock...and Upward Thrust, I'd encourage you to do the same. Or we'll be called religion-bashers.

Fergi. If your only argument is religion, and the opposing side does not accept your religion as valid, we clearly will get nowhere. You will not convince us, we will not convince you. The definition of futility.

I have … nothing but dial tone

Why would he talk to you if he knew you weren't willing to do what he says?

Why would he talk to you if he knew you weren't willing to do what he says?
Start a new thread about religion, if you'd like.

Also, I do not accept that one can be born homosexual. Most of what we are, we choose according to the environment in which we are raised and the choices proferred to us in our youth.

I read this to say, "I don't accept scientific evidence that homosexual brains are different than the typical brain within their sex." I extrapolate this to mean, "Being born homosexual makes it particularly hard for me to have my particular brand of prejudice so I reject evidence that was scientifically collected and pretty clearly refutes the statement that people aren't born homosexual."

Brain topography exists on a scale. On one end of the scale you have people who are attracted to men (usually women) and on the other end you have people who are attracted to women (usually men). The formation of this topography occurs during gestation. It has NOTHING to do with the environment you grew up in. In extreme cases, the change in topography causes your body to release hormones differently. This is why there is such a prevelence in the gay community of women that are broadshouldered and have masculine tendencies and features and men that have narrow shoulders and have feminine tendencies and features.

I'm really going to resist the temptation to mock...and Upward Thrust, I'd encourage you to do the same. Or we'll be called religion-bashers.

Fergi. If your only argument is religion, and the opposing side does not accept your religion as valid, we clearly will get nowhere. You will not convince us, we will not convince you. The definition of futility.

Mock all you want. It won't offend me.

I have noticed that none of those actively involved in this exchange at the present time have any indication of flinching their stand. Therefore, I accept your analysis and suggest expenditure of our efforts in more fruitful pursuits.

I read this to say, "I don't accept scientific evidence that homosexual brains are different than the typical brain within their sex." I extrapolate this to mean, "Being born homosexual makes it particularly hard for me to have my particular brand of prejudice so I reject evidence that was scientifically collected and pretty clearly refutes the statement that people aren't born homosexual."

Brain topography exists on a scale. On one end of the scale you have people who are attracted to men (usually women) and on the other end you have people who are attracted to women (usually men). The formation of this topography occurs during gestation. It has NOTHING to do with the environment you grew up in. In extreme cases, the change in topography causes your body to release hormones differently. This is why there is such a prevelence in the gay community of women that are broadshouldered and have masculine tendencies and features and men that have narrow shoulders and have feminine tendencies and features.


What credentials do you have to speak about neuroscience? I have none and will not pretend to them. The evidence that I have seen does not convince me of a biological basis for behavior. I think that is a scapegoat for responsibility...

Why would he talk to you if he knew you weren't willing to do what he says?
I don’t know because he is all loving and would give me the time of day to make sure that his will is apparent to me … being my whole future is resting on it and all

What credentials do you have to speak about neuroscience? I have none and will not pretend to them. The evidence that I have seen does not convince me of a biological basis for behavior. I think that is a scapegoat for responsibility...
And no doubt you would simply discard the information anyway.

And no doubt you would simply discard the information anyway.

More personal attacks...

Feel free to feed me any information you have.

I do not have time to research everything or spend my entire life in fruitless discussions on forums such as this. I have a wife and children for which I care, responsibilities to my employer, and a duty to my God.

I am not an expert on anything, and even if I was, there is doubtless someone with greater knowledge or proficiency than I who could do better. Are you suggesting yourself as such a person?

I don’t know because he is all loving and would give me the time of day to make sure that his will is apparent to me … being my whole future is resting on it and all

This he has done- read the scriptures and apply them. Prove him in his promises by obeying his laws, then he will reward you with greater knowledge and stewardship.

More personal attacks...

Feel free to feed me any information you have.Actually, more like my way of finding out if it is worth my time to look up and pass on information to you.

I do not have time to research everything or spend my entire life in fruitless discussions on forums such as this. I have a wife and children for which I care, responsibilities to my employer, and a duty to my God.
Hmm. Well, if you don't have the time to look into the issue, and educate yourself further on it, perhaps you should refrain from making bold statments about it? No one is forcing you to be here, or discuss this. However, if you do choose to do so, you have a responsibility to have some idea of what you are talking about. Since your only point seems to be a religious one, a point that can not be scientifically proven, a point that I refuse to accept because of that, your argument would be better taken to a thread that WILL accept it on faith.

If you want to discuss the science, then we can. Information can be provided. But it's up to you to take the time to look at it, evaluate it, and come back ready to support or refute it. If you aren't willing to do that, then I'm not willing to spend the time giving you that information in the first place.

I am not an expert on anything, and even if I was, there is doubtless someone with greater knowledge or proficiency than I who could do better. Are you suggesting yourself as such a person?
Yes. I am. I know passing little of the religious argument, and do not care to learn more about it. I am more versed in the scientific arguments. However, none of us here have claimed to be an expert on the subject. Now, do you have a point, other than the ones you have made?

Totally 100% on the mark with that first post.

You know how people say, "I wouldn't want my child to be gay, because it would be so hard for them..."

Yeah, especially without any lube.

Other than that, I say let people be and then it doesn't have to be hard on anyone.

Yeah, especially without any lube.

Other than that, I say let people be and then it doesn't have to be hard on anyone.
Yeah...like quit telling them that god hates them. That might be a start.

What credentials do you have to speak about neuroscience? I have none and will not pretend to them. The evidence that I have seen does not convince me of a biological basis for behavior. I think that is a scapegoat for responsibility...

Sinuhue is correct. (Been right on a load of threads today! :) )

I have seen documentaries, which showed PET scans, MRIs and various other brain scans of heterosexual men and homosexual men. In homosexual men, there is a particular gap that is wider than heterosexual men. (Wish I could remember where it was :confused: )

99% of psychiatrists will tell you that homosexuality is biological. There is a tiny bit of environmental in there, but even without the environmental influences, the biological is still there.

Homosexuals don't wake up one day and say "Gee, I'll be gay!" any more than I woke up one day and said "Gee, I'll be straight." Ugh... I've said that in so many threads.

This he has done- read the scriptures and apply them. Prove him in his promises by obeying his laws, then he will reward you with greater knowledge and stewardship.
The fact that scripture exist is not enough reason for me to follow them. I have seen no hard evidence that they were divinely inspired.
An all loving god would know this and either help me out if he is going to judge me on it or he would understand at the time of judgement

What credentials do you have to speak about neuroscience? I have none and will not pretend to them. The evidence that I have seen does not convince me of a biological basis for behavior. I think that is a scapegoat for responsibility...

How about this one "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? You believe in God, yes? The Bible? Doesn't it say that the only judge that matters is God and that you are only here to worry about your relationship with God and doing His will? Let others do as they will without your judgement. In fact, your God tells you to love them and to treat them as an equal. Not to hate them and to treat them as freaks.

But leaving the bible to the side... credentials, huh? What are your credentials to talk about the Bible? Does it require that people have PhD in order to talk about things on this board? Would you like for me to further explain the topography of the brain to you? The studies that have been published that I've read. The general differences in the male and female bodies, including the brain, that I'm sure you're unaware of. For example, women can see more colors than men, generally. Did you know that? When heterosexual men and women men almost never can see more colors than women. Men have a much more difficult time seeing hue and saturation differences. Subtle differences that women can see quite clearly. However, when you introduce homosexuals into the mix the picture becomes quite blurred until you do scans of the brain. Extreme homosexuals, where their brain is almost entirely that of a woman (by topography) can see colors like a woman. This is why in both clothing and interior design it is so common for the men involved to be gay. But let's just say it's coincidence. How do you explain the noticable physical differences between straight men and gay men and the fact that these differences are consistently present in many different cultures? Oh, wait, you haven't SEEN this evidence so it doesn't exist.

I'll just throw out a little bit of information that's pretty enlightening about the corpus callosum. That's the tissue that connects the two hemispheres of the brain. In men, it's fairly sparse. The two hemispheres operate almost independently (I can go into archeological reasons why this is, but let's just skip that for now). In women, it's much more dense. In women, the two hemispheres communicate... A LOT. Now here's the part that is easy to find studies on. In homosexuals the trend is opposite. Homosexual women have a more sparse corpus callosum and homosexual men have a dense corpus callosum. Go ahead, look around. I'll wait. Or I can just continue giving you an anatomy lesson. Your call.

Sinuhue is correct. (Been right on a load of threads today! :) )

I have seen documentaries, which showed PET scans, MRIs and various other brain scans of heterosexual men and homosexual men. In homosexual men, there is a particular gap that is wider than heterosexual men. (Wish I could remember where it was :confused: )

99% of psychiatrists will tell you that homosexuality is biological. There is a tiny bit of environmental in there, but even without the environmental influences, the biological is still there.

Homosexuals don't wake up one day and say "Gee, I'll be gay!" any more than I woke up one day and said "Gee, I'll be straight." Ugh... I've said that in so many threads.

Actually, it wasn't Sin, it was me. Thank you very much.

And you're talking about the Corpus Callosum. It's what connects the hemispheres. I think that's what you mean. There is also information that the grooves in the brain vary by sexuality, but that information is harder to collect (as far as I know you must be dead and the cap of your head must be removed).

I would like to see my children grow up and be happy and secure with what they've grown up to be. I want to know they'll wake up each day and be satisfied with who they are and what they can make of themselves.
Whatever path they chose- hetero or homo, doctor or sanitation worker-as long as they are at peace with themselves. And whatever their choices, they will always have my advice, support and love.

Actually, it wasn't Sin, it was me. Thank you very much.


I was totally fine for taking credit for that, by the way.

I would like to see my children grow up and be happy and secure with what they've grown up to be. I want to know they'll wake up each day and be satisfied with who they are and what they can make of themselves.
Whatever path they chose- hetero or homo, doctor or sanitation worker-as long as they are at peace with themselves. And whatever their choices, they will always have my advice, support and love.
AMEN! (oh wait...DOH!)

Don't make assumptions about my emotional state. If I'm angry, I'll let you know it. No need to project.

Yes, I noticed that you mentioned this was a competing belief, one of many. And I was simply addressing that particular belief, which it seems, you endorse. My post acknowledges your beliefs are different than mine, and makes it clear what one of the opposing systems of belief is.


I wasn't making an "assumption" about your emotional state. Rather, I was making an observation of how it appeared to me that you responded. One of the problems in online communication is that people treat each other so differently than they would treat each other in person .. whether with terseness, sarcasm, name-calling, or vulgarity.

So, mea culpa.

I wasn't making an "assumption" about your emotional state. Rather, I was making an observation of how it appeared to me that you responded.
I'm not seeing how these two sentences are in opposition. And notice your quote didn't phrase it that way:

You came out with a testy tone fairly quickly. *snip*

It would be helpful to advancing the discussion if you would discuss the competing ideas without being angry.
Just admit, yes, you made an assumption, so what, move on. But don't try to deny your own quote.

One of the problems in online communication is that people treat each other so differently than they would treat each other in person .. whether with terseness, sarcasm, name-calling, or vulgarity.

So, mea culpa. And some people may treat others online differently than they normally would. I suspect that many people are fairly true to life. In my case, you would likely get the same treatment in RL or in General. No, that's not entirely true. I'm nicer here.

And some people may treat others online differently than they normally would. I suspect that many people are fairly true to life. In my case, you would likely get the same treatment in RL or in General. No, that's not entirely true. I'm nicer here.

I can't wait to meet you so you can call me a whore to my face and vice versa.

I can't wait to meet you so you can call me a whore to my face and vice versa.
Yeah...you notice I'm walking lightly lately? I don't even use the 'w' word, JUST IN CASE...

Yeah...you notice I'm walking lightly lately? I don't even use the 'w' word, JUST IN CASE...

I did notice, but I love you anyway, you weak, weak UNMARRIED woman. I can't believe you lied to me. I'm crushed.

I did notice, but I love you anyway, you weak, weak UNMARRIED woman. I can't believe you lied to me. I'm crushed.
Huh?

I'm commonlaw. Which for all legal intents and purposes (including taxes) is the same thing.

Huh?

I'm commonlaw. Which for all legal intents and purposes (including taxes) is the same thing.

You're not MARRIED. That you continue to defend your lies is an insult to the decent people of the US. WAR ON CANADA!!!

- it's a joke, people. I love Sinuhue and her country. She's pretty and it's pretty. The funny part is she'll be afraid to joke back.

I'm not seeing how these two sentences are in opposition. And notice your quote didn't phrase it that way:


Just admit, yes, you made an assumption, so what, move on. But don't try to deny your own quote.

And some people may treat others online differently than they normally would. I suspect that many people are fairly true to life. In my case, you would likely get the same treatment in RL or in General. No, that's not entirely true. I'm nicer here.


Well, since you didn't graciously accept my apology....

I replied to your original response because of the tone in which you worded it. Period. If you're nicer in here then you are in person, I hope I don't meet you.

Well, since you didn't graciously accept my apology....

I replied to your original response because of the tone in which you worded it. Period. If you're nicer in here then you are in person, I hope I don't meet you.

I absolutely choked on that last line. That was great!

Well, since you didn't graciously accept my apology....

I replied to your original response because of the tone in which you worded it. Period. If you're nicer in here then you are in person, I hope I don't meet you.
Oh no, I accept your apology. I don't accept that you made an untruthful statement, and used that statement as the justification of your apology.

Oh no, I accept your apology. I don't accept that you made an untruthful statement, and used that statement as the justification of your apology.


I made an "untruthful" statement? Tell me what it was and why you characterize it as being "untruthful". If I agree, I'll apologize for my unintentional misstatement -- I have no interest in lbeing or in being perceived either as a liar or as a quibbler.

I made an "untruthful" statement? Tell me what it was and why you characterize it as being "untruthful". If I agree, I'll apologize for my unintentional misstatement -- I have no interest in lbeing or in being perceived either as a liar or as a quibbler.
I already brought it to your attention here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067294&postcount=60

You say you made no assumptions about my emtional state, yet the original quote belies that statement. Are we done yet?

I already brought it to your attention here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067294&postcount=60

You say you made no assumptions about my emtional state, yet the original quote belies that statement. Are we done yet?


When I read your post, I believed that you were uneccessarily terse from the gitgo for some reason unknown by me. From my perspective, it seemed that you were angry. This was an "observation" made by me, not an assumption. When people arrive at reasonable conclusions based upon objective data, they aren't being "untruthful".

One of the problems in posting is that what you say and how you say it are different then how you would speak to someone in person. Depending on the context, if you type something in CAPS, that typically is considered to be YELLING, or talking in an angry tone. If you use short or abrupt responses that basically are the "in your face" type of responses, someone who comes to a conclusion that you are angry isn't being untruthful. Life is not a vacuum -- to some degree, you are responsbile for how your message is received.

I think we ought to be able to understand that there apparently was a misunderstanding without being personally accusatory. If I'm out in the weeds on some idea or belief, I'm not likely to be convinced of the error of my ways or even to reconsider my position if the other person is being sarcastic, etc.

I don't have a problem with you, but I respond much better and openly in a discussion of ideas if the other person is not being uneccessarily rude or sarcastic. I apparently misunderstood the intent of your earlier response, but I wasn't being "untruthful".

So, my apology stands. I hope you can take it for that.

Back a bit, someone mentioned that gayness is not natural because any gayness gene would not get passed on. I'd just like to point out that a gene that makes you want to have sex with men does have survival value when it is found in a woman, and a gene that makes you want to have sex with a woman has survival value when it's found in a man. So supposed "gay" genes can have a reason to be passed down. They are actually "have sex" genes that work just fine 50% of the time.