NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I want the truth whatever it is but one way makes our lifes a whole lot harder and opens our familys up to not only judgement from the outside but from themselfs

My parents would kill me then themselfs if they knew honestly

It was difficult for me telling my parents... it made things difficult for a bit of time.. but my parents did accept me for who I am eventually.

Then you don't understand a lot about christianity. A christian loves everybody, no matter what sinful acts they may commit. I can think that the act of practicing homosexuality is wrong, but still be capable of love (a friendly, welcoming kind of love, not romantic) towards a gay person. What it all boils down to is loving one another, no matter what they've done.

Ahh yes Love the sinner and hate the sin. :)

Well there are many christians that will argue that is not a valid statement and does not represent christianity.

But those people also still think Leviticus is still in force today.

It was difficult for me telling my parents... it made things difficult for a bit of time.. but my parents did accept me for who I am eventually.
My parents were upset with me when they found out my priest molested me ... I dont want to even think about letting them know I am bi

You should see how they talk about a gay guard instructor in my old marching band ...

Oh well

My parents were upset with me when they found out my priest molested me ... I dont want to even think about letting them know I am bi

You should see how they talk about a gay guard instructor in my old marching band ...

Oh well

That's really too bad, parents are apposed to be loving folk....true shame they'd flip on you for something like that. :-/ Ah well, not a whole lot you can do about that I suppose. Good luck to ya!

That's really too bad, parents are apposed to be loving folk....true shame they'd flip on you for something like that. :-/ Ah well, not a whole lot you can do about that I suppose. Good luck to ya!
Thanks ... otherwords they are great parents they have always helped me ... in this though they are much too catholic

My parents were upset with me when they found out my priest molested me ... I dont want to even think about letting them know I am bi

You should see how they talk about a gay guard instructor in my old marching band ...

Oh well

I'm sorry I did not know that. That's really a messed up thing that your priest did. Did they file charges against him?

And that really sucks how they talk about him..

I'm sorry I did not know that. That's really a messed up thing that your priest did. Did they file charges against him?

And that really sucks how they talk about him..
Yes but it ended with a gag order ... with the other 2 boys involved

for a long time


But anyways life is fucked up ... I just dont want to take my dad head on right now lol cause I dont feel like being disowned

OK, not exactly what I ask, but basically you are saying that if homosexuality is proved to be genetic more than environmental, it will make it appear more natural, acceptable or right?

Please, I understand that you personally do not believe it is environmental, but I ask - how would it being environmental makes it less natural, acceptable or "right" that it being genetic?

I should point out that I mean by early experinces, rolemodels, famliy upbringing and values and such. And NOT implying that negative exprience = homosexuality, just experience in general. And also that enironmental does NOT mean choice.

Well I will answer with my example. I was raised without a father figure. He ran out when I was five and we lived to far away from the rest of the family. Mom was rather angry towards men. I lived in a household of women and was surrounded by women.

I am very hetro. My friends who are gay will tell you that.

Environment might play in there to some degree but I would think it's more of a guy learning to cook or do laundry. ;)

Why do we have mama's boys? They aren't gay.

To quest for it being a fact of nature will eliminate the hate filled Christians that argue it is nothing more then a deviant choice.

But can anyone give a single, secular (i.e. not relgious) reason why there is anything wrong with homosexuality? I doubt it...

Thanks ... otherwords they are great parents they have always helped me ... in this though they are much too catholic

Mhm, yeah...I suppose it's possible that I could believe the genetic argument for homosexuality, because environmentally speaking I probably should've turned out gay....although the church was also an extremely important environmental factor for me as well.....so I guess I won't know until scientists can lock down some proof about the whole ordeal. Man, I was one screwed up kid.....I think everybody in my family is shocked that I'm not, actually....well, whatever....things will be figgered out eventually.

i only read the first 3 entries so im probably repeating a lot. Homosexuality is defect on the X chromosome, and the locus of where the defect is can be mapped. So yea, its genetic. But then you do have guys that are straight but they act a little feminine.. thats just societal works and growth, but that doesnt mean the man is gay, it means he's a little flamboyant... i believe the made up term/excuse for this is 'metrosexual' -which i think is a sad excuse to dismiss the question of the guy being gay. the term metrosexual is infact very negative indeed. Because those who label themselves as such, feel that they are not gay, and also feel that being gay is a bad thing, they made up this term to make themselves fit in without being negatively labeled by society as homosexual. So conclusion: true homosexuality is genetic... but guys can grow up to be a little flamboyant, girls can grow up to be more man-like depending on their peers and society in general.

btw if you want to know my source: the discovery channel had an hour special on this not too long ago, and im the loser who was bored late @ night and watched it.

But can anyone give a single, secular (i.e. not relgious) reason why there is anything wrong with homosexuality? I doubt it...

Nope, which is precisely why there should be equal rights for gay citizens...hey look, I've been saying that this whole time. ^_^

But can anyone give a single, secular (i.e. not relgious) reason why there is anything wrong with homosexuality? I doubt it...

Correct. There are no secular reasons why homosexuality is wrong.

Putting all your faith in science is just as bad as any religion. Just some insight for ya, boyo.

Hmmm faith and science in the same sentence?

Mhm, yeah...I suppose it's possible that I could believe the genetic argument for homosexuality, because environmentally speaking I probably should've turned out gay....although the church was also an extremely important environmental factor for me as well.....so I guess I won't know until scientists can lock down some proof about the whole ordeal. Man, I was one screwed up kid.....I think everybody in my family is shocked that I'm not, actually....well, whatever....things will be figgered out eventually.

Seriously. People honestly think Mike and I are gay.

Remember when people on the bus thought we were an item, or something?

o.O Or maybe it was just that one kid and the drug dealers in the back...

Anyway...

Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or not is irrelevant. Homosexuals are human and deserve the rights that everyone else has.

Hmmm faith and science in the same sentence?

Science (well medical science in particular) has provided for a lot of advancement and has extended our lives. I can put a lot of faith into science. It is a beautiful thing.

i only read the first 3 entries so im probably repeating a lot. Homosexuality is defect on the X chromosome, and the locus of where the defect is can be mapped. So yea, its genetic. But then you do have guys that are straight but they act a little feminine.. thats just societal works and growth, but that doesnt mean the man is gay, it means he's a little flamboyant... i believe the made up term/excuse for this is 'metrosexual' -which i think is a sad excuse to dismiss the question of the guy being gay. the term metrosexual is infact very negative indeed. Because those who label themselves as such, feel that they are not gay, and also feel that being gay is a bad thing, they made up this term to make themselves fit in without being negatively labeled by society as homosexual. So conclusion: true homosexuality is genetic... but guys can grow up to be a little flamboyant, girls can grow up to be more man-like depending on their peers and society in general.

btw if you want to know my source: the discovery channel had an hour special on this not too long ago, and im the loser who was bored late @ night and watched it.


Unfortunately it seems the Discovery channel based a lot of it's special off of unproven ideas and hypothesis about homosexuality and genetics...because nothing's been truly proven as of yet.

Actually that statement doesn't refute that claim at all. A kid growing up in a christian family isn't necessarily the perfect child because of it. The parents may hold him or her to too high of a standard, or perhaps he or she feels estranged by the religion he or she is supposed to be a part of. certainly in this environment "christian" beliefs wouldn't seem important to the child at all, and they could easily be influenced to become homosexual.....of course this is hypothetical, and incomplete, but I think you get my point. Not every kid that grows up in a christian home is a christian kid....keep that in mind.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic in your reply. There certainly are cases of extremely religious kids who end up committing suicide because their "prayers weren't answered." And how could holding someone too high of a standard correlate with homosexuality? it doesn't make sense. How can anyone be "influenced" into becoming gay when all you hear since birth is that homosexuality is a monstrosity? when the cultural patterns of gender are imprinted into the brain [by the time humans reach puverty]?

The parents may hold him or her to too high of a standard, or perhaps he or she feels estranged by the religion he or she is supposed to be a part of.

My parents didn't put me up to a "too high of a standard" because they were agnostic? And because of that I "turned" gay? That argument doesn't make any sense.

I'm sorry but I don't see the logic in your reply. There certainly are cases of extremely religious kids who end up committing suicide because their "prayers weren't answered." And how could holding someone too high of a standard correlate with homosexuality? it doesn't make sense. How can anyone be "influenced" into becoming gay when all you hear since birth is that homosexuality is a monstrosity? when the cultural patterns of gender are imprinted into your brain?

Growing up in a christian home doesn't necessarily mean that your parents are constantly calling homosexuality a monstrosity, and even if it did, things could certainly influence that child in ways that are unexpected, and I believe that if it is environmental a lot of it is subconcious, which means that if the child felt unloved by his father he could certainly seek male affection elsewhere....or during the confusing time of puberty have a sudden homosexual thought that they dwell on, and then begin to believe...there are a lot of possibilities, none are proven.....and I really think debating something with no chance of knowing whether you're right or wrong is kind of silly.

I believe that if it is environmental a lot of it is subconcious, which means that if the child felt unloved by his father he could certainly seek male affection elsewhere....or during the confusing time of puberty have a sudden homosexual thought that they dwell on, and then begin to believe...there are a lot of possibilities, none are proven.....and I really think debating something with no chance of knowing whether you're right or wrong is kind of silly.

That argument is totally silly. Many people don't have fathers and they didn't turn out gay. Several of my straight guy friends were raised in single parent homes and they are straight. The weak father argument is baseless.

http://allpsych.com/journal/counselinggay.html

And this proves what?

He doesn't seem to say homosexuality is a fraud. Even he admits to his credit that it is not a solution.

From the very article:

"Understand that the American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and others have denounced this type of treatment due to the high incidences of negative outcomes and very low and even questionable success rates. Also understand that while you can help a client change his or her behavior, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to change who they are."

That argument is totally silly. Many people don't have fathers and they didn't turn out gay. Several of my straight guy friends were raised in single parent homes and they are straight. The weak father argument is baseless.

Hm. We have a problem here, then.

Mike's argument doesn't seem to work according to you guys...

And science hasn't heralded any decisive results...

=O Then maybe there ain't no answer just yet and we're just speculating! =O

That argument is totally silly. Many people don't have fathers and they didn't turn out gay. Several of my straight guy friends were raised in single parent homes and they are straight. The weak father argument is baseless.

Wow, really. That's nice. It would be wonderfully sound if there weren't other contributing factors...this isn't a debate I really feel like getting into at the moment, partially because I haven't slept in two days, partially because I've done nothing but post during that time, and partially because I'm leaving to go spend some time with my family. Catch you folks later, I'm out.

Hm. We have a problem here, then.

Mike's argument doesn't seem to work according to you guys...

And science hasn't heralded any decisive results...

=O Then maybe there ain't no answer just yet and we're just speculating! =O

The weak father argument just doesn't hold.

And i don't think I'm going to talk to you anymore, since you withdrew your apology.

Wow, really. That's nice. It would be wonderfully sound if there weren't other contributing factors...this isn't a debate I really feel like getting into at the moment, partially because I haven't slept in two days, partially because I've done nothing but post during that time, and partially because I'm leaving to go spend some time with my family. Catch you folks later, I'm out.

I don't think the argument holds and the weak father argument is perhaps one of the most bogus out there. Anyways I myself will get a full eight hours of sleep tonight.. and I won't be posting tomorrow because I'm spending my time with my boyfriend who has been busy for the past five days.

The weak father argument just doesn't hold.

And i don't think I'm going to talk to you anymore, since you withdrew your apology.

Well, you didn't accept it, so... xD

I don't think the argument holds and the weak father argument is perhaps one of the most bogus out there. Anyways I myself will get a full eight hours of sleep tonight.. and I won't be posting tomorrow because I'm spending my time with my boyfriend who has been busy for the past five days.

Ah! =D Good luck t' you two.

Ah! =D Good luck t' you two.

I missed him.. we are going to watch "The Great Raid" in theaters.. hopefully it is good.. I have two free tickets (save us $18 there)... then back to my apartment. I think that's as far as I'll say. :)

Unfortunately it seems the Discovery channel based a lot of it's special off of unproven ideas and hypothesis about homosexuality and genetics...because nothing's been truly proven as of yet.

Ahh but none of this says the ideas are wrong.

=O Then maybe there ain't no answer just yet and we're just speculating! =O

Ahh but where did the answers first start?

That site is BS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ex-gay

"Perhaps as a result of the defections, the strategy of Exodus and other groups appears to have changed dramatically. Rather than emphasize heterosexuality as a goal, most ex-gay ministries now simply push a cessation of homosexual activity and, where possible, desire."

The ex-gay movement has collapsed.

True, its gone from conversion to today, which is control, then in 5 years time it'll be that homosexual desires are natural traights, but you should refrain from sex - then eventually the whole deck of cards will come crashing down on itself.

They know their dogma is false, but the fact is, their unified hatred of gay people and those who don't conform to their view of morality and normality is the only thing actually keeping their movement together.

Same goes for Christian Fundamentalism. The only thing holding the evangelicals and fundamentalist together is the unifed hatred of gays - take gays out of the equation, and you'll find that they'll be back to beating the crap out of each other, each claiming that they have the true interpretation of the message of god.

Its pathetic to see how millions of years worth of evolution has come and gone, and we still have people holding onto old wives tales and supersticion based on some holy spook sitting on a cloud along with St Peter.

And I showed and posted and re-linked to your links, showing how your own scientists/researchers (from the one good study) said themselves that their study DID NOT prove a gay-gene nor a gene that causes homosexual orientation...
Which is of course not at all the same as 'their study proved there is not a gay gene or any genetic component to homosexuality', or even 'the study did not prove that there was any causitive connection between genetic influences and homosexuality'...


then why is it still around, because it is a genitic dead end
Why is this question still around, because it is a logical dead end?

Want evidence as to how things were intended. Watch a sex ed film. Yeah they are not the highest budget film but they explain fairly well how reproduction works. And a species being able to reproduce and therefore continue itself is how nature works.
Really, when was the last time you saw a live Zinjanthropus, or moa, or saber toothed tiger? The concept 'nature' usually includes evolution, which necessary includes some discontinuity in types and numbers of life-forms. If not everything would be the same one generation to the next.

Assuming that homoseuxality is genetic in nature, and the the genes/chromosomes that influence it are passed on by one or both parents, if you had a mother and father, neither of whom carried the relevant genes/chromosomes, would there be a 0% chance that their child could be homosexual?
No, the chance would be small but not 0% because whatever mutation is responsible for the (hypothetical) gene is not prevented from (re-)occuring.

Valid? I feel that if the genetics case (which exists strongly) is strengthened then gay rights will be strengthened.
Aha, but this is playing into people's hands. Let us imagine it were a choice. So what? Bowling is a choice and probably not caused by genetics, but that's no reason to deprive bowlers of rights is it?

If there was NO recessive gene(s) in either of the parents, then there would be 0% of outcome assuming that homosexuality is 100% genetic. I believe it is rare for the recessive traits not to be there though. But I could be wrong.

No there would be a very very marginal chance (otherwise the gene would not exist, and since we are hypothising that it does.....).
As for recessive traits, they only occur where a person has two copies of the recessive allele. The alleles occur as regularly as they occur, the allele for blue eyes for instance does not occur at the same rate as the alllele for sickle cell anemia.

Because in the end if homosexuality is proven envyromental the next words out of some if not a lot of the religous right will be condemning our friends and family for contributing to the imorality
I understand where you are coming from, but to me this is part of the problem. Your morality is your own to mind. You may choose to advise friends and reletives in this capacity and they may or may not listen to you. However what some "busy-body" says about your morality should be only that, what they say. You see by assuming we have to fight to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, to avoid a group of busy bodies telling consenting adults what they can and cannot do with each other, presupposes that the busy bodies actually have some right to tell you what to do. They dont! If they dont like it, ok, I dont like tomatoes but I'm not stopping anyone else eating them, even though I believe eating tomatoes is a choice and not genetically determined. Homosexuality does not need an excuse because it is not wrong!

Ok. You want an answer. I think the primarily environmental argument weakens gay rights and gives the ex-gay ministries an excuse to go after gay people with more vigor.
And that is exactly what they want you to think. As if you need some excuse for acting with your rights! You do not require any excuse. You see the fact is people trying to opress homosexuals need to justify their position, not the other way around. Why the heck do you need to justify acting within your rights? The fact that you are acting within your rights precludes your needing to justify yourself. Whatever the cause, unless interference in the lives of homosexuals, or denying rights to homosexuals can be justified, neither should occur, and anyone who thinks it should needs to present a very strong conclusive case proving so. Unless that occurs, you need not prove anything. The onus of proof is on those who would interfere with the freedom of others!

My parents would kill me then themselfs if they knew honestly
You and your parents both have my sympathy. I sincerely hope there comes a time when you can have a more open relationship with your parents. One of the reasons I so dispise bigotry is because of the harm it can do to families. I hope one day your parents have the strength and foresight to understand that your sexuality is a much smaller issue than your happiness and health.

Nice response, lovely boys. Their hatred has gone unchecked unabated for ageas and now they will be called up for their lies.

And that is exactly what they want you to think. As if you need some excuse for acting with your rights! You do not require any excuse. You see the fact is people trying to opress homosexuals need to justify their position, not the other way around. Why the heck do you need to justify acting within your rights? The fact that you are acting within your rights precludes your needing to justify yourself. Whatever the cause, unless interference in the lives of homosexuals, or denying rights to homosexuals can be justified, neither should occur, and anyone who thinks it should needs to present a very strong conclusive case proving so. Unless that occurs, you need not prove anything. The onus of proof is on those who would interfere with the freedom of others!


What? Justify acting within my rights? What are you talking about? Dude, I'm simply trying to strengthen my own position. THat's a good thing to do.

What? Justify acting within my rights? What are you talking about? Dude, I'm simply trying to strengthen my own position. THat's a good thing to do.
I'm talking about your view that there is political value in the cause of homosexuality. The cause is irrelevent to whether or not homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. If homosexuality were to be proven to be a choice, that would still not change the fact that so far as I can ascertain there is no good reason for interfering in the lives of homosexuals, or denying them any legitimate rights.

I'm talking about your view that there is political value in the cause of homosexuality. The cause is irrelevent to whether or not homosexuals should enjoy the same rights as everyone else. If homosexuality were to be proven to be a choice, that would still not change the fact that so far as I can ascertain there is no good reason for interfering in the lives of homosexuals, or denying them any legitimate rights.

Well unfortunately that's the position we homosexuals are in. Homosexuality isn't a choice but beyond that.. we don't have the same amount of rights as heterosexuals, and we have to fight politically to get those rights.

Well unfortunately that's the position we homosexuals are in. Homosexuality isn't a choice but beyond that.. we don't have the same amount of rights as heterosexuals, and we have to fight politically to get those rights.
This is the position homosexual oppressors want you to be in. Fighting for your rights does not require that you concede ground to your opressors. What if it were proven there is no genetic link (for the sake of argument) would you then believe yourself not entitled to equal rights? I certainly hope not! So that being the case, the cause of homosexuality is irrelevent to homosexual rights. Oppessors of homosexuals would like us all to believe otherwise, please do not fall down their silly slippery slope. You are acting within your rights, so the cause of your actions has no bearing on your rights.

I am well aware that many act to deprive homosexuals of their rights, however by accepting that the cause of homosexuality has some bearing on the rights of homosexuals, is simply playing into the hands of those who act to have your rights ignored or unjustifiably circumscribed.

Can you give me a single reason why denying homosexuals their rights would be justified if homosexuality were a choice? I cant think of any such reason, and frankly I doubt the homosexual oppressors can either. Acting as though the cause were relevent to rights is an implicity acceptance that it is, thus removing any need for the oppressors to prove it. That's a huge help to them, because as I pointed out, I do not believe they can construct an objective logical argument supporting the repression of homosexuals, so why remove that onus from them?

This is the position homosexual oppressors want you to be in. Fighting for your rights does not require that you concede ground to your opressors. What if it were proven there is no genetic link (for the sake of argument) would you then believe yourself not entitled to equal rights? I certainly hope not! So that being the case, the cause of homosexuality is irrelevent to homosexual rights. Oppessors of homosexuals would like us all to believe otherwise, please do not fall down their silly slippery slope. You are acting within your rights, so the cause of your actions has no bearing on your rights.

No, I'm sorry like black civil rights leaders the rights were not given to them right away. There does have to be fighting and I'm not conceding any ground. You aren't very aware of the facts I think. I don't agree with you, the cause of homosexuality is very relevant for people to understand. I'm not falling down any slippery slopes.

I don't think you understand the reality.

Edit:

I submitted my reply to early.. if it was proven a choice (and 100% is not a choice) then the homophobes in this world would claim it can be changed by their therapy nonsense. And force us into it.

This is the position homosexual oppressors want you to be in. Fighting for your rights does not require that you concede ground to your opressors. What if it were proven there is no genetic link (for the sake of argument) would you then believe yourself not entitled to equal rights? I certainly hope not! So that being the case, the cause of homosexuality is irrelevent to homosexual rights. Oppessors of homosexuals would like us all to believe otherwise, please do not fall down their silly slippery slope. You are acting within your rights, so the cause of your actions has no bearing on your rights.

I am well aware that many act to deprive homosexuals of their rights, however by accepting that the cause of homosexuality has some bearing on the rights of homosexuals, is simply playing into the hands of those who act to have your rights ignored or unjustifiably circumscribed.

Can you give me a single reason why denying homosexuals their rights would be justified if homosexuality were a choice? I cant think of any such reason, and frankly I doubt the homosexual oppressors can either. Acting as though the cause were relevent to rights is an implicity acceptance that it is, thus removing any need for the oppressors to prove it. That's a huge help to them, because as I pointed out, I do not believe they can construct an objective logical argument supporting the repression of homosexuals, so why remove that onus from them?
I've made exactly that point in many of the other debates on this subject--genetic or choice, it shouldn't matter as far as rights are concerned.

But Mesatecala probably knows, better than most, that in order to get your foot in the door with some of these people, you have to make the genetic argument, because those people need an excuse, and if you can prove it's genetic, then they'll have the excuse they need to overcome what they perceive is a social stigma that's attached to homosexual conduct. It's not right, but it is the situation as it exists on the ground right now.

And then there are those who will never accept homosexuals, no matter if it's genetic or choice or if their child winds up being gay, and those people, well, we just have to kill them. j/k

I have presented plenty of pretty solid studies, and I do worship science as it has brought along a lot of great advancements in society. From the transistor.. to medical advancement... scientists involved in medical technology are the ones who made dangerous operations twenty years ago safe. I trust science. Not religion.



As to how things were intended? You really need to get over yourself. I'm serious.

Your "poping out babies" theory is false, and can actually kill a species because of overpopulation. Preventing too much population growth is a good thing for the species.



Fine. Then you can be ignorant all you want. That's fine by me. For some ignorant is bliss.



I have the freedom to be gay and to hold my boyfriend's hand in public without being beaten up or verbally assaulted (in most areas.. some areas are not good). What lifestyle? I'm tired of people throwing that word around. I think you should accept me for who I am. You aren't changing me.

That is the point there at the end of your rant jack ass. "You aren't changing me"

I dont want to. I accept you as you are. I have no problem with you as you are. Until you try to force feed your lifestyle as natural and us straight folks are the weird ones... Want to stop the hate ?

heres a clue since you really seem to need one.

Stop flaunting sexuality. To be honest a lot are sick of that alone. Whether gay or straight I dont care. I dont want it on TV every 2 seconds because i have kids . And outside of what most kids may like to think there is more then sex to life.

Drop the wanting to force feed love for homo lifestyle and we would be on the same page dude.

Im American, I like my freedom of choice. I choose to be how I am and gladly admit it. Do the same, and quit trying to force others to your view .

If folks dislike you simply because you are gay, are they really worth knowing ?

Screw em then, their loss at a great ... employee, friend, co-worker, partner whatever.

No, I'm sorry like black civil rights leaders the rights were not given to them right away.
I am not suggesting that people are not refusing to recognise certain of your rights (please note that I am using the words right to refer not to legal actualities but to just and right and treatment), what I am suggesting is that you are removing a very difficult step in the process of justifying this.

There does have to be fighting and I'm not conceding any ground.
Of course if people are going to refuse to recognise someone's rights they ought to be fought. But by assuming that cause is relevent to rights, you are assuming as though it were proven that these people actually have some business trying to interfere in your sex life, provided you are choosing your actions. However if homosexuals did choose to be homosexual this still would provide absolutely no justification for any interference or denial of rights. Bowling is a choice, yet that in itself does not justify 'treating' people who choose to bowl.


You aren't very aware of the facts I think. I don't agree with you, the cause of homosexuality is very relevant for people to understand. I'm not falling down any slippery slopes.
I believe I have a fairly good grasp on the facts.

Imagine that Person A makes the following argument
"homosexuality is a choice, therefore it should be prevented"
the argument is invalid, the truth of the premise would not ensure the truth the conclusion. By insisting that the cause is relevent you are acting as though the above argument were not utterly invalid.

I submitted my reply to early.. if it was proven a choice (and 100% is not a choice) then the homophobes in this world would claim it can be changed by their therapy nonsense. And force us into it.
They probably would claim that. But what would be their justification? What logical objective argument could they possibly offer? I cannot think of a single such argument. As for forcing you into it, they will do their utmost to do this regardless of the cause, but by acting as though the cause were relevent you risk making it easier for them to do so.

What these people need to prove is not the cause. If for instance it were proven that rape is genetically caused, this would be no justification in and of itself for removing laws against rape, because the cause of rape is not relevent to the wrongness of rape. The cause of homosexuality is not relevent to the lack of wrongness involved in being a homosexual. If the anti-homosexual brigade can prove that homosexuality is inherently wrong, then they do not need to establish cause in order to demand it be prevented. Alternatively if they cannot prove that homosexuality is 'wrong' then the cause is no more relevent than the cause of bowling. By acting otherwise you are obscuring this fact.

That is the point there at the end of your rant jack ass. "You aren't changing me"

You've been reported again.

I dont want to. I accept you as you are. I have no problem with you as you are. Until you try to force feed your lifestyle as natural and us straight folks are the weird ones... Want to stop the hate ?

My lifestyle is natural for me. And I'm not weird. You need to stop the hate because that's all you been doing with your half-hearted acceptance, which is a veil for hate.


Stop flaunting sexuality. To be honest a lot are sick of that alone. Whether gay or straight I dont care. I dont want it on TV every 2 seconds because i have kids . And outside of what most kids may like to think there is more then sex to life.

I'm not flaunting anything. We deserve our own tV channels and nobody is forcing you to watch Queer As Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight or whatever.. we also have Logo Channel. Nobody is forcing you to watch that. My sex life doesn't go outside the bedroom, but I have a right to hold my boyfriend's hand in public.

Drop the wanting to force feed love for homo lifestyle and we would be on the same page dude.

I'm not force feeding anything.

Im American, I like my freedom of choice. I choose to be how I am and gladly admit it. Do the same, and quit trying to force others to your view .

I didn't choose to be gay.

You know you could have saved typing time by simply stating

"Gays are icky, I don't like them and you can't change my opinion."

Consider this: If people weren't so nasty to them and tried to keep them in the closet then said waste of money would not have been spent.

There is a great deal of work to be done on Genome and if some want to "waste" money looking for a sequence that causes homosexual behavior, then so be it. That's one less question mark in the search for why we have human preditors.

So you are saying gays are human preditors and that is why we need to fund research for it ? If that is the case then yes, it is a good thing to spend money on.

I am not suggesting that people are not refusing to recognise certain of your rights (please note that I am using the words right to refer not to legal actualities but to just and right and treatment), what I am suggesting is that you are removing a very difficult step in the process of justifying this.

I'm saying what is the actual situation on the ground. I have to deal with this everyday. Do you work with gay rights often as I do? Are you politically involved in that front as I am? I can say for certain, I'm probably more experienced then you in gay rights.

Of course if people are going to refuse to recognise someone rights they ought to be fought. But by assuming that cause is relevent to rights, you are assuming as though it were proven that these people actually have some business trying to interfere in your sex life provided you are choosing your actions. If homosexuals did choose to be homosexual this still would provide absolutely no justification for any interference or denial of rights. Bowling is a choice, yet that in itself does not justify 'treating' people who choose to bowl.

Unfortunately there are tons of people who refuse to recognize a gay persons rights. This is why arguments have to be made in favor of gay people. It is relevant to rights because people are not going to recognize the homosexual community until they have an excuse to do so. I didn't choose anything, but beyond that... these people will support interference in my life and many of them only support this interference because they don't have an excuse not to.

I believe I have a fairly good grasp on the facts.


I believe I have a far better understanding of gay rights because I've devoted a large amount of my time to it.


They probably would claim that. But what would be their justification. What logical objective argument could they possibly offer? I cannot think of a single such argument. As for forcing you into it, they will do their utmost to do this regardless of the cause, but by acting as though the cause were relevent you are making it easier for them to do so.

Their argument would be this: jesus said so. That's invalid and ridiculous, but that's the way it is. People are not logical in this world today. You are thinking everyone is logical and understanding. Not at all.

If for instance it were proven that rape is genetically caused, this would be no justification in and of itself for removing laws against rape, because the cause of rape is not relevent to the wrongness of rape. The cause of homosexuality is not relevent to the lack of wrongness involved in being a homosexual. If the anti-homosexual brigade can prove that homosexuality is inherently wrong, then they do not need to establish cause in order to demand it be prevented. Alternatively if they cannot prove that homosexuality is 'wrong' then the cause is no more relevent than the cause of bowling. By acting otherwise you are obscuring this fact.

I don't know why you are arguing with me.. for goodness sakes, have you worked with gay rights directly? Have you been part of marches? Have you been part of fundraising? Have you helped organize rallies? The anti-gay people already have it in their mind homosexuality is wrong no matter what, and there are many people who support them but are uncertain in their support. If those people who support the anti-gay people, but are uncertain... can be swayed then the gay rights position is strengthened.

I'm not obscuring anything. You just don't understand the situation. There is a difference between me and you. I understand the situation.

So you are saying gays are human preditors and that is why we need to fund research for it ? If that is the case then yes, it is a good thing to spend money on.

What a ridiculous assertion.. let alone unfounded..

Stop flaunting sexuality. To be honest a lot are sick of that alone. Whether gay or straight I dont care. I dont want it on TV every 2 seconds because i have kids . And outside of what most kids may like to think there is more then sex to life.
So do you kiss your spouse in front of your kids? Or do you make your kids leave the room before you bestow any affection whatsoever upon your spouse? What about tv--do you change the channel when a hetero couple is holding hands? flirting? kissing? Even if it's on PAX?

My experience with gay couples--and I've had a lot since I grew up in New Orleans, lived in San Francisco and just moved to Fort Lauderdale--is that in public they do nothing that hetero couples do all the damn time. They hold hands. They flirt. They occasionally kiss. Just like most hetero couples do.

It's a part of life now, and you might as well get used to it, because the only way you're going to get gay people to stop acting like everyone else in public is to kill them all--and there's a bunch of their hetero friends who are ready to help make sure that doesn't happen.

My experience with gay couples--and I've had a lot since I grew up in New Orleans, lived in San Francisco and just moved to Fort Lauderdale--is that in public they do nothing that hetero couples do all the damn time. They hold hands. They flirt. They occasionally kiss. Just like most hetero couples do.

Yeah, I kiss my boyfriend briefly (not making out), I get very flirty with him and hold his hand all the time.. I've seen hetero couples grope each other in public with their hands in each other pants, and nobody says anything about that. I wouldn't dare of going that far because I have respect for other people.

[QUOTE=Zagat]Which is of course not at all the same as 'their study proved there is not a gay gene or any genetic component to homosexuality', or even 'the study did not prove that there was any causitive connection between genetic influences and homosexuality'...



"Why is this question still around, because it is a logical dead end?


Really, when was the last time you saw a live Zinjanthropus, or moa, or saber toothed tiger? The concept 'nature' usually includes evolution, which necessary includes some discontinuity in types and numbers of life-forms. If not everything would be the same one generation to the next."




Never heard of most of those. Well the one i did.

Saying homosexuality caused the last ice age which killed the dinos ?

Jesus didn't write the bible. He's just the main character.

Yeah, I kiss my boyfriend briefly (not making out), I get very flirty with him and hold his hand all the time.. I've seen hetero couples grope each other in public with their hands in each other pants, and nobody says anything about that. I wouldn't dare of going that far because I have respect for other people.
It's a bullshit double standard, and most people who live around large gay communities come to realize that pretty quickly. It's the people for whom homosexuality isn't as common who generally have the biggest issues.

I think, in the long run, society is changing in your favor, toward acceptance. It's slow at times and in certain places, but it is happening. And even though we disagree on a lot of stuff, I've got your back on this Mesatecala.

Nah.

It will probably be:

"Wow it's natural. Oh well you can't tell what God's plans are! But hey now we can correct this unfortunate affliction. After all you don't want babies being punished for sins they didn't commit do you?"

;)

Yet another reason why I keep feeling inclined to say that this forum is full of "fucktards" :rolleyes:

I think, in the long run, society is changing in your favor, toward acceptance. It's slow at times and in certain places, but it is happening. And even though we disagree on a lot of stuff, I've got your back on this Mesatecala.

Yeah I do agree. It is much better here in California.. but we still got people like Tyma who have these misfounded biases... well I'll go to West Hollywood and I could make out with my bf without any problem..

You've been reported again.



My lifestyle is natural for me. And I'm not weird. You need to stop the hate because that's all you been doing with your half-hearted acceptance, which is a veil for hate.



I'm not flaunting anything. We deserve our own tV channels and nobody is forcing you to watch Queer As Folk, Queer Eye for the Straight or whatever.. we also have Logo Channel. Nobody is forcing you to watch that. My sex life doesn't go outside the bedroom, but I have a right to hold my boyfriend's hand in public.



I'm not force feeding anything.



I didn't choose to be gay.


let me get a tissue about being reported.....

Now to read and see if you said anything of importance.

I think Ive said many times before. I dont hate homosexuals. Im not a homo-phobe.

God where does that come in with me having said I personally accept it. You were the one who said you love to flaunt it. And will do so until all accept it.

1300 + posts , im not scanning back through that far (sorry, not an attack but you aint worth that effort).

To be honest dude, you have the prob not society. You want to force others to accept your views entirely instead of being ok with acceptance.

hence my hail hitler last night which was corrected..

I think Ive said many times before. I dont hate homosexuals. Im not a homo-phobe.

Calling me a "jackass" is not necessary. I didn't call you that.

God where does that come in with me having said I personally accept it. You were the one who said you love to flaunt it. And will do so until all accept it.

If you think flaunting it means holding my boyfriend's hand in public, and briefly kissing him.. then that's your own problem. I'm going to do it whether you like it or not.


To be honest dude, you have the prob not society. You want to force others to accept your views entirely instead of being ok with acceptance.

hence my hail hitler last night which was corrected..

You are the one who has problems. I'm not forcing others to do anything. I want people to be understanding (that's why I'm in politics buddy). I'm more libertarian then you, therefore I know more about acceptance.

Your "hail (SIC) hitler" was just wrong and incorrect. It is more indicative of you.

That is the point there at the end of your rant jack ass. "You aren't changing me"

I dont want to. I accept you as you are. I have no problem with you as you are. Until you try to force feed your lifestyle as natural and us straight folks are the weird ones... Want to stop the hate ?

heres a clue since you really seem to need one.

Stop flaunting sexuality. To be honest a lot are sick of that alone. Whether gay or straight I dont care. I dont want it on TV every 2 seconds because i have kids . And outside of what most kids may like to think there is more then sex to life.

Drop the wanting to force feed love for homo lifestyle and we would be on the same page dude.

Im American, I like my freedom of choice. I choose to be how I am and gladly admit it. Do the same, and quit trying to force others to your view .

If folks dislike you simply because you are gay, are they really worth knowing ?

Screw em then, their loss at a great ... employee, friend, co-worker, partner whatever.

Stop bullshitting - or as they say, "grow some balls you nancy boy!"

I'll walk down the road, hand 'n hand with my boyfriend, and give him a bloody big snog before heading into the office, and the isn't a bloody thing you and your ilk can do about it.

Compared to the crap I see on television - Superbowl, "The World Series" and "NASCAR", I think a few fags having a snog in a park should be the last thing on the minds of Joe and Jane Heterosexual with their kids, supported courtesy of Joe Queer taxpayer.

I'm saying what is the actual situation on the ground. I have to deal with this everyday. Do you work with gay rights often as I do? Are you politically involved in that front as I am? I can say for certain, I'm probably more experienced then you in gay rights.
Mesatecala, you slipping back into irrelevent strawmen type arguments. How are your (above) comments relevent? No specialised knowledge is needed to in order to evaluate the validity of an argument. General knowledge about logic will do just fine.

Unfortunately there are tons of people who refuse to recognize a gay persons rights. This is why arguments have to be made in favor of gay people. It is relevant to rights because people are not going to recognize the homosexual community until they have an excuse to do so. I didn't choose anything, but beyond that... these people will support interference in my life and many of them only support this interference because they don't have an excuse not to.
Genetics is not an 'excuse', if it were proven tomorrow that murderer rapists were genetically caused to commit crimes would we get rid of prisons that same day? No! Because genetics is not an excuse for anything. Do you really think if genetics is proven to be the cause that the anti-gay brigade will all go 'oh well that's fine then', or do you think it more likely they will go from 'its a choice so lets cure it' to 'its a genetic defect so lets cure it'. Frankly the latter argument makes a great deal more sense. Bowling is a choice, cancer is not, which one do human beings spend more resources trying to prevent?

Their argument would be this: jesus said so. That's invalid and ridiculous, but that's the way it is. People are not logical in this world today. You are thinking everyone is logical and understanding. Not at all.
And genetics being the cause would change that argument how exactly? Where in the bible are genetics mentioned, much less described as a reason to not interfere with others?

I don't know why you are arguing with me.. for goodness sakes, have you worked with gay rights directly? Have you been part of marches? Have you been part of fundraising? Have you helped organize rallies? The anti-gay people already have it in their mind homosexuality is wrong no matter what, and there are many people who support them but are uncertain in their support. If those people who support the anti-gay people, but are uncertain... can be swayed then the gay rights position is strengthened.
I dont see how 'look it's a genetic birth defect' is going to sway them your way, and frankly if it is proven to be genetic I fully expect that is where the 'anti-gay brigades' argument will head. Cut them off at the pass by highlighting the fact that no justification for interfering in the lives and rights of gay people has ever been established, because frankly I think you'd be as disturbed by an onslaught of eugenics as I would be.

I'm not obscuring anything. You just don't understand the situation. There is a difference between me and you. I understand the situation.
Again I do not believe that any specialised knowledge is needed to evaluate arguments. The notion that 'choice=bad' has become almost hegemonic in the gay rights debate, yet it is an entirely unproven (and in my mind unprovable) notion. One that detracts from the real state of affairs, that is that one group of people are trying to unjustifiably dictate the behaviour of others.

What a ridiculous assertion.. let alone unfounded..

Did ya report me ?

Notice I was basing the question off someone else's comment ?

You notice anything besides your own stalinist views ?

Genetics is not an 'excuse', if it were proven tomorrow that murderer rapists were genetically caused to commit crimes would we get rid of prisons that same day? No! Because genetics is not an excuse for anything. Do you really think if genetics is proven to be the cause that the anti-gay brigade will all go 'oh well that's fine then', or do you think it more likely they will go from 'its a choice so lets cure it' to 'its a genetic defect so lets cure it'. Frankly the latter argument makes a great deal more sense. Bowling is a choice, cancer is not, which one do human beings spend more resources trying to prevent?


And genetics being the cause would change that argument how exactly? Where in the bible are genetics mentioned, much less described as a reason to not interfere with others?


I dont see how 'look it's a genetic birth defect' is going to sway them your way, and frankly if it is proven to be genetic I fully expect that is where the 'anti-gay brigades' argument will head. Cut them off at the pass by highlighting the fact that no justification for interfering in the lives and rights of gay people has ever been established, because frankly I think you'd be as disturbed by an onslaught of eugenics as I would be.


Again I do not believe that any specialised knowledge is needed to evaluate arguments. The notion that 'choice=bad' has become almost hegemonic in the gay rights debate, yet it is an entirely unproven (and in my mind unprovable) notion. One that detracts from the real state of affairs, that is that one group of people are trying to unjustifiably dictate the behaviour of others.

You are missing the point entirely. It isn't that the if people were choosing to be gay would make homosexuality bad, only that it would support Christian ideas of it being a sin. By it being something that is determined prior to birth, it adds to the gay rights argument about it not being a choice and therefore makes people more deserving of their rights. You cannot take away someone's rights for something they cannot help when it isn't harming someone else. That is why the murderer argument is irrelevant. Murderers have a victim. If a homosexual forces someone to have sex with them, they become a rapist. But until they do that, their homosexual acts are not harming anyone and therefore are not justification for a lack of rights. If it were a choice, Christians could argue that it is a sinful choice and therefore they don't deserve the right to marry, etc. If it is proven that it is genetic or something similar in which they are already going to be gay before they ever make a conscious choice, then they must receive their rights.

Mesatecala, you slipping back into irrelevent strawmen type arguments. How are your (above) comments relevent? No specialised knowledge is needed to in order to evaluate the validity of an argument. General knowledge about logic will do just fine.

Very relevant because you seem not to understand what the situation of gay rights is like today. I don't know why you are pressing on attacking me on every front. Beats the heck out of me. I'm pretty tired of all of this. Knowledge is needed about the gay rights situation in this country.


Genetics is not an 'excuse', if it were proven tomorrow that murderer rapists were genetically caused to commit crimes would we get rid of prisons that same day? No! Because genetics is not an excuse for anything. Do you really think if genetics is proven to be the cause that the anti-gay brigade will all go 'oh well that's fine then', or do you think it more likely they will go from 'its a choice so lets cure it' to 'its a genetic defect so lets cure it'. Frankly the latter argument makes a great deal more sense. Bowling is a choice, cancer is not, which one do human beings spend more resources trying to prevent?

I'm saying people need an excuse to stop hating and accept gay people. Now it isn't nice comparing murder and rapists to homosexuals. I don't know why you persist on that point either. I never said genetics was an excuse. All I'm saying is that would indicate homosexuality is not a choice. The anti-gay people are trying to cute it no matter will, and will continue to do so. Why are you bringing up irrelevant topics like bowling or rapists anyways? Who is the one bringing in strawman attacks now?

Where in the bible are genetics mentioned, much less described as a reason to not interfere with others?

It isn't, but it would weaken the position of anti-gay people who proclaim it as a choice... that must be cured.

I dont see how 'look it's a genetic birth defect' is going to sway them your way, and frankly if it is proven to be genetic I fully expect that is where the 'anti-gay brigades' argument will head. Cut them off at the pass by highlighting the fact that no justification for interfering in the lives and rights of gay people has ever been established, because frankly I think you'd be as disturbed by an onslaught of eugenics as I would be.

I didn't say it was a birth defect. Who the hell said that? I certainly didn't... you just don't seem to understand the gay rights situation in this country do you? They will continue to interfere with our lives and rights no matter what we do. Rights have been advanced greatly the last thirty years, but these people were there then and they are here now. They aren't going to go away, and no matter what you do to destroy their arguments or cut them off, they will not disappear.

Again I do not believe that any specialised knowledge is needed to evaluate arguments. The notion that 'choice=bad' has become almost hegemonic in the gay rights debate, yet it is an entirely unproven (and in my mind unprovable) notion. One that detracts from the real state of affairs, that is that one group of people are trying to unjustifiably dictate the behaviour of others.

I believe there needs to be a general understanding what the gay rights situation is right before you jump off to conclusions that aren't really factual to begin with.

Never heard of most of those. Well the one i did.

Saying homosexuality caused the last ice age which killed the dinos ?
No.

Did ya report me ?

Notice I was basing the question off someone else's comment ?

You notice anything besides your own stalinist views ?

Oh I'm a stalinist? How do you support that notion? Have proof?

Yes, I already have reported you in the moderation forum.

Seriously, if anyone else asks "How can it be genetic if homosexuals can't reproduce" one more time without reading the 300 times this has been answered, I'm gonna jump into my PC, fly down through the web, pop out of your modem, and garotte you with your mouse cable! :p

Seriously, if anyone else asks "How can it be genetic if homosexuals can't reproduce" one more time without reading the 300 times this has been answered, I'm gonna jump into my PC, fly down through the web, pop out of your modem, and garotte you with your mouse cable! :p

but, if two men can't make a baby, where do gay babies come from? :p

It's a bullshit double standard, and most people who live around large gay communities come to realize that pretty quickly. It's the people for whom homosexuality isn't as common who generally have the biggest issues.

I think, in the long run, society is changing in your favor, toward acceptance. It's slow at times and in certain places, but it is happening. And even though we disagree on a lot of stuff, I've got your back on this Mesatecala.
Well I can only speak for myself, but I can do without seeing anyone, gay straight or otherwise, doing much beyong holding hands or a kiss in public. I don't want to see two gay guys groin groping and playing tonsil hockey, but then again I don't wanna see a mixed sex couple doing that either...

I don't want to see two gay guys groin groping and playing tonsil hockey

Heheh, you wouldn't like West Hollywood then...

Well I can only speak for myself, but I can do without seeing anyone, gay straight or otherwise, doing much beyong holding hands or a kiss in public. I don't want to see two gay guys groin groping and playing tonsil hockey, but then again I don't wanna see a mixed sex couple doing that either...

Then how about you look away and don't tell people what they can and cannot do?

Then how about you look away and don't tell people what they can and cannot do?
No, I must be able to control others. I should have the right to tell them how to conduct themselves! It is my inalienable right dammit! :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, what do you think I do? I'm allowed not to like it...I consider it a matter of modesty and decorum...

You are missing the point entirely.
I do not believe that I am.

It isn't that the if people were choosing to be gay would make homosexuality bad, only that it would support Christian ideas of it being a sin.
The Chrisitian idea! Lets be perfectly clear, not some objective standard, but an idea, an idea that wont go away even if it is not a choice. I know this for a fact because I have heard and seen many christians argue that even if the inclination is genetic, one need not act on inclination. Move away from 'choice' to genetics' and they simply concentrate instead on the choice to act in accordance with the genetically caused inclinations. Instead of 'homosexuality is a choice' they go with 'choosing to practise homosexuality instead of repressing it is a choice.

By it being something that is determined prior to birth, it adds to the gay rights argument about it not being a choice and therefore makes people more deserving of their rights.
No it does not make people more deserving of their rights. Would a genetic influence make child molesters less deserving of prison sentences? Not to me it wouldnt.

You cannot take away someone's rights for something they cannot help when it isn't harming someone else.
Of course you can! It's not about can but should. The fact is you can entirely drop the 'cannot help' without in any way detracting from the justice of such an argument. You should not interfere with someone's rights when they are not harming anyone else. All this arguing over cause is detracting from this simple and yet just premise. It has become hegemonic that 'choice=right to interefere', but this has never been demonstrated to be just and right. Too many people just dont get that, is arguing as if it were not true helping people to get this very simple and just premise? I do not believe so.

That is why the murderer argument is irrelevant. Murderers have a victim. If a homosexual forces someone to have sex with them, they become a rapist.
This is exactly why the argument is relevent. Regardless of the cause, it is entirely possible to justify interfering with someone if they insist on commiting murder. What is the justification for interfering with consenting adults insisting on having sex with consenting adults? I do not see any such justification, but I believe that this fact (the absence of any sound objective justification) gets lost in the arguing over cause.

But until they do that, their homosexual acts are not harming anyone and therefore are not justification for a lack of rights. If it were a choice, Christians could argue that it is a sinful choice and therefore they don't deserve the right to marry, etc.
If it were genetic they could argue that it is an illness and that allowing marraige is simply compounding the symptoms. In fact interference based on the fact that people are ill and so not able to exercise informed consent is a more sensible argument than 'this really old book said so'.

If it is proven that it is genetic or something similar in which they are already going to be gay before they ever make a conscious choice, then they must receive their rights.
Not true. If it is proven to be genetic then they'll call it a birth defect and demand screening (aka eugenics). I dont think encouraging eugenics helps. These people say it is wrong not because it is a choice, but because they think this book told them to think it's wrong. The real issue is whether or not it is wrong. 'Some book said so' is not proof that it is wrong. If you think 'genetic cause' will stop those people insisting we all live according to their interpretation of some really old book, I have to say I dont agree.

Zagat, I seriously don't know what your problem is. I don't know why you have such issues with me and have to nit pick everything I say. I'm really tired of this all and I'm tired of you. Then you go after melonius... sheesh.. you are an argumentative one for sure!

Well, as I'm single, I assume that it's honkey dory for me to have a good old grope and feel session of myself in public, otherwise it's discimination! :p ;)

(sorry, that was for MO)

No, I must be able to control others. I should have the right to tell them how to conduct themselves! It is my inalienable right dammit! :rolleyes: :p

Seriously, what do you think I do? I'm allowed not to like it...I consider it a matter of modesty and decorum...

You can dislike it, just so long as you don't believe they should have to stop because you dislike it.

The lack of basic education in this thread is startling.

"Considerable debate continues over what biological variables produce sexual orientation in humans, such as genes and the exposure of certain levels of hormones to fetuses. A much smaller dialog remains in progress on whether that orientation is discretionary, largely limited to a minority of Christians and many Muslims with its foundation rooted in theology and old scientific thinking."

"The presently held mainstream scientific view is that regardless of one's specific sexual orientation, it cannot be changed and those who appear to have changed their sexual orientation have in fact merely suppressed one side or the other of their potential for bisexual interactions with others."

"Homosexual behavior is common in the Animal Kingdom, especially in species closer to humans on the evolutionary scale, such as the great apes. Georgetown University has specifically theorized that homosexuality, at least in dolphins, is an evolutionary advantage that minimizes interspecies aggression, especially among males."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

If you aren't going to debate based on the science and the facts, don't bother debating at all. :headbang:

You can dislike it, just so long as you don't believe they should have to stop because you dislike it.
No, but I believe there is a time and place for things, especially intimate, personal things. Or maybe we should just abolish all "decency" based laws...have people walking around naked, humping and defecating in your local shopping mall?

...anyway, this is getting pretty far off the posted topic...

So do you kiss your spouse in front of your kids? Or do you make your kids leave the room before you bestow any affection whatsoever upon your spouse? What about tv--do you change the channel when a hetero couple is holding hands? flirting? kissing? Even if it's on PAX?

My experience with gay couples--and I've had a lot since I grew up in New Orleans, lived in San Francisco and just moved to Fort Lauderdale--is that in public they do nothing that hetero couples do all the damn time. They hold hands. They flirt. They occasionally kiss. Just like most hetero couples do.

It's a part of life now, and you might as well get used to it, because the only way you're going to get gay people to stop acting like everyone else in public is to kill them all--and there's a bunch of their hetero friends who are ready to help make sure that doesn't happen.

Trying to answer quick before the nazi gets me banned :)

Yes, I kiss my wife in front of my kids and hold her hand in public.

No we dont have 'hey im a straight" parades left and right though.

And no, we dont let them watch derogative tv when with us.

What their scamp of a mother exposes them to in the meanwhile I cant control. 3rd generation ho and all I can just imagine. But such is the American legal system. doesnt matter how you are, just how big your checkbook is or how well you suck.

Ok, wrong thread for that comment lol

Trying to answer quick before the nazi gets me banned :)

Stop calling me a nazi. I'm not a nazi.


No we dont have 'hey im a straight" parades left and right though.

Mardi Gras.. and we do those parades mainly to demonstrate that we deserve more rights and to open minds. I've taken part in several.

The Chrisitian idea! Lets be perfectly clear, not some objective standard, but an idea, an idea that wont go away even if it is not a choice. I know this for a fact because I have heard and seen many christians argue that even if the inclination is genetic, one need not act on inclination. Move away from 'choice' to genetics' and they simply concentrate instead on the choice to act in accordance with the genetically caused inclinations. Instead of 'homosexuality is a choice' they go with 'choosing to practise homosexuality instead of repressing it is a choice.

I am well aware it will always exist. But if we are able to move it away from being "homosexuality is a sin" to "committing homosexual acts is a sin" then we have made a little bit of progress.

No it does not make people more deserving of their rights. Would a genetic influence make child molesters less deserving of prison sentences? Not to me it wouldnt.

A pedophile who never commits any acts of pedophilia is not a criminal. A homosexual who never commits any acts of homosexuallity is not a sinner (at least not for being homosexuality, assuming homosexuality is a sin). It takes away some ground from those who would argue it.

Of course you can! It's not about can but should.

That is what I meant, and I think you know that. Stop being picky.

What is the justification for interfering with consenting adults insisting on having sex with consenting adults? I do not see any such justification, but I believe that this fact (the absence of any sound objective justification) gets lost in the arguing over cause.

There is no justification but I am merely trying to damage the arguments of those who feel there is.

Not true. If it is proven to be genetic then they'll call it a birth defect and demand screening (aka eugenics). I dont think encouraging eugenics helps. These people say it is wrong not because it is a choice, but because they think this book told them to think it's wrong. The real issue is whether or not it is wrong. 'Some book said so' is not proof that it is wrong. If you think 'genetic cause' will stop those people insisting we all live according to their interpretation of some really old book, I have to say I dont agree.

Yes, they will. And that debate will come when we actually reach that point.

Very relevant because you seem not to understand what the situation of gay rights is like today. I don't know why you are pressing on attacking me on every front. Beats the heck out of me. I'm pretty tired of all of this. Knowledge is needed about the gay rights situation in this country.
I believe I do understand the situation, either way your comments neither determine if I do understand, nor deepen my understanding so they are not relevent. As for attacking you, again I can only point out that you have a very defensive attitude towards this issue and this appears to effect your perception of other people's comments.

I'm saying people need an excuse to stop hating and accept gay people.
In that case I have no idea what was meant by the comments regarding people needing excuses to allow gay people their rights.

Now it isn't nice comparing murder and rapists to homosexuals.
How do you mean 'nice'. It either is useful or not. In case it seemed to me it might be useful to compare the two, although apparently the point was not made as clear as I hoped it would be.

I don't know why you persist on that point either. I never said genetics was an excuse. All I'm saying is that would indicate homosexuality is not a choice.
And so what? Why does it matter if it is a choice unless there is something wrong with homosexuality? If nothing is wrong with homosexuality, then what would be wrong with choosing to be homosexual (were such a choice possible)? Absolutely nothing!

The anti-gay people are trying to cute it no matter will, and will continue to do so.
:confused:

Why are you bringing up irrelevant topics like bowling or rapists anyways? Who is the one bringing in strawman attacks now?
In order to illustrate a point. I do not believe that I have brought up a strawman, if you can specifically point one out though...

It isn't, but it would weaken the position of anti-gay people who proclaim it as a choice... that must be cured.
No it wouldnt weaken their position, because they would simply substitute 'unfortunate birth defect' for 'sinful choice'.

I didn't say it was a birth defect. Who the hell said that? I certainly didn't...
I am well aware you did not claim it was a birth defect. Whatever makes you think otherwise? Perhaps you have misinterpreted my comments?

you just don't seem to understand the gay rights situation in this country do you? They will continue to interfere with our lives and rights no matter what we do.
That being the case proving it is genetic is a bit of a waste of time...

Rights have been advanced greatly the last thirty years, but these people were there then and they are here now. They aren't going to go away, and no matter what you do to destroy their arguments or cut them off, they will not disappear.
I have not suggested they will disappear, however I do suggest that people who are not emotionally or religiously invested are open to logic and reasoning, and it is these people that there is some point in addressing. Genetic or choice the 'anti-brigade' will twist things around to try to have their way, however the only consistent premise is 'gay=bad'. It is this utterly unproven premise that needs to be addressed. Take that wind out of their sails and they will be left paddling in silly circles.

I believe there needs to be a general understanding what the gay rights situation is right before you jump off to conclusions that aren't really factual to begin with.
Someone having a different take and point of view on an issue to yourself, and someone having no general understanding of the issue, are not synomonous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

If you aren't going to debate based on the science and the facts, don't bother debating at all. :headbang:

If you are going to complain about how we aren't debating science and facts, don't cite a website where any idiot can post whatever they want. Try actual credible sources.

Calling me a "jackass" is not necessary. I didn't call you that.



If you think flaunting it means holding my boyfriend's hand in public, and briefly kissing him.. then that's your own problem. I'm going to do it whether you like it or not.



You are the one who has problems. I'm not forcing others to do anything. I want people to be understanding (that's why I'm in politics buddy). I'm more libertarian then you, therefore I know more about acceptance.

Your "hail (SIC) hitler" was just wrong and incorrect. It is more indicative of you.

heh, im Hitler ? Yeah I can see Hitler saying to the Jews "cant we just get along?"

Which Is what I was saying to you, and if the mods actually do their job and read through they will see how rude you were to bring on my aggression.

I see nothing wrong with you choosing to be how are you are. Just dont try to force (hitler) me or others to accept it.

Being all equal to our views there, and no one shoving their views on another.

No, but I believe there is a time and place for things, especially intimate, personal things. Or maybe we should just abolish all "decency" based laws...have people walking around naked, humping and defecating in your local shopping mall?

...anyway, this is getting pretty far off the posted topic...

There may be a time and a place for said things but what time and what place seems to be rather relative. I don't support decency laws. Sanitary, sure. I would rather people not defecate on public property. And I would rather people not have sex on places where my food is prepared. But outside of that, I do support people being able to do whatever they want, wherever they want without government interference.

I believe I do understand the situation, either way your comments neither determine if I do understand, nor deepen my understanding so they are not relevent. As for attacking you, again I can only point out that you have a very defensive attitude towards this issue and this appears to effect your perception of other people's comments.

Dude seriously what is your problem? ARe you looking for a fight here because whenever I see you show up... it just seems like you have sour grapes with me. I don't think you understand at all... and they are relevant. You need to understand the reality of the situation before you comment on it. You see I live in the situation, I work the situation.. you don't.


How do you mean 'nice'. It either is useful or not. In case it seemed to me it might be useful to compare the two, although apparently the point was not made as clear as I hoped it would be.

It isn't a useful comparsion and it was excessively crude. It is disgusting to even compare because it is irrelevant.


And so what? Why does it matter if it is a choice unless there is something wrong with homosexuality? If nothing is wrong with homosexuality, then what would be wrong with choosing to be homosexual (were such a choice possible)? Absolutely nothing!

it isn't a choice.

And yes it would be wrong in the eyes of religious bigots out there, and they would fight even more. They will continue to view it as wrong no matter what scientific evidence shows that it is genetics. These people are adherents to their religion like Al Qaeda is to terrorism.


No it wouldnt weaken their position, because they would simply substitute 'unfortunate birth defect' for 'sinful choice'.

No.

If it is correlated with several parts of the genetic code it wouldn't be a choice. You can't change the gene code.


That being the case proving it is genetic is a bit of a waste of time...

Hell no. It is very good for my cause, and you can't say otherwise. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. You simply don't understand what these religious people are like. I f--king encounter them often.

Genetic or choice the 'anti-brigade' will twist things around to try to have their way, however the only consistent premise is 'gay=bad'. It is this utterly unproven premise that needs to be addressed. Take that wind out of their sails and they will be left paddling in silly circles.

The genetics argument makes the gay rights movement stronger in fighting against these people.

We have taken the wind out of their sails.. that doesn't mean they make one hell of a splash.


Someone having a different take and point of view on an issue to yourself, and someone having no general understanding of the issue, are not synomonous.

You are someone who does not have a general understanding of this issue. This is clearly evident. You have this need to fight with someone who has been working with gay rights (and many gay people and activists) for years now.

heh, im Hitler ? Yeah I can see Hitler saying to the Jews "cant we just get along?"

You've called me a jackass, a stalinist, a nazi.. it doesn't seem to end.

Which Is what I was saying to you, and if the mods actually do their job and read through they will see how rude you were to bring on my aggression.

No. You were the rude on and you were the aggressive one. I took their orders to maintain civility.

I see nothing wrong with you choosing to be how are you are. Just dont try to force (hitler) me or others to accept it.

I didn't choose to be gay.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm essentially opening more minds.

There may be a time and a place for said things but what time and what place seems to be rather relative. I don't support decency laws. Sanitary, sure. I would rather people not defecate on public property. And I would rather people not have sex on places where my food is prepared. But outside of that, I do support people being able to do whatever they want, wherever they want without government interference.

aight , so you support controlled anarchy ? hehe

one or the other.

aight , so you support controlled anarchy ? hehe

one or the other.

Certain areas the government needs to stay out. It needs to protect the people but not control them.

I am well aware it will always exist. But if we are able to move it away from being "homosexuality is a sin" to "committing homosexual acts is a sin" then we have made a little bit of progress.
What do you mean move away? The mainstream christian position is not that it is wrong to feel the desire, but that it is wrong to act on the desire.



A pedophile who never commits any acts of pedophilia is not a criminal.
A person who does not engage in sexual acts involving children is not a pedophile, they may be described as having pedophilic inclinations, or even to desire pedophilia, but they are not a pedophile.

A homosexual who never commits any acts of homosexuallity is not a sinner (at least not for being homosexuality, assuming homosexuality is a sin). It takes away some ground from those who would argue it.
Many people do not believe that one is a homosexual unless they commit homosexual acts. In fact many people believe themselves to be 'cured' of homosexuality because even though they still have the inclination they choose to not act on it. Whether or not the inclination is a choice is not the issue, christians who are against homosexuality believe that whatever motivates the desire, the act is a choice and that it is wrong. That genetics is the cause of this does not in any way effect the argument 'they can choose to not act on their inclination', and that is the argument I most often see.

That is what I meant, and I think you know that. Stop being picky.
I'm not being picky, my point (although perhaps a little understated) is that those who oppose homosexuality do not care how justifiable the inclination is, they refuse to accept that people should not be prevented from acting on the inclination. Compare this to heterosexual pre-marital sex, those who think it is wrong are not denying that there may be a genetic cause to the desire to have sex (even though not married) what they argue is that it is wrong to act on the inclination.

There is no justification but I am merely trying to damage the arguments of those who feel there is.
But it doesnt damage their argument, because you can only at best prove where the desire, inclination and motivation come from (presuming a provable genetic cause), not the choice to act in accordance with the desire, inclination and motivation.


Yes, they will. And that debate will come when we actually reach that point.
Not if you pre-empt them by destroying the argument before it becomes as hegemonic as 'choice=excuse to interfere' has become.

You've called me a jackass, a stalinist, a nazi.. it doesn't seem to end.



No. You were the rude on and you were the aggressive one. I took their orders to maintain civility.



I didn't choose to be gay.

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. I'm essentially opening more minds.

Well, if it helps, from reading what you say. It is you I do not like. Not your sexual preference. I see you are playing nicer and nicer as things go. But you started out it is my way or the highway. And that is where I come from.

All people are equal, and free to be as they wish. Even if it means they dislike straight christians like me I respect it.

I dont try to force my views on others. Take a lower abrasivness yourself and you will find more allies I wager. Even me since I dont hate your lifestyle.

Well, if it helps, from reading what you say. It is you I do not like. Not your sexual preference. I see you are playing nicer and nicer as things go. But you started out it is my way or the highway. And that is where I come from.

I don't like you either. I don't care what you think and you know what? I could care less about what you want. I'm going to make out with my boyfriend in public no matter what you want.

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :upyours: :p :fluffle: :eek:

Can anyone explain the logic of WHY homosexuality is viewed as a sin?

The only logic I can see is that it doesn't make babies, which would outlaw contraception, sex any time other than ovulation or sex for sterile men or women.

Are there any other logical reasons why homosexuality is a sin?

Dude seriously what is your problem?
How much time do have...? ;)
Seriously though, I have no particular problem with you.

ARe you looking for a fight here because whenever I see you show up... it just seems like you have sour grapes with me.
No, and I have no idea why you think that, other than I do not happen to conform to your every opinion....

I don't think you understand at all... and they are relevant. You need to understand the reality of the situation before you comment on it. You see I live in the situation, I work the situation.. you don't.
Experiance with a particular rights organisation or type of organisation is not needed in order to be able to understand whether or not an argument is valid. The argument 'if it's genetics that ok but if it is a choice that's not ok' is invalid.

It isn't a useful comparsion and it was excessively crude. It is disgusting to even compare because it is irrelevant.
I disagree with the usefulness of the comparison, and do not see it in the least bit as crude. If it were irrelevent, that would not make it disgusting, in error perhaps.

it isn't a choice.
Strawman, you have avoided the point I was making and instead have responded to a point that I have not ever made.

And yes it would be wrong in the eyes of religious bigots out there, and they would fight even more. They will continue to view it as wrong no matter what scientific evidence shows that it is genetics. These people are adherents to their religion like Al Qaeda is to terrorism.
So you see the irrelevence of proving cause in order to make headway with these people. It just will not work, it may however mislead others (ie people who could be reasoned with) into believing that the issue is 'if genetics ok, if choice then not ok'. This is not something that can strengthen your position. People who can be reasoned with need to know that the real issue is not why people are homosexual, but the fact that they are fully within their rights to act according to their nature so long as they are not interfering in other people's equal rights to do likewise.


No.

If it is correlated with several parts of the genetic code it wouldn't be a choice. You can't change the gene code.
You have entirely missed the point. Downs syndrom is caused by genetics, it is entirely possible to screen for Down's syndrom and to abort if the condition is present. Those born with Down's syndrom recieve treatment in order to minimise the 'symptoms'. What is to prevent homosexuality being considered as a defect or disease if it is proven to be genetic? What is to prevent the biggots demanding homosexuals be aborted if it is possible to screen, and treated as 'incompetent due to illness' for purposes of interfering with their freedom? Absolutely nothing! If you move away from the rightness/wrongness aspect, you lose either way because these people do not lack creativity when it comes to oppressing others. Again if someone says choice they say 'sin, so it needs fixing' if someone says genetics they say 'defect, so it needs curing'. The real issue is whether or not homosexuality is wrong. Again I challenge anyone to prove through objective reasoning being applied to salient facts that homosexuality is wrong. I dont believe that it can be done, however I know that it can be argued that 'genetic=defect' because I have seen them do it.


Hell no. It is very good for my cause, and you can't say otherwise. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. You simply don't understand what these religious people are like. I f--king encounter them often.
Do you think I dont encounter religious people, many of them are quite nice. It's the bigots that worry me, and I surely do know what they are like. As for being good for your cause you are now contradicting yourself. You say nothing will convince them, which would include genetics as a cause. Either they can be convinced and reasoned with or they cant. If they can then lets stick to reasoning, if they cant, then any effort is wasted.

The genetics argument makes the gay rights movement stronger in fighting against these people.
I do not see that as being the case. Why is the gay rights position stronger in the face of 'fix the birth defect' than it is in the face of 'thats a really naughty choice', and in fact how does genetics even effect the latter since you cannot prove the acts are caused by genetics, only the inclination.
Why would having bigots argue "a genetic defect causes and inclination that homosexuals could choose to not act on" help your cause, because so far as I can see, if genetics is proven as the cause such an argument will inevitably replace the 'choice is bad'. If you insert 'genetics cause the inclination' into the following argument, it does not change the conclusion
acting on homosexual acts is a sin
therefore we should opress homosexuals

We have taken the wind out of their sails.. that doesn't mean they make one hell of a splash.
I have to disagree. I was shocked and appalled to know that even one State would act to legislate against homosexuals getting married. Sure one could expect in the situation that states may not make provision for the recognition of the right of homosexuals to marry, but to actually invent legislation to prevent it occuring....way over the top!

You are someone who does not have a general understanding of this issue. This is clearly evident.
I dont see that it is clear at all.

You have this need to fight with someone who has been working with gay rights (and many gay people and activists) for years now.
No I do not, however the fact that you have worked with X Y Z organisation does not make you right about every issue related to the activities of such organisations, nor does it grant you immunity from people commenting on your views in an internet forum designed so people can comment on one anothers views.

Oh come on.. do you really have any argument or do you just blabber on and on?

No, and I have no idea why you think that, other than I do not happen to conform to your every opinion....
I don't think you have the basis for your opinion.


Strawman, you have avoided the point I was making and instead have responded to a point that I have not ever made.

No strawman.


So you see the irrelevence of proving cause in order to make headway with these people. It just will not work, it may however mislead others (ie people who could be reasoned with) into believing that the issue is 'if genetics ok, if choice then not ok'. This is not something that can strengthen your position. People who can be reasoned with need to know that the real issue is not why people are homosexual, but the fact that they are fully within their rights to act according to their nature so long as they are not interfering in other people's equal rights to do likewise.

Blah blah blah.... you need to re-examine your arguments. I'm going to bed pretty soon because I have a date with my boyfriend tomorrow. I'm tired of people like you who think you know everything... the fact is you know very little about gay rights. You know very little about genetics, or social implications.

You have entirely missed the point. *SNIPED FOR BS* I dont believe that it can be done, however I know that it can be argued that 'genetic=defect' because I have seen them do it.

You cannot change the genetic code. That is something you simply cannot do. You don't understand what you are talking about. And you bring up more irrelevant examples into this..

And I don't really want to go through anymore of your crap.. if you have an issue with me or how I do things.. then that's your own problem. You don't know what you're taling about, and you proved your total ignorance of what the social reality is.

I deleted the rest of your post because I don't think your posts are worthy of any more replies. You are over-criticial and I don't understand why you are being so over-critical of me. And when it comes to the genetics argument.. you haven't a clue on how it could help the gay rights movement.. you just continue to reject it without any basis.

Your argument is totally subjective, totally off-based, and totally erroenous.

Can anyone explain the logic of WHY homosexuality is viewed as a sin?
Because some people reckon this really old book told them so.

The only logic I can see is that it doesn't make babies, which would outlaw contraception, sex any time other than ovulation or sex for sterile men or women.
Right, which means it's not logic at all. As you have correctly inferred the argument about 'making babies' is simply an excuse thought up to justify the notion of it being wrong.

Are there any other logical reasons why homosexuality is a sin?
If there are, they have entirely escaped my attention. I am not aware of any good reason to conclude that homosexuality is wrong, bad, a sin etc...

Oh come on.. do you really have any argument or do you just blabber on and on?
Indeed I do have an argument. It is ironic that of the two of us, I can recognise your argument, and yet you are the one telling me I am missing your point.


Blah blah blah.... you need to re-examine your arguments.
I have examined my arguments, if there is some flaw to them, it appears I am not able to recognise it without assistance, since you can, perhaps you could help me out on this one?

I'm going to bed pretty soon because I have a date with my boyfriend tomorrow.
I hope you both have a great time.

I'm tired of people like you who think you know everything...
LOl, oh the irony!

the fact is you know very little about gay rights. You know very little about genetics, or social implications.
Whatever makes you think that I know very little about gay rights? How do you reach the conclusion that I know very little about genetics or there social implications?

You cannot change the genetic code. That is something you simply cannot do.
Actually this is not true...may I direct you back to your own sources...fruitflies ring any bells?

You don't understand what you are talking about. And you bring up more irrelevant examples into this..
Do I not? In what respect? Specific example please, it's very difficult to believe you actually have a point when you insist on vague accusations.

And I don't really want to go through anymore of your crap.. if you have an issue with me or how I do things.. then that's your own problem.
Why do you think I have an issue with you particularly (aside from the fact that being paranoid doesnt mean people are not out to get you)?

You don't know what you're taling about, and you proved your total ignorance of what the social reality is.
So you keep saying, yet I cant help but think if you actually had counter points you'd employ them instead of the same tired accusations about not knowing what I am talking about.

I deleted the rest of your post because I don't think your posts are worthy of any more replies. You are over-criticial and I don't understand why you are being so over-critical of me.
Ok reality check! You have been incredibly rude to me on numerous occassions, simply because you do not agree with, or like what I have to say. To accuse me of being overly critical is either dishonest or dellusional. Please try to be a bit more objective and consider the fact that people come to internet discussion forums to discuss things with other people.

And when it comes to the genetics argument.. you haven't a clue on how it could help the gay rights movement.. you just continue to reject it without any basis.
I do have a basis, if you suggested you disagreed and offered reasons, I might believe that you had not entirely missed the point. The fact that you claim I have no basis as opposed to basing my argument on an error, indicates that you have entirely missed the point.


Your argument is totally subjective, totally off-based, and totally erroenous.
Of course it is subjective. That doesnt mean it's not right. As for being erroneous, in what specific aspect?

You nit pick through every damn thing...

Indeed I do have an argument. It is ironic that of the two of us, I can recognise your argument, and yet you are the one telling me I am missing your point.

You are the one always missing points. You are missing the facts of my arguments. You are the one denouncing my experience. You know what? I could care the fcuk less what you think.

Your argument is right? when the hell was it ever?

You nit pick through every damn thing...



You are the one always missing points. You are missing the facts of my arguments. You are the one denouncing my experience. You know what? I could care the fcuk less what you think.

Your argument is right? when the hell was it ever?
I do not believe I did miss any of your points, however if you disagree please reiterate them.
I am not denouncing your experiance, and if you dont care what I think, it seems rather strange that you appear to get so worked up about it.

Once again I invite you to point out any specific flaws in my arguments, or any arguments or points you have made that you believe I have misunderstood or simply missed entirely.

I do not believe I did miss any of your points, however if you disagree please reiterate them.
I am denouncing your experiance, and if you dont care what I think, it seems rather strange that you appear to get so worked up about it.

Once again I invite you to point out any specific flaws in my arguments, or any arguments or points you have made that you believe I have misunderstood or simply missed entirely.

You are a little basher. You are no better then those christians who go on and on and on and on.. and all you do is criticize. You don't understand genetics if you did you would realize how vital it is for the gay rights movement.. and you can't change the gene code.. don't be ignorant! You don't understand gay rights.. and furthermore... good night.

You are a little basher.
Basher? Is that like someone who calls everyone else names and tells them know nothing if they dare to disagree? Mmm, I do know of someone just like that.

You are no better then those christians who go on and on and on and on.. and all you do is criticize.
Criticise, would be like someone who instead of addressing the points raised calls people names, makes accuasations about what they know and generally throws a temper tantrum every time people dont bow down to their opinions?

You don't understand genetics if you did you would realize how vital it is for the gay rights movement.
Understanding genetics and believing that they are 'vital' to gay rights, are not synomonous.

and you can't change the gene code..
So are you questioning the accuracy of the sources you provided. The whole thing about male fruit flies loosing interest in female fruit flies after their DNA was altered was a complete fairy tale? If you really believe that, it's hard to see why you would cite it as a source to back up your arguments.

don't be ignorant!
I try hard not to be.

You don't understand gay rights.. and furthermore... good night.
So you keep saying, but 'not understanding gay rights' and 'not agreeing with everything you say' are two entirely different things.

Good night, sweet dreams, and I hope your date tomorrow is fabulous.

Criticise, would be like someone who instead of addressing the points raised calls people names, makes accuasations about what they know and generally throws a temper tantrum every time people dont bow down to their opinions?

What points? You don't have points. You don't even bother using any sources. You don't have an argument. I already agreed to disagree with several people here, so that notion I throw temper tantrums everytime they bring up points is BS.

You twist words, you twist meanings, and you act like you know everything in the world when you can't even understand the reality.


I try hard not to be.

But you are.


Good night, sweet dreams, and I hope your date tomorrow is fabulous.

keep your awful sarcasm to yourself.

What points? You don't have points. You don't even bother using any sources. You don't have an argument. I already agreed to disagree with several people here, so that notion I through temper tantrums is BS.
What exactly do I need a source for, I do not doubt I could probably provide one for any facts that I have posted if you would point out what it is you would like confirmed. As for not throwing temper tantruns, I consider name calling to be a form of temper tantrum, other behaviour (such as agreeing to disagree) does not undo a temper tantrum once it's been thrown. As for not having points, it really is not my fault if they go over your head or you choice not take them in.


keep your awful sarcasm to yourself.
I was not being sarcastic Mesatecala, as I have already pointed out, I have no particular problem with you, whyever would I not want you to enjoy your sleep and have a fabulous time tomorrow?

What exactly do I need a source for, I do not doubt I could probably provide one for any facts that I have posted if you would point out what it is you would like confirmed. As for not throwing temper tantruns, I consider name calling to be a form of temper tantrum, other behaviour (such as agreeing to disagree) does not undo a temper tantrum once it's been thrown. As for not having points, it really is not my fault if they go over your head or you choice not take them in.

I don't consider it a temper tantrum. I just have to deal with stubborn people more harshly. Additionally, you don't have points. You never made them in the first place. And the blabbering you've done.. well I tossed that out.

I was not being sarcastic Mesatecala, as I have already pointed out, I have no particular problem with you, whyever would I not want you to enjoy your sleep and have a fabulous time tomorrow?

don't comment on my personal life. I don't like you, and I don't want your cyncial nonsense.

You are a little basher. You are no better then those christians who go on and on and on and on.. and all you do is criticize. You don't understand genetics if you did you would realize how vital it is for the gay rights movement.. and you can't change the gene code.. don't be ignorant! You don't understand gay rights.. and furthermore... good night.


Erm mesa?

Fellow gay guy here and I've been reading what Zagat has posted and I can't disagree. I don't see finding a genetic cause as a panacea nor vital for the gay rights movement. It's irrelevant and yes probably dangerous to do so and is probably why no one is really looking.

If they found 'the gene' tomorrow, people Like Neo Trogolia will be saying "well pedophilia. rape, incest and bestiality" might be genetic!

I do see a need to understand genetics as it applies to the human reproductive ecology. Heterosexuaity has obvious and tangible benefits but homosexuality *appears* to be dead end behavior. Then why is what overrides such an instinctual drive to reproduce so pervasive in humans? Can you think of any naturally occurring behvior that does that? Interesting isn't it?

People need to took at the big picture and I think that's the gists of Zagat's posts.

I don't consider it a temper tantrum. I just have to deal with stubborn people more harshly. Additionally, you don't have points. You never made them in the first place. And the blabbering you've done.. well I tossed that out.
Then we obviously have a different definition of temper tantrum.

You keep saying that everyone who does not agree with you does not have any points. Do you think it's a convincing argument? I mean are you trying to convince me (not working), trying to convince other posters (I rather suspect they can reach their own conclusions) or trying to convince yourself?

don't comment on my personal life.
I'll comment as I see fit. I note your insistence that you will not change to suit other posters, it seems appropriate to point out to you that we are no more obliged to change to suit you than you are to suit us. A free tip, if you do not want people to comment on your personal life, it may be a good idea to not tell them all about it. If you didnt think your date was any of my business, why tell me about it?

I don't like you,
You do not know me.

and I don't want your cyncial nonsense.
If you insist on interpreting well wishes as cynical or sarcastis, that's your issue, it might explain why you appear to be such an angry person. I really do not think it can be good for you and I certainly hope you are not as heated up and stressed out as your posts make you appear.

Chill a little, life can be good, but only if you let it.

Alright. I guess I'll agree to disagree because I do find the genetics issue very important. Well at least to myself. I think this thread has gone on long enough.

And yes I can say I don't like you, zagat. Based on what I know here. Personally, no offense or anything, I wouldn't ever want to get to know you.

Fuglies, I don't agree with you either. Please don't try to use your sexual orientation to gain leverage with me.

Alright. I guess I'll agree to disagree because I do find the genetics issue very important. Well at least to myself. I think this thread has gone on long enough.

Fuglies, I don't agree with you either. Please don't try to use your sexual orientation to gain leverage with me.

I wasn't and best of luck using yours to do just that.

I wasn't and best of luck using yours to do just that.

What? What i said was.. don't try to use your sexual orientation in order to gain credibility of my trust. I wasn't doing that to you.

And one last thing zagat, I'm not mad. I'm just frustrated with people like you. I don't really like your attitude, or your arguments. I just don't think care anymore.

I don't see finding a genetic cause as a panacea nor vital for the gay rights movement. It's irrelevant and yes probably dangerous to do so and is probably why no one is really looking.
I wish I could have phrased it so well as yourself.

If they found 'the gene' tomorrow, people Like Neo Trogolia will be saying "well pedophilia. rape, incest and bestiality" might be genetic!
I honestly believe that is exactly where they will head to. After all without it yet having been established in this thread there are examples of exactly this line of 'reasoning'.

The difference between homosexuality and rape etc is that homosexuality is not 'wrong/bad/sinful' etc. That distinction is significant difference between homosexuality and rape etc. Whether or not rape etc is a choice or genetic we are justified in attempting to prevent these things. The same is not true of homosexuality. Whatever the cause of homosexuality, I personally see no reason why people should disparage homosexuality or homosexuals, much less why they have the right to dictate their behaviour or circumscribe their legitimate choices (for instance marrying the consenting adult of their choice).

I do see a need to understand genetics as it applies to the human reproductive ecology. Heterosexuaity has obvious and tangible benefits but homosexuality *appears* to be dead end behavior. Then why is what overrides such an instinctual drive to reproduce so pervasive in humans? Can you think of any naturally occurring behvior that does that? Interesting isn't it?
It is very interesting indeed!

People need to took at the big picture and I think that's the gists of Zagat's posts.
Someone understands me...you totally rock New Fuglies! ;)

Someone understands me...you totally rock New Fuglies! ;)

Heh thanks... I wish more people were like you, including some of my young naive and oh so feisty brethren.

I used to be just like that but I got old and apathetic lol. :)

What? What i said was.. don't try to use your sexual orientation in order to gain credibility of my trust. I wasn't doing that to you.
Mesatecala throughout this thread you have used your sexuality in order to gain credibility for your comments or to discredit contrary (to your own) views.

And one last thing zagat, I'm not mad. I'm just frustrated with people like you. I don't really like your attitude, or your arguments. I just don't think care anymore.
Well I'm glad your not mad, although I'm sure that frustrated is much better. As for people like me, I really cannot conclude that you mean anything other than 'people who disagree with Mesatecala in any regard whatsoever'.

You know you were on a roll earlier in the thread, but you've slipped right back. People cannot pick holes in your argument if the weave is tight and you have demonstrated you are capable of weaving tightly, so why slacken up and revert to the melodramatics? :confused:

Mesatecala throughout this thread you have used your sexuality in order to gain credibility for your comments or to discredit contrary (to your own) views.

I'm not using that as leverage with other gay people on this forum, as fuglies tried to do with me. And that's all I'm saying.


You know you were on a roll earlier in the thread, but you've slipped right back. People cannot pick holes in your argument if the weave is tight and you have demonstrated you are capable of weaving tightly, so why slacken up and revert to the melodramatics? :confused:

I'm not slacken to anything. I will not listen to your crap. My argument has always been strong and it will remain strong. Good night. I've wasted enough time already.

I was on a roll? You can't say anything about it in this thread. My argument is so fucking strong, it is like a steel wall.

And you are talking about argument strength.. sheesh.. your arguments collapsed before you even made a conclusion. And you got the Fulgies agreeing with you.. great way to betray gay rights.

Good night!

Heh thanks... I wish more people were like you, including some of my young naive and oh so feisty brethren.

I used to be just like that but I got old and apathetic lol. :)
LOl, yeah as disgusted as it might make him, I cant help but have a soft spot for Mesatecala because he does remind me of myself a few years ago...

I think 'over exuberance' in youth is probably just an unavoidable aspect of intelligence...or at least that's my excuse! ;)

LOl, yeah as disgusted as it might make him, I cant help but have a soft spot for Mesatecala because he does remind me of myself a few years ago...

I think 'over exuberance' in youth is probably just an unavoidable aspect of intelligence...or at least that's my excuse! ;)

How dare you call me immature? I have a grasp on the facts. You don't. I am nothing like you, and never was like you in the past.

I'm not using that as leverage with other gay people on this forum, as fuglies tried to do with me. And that's all I'm saying.





For the second time my point was that I see nothing wrong with what Zagat is saying. I think it's actually very right. And who the heck appointed you spokesperson of the gay community? Should have I even mentioned I was gay? What if I said nothing about it or proclaimed my heteroness?

Gonna call me a basher too?

:confused:

For the second time my point was that I see nothing wrong with what Zagat is saying. I think it's actually very right. And who the heck appointed you spokesperson of the gay community? Should have I even mentioned I was gay? What if I said nothing about it or proclaimed my heteroness?

Gonna call me a basher too?

:confused:

I think it is actually very wrong. And i'm not going to change my mind. And I'm a spokesperson for myself. Thank you very much.

I don't care if you are gay or straight.. you try to use your gayness to get a softer answer out of me.

4AM now here.. well.. now I really need to get going. I stayed here far too long.

How dare you call me immature? I have a grasp on the facts. You don't. I am nothing like you, and never was like you in the past.
I didnt call you immature, and if I did, may I ask how that would relate to having a grasp on the facts? Evidently can you specify a particular fact I do not have a grasp on, (fact not opinion, fact)?

You really have no way of determining how like or unlike me you are, and I have not commented on any aspect of your personality in 'the past'. However I can most certainly tell you that you are not entirely unlike how I once was (which, before you head off down the wrong track is not the same as being exactly like, significantly similar or not dissimilar).

However I can most certainly tell you that you are not entirely unlike how I once was (which, before you head off down the wrong track is not the same as being exactly like, significantly similar or not dissimilar).

I am nothing like you. I am nothing like how you were in the past. You don't know me.

I think it is actually very wrong. And i'm not going to change my mind. And I'm a spokesperson for myself. Thank you very much.

I don't care if you are gay or straight.. you try to use your gayness to get a softer answer out of me.

4AM now here.. well.. now I really need to get going. I stayed here far too long.


Well when you;re better rested you can explain to us how 'teh gay gene' is vital to the gay rights movement. I'm 37 been out quite a while and it's news to me.

I am nothing like you. I am nothing like how you were in the past. You don't know me.
Lol, if my not knowing you personally means I cannot judge how much I was previosly like you, I do not see how you can possibly know that I was never like you. :p

It's an argument that you will get as much benefit out of as this :headbang:

I can at least claim to know something about the present you (ie that you do or do not call other people names), but you cannot honestly claim to know anything about me as I was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 15 years ago...

In essence, I have an unfair advantage on this one...

Lol, if my not knowing you personally means I cannot judge how much I was previosly like you, I do not see how you can possibly know that I was never like you. :p

It's an argument that you will get as much benefit out of as this :headbang:

I can at least claim to know something about the present you (ie that you do or do not call other people names), but you cannot honestly claim to know anything about me as I was 5 years ago, 10 years ago, or 15 years ago...

In essence, I have an unfair advantage on this one...

HOW DARE YOU TRY TO LEVERAGE THE OLDER FOLKS!!!

BASHER!!! :sniper:

:mad:

PS. One way or another I am gonna make this thread die!!!

Bugger me sideways with a violin Mesatecala, you really have provided a fantastic source of amusement here. Your application of logic could well be the birth of a whole new branch of mathematics, were your position correct. ("I'm atheist. And I strongly believe that." Quality :D )

Problem is I cant even work out quite what you position is. Either;
1. you hold the idea that homosexuality is entirely encoded in genetics, and that a gay person is so from conception.
2. you hold that genetics is a very important determining factor in a person being homosexual.

Thing is you constantly argue against others that hold position 2, discounting environmental factors. Yet at the same time you have little evidence for 1.

The page (http://www.psychdaily.com/article/734) you cite as most vital to your postion proves only two things. Firstly, that there is very little research in this field ("The first study to examine the entire human genome for genetic influence in male sexuality", date Jan 2005) and secondly, that you are willing to interpet a study to suit your point of view, even if it says nothing of the sort. From this vital proof:

"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual". my emphise is added, to draw on the fact this report's conclusion would be more in line with position 2.

"About 60 percent of the gay brothers shared these sequences. This is 10 percent higher than would be expected by chance". While 10% over a random sample is clearly statistically significant, one could just as easily attribute this to non genetic factors in light of the sample being made exclusivly of brothers.

Now lets make this very clear. I am not saying it is not genetic. Im just saying that if you hold position 2, then why the fc uk are you shouting the odds at others that agree with you.

If you however hold position 1, then i suggest you stop and reflect. Move you mind away from your hostility towards religion. Think about what the effects the existance of a "Gay Gene" might actually have on society and in particular what it might ultimately do for real rights.

Zagat, you have a problem. You can't determine someones character or how they are like on the internet. For all you know, I could be sitting here laughing at you.


Problem is I cant even work out quite what you position is. Either;
1. you hold the idea that homosexuality is entirely encoded in genetics, and that a gay person is so from conception.
2. you hold that genetics is a very important determining factor in a person being homosexual.

I said that genetics is a very large factor in determining ones sexuality, whether they be gay or straight. I never said that it is entirely was encoded in genetics. If you are that blind, then you have not been reading my posts fully. I have cleared this up.

Firstly, that there is very little research in this field ("The first study to examine the entire human genome for genetic influence in male sexuality", date Jan 2005) and secondly, that you are willing to interpet a study to suit your point of view, even if it says nothing of the sort. From this vital proof:

There is a lot more research in the genetic field then there is in the environmental one. The environmental field is very subjective at best. You really need to understand the facts I stated.


Now lets make this very clear. I am not saying it is not genetic. Im just saying that if you hold position 2, then why the fc uk are you shouting the odds at others that agree with you.

Wait a minute.. when did these people agree with me? As far as I'm concerned they haven't, and they (zagat in particular) have been after me. I don't care much for zagat.

If you however hold position 1, then i suggest you stop and reflect. Move you mind away from your hostility towards religion. Think about what the effects the existance of a "Gay Gene" might actually have on society and in particular what it might ultimately do for real rights.

I never said I held position one. I always have stated there never was one gene that determines sexuality, rather I said there are parts of the genetic code that are mainly responsible for this determination.,

So you are saying gays are human preditors and that is why we need to fund research for it ? If that is the case then yes, it is a good thing to spend money on.


:rolleyes:

Trying to answer quick before the nazi gets me banned :)


That probably counts as a Godwin.....

I want to start a new word... start its circulation/popularity right here in nationstates:

Homobigot

The homobigot is the person who discriminates against homosexuals in word and/or deed but is not afraid of them.

This term aptly describes that portion of people you currently refer to as homophobic that is not actually afraid of homosexuals/-ity, but is nonetheless against them/it.

Use of this word would confine the use of "homophobe/homophobic" to those for whom its word-parts' definitions apply: those who are afraid (phobia) of homosexuals (shortened to "homo"). As it stands, "homophobe/homophobic/homophobia" are applied to people and conditions when the logical definitions of these terms do not support the labelling of people as such.

Hence, the homobigot.

please begin using it. tell all your friends. Call them homobigots. And in 20 years, Webster's might just enter it into the English lexicon as a real word.

Nouns: Homobigot, homobigotry
Adjective: Homobigotic (homo-bih-GAH-tick)

If you are going to complain about how we aren't debating science and facts, don't cite a website where any idiot can post whatever they want. Try actual credible sources.

Why? You ignore the science part.

Use of this word would confine the use of "homophobe/homophobic" to those for whom its word-parts' definitions apply: those who are afraid (phobia) of homosexuals (shortened to "homo"). As it stands, "homophobe/homophobic/homophobia" are applied to people and conditions when the logical definitions of these terms do not support the labelling of people as such.

It actually applies to people who have an aversion or intolerance towards homosexuals:

Main Entry: -phobia
Function: noun combining form
Etymology: New Latin, from Late Latin, from Greek, from -phobos fearing, from phobos fear, flight, from phebesthai to flee; akin to Lithuanian begti to flee, Old Church Slavonic bezati
1 : exaggerated fear of <acrophobia>
2 : intolerance or aversion for <photophobia>

See?

Thus no need for a new word. The old one works just fine.

I want to start a new word... start its circulation/popularity right here in nationstates:

Homobigot

The homobigot is the person who discriminates against homosexuals in word and/or deed but is not afraid of them.

This term aptly describes that portion of people you currently refer to as homophobic that is not actually afraid of homosexuals/-ity, but is nonetheless against them/it.

Use of this word would confine the use of "homophobe/homophobic" to those for whom its word-parts' definitions apply: those who are afraid (phobia) of homosexuals (shortened to "homo"). As it stands, "homophobe/homophobic/homophobia" are applied to people and conditions when the logical definitions of these terms do not support the labelling of people as such.

Hence, the homobigot.

please begin using it. tell all your friends. Call them homobigots. And in 20 years, Webster's might just enter it into the English lexicon as a real word.

Nouns: Homobigot, homobigotry
Adjective: Homobigotic (homo-bih-GAH-tick)


HA! Nice effort Frang...I personally agree that this is a better word choice...and it's a lot harder to liberally overuse like "homophobe" I'll circulate the word and see if we can't get this off the ground. ^_^

In other news, I'm not going to argue in this thread anymore....Mesa's lack of common sense and reading ability make it extremely difficult to argue a valid point, and his hypocritical rantings are really starting to annoy me. And just so that I don't get in trouble for not using any sources, I'll use a few direct quotes from Mesa himself to emphasize this.

I am nothing like you. I am nothing like how you were in the past.
And yes I can say I don't like you, zagat. Based on what I know here.
You can't determine someones character or how they are like on the internet.

I think these quotes adequately prove his hypocrisy in certain areas, and there have been many more quotable examples within this thread when replying to people.

In other news, I'm not going to argue in this thread anymore....Mesa's lack of common sense and reading ability make it extremely difficult to argue a valid point, and his hypocritical rantings are really starting to annoy me. And just so that I don't get in trouble for not using any sources, I'll use a few direct quotes from Mesa himself to emphasize this.

I don't have a lack of common sense or reading ability. Thank you very much. My english is very fine. You are the one with hypocritical rantings. You also don't understand what you are talking about. You are taking things out of context. That's not right. You are the one starting to annoy me.. at least I'm not the one who believes in studies that are over 25 years old. :rolleyes:

There is no f**king hypocrisy in my statements.

If they found 'the gene' tomorrow, people Like Neo Trogolia will be saying "well pedophilia. rape, incest and bestiality" might be genetic!


Actually Neo has made the claim that homosexuals are pedophilliacs because if you look at their targets they tend to be boys.

In the over all scheme I think it could help because there are many "level" minded christians who think it's a choice because there is no compounding evideces that suggests otherwise. Some will change their views if it is shown that homosexuality happens because of this....

People like Neo will never change their views so do we stop asking questions because of what they might do with new found knowledge?


I do see a need to understand genetics as it applies to the human reproductive ecology. Heterosexuaity has obvious and tangible benefits but homosexuality *appears* to be dead end behavior. Then why is what overrides such an instinctual drive to reproduce so pervasive in humans? Can you think of any naturally occurring behvior that does that? Interesting isn't it?


Dead end behaviour? Ehheahhhhnaaaa I can't accept that apporach. Dead end behaviour to me would be the mule. They are born steril.

Many gay men still have to instinct to reproduce. Many of them make "donations" to sperm banks.

At most I would say that homosexuality for a very simplistic explanation is the machinery was just wired a little different.


People need to took at the big picture and I think that's the gists of Zagat's posts.

Well the pursuit of knowledge always has people in the way. If somebody want's to find an answer to the hypothesis, why should we deny them?

Every little discovery of the genome, every thing disproven about the genome only increases our understanding.

I don't have a lack of common sense or reading ability. Thank you very much. My english is very fine. You are the one with hypocritical rantings. You also don't understand what you are talking about. You are taking things out of context. That's not right. You are the one starting to annoy me.. at least I'm not the one who believes in studies that are over 25 years old. :rolleyes:

There is no f**king hypocrisy in my statements.

I don't believe in studies over 25 years old, I simply asked you to provide a source that said the 2 year old study was incorrect...but let's leave that discussion for the other thread. The sentence "My english is very fine" is making me laugh. Not because it's necessarily incorrect, but because it sounds awkward. Oh, and could you provide evidence of me being hypocritical?

I don't believe in studies over 25 years old, I simply asked you to provide a source that said the 2 year old study was incorrect...but let's leave that discussion for the other thread. The sentence "My english is very fine" is making me laugh. Not because it's necessarily incorrect, but because it sounds awkward. Oh, and could you provide evidence of me being hypocritical?

The study wasn't 2 years old. It was over 20 years old.

My english is fine enough.. and it doesn't sound awkward. You know what sounds awkward to me? That you are taking things out of context and misusing what I say. What can I say in response? SHUT UP.

The study wasn't 2 years old. It was over 20 years old.

My english is fine enough.. and it doesn't sound awkward. You know what sounds awkward to me? That you are taking things out of context and misusing what I say. What can I say in response? SHUT UP.

Where was I hypocritical? And It's not my fault that I didn't know the actual age of the study. The poster who cited it stated 2003 as the year, and some of the figured were drastically different than the ones he posted earlier on, which was from 1970 whatever....and that sentence did sound awkward

By the way, I never stated that I agreed with the figures, or his point at all...I was simply tired of you discounting everything that everybody says without evidence

Where was I hypocritical? And It's not my fault that I didn't know the actual age of the study. The poster who cited it stated 2003 as the year, and some of the figured were drastically different than the ones he posted earlier on, which was from 1970 whatever....and that sentence did sound awkward

The poster who cited it did not understand what he was talking about and has this agenda. I'll look into more about those two "doctors" and see where they are getting their funding from.

And no the sentence did not sound awkward.

And I discredit what people say with evidence. So please stop the f--king lying.

The poster who cited it did not understand what he was talking about and has this agenda. I'll look into more about those two "doctors" and see where they are getting their funding from.

And no the sentence did not sound awkward.

And I discredit what people say with evidence. So please stop the f--king lying.

No need to get snippy, and I really don't care about the doctors. Until you're pressed you don't cite sources for any of your information, especially when it's in regards to evidence that another person presents. You seem to be getting slightly better at it, but at the moment it's unimportant.

There is no proof of genetics playing a significant part of a person's sexuality.
There is no proof of environment playing a significant part of a person's sexuality.
There is no reason to insist upon anything yet. Until scientific research can prove otherwise, I will believe that it's not genetic, and even if scientific research does prove otherwise, you will never believe that it's not genetic. In any case, it means nothing to your gay rights movement. I still support giving gays equal rights, and the people who don't have no logical reason not to, and the law will be on your side, even if it doesn't turn out that science is.

No need to get snippy, and I really don't care about the doctors. Until you're pressed you don't cite sources for any of your information, especially when it's in regards to evidence that another person presents. You seem to be getting slightly better at it, but at the moment it's unimportant.

Well take a look at the sources I'm providing to discredit his age estimate of gay men... I've done that on my own thank you very much. I've done it on my own for my own case.


There is no reason to insist upon anything yet. Until scientific research can prove otherwise, I will believe that it's not genetic, and even if scientific research does prove otherwise, you will never believe that it's not genetic. In any case, it means nothing to your gay rights movement. I still support giving gays equal rights, and the people who don't have no logical reason not to, and the law will be on your side, even if it doesn't turn out that science is.

I believe there is evidence to prove genetics plays a primary factor. Scientific research will most likely prove my case, well at least I hope so.

No need to get snippy, and I really don't care about the doctors. Until you're pressed you don't cite sources for any of your information, especially when it's in regards to evidence that another person presents. You seem to be getting slightly better at it, but at the moment it's unimportant.

There is no proof of genetics playing a significant part of a person's sexuality.
There is no proof of environment playing a significant part of a person's sexuality.
There is no reason to insist upon anything yet. Until scientific research can prove otherwise, I will believe that it's not genetic, and even if scientific research does prove otherwise, you will never believe that it's not genetic. In any case, it means nothing to your gay rights movement. I still support giving gays equal rights, and the people who don't have no logical reason not to, and the law will be on your side, even if it doesn't turn out that science is.


You keep using the word "proof". In truth, there is no such thing as "proof" in science - there is only evidence. There is evidence of sexuality being largely determined by genetics - the same evidence we have for many things being largely genetic - correlative and family studies. There is also evidence of certain environmental factors within the womb having an effect. Some very good studies regarding hormone levels in the womb and sexuality have demonstrated that such hormone levels seem to affect sexuality.

What we have *not* seen, is any evidence at all suggesting that sexuality is determined by upbringing. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals all come from very diverse upbringings - single parent homes, married parents, loving homes, abusive homes, fundamentalist religious homes, non-religious homes, etc.

I heard someone say once, "If homosexuallity is genetic, than wouldn't that make it a genetic flaw. Don't we already have a name for people with genetic flaws? Retards right?" That's why if I were gay I would go with the-It's my choice and I'll do what I want-option.

Actually Neo has made the claim that homosexuals are pedophilliacs because if you look at their targets they tend to be boys.

.

Really?

It stands to reason Trogolia doesn't really know what she's talking about. Anyhoo if she waves much more of that around I will have a few words with the moderators and if that fails I will resort to the same ad hominem attacks or worse simply to make a point.

I seem to recall her whining about something similar in the mod thread not too long ago.

I'll touch on what else you wrote later after work.

NewF, again I'm sorry for lashing out at you like that.

Most pedophiles are homosexual? Not according to statistics.. some 95-96% of pedophiles are heterosexual men and have committed sex crimes against young girls.

I heard someone say once, "If homosexuallity is genetic, than wouldn't that make it a genetic flaw. Don't we already have a name for people with genetic flaws? Retards right?" That's why if I were gay I would go with the-It's my choice and I'll do what I want-option.


Uhhh, genetic flaws don't only manifest themselves as mental retardation. I'm left-handed. That's a genetic flaw. Normal people are born right-handed, but my genes are slightly fucked up leaving me left-handed, not retarded. Some people are born with, say, 6 fingers on each hand. That's not retarded, it's a genetic flaw though. Homosexuality is in the same category.

I wouldn't call it a flaw or a fuck up.. I would rather call it a feature or trait.

when jesus was on earth who did he associate with?
prostitutes, homosexuals, moneylenders,...basically
the people we find unsavable.

so, the christian right can shut up.

but, scientifically speaking, homosexuality is something not only
genetically but also environmentally brought about.
it's probable something we'll learn years in the future.
but, whatever, it should never affect the way we treat
people.

I'm Bush like. Homosexuality is not genetic. Who ever thought that up was one of those left wingers thought up. Let me get my good conservative friend robert novac to tell you what he thinks about that. Its all those "Laberals" who do nothing but hug trees and stop me from gettin' my precious "earl" that are so worried about this. The christians are right, they're always right, because im a christian. Thats how I got elected. God wanted me to become president, he told me so himself.

I'm Bush like. Homosexuality is not genetic. Who ever thought that up was one of those left wingers thought up. Let me get my good conservative friend robert novac to tell you what he thinks about that. Its all those "Laberals" who do nothing but hug trees and stop me from gettin' my precious "earl" that are so worried about this. The christians are right, they're always right, because im a christian. Thats how I got elected. God wanted me to become president, he told me so himself.

I'm gay, and I think homosexuality is mainly influenced by genetic. i'm also not a leftwinger. I'm libertarian. Apparently, you got some issues with democracy.

Wait a minute.. I wonder whose double nation this is?

What we have *not* seen, is any evidence at all suggesting that sexuality is determined by upbringing. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals all come from very diverse upbringings - single parent homes, married parents, loving homes, abusive homes, fundamentalist religious homes, non-religious homes, etc.
Actually I interpret the information arising from Herdt's feildwork among the 'Sambia' as evidence of environmental/upbringing being a factor in sexuality. (Of course as you quite rightly point out evidence and proof are not at all the same thing.)

Herdt's work strongly indicates that environment/upbringing can be a very significant factor in the formation of an individual's sexuality.

Uhhh, genetic flaws don't only manifest themselves as mental retardation. I'm left-handed. That's a genetic flaw. Normal people are born right-handed, but my genes are slightly fucked up leaving me left-handed, not retarded. Some people are born with, say, 6 fingers on each hand. That's not retarded, it's a genetic flaw though. Homosexuality is in the same category.
Left handedness is not a genetic flaw.

Wait a minute.. I wonder whose double nation this is?
It's just John Kerry trying to get his own back, crazy politicians! :rolleyes:

Herdt's work strongly indicates that environment/upbringing can be a very significant factor in the formation of an individual's sexuality.

I strongly disagree... I mean come on.. how is an upbringing important at all? The upbringing argument has to be some of the weakest out there.

What we have *not* seen, is any evidence at all suggesting that sexuality is determined by upbringing. Homosexuals, bisexuals, and heterosexuals all come from very diverse upbringings - single parent homes, married parents, loving homes, abusive homes, fundamentalist religious homes, non-religious homes, etc.
You are over simplifying the environmental factors. I don't thing anyone has claimed (well, certainly not me personally) that "broken home = homosexual child", "loving Christian home = straight child" or anything so simplistic. There are a myriad of factors that imprint on our minds and personas as we are growing up: family attitudes, friends attitudes, role models, et al ad infinitum...

I actually did provide some links a few days back (may have been in the thread that got locked, and not this one). When I get a chance, I'll post some again...

I feel I need to point out again that I don't believe it is exclusively environamental, but a combination of genetic and environmental factors. I think even Mesa would agree with me on that - I think we would mainly differ on what the relative percentages are...

Actually I interpret the information arising from Herdt's feildwork among the 'Sambia' as evidence of environmental/upbringing being a factor in sexuality. (Of course as you quite rightly point out evidence and proof are not at all the same thing.)

Herdt's work strongly indicates that environment/upbringing can be a very significant factor in the formation of an individual's sexuality.

Ahhh Gil the flute man! ;)

Ever read his essays?

His work gives him a spot in history but don't forget he isn't perfect. Some of his papers (later on) that delt with homoerotism, etc. are not wholly accepted.

Also, keep in mind the question of how much outside influences his study group received. Are they an example for all or simply an isolated case?

Good reference there! :)

I strongly disagree... I mean come on.. how is an upbringing important at all? The upbringing argument has to be some of the weakest out there.
I find it highly unlikely that the majority of the 'Sambia' are genetically predisposed to the sexual patterns observed. Can you offer an alternative interpretation of Herdt's findings?

I find it highly unlikely that the majority of the 'Sambia' are genetically predisposed to the sexual patterns observed. Can you offer an alternative interpretation of Herdt's findings?

Wait... I misinterpreted. My apologies.

Ahhh Gil the flute man! ;)

Ever read his essays?
I've read an ethnography of the Sambia and his essay and introduction in an anothology of anthropological essays on semen practises.

His work gives him a spot in history but don't forget he isn't perfect. Some of his papers (later on) that delt with homoerotism, etc. are not wholly accepted.
No one is perfect! ;)
I think though that unless we can conclude that he largely fabricated the ethnological information regarding the 'Sambia', that the information still points towards likliehood that environment/upbringing can be a significant factor in the formation of an individual's sexuality.

Also, keep in mind the question of how much outside influences his study group received. Are they an example for all or simply an isolated case?

Good reference there! :)
Whether the influences come from the outside or not doesnt mitigate the fact that any such influences would be 'non-genetic'. Even if it is an isolated case if it is possible in an isolated case for sexuality to be significanly influenced by 'post-birth' environmental factors, then it is possible (if you know what I mean).

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition. Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

All those homosexual animals constantly fantasizing. They need to find God so they can be scared straight.

Seriously, I've seen some great ones, but sexual attraction is a fantasy? Can you show me what biologist, psychologist, or any scientist that has proven this with a study? Or this just more crap Greenlander made up?

All those homosexual animals constantly fantasizing. They need to find God so they can be scared straight.

Seriously, I've seen some great ones, but sexual attraction is a fantasy? Can you show me what biologist, psychologist, or any scientist that has proven this with a study? Or this just more crap Greenlander made up?

Gee, Jacobia, you’re right, perhaps a good test to find out if animals have imaginations should be done… Let me think, perhaps we could collect a bunch dogs together and we will feed them once a day, and each time we feed them, we will ring a bell. We will do this every day, for a few weeks I suppose, so that they will always hear the bell while they are eating. Then, we will start to move the bell ringing earlier and earlier before the meal, but we will let the dogs smell the aroma of the food before we actually give it to them. Then, after a few weeks of that, we will move the bell to start even before the smell or the food is presented to them so that we can test to see if the dogs will learn to associate the sound of the bell with meal time/feeding. At the end, assuming I am right that animals do have imaginations and can associate body functions to desire, one day with just the bell and no smell and no food presented, we will test to see if the dogs start to salivate by just the sound of the bell…


…We interrupt this post to bring you the latest BREAKING NEWS…


This news just came across our desk… Some guy named Pavlov has successfully finished testing his dogs and seems to have trained them to associate body functions with inanimate objects and sounds… Dog DO learn to associate … We send you back to your regularly scheduled posting by Jacobia stating that this is entirely not at all what he was talking about and salivating does not prove that sexual desire can be learned….

*Greenlander gets the dogs back in the room, finds a bitch in heat and gets the bell :rolleyes: *

Gee, Jacobia, you’re right, perhaps a good test to find out if animals have imaginations should be done… Let me think, perhaps we could collect a bunch dogs together and we will feed them once a day, and each time we feed them, we will ring a bell. We will do this every day, for a few weeks I suppose, so that they will always hear the bell while they are eating. Then, we will start to move the bell ringing earlier and earlier before the meal, but we will let the dogs smell the aroma of the food before we actually give it to them. Then, after a few weeks of that, we will move the bell to start even before the smell or the food is presented to them so that we can test to see if the dogs will learn to associate the sound of the bell with meal time/feeding. At the end, assuming I am right that animals do have imaginations and can associate body functions to desire, one day with just the bell and no smell and no food presented, we will test to see if the dogs start to salivate by just the sound of the bell…


…We interrupt this post to bring you the latest BREAKING NEWS…


This news just came across our desk… Some guy named Pavlov has successfully finished testing his dogs and seems to have trained them to associate body functions with inanimate objects and sounds… Dog DO learn to associate … We send you back to your regularly scheduled posting by Jacobia stating that this is entirely not at all what he was talking about and salivating does not prove that sexual desire can be learned….

*Greenlander gets the dogs back in the room, finds a bitch in heat and gets the bell :rolleyes: *

So learning is fantasizing? The bell proved that the association can cause an autonomic response on the part of the dog. The dog wasn't fantasizing about food. It was preparing to eat. I'm certain you know the difference and posted in error. I'll give you an opportunity to correct, because I know how you dislike looking silly.

stupid paradox.... but as i good catholic i say they choose to be gay! (ok i really am gonna be yelled at by the gay community of ns but im not a homophobe so dont be too mean)

It is funny how greenlander fails to provide sources for any of these "studies". Links? Anything? Maybe this time to studies that can't be so easily discredit by me.

Hey merc, why would I choose to be gay? :rolleyes:

It is funny how greenlander fails to provide sources for any of these "studies". Links? Anything? Maybe this time to studies that can't be so easily discredit by me.

Hey merc, why would I choose to be gay? :rolleyes:
heh u probably didnt. i said idealy... i dont necessarily believe it....but idealy...

We send you back to your regularly scheduled posting by Jacobia stating that this is entirely not at all what he was talking about and salivating does not prove that sexual desire can be learned ... So learning is fantasizing? The bell proved that the association can cause an autonomic response on the part of the dog. The dog wasn't fantasizing about food. It was preparing to eat. I'm certain you know the difference and posted in error. I'll give you an opportunity to correct, because I know how you dislike looking silly.


Did I call that or what? LOL :D What a ninny, he couldn't wait to read it all before responding... :p

Why don't you go back and re-read the actual quote that you cited to start this nonsense...

I said and you cited:

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition . Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

*bold added for emphasis now.


I'm sorry Jacobia but I didn't lock myself into 'Fantasy’, you locked yourself into it...

Hope to hear that your reading comprehension classes are still planned for the near future, perhaps we’ll be able to notice your collective improvement in this arena sometime soon?

It is funny how greenlander fails to provide sources for any of these "studies". Links? Anything? Maybe this time to studies that can't be so easily discredit by me.

Hey merc, why would I choose to be gay? :rolleyes:


You need links to a Pavlov’s dog study? You are kidding right? You are a college student aren't you?

You need links to a Pavlov’s dog study? You are kidding right? You are a college student aren't you?

Yes. I understand you are spewing hot air. And you truly are full of it.

heh u probably didnt. i said idealy... i dont necessarily believe it....but idealy...

I certainly didn't.

Ideally? Can you prove it? You don't necessarily believe your own statements? :confused:

Yes. I understand you are spewing hot air. And you truly are full of it.


You don't have a clue do you? Go look it up, study for a couple of semesters and then come back and try again, but hey, thanks for playing.

You don't have a clue do you? Go look it up, study for a couple of semesters and then come back and try again, but hey, thanks for playing.

I have a clue. You are the one who doesn't. And furthermore, you are spewing more crap then one can count. I'm not kidding. I made you look really bad several times, and you run away.

I have a clue. You are the one who doesn't. And furthermore, you are spewing more crap then one can count. I'm not kidding. I made you look really bad several times, and you run away.


At a certain point a person gets tired of answering a stubborn child's abuse of the word 'why.' You have achieved that level of discourse on many occasions.

At a certain point a person gets tired of answering a stubborn child's abuse of the word 'why.' You have achieved that level of discourse on many occassions.

At a certain point one who gets proven wrong enough, squeals and runs away.. that's you. You just don't address the facts and you have a breakdown in your logic that prevents you in doing so.

*snip*
Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition . Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.



Greenlander :rolleyes:

So you are suggesting we can get a pavlovian response to cause homosexual responses?

Ok who trained the gay population to respond?

Why not take a look at Harlow if you want to see basic needs versus "learned" needs.

At a certain point one who gets proven wrong enough, squeals and runs away.. that's you. You just don't address the facts and you have a breakdown in your logic that prevents you in doing so.

Did you look up Pavlovs Dogs yet? :rolleyes:

Did I call that or what? LOL :D What a ninny, he couldn't wait to read it all before responding... :p

Why don't you go back and re-read the actual quote that you cited to start this nonsense...

I said and you cited:

Why don't you substantiate your hypothesis by showing any evidence whatsoever that any sexual attraction (heterosexual, homosexual or other), is ever anything other than a fetish. I’m suggesting that ALL sexual desire, all fantasy of the individual, is always fetish, fixation, obsession, passion or addictive disposition . Yours would be no different than anybody else’s.

*bold added for emphasis now.


I'm sorry Jacobia but I didn't lock myself into 'Fantasy’, you locked yourself into it...

Hope to hear that your reading comprehension classes are still planned for the near future, perhaps we’ll be able to notice your collective improvement in this arena sometime soon?

You don't know how to actually associate things. I'll go slow (or you read slow since I can't control the speed).

You associated sexuality to fantasy and I called you on it. Before you go into some crap response who you didn't. Let's say I say, "all trucks, all cars, pollute the earth." I've just associated trucks and cars as being virtually the same.

I know how you like to try to change the subject or flip things around until we're not talking about the same thing anymore and this is another case. Pavlov proved they dogs can learn to associate the bell to the food or even the feeding times to the food. It's a learned response. Proving there is such a thing as a learned response doesn't cover any ground to proving that sexuality is a learned response. So either show how dogs are being taught to be homosexual in the wild. Or you're full of crap. Support the former or we'll settle on the latter. Actually, we've already settled but if you support the former, we'll accept that for once you've actually got a learned point.

At a certain point a person gets tired of answering a stubborn child's abuse of the word 'why.' You have achieved that level of discourse on many occasions.

Someone hasn't learned to stop flaming. Reported.

Greenlander :rolleyes:

So you are suggesting we can get a pavlovian response to cause homosexual responses?

Ok who trained the gay population to respond?

Why not take a look at Harlow if you want to see basic needs versus "learned" needs.

Pavlov’s Dogs proves that imagination is strong enough to influence the body's functions in a measurable and physical way. It puts a damper on the suggestion that genetic alone determines our physiology, mental association and physical customization have a learned and 'choice' affect. Unless you all think you are unable to choose your own 'bells' that is. I happen to know that we do have a choice on which 'bells' to listen to.

Someone hasn't learned to stop flaming. Reported.


:rolleyes:

Pavlov’s Dogs proves that imagination is strong enough to influence the body's functions in a measurable and physical way. It puts a damper on the suggestion that genetic alone determines our physiology, mental association and physical customization have a learned and 'choice' affect. Unless you all think you are unable to choose your own 'bells' that is. I happen to know that we do have a choice on which 'bells' to listen to.

Seriously what is with the harping with someone BS like pavlov's dogs? You need to understand sexuality is not a choice. It isn't something a human can change. That's a fact. And guess what? The AMA is behind me on that one.

Pavlov’s Dogs proves that imagination is strong enough to influence the body's functions in a measurable and physical way. It puts a damper on the suggestion that genetic alone determines our physiology, mental association and physical customization have a learned and 'choice' affect. Unless you all think you are unable to choose your own 'bells' that is. I happen to know that we do have a choice on which 'bells' to listen to.

They aren't imagining. They have learned they are about to eat so their body prepares. What was that you were saying about learning more about this?

Now, if you'd like to support your last two sentences, we'd love to see it. Or is just more "it's true, because I said so."

Pavlov’s Dogs proves that imagination is strong enough to influence the body's functions in a measurable and physical way. It puts a damper on the suggestion that genetic alone determines our physiology, mental association and physical customization have a learned and 'choice' affect. Unless you all think you are unable to choose your own 'bells' that is. I happen to know that we do have a choice on which 'bells' to listen to.

Ahh but Harlow showed the basic core needs will override influences such as pleasure.

:rolleyes:

Roll your eyes if you like. Let the strength of your points carry instead of backing them with flamish words. You aren't attempting to have a reasoned discussion. If your points are strong, why wouldn't you do everything you could to keep the discussion on reason?

So either show how dogs are being taught to be homosexual in the wild. Or you're full of crap.

And, as I said before you responded...
*Greenlander gets the dogs back in the room, finds a bitch in heat and gets the bell *

But you want to add the words, in the wild. :rolleyes:

Fine, a Dog, a dog that humps every man, woman or any other specie's leg every time someone enters the room and it gets excited. But you say that it has suddenly learned homosexual identity because it humps other dogs as well? If you say so. :p I think not. We know dogs, we also know that dogs hump any moving creature in the room, it doesn't prove they are gay, it proves they are dogs...

We choose what we want to hump, at least I hope we do *looks around room suspiciously*

Roll your eyes if you like. Let the strength of your points carry instead of backing them with flamish words. You aren't attempting to have a reasoned discussion. If your points are strong, why wouldn't you do everything you could to keep the discussion on reason?

You didn't bring this thread out of the depths for discussion... you brought it up for flame... good for you, you hypocrite.

They aren't imagining. Based on what? There is no food, no smell of food. Bell sound remind them of food past and they imagine the smells of food future and begin to anticipate.


They have learned they are about to eat so their body prepares. What was that you were saying about learning more about this?

Now, if you'd like to support your last two sentences, we'd love to see it. Or is just more "it's true, because I said so."

Look who's talking.

Roll your eyes if you like. Let the strength of your points carry instead of backing them with flamish words. You aren't attempting to have a reasoned discussion. If your points are strong, why wouldn't you do everything you could to keep the discussion on reason?

Look he's totally utterly incapable of having a debate without flaming, and he's incapable of providing evidence for what he says. He simply cannot substantiate himself.. sad indeed.

srry for being away for a lil mesatwhatevathehellyournameis well i mean according to my religions beliefs, but i dont neccessary believe it. Is that clearer? :confused:

We choose what we want to hump, at least I hope we do *looks around room suspiciously*

And do you remember consciously deciding you wanted to hump the opposite sex? Did you sit down one day while waiting for your pubes to grow in and list the pros and cons of both genders? Did you start weighing that list and ultimately decide that it would suit you best to go with the opposite sex? Because if you did, you may be the only one.

Wow, I've been away from here for a while...o.o

I thought this thread was going to die, I'm rather wishing that it just would at this point.....The flaming back and forth, pointless arguing, and lack of evidence supporting any side of this argument is really just turning this into a mess. Personally, I think this whole thing is just a little gay....

*shrugs*

I think perhaps the dog thing is stretching it a bit greenlander.....at first you made sense, but the farther into the thread we get the less sense you seem to be making. Nobody is going to change their view here, however....so to argue this point further is just asking to start the flaming again....maybe it's time we all just dropped it and let this thread drop below the first few pages into oblivion...

Wow, I've been away from here for a while...o.o

I thought this thread was going to die, I'm rather wishing that it just would at this point.....The flaming back and forth, pointless arguing, and lack of evidence supporting any side of this argument is really just turning this into a mess. Personally, I think this whole thing is just a little gay....

I'm not flaming him. I'm just saying he should back himself up, like I have numerous times and I have also discredited two studies he has posted.

Um, Greenlander, may I suggest that you PLEASE read B.F. Skinner before posting ideas about learned responce behavor as it applies to humans. Skinner was the leading expert on this before his death and I never have run into anything like you have stated using learned responce. Skinner noted that the mind could overide the body's conditioned responce, but not to the degree your are suggesting.

Skinner also noted that postive feedback needs constant reapllication in order not to fade away.

NewF, again I'm sorry for lashing out at you like that.



'S ok I actually understand and there was a time I probably would have taken Zagat's head off too.

I'm not flaming him. I'm just saying he should back himself up, like I have numerous times and I have also discredited two studies he has posted.

When did I accuse you of flaming? I said "back and forth" and I also didn't say that Greenlander was doing any flaming. However, there is flaming going on here, and it's been going on between both sides of this. I realize that you've discredited two studies, yipee, have a parade, I don't care. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there is flaming going on, and that it's getting annoying.

And, as I said before you responded...
*Greenlander gets the dogs back in the room, finds a bitch in heat and gets the bell *

But you want to add the words, in the wild. :rolleyes:

Fine, a Dog, a dog that humps every man, woman or any other specie's leg every time someone enters the room and it gets excited. But you say that it has suddenly learned homosexual identity because it humps other dogs as well? If you say so. :p I think not. We know dogs, we also know that dogs hump any moving creature in the room, it doesn't prove they are gay, it proves they are dogs...

We choose what we want to hump, at least I hope we do *looks around room suspiciously*

Your knowledge of biology is astounding. In dogs, humping, as you put it, is an attempt to dominate. Homosexuality is not about acts, it's about attraction. You mentioned bitches in heat. A homosexual dog does not respond to a bitch in heat. They are not attracted to the female sex. In some cases, male animals are found to behaving identically to the females of the species in more ways than just sexuality. There are also cases of female animals that are driven crazy by the pheremones (the heat part of bitch in heat) of another female, exactly like a male sexual response. You want to try again.

This is a very sore topic, it's sad that humans sometimes view their own beleifs so strongly that they will tell others they are wrong no matter what. What we should all acknowledge is this: Seperation of Church and State.

If someone wants/is/wasborn homosexual or whatever the case may be, then let them be that way, no one is forcing you to be however you are, and if they are you should step back and rethink your lifestyle/religion and do some soul searching. Then, and only then, will you understand that everyone is an individual, and will not think/act/speak/look/feel the same as you.

Give people some room to breathe, because I assure you everyone needs it. I think everyone should be treated equally with the same opportunities no matter the situation. If your religion tells you it's a sin, then don't do it yourself, no one is trying to get you to.

As far as the bible goes, I'm pretty sure it mentioned do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So on such a simplistic statement I can assume that you wouldn't want an agnostic or aethiest(sp?) persecuting you for believing in your god? I remember something about religious persecution that went on back in the early 1900s. It almost eradicated an entire sect of people.

So anyway, treat everyone fairly, and if your religion says to do otherwise and makes you a zealot because of it, then I'm sorry I wasted my time talking to you.

As for the homosexuals reading this, my apologies for the world not treating you as fair as everyone else. I truly understand the need of rights for people of your sexual orientation. The government in America likes to hide behind religion even though they claim it doesn't sway them.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm a heterosexual white male, just hoping we can all get along on this mudball without destroying it and ourselves first.

You didn't bring this thread out of the depths for discussion... you brought it up for flame... good for you, you hypocrite.

Wow, you got a flame out of me telling you were wrong, that you should support your statements and that I suspected you just made it up. You really should think about what a flame is.

Your response to a request that you discontinue flaming is to call me more names. Again, you have been offered an opportunity to learn the error of your ways. Perhaps I should get a bell.

Based on what? There is no food, no smell of food. Bell sound remind them of food past and they imagine the smells of food future and begin to anticipate.




Look who's talking.

They don't imagine. They were TAUGHT that when a bell sounds they will eat so their body prepares for what they think is imminent. They aren't anticipating smells. They are anticipating food.

I'll take that last to be an admission. I posted support for my theories earlier in the thread. I've posted support for what I believe in several other threads. Not editorials. Direct studies. But we're not talking about what I believe. We're talking about what you believe. So do you want to support your assertions or do you want to just keep attacking people?

Perhaps I should get a bell.

:D

This is a very sore topic, it's sad that humans sometimes view their own beleifs so strongly that they will tell others they are wrong no matter what. What we should all acknowledge is this: Seperation of Church and State.

If someone wants/is/wasborn homosexual or whatever the case may be, then let them be that way, no one is forcing you to be however you are, and if they are you should step back and rethink your lifestyle/religion and do some soul searching. Then, and only then, will you understand that everyone is an individual, and will not think/act/speak/look/feel the same as you.

Give people some room to breathe, because I assure you everyone needs it. I think everyone should be treated equally with the same opportunities no matter the situation. If your religion tells you it's a sin, then don't do it yourself, no one is trying to get you to.

As far as the bible goes, I'm pretty sure it mentioned do unto others as you would have them do unto you. So on such a simplistic statement I can assume that you wouldn't want an agnostic or aethiest(sp?) persecuting you for believing in your god? I remember something about religious persecution that went on back in the early 1900s. It almost eradicated an entire sect of people.

So anyway, treat everyone fairly, and if your religion says to do otherwise and makes you a zealot because of it, then I'm sorry I wasted my time talking to you.

As for the homosexuals reading this, my apologies for the world not treating you as fair as everyone else. I truly understand the need of rights for people of your sexual orientation. The government in America likes to hide behind religion even though they claim it doesn't sway them.

In case anyone is wondering, I'm a heterosexual white male, just hoping we can all get along on this mudball without destroying it and ourselves first.

it is sad that comments such as yours goes ignored, while the rest continue
to slam the opposing side. i said something similiar earlier, but nobody noticed
either. actually, i think this is a direct mirror image of what is going on in the
world today. people who actually think are ignored while the rest of the persons spew irrational opinions at each other. kudos to you :D

I have a clue. You are the one who doesn't. And furthermore, you are spewing more crap then one can count. I'm not kidding. I made you look really bad several times, and you run away.

At a certain point a person gets tired of answering a stubborn child's abuse of the word 'why.' You have achieved that level of discourse on many occasions.

You didn't bring this thread out of the depths for discussion... you brought it up for flame... good for you, you hypocrite.

Mesatecala: You've been warned before, and you continue with your insults. I suggest that you stop now, before you end up with a temporary forum ban.

Greenlander: Your post is just as bad. Just don't respond to posts like that. You need to watch your words too (in the next post), or else you'll end up with a warning.


~The Modified Freedom Forces of Euroslavia
Nationstates Forum Moderator~

it is sad that comments such as yours goes ignored, while the rest continue
to slam the opposing side. i said something similiar earlier, but nobody noticed
either. actually, i think this is a direct mirror image of what is going on in the
world today. people who actually think are ignored while the rest of the persons spew irrational opinions at each other. kudos to you :D

No response usually means:
They agree with you.
You are retarded and the effort to correct you is a waste.
They don't know what you are talking about.
You are right and they don't want to acknowledge it.

Then again the speed of this thread, comments can get buried rather fast.....

No response usually means:
They agree with you.
You are retarded and the effort to correct you is a waste.
They don't know what you are talking about.
You are right and they don't want to acknowledge it.

Then again the speed of this thread, comments can get buried rather fast.....

Judging by the majority of posts here, I'd agree with number 4.

Oh well, at least it's becoming amusing watching the back and forth flaming that nobody agrees is going on. ^_^;;

No response usually means:
They agree with you.
You are retarded and the effort to correct you is a waste.
They don't know what you are talking about.
You are right and they don't want to acknowledge it.



there is a difference between 'no response' and 'ignored'
i guess the ones agreeing just didn't post
as a wasteful individual i appreciate you recognizing
my mental capacity
i don't know if you know what you're talking about
smear away my dears...i know when i'm outwitted

Actually I interpret the information arising from Herdt's feildwork among the 'Sambia' as evidence of environmental/upbringing being a factor in sexuality. (Of course as you quite rightly point out evidence and proof are not at all the same thing.)

Herdt's work strongly indicates that environment/upbringing can be a very significant factor in the formation of an individual's sexuality.

I'm not aware of this work. Do you have any links?

You are over simplifying the environmental factors. I don't thing anyone has claimed (well, certainly not me personally) that "broken home = homosexual child", "loving Christian home = straight child" or anything so simplistic.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly what people have claimed.

I actually did provide some links a few days back (may have been in the thread that got locked, and not this one). When I get a chance, I'll post some again...

Please do.

I feel I need to point out again that I don't believe it is exclusively environamental, but a combination of genetic and environmental factors. I think even Mesa would agree with me on that - I think we would mainly differ on what the relative percentages are...

I would say the same thing, although I think that physical environmental factors seem to have a larger effect than psychological ones. The fact that a child can be told from the time they are born that being gay is evil and that they are going to hell for it and still be gay makes it pretty clear that things other than psychological conditioning are much more important.

stupid paradox.... but as i good catholic i say they choose to be gay! (ok i really am gonna be yelled at by the gay community of ns but im not a homophobe so dont be too mean)

You aren't a very good Catholic by going against Catholic dogma which clearly states that being homosexual is not a choice but that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy.

Go figure.

I'm not aware of this work. Do you have any links?



Actually, that is pretty much exactly what people have claimed.

And it is quite frightening that people claim that... I always wanted to see evidence for that. But the religious conservatives never have any.