NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a topic that has always confused me. Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

It seems illogical that being gay is genetic, since homosexuals are obviously less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, which would eventually remove whatever gene responsible from the population. But apparently, sexual orientation has varied since day one of history, so there must be a reason why the population ratio doesn't change significantly.

Also, I hear all the time about people who change sexual orientation at some point in their lives. I'd attribute most of those stories to closeted gays or fundamentalist propaganda. But if some of them are true, it sounds like it would have to be caused by environment.

And let's not forget the amount of data on animal homosexuality. I'm sure that's relevent somehow; certain species of animals have a higher percentage of homosexuality and bisexuality than others.

So which is it? And is it possible that our sexual orientation will change at some point in our lives?

Possibly. It may be a recessive gene that skips a generation (or forty). It may also be something to do with hormonal influences while in the mother's womb. In any case, I simply don't buy that it's enviromental. It doesn't fit with how I feel. I've fancied guys since before I knew there was a word for it.

Who really cares if it's genetic or not?

The simple point is that it exists.

It's pollution, I tells ya! We're getting all dem 'dere chemicals in thar atmosphere that makes the queer people go all wrong and start likin' men!

>_>

*Parody*

Seriously, though, I don't think it is genetic, but it's entirely possible. The gene that makes woman attracted to women may not be the same as the one that makes men attracted to men, and both might be recessive; in which case, it could be quite easily passed on from parent to child without any actual implementation of homosexuality. Furthermore, until fairly recently in history, men and women might have had children, even when their own personal sexual preference is for their own gender, due more to social pressures than to romantic or physical attraction.

This is a topic that has always confused me. Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

Oh, who gives a fuck? Whether we're born with our sexual orientation or not, it has no bearing on our rights to be what we are, and to fuck whichever consenting adult we want. It has no bearing on anything.

It seems illogical that being gay is genetic, since homosexuals are obviously less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, which would eventually remove whatever gene responsible from the population.

By the by, that's a seriously flawed assumption, seeing as straight parents are the ones who give birth to most homosexals, and gay parents don't have gay children more often than straight parents. One need not express a trait to pass it on.

dont know, dont care

if a man has sex with another man because he is genetically driven to it or because he just likes dick doesnt make any difference

there is nothing wrong with being gay or having sex with a person of the same gender. the reasons why its done can't possibly matter

i would, however, cross a man who proclaims he is gay off my list of men to date.

That was his point. And no one said anything about rights.

It's pollution, I tells ya! We're getting all dem 'dere chemicals in thar atmosphere that makes the queer people go all wrong and start likin' men!

>_>

*Parody*

Seriously, though, I don't think it is genetic, but it's entirely possible. The gene that makes woman attracted to women may not be the same as the one that makes men attracted to men, and both might be recessive; in which case, it could be quite easily passed on from parent to child without any actual implementation of homosexuality. Furthermore, until fairly recently in history, men and women might have had children, even when their own personal sexual preference is for their own gender, due more to social pressures than to romantic or physical attraction.
Does that mean that homosexuality will actually become more infrequent, since societal attitudes today are more accepting than in the past? i.e. fewer people will be pressured to be straight.

And even if it's a recessive gene, it would gradually be removed from the gene pool; say if your mother and father both had the dominant and the recessive gene, you would have a 25% chance of getting two recessives and being homosexual, a 25% chance of getting neither recessive gene, thus ceasing to carry it, and a 50% chance of being a carrier. It's been a while since I studied biology, but it seems that the only way for that to be offset would be if that recessive gene was a fairly common mutation that appeared spontaneously.

Who really cares if it's genetic or not?

The simple point is that it exists.
Indeed.

It's probably neither purely genetic nor environmental. Certain genes could make people more likely to become homosexual, such as how certain genes make people more succeptable to certain diseases (not calling homosexuality a disease here). Environmental factors probably trigger said genes, and thus the individual shows homosexual traits.

This is a topic that has always confused me. Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

It seems illogical that being gay is genetic, since homosexuals are obviously less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, which would eventually remove whatever gene responsible from the population. But apparently, sexual orientation has varied since day one of history, so there must be a reason why the population ratio doesn't change significantly.

Also, I hear all the time about people who change sexual orientation at some point in their lives. I'd attribute most of those stories to closeted gays or fundamentalist propaganda. But if some of them are true, it sounds like it would have to be caused by environment.

And let's not forget the amount of data on animal homosexuality. I'm sure that's relevent somehow; certain species of animals have a higher percentage of homosexuality and bisexuality than others.

So which is it? And is it possible that our sexual orientation will change at some point in our lives?

The problem is - if you suggest that homoseuality is genetic - people start seeing it as an aberration, and start looking for a 'gay gene'.

Personally - I think it likely that our specific orientation is spread over a number of genetic markers.... an effect that is determined by, possibly, a large number of individual genetic markers - which would explain the lack of clear heritability of orientation.

Oh, who gives a fuck? Whether we're born with our sexual orientation or not, it has no bearing on our rights to be what we are, and to fuck whichever consenting adult we want. It has no bearing on anything.
Unfortunately, here in the US those rights are being restricted by people who inexplicably believe that sexual orientation is a "choice". Our own president believes this (not that that's a huge shock). The standard position that I've heard is "if you can't explain it, then it must be a choice."

Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

This has no relevance whatsoever. Homosexuality is there, has always been, and always will be. There is no certain way to determine what is the cause, if there is any. Even medical studies that link homosexuality with different dosages of hormones while in the mother's womb or find subtle differences in the brain cannot distinguish cause from consequence.

Ultimately, I think the reason so many people are trying that hard to find a "cause" is because they somehow hope it might lead to "curing", "correcting" or "preventing" homosexuality. Such people are obviously biased and believe homosexuality is either inherently wrong or believe that heterosexuality is superior. X-men 3, anyone? We don't need your stinking cure.

Yups.. Gay genes would scare me silly. Imagine parents screening their kids for the evil gay gene, or mad moral majority doctor frankenstein wannabe's forcing sustected gays through genetherapy or whatever..

Just let people have sex with whomever wants to have sex with them.

There are more re-runs on NS than there are on US television in the summer. :eek:

This has no relevance whatsoever. Homosexuality is there, has always been, and always will be. There is no certain way to determine what is the cause, if there is any. Even medical studies that link homosexuality with different dosages of hormones while in the mother's womb or find subtle differences in the brain cannot distinguish cause from consequence.

Ultimately, I think the reason so many people are trying that hard to find a "cause" is because they somehow hope it might lead to "curing", "correcting" or "preventing" homosexuality. Such people are obviously biased and believe homosexuality is either inherently wrong or believe that heterosexuality is superior. X-men 3, anyone? We don't need your stinking cure.

No - not at all.

Maybe that is where some of the interest lies - but an argument has already been presented for why the exact opposite is also true for some.

There is an attitude that you can't discriminate against a woman, because she was born that way... you can't discriminate against a coloured skin, because that person was born that way...

On the other hand, it is not so bad to discriminate against homosexuals - because they CHOOSE to be that way...

(Obviously, to me - born 'that way' or not should be irrelevent - but that just doesn't apply to everyone.)

. One need not express a trait to pass it on.


That is genetically ignorant and incorrect. Baldness being the most obvious example. You do not inherit baldness from your father - you inherit it from your mother's father.
Therefore - you can inherit baldness from a fully haired woman, and you can be fully haried even if your father is bald.

No - not at all.

Maybe that is where some of the interest lies - but an argument has already been presented for why the exact opposite is also true for some.

There is an attitude that you can't discriminate against a woman, because she was born that way... you can't discriminate against a coloured skin, because that person was born that way...

On the other hand, it is not so bad to discriminate against homosexuals - because they CHOOSE to be that way...

(Obviously, to me - born 'that way' or not should be irrelevent - but that just doesn't apply to everyone.)
Again, this has fuck-all to do with the issue.

EVEN IF being gay was a choice, nobody would be entiltled to discriminate against us. Goths make a choice to dress like that. Members of religious minorities choose to follow their faith. People with uncommon political affiliation choose to do so. AND IT'S THEIR DAMN RIGHT. No one, no matter how fundamentalist and frothing at the mouth, has any right to tell them they're wrong or immoral or inferior. It's the same for gays and lesbians.

You americans need to keep your fundies on a shorter leash. THAT'S the real issue. "Choice or not" is an illusion, a mere pretext. And you're falling right into their game when you accept the fact that they can bitch and discriminate against someone if that person chooses to be that way. They're putting you on the defensive, making you bear the burden of the proof that it's not a choice, instead of them being on the defensive, justifying their illogical, prejudiced, irrational prejudice.

Stop playing into their game. Nobody gets to be a holier-than-thou asshole and discriminate against fellow human beings, period. Whether the pretext for that discrimination is a choice or not is completely irrelevant.

[/rant]

That is genetically ignorant and incorrect. Baldness being the most obvious example. You do not inherit baldness from your father - you inherit it from your mother's father.
Therefore - you can inherit baldness from a fully haired woman, and you can be fully haried even if your father is bald.
Which is exactly what he said. Reread his post carefully.

Again, this has fuck-all to do with the issue.



How can this have 'fuck-all' to do with the issue? It is on topic, and it is a DIRECT reply to your own post....


EVEN IF being gay was a choice, nobody would be entiltled to discriminate against us. Goths make a choice to dress like that. Members of religious minorities choose to follow their faith. People with uncommon political affiliation choose to do so. AND IT'S THEIR DAMN RIGHT. No one, no matter how fundamentalist and frothing at the mouth, has any right to tell them they're wrong or immoral or inferior. It's the same for gays and lesbians.


If you read my post, I agreed with this...


You americans need to keep your fundies on a shorter leash.


Not an American. Not my fundies.

Even if I were - how would I do this?

THAT'S the real issue. "Choice or not" is an illusion, a mere pretext.


Yes. It is. I said that, too.

And you're falling right into their game when you accept the fact that they can bitch and discriminate against someone if that person chooses to be that way. They're putting you on the defensive, making you bear the burden of the proof that it's not a choice, instead of them being on the defensive, justifying their illogical, prejudiced, irrational prejudice.

Stop playing into their game. Nobody gets to be a holier-than-thou asshole and discriminate against fellow human beings, period. Whether the pretext for that discrimination is a choice or not is completely irrelevant.

[/rant]

How am I falling into their game?

The fundamentalists in America are disproportionately powerful. We can argue 'fair'. We can argue 'semantics'. But it is cold hard data that is going to be the MOST potent defence... and defence it MUST be - because the opposition IS on the attack.

I agree with you... it shouldn't matter. I agree with you... we shouldn't be fighting a defence - but if we DON'T, rights WILL be lost.

I'd rather fight defence NOW, and win the battle on logic, and stop 'their' dystopian view - than let the shit hit the fan, and then be the attacker.

Which is exactly what he said. Reread his post carefully.
Nope - you do not have to express a trait to pass it on to your child. Baldness is a very simplified trait - others are much more complex. (Eye color and blood type being only slightly more complex examples)

Who really cares if it's genetic or not?

The simple point is that it exists.

I concur.

i would, however, cross a man who proclaims he is gay off my list of men to date.

Well...duh.

Nope - you do not have to express a trait to pass it on to your child. Baldness is a very simplified trait - others are much more complex. (Eye color and blood type being only slightly more complex examples)
He said 'one need not express a trait to pass it on.'

This is a topic that has always confused me. Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

It seems illogical that being gay is genetic, since homosexuals are obviously less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, which would eventually remove whatever gene responsible from the population. But apparently, sexual orientation has varied since day one of history, so there must be a reason why the population ratio doesn't change significantly.

Also, I hear all the time about people who change sexual orientation at some point in their lives. I'd attribute most of those stories to closeted gays or fundamentalist propaganda. But if some of them are true, it sounds like it would have to be caused by environment.

And let's not forget the amount of data on animal homosexuality. I'm sure that's relevent somehow; certain species of animals have a higher percentage of homosexuality and bisexuality than others.

So which is it? And is it possible that our sexual orientation will change at some point in our lives?


Why can't it be both?

Some people are born that way, some people become that way.

The fundamentalists in America are disproportionately powerful. We can argue 'fair'. We can argue 'semantics'. But it is cold hard data that is going to be the MOST potent defence... and defence it MUST be - because the opposition IS on the attack.

I agree with you... it shouldn't matter. I agree with you... we shouldn't be fighting a defence - but if we DON'T, rights WILL be lost.

I'd rather fight defence NOW, and win the battle on logic, and stop 'their' dystopian view - than let the shit hit the fan, and then be the attacker.
They're only powerful because the rest of america lets them be. Let's face it, fundies are numerous, yes, but FAR from being the majority. They,re just more vocal.

By being on the defensive, the left, gays, and everyone against discrimination lets them control the debate. The fundies makes the rules. They say the most outrageous things, and everyone tries to reson with them. The problem is, their beliefs are irrationnal; no amount of reasoning, or even cold hard data, is going to have any weight against them. YOu should know full well that when fundies are faced by unequivocal scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they just choose to disregard that evidence.

There need to be a shift in the focus of the discussions in the US debate regarding homosexuality. US gays need to stop taking all that shit from fundies, and switch the focus of the discussion: this is not(and has never been) about proving homosexuality is moral, it's about proving to all the non-fundamentalists who make up the majority of the country that it's all about prejudice, hatred, and illogical, irrationnal bias.

You don't have to be on defence just because they're on the attack: the best defence is a good offense. It's especially true in this case, because it's almost impossible to prove the morality of something, especially to people who accept dogmatic views and are completely closed to new ideas. However, their credibility is near non-existent, and that's what we should focus on. Destroy that illusion of credibility they have in the public's eye, and their ramblings are exposed for what they are; hatred spouted by old men frothing at the corners of their mouth.

They're only powerful because the rest of america lets them be. Let's face it, fundies are numerous, yes, but FAR from being the majority. They,re just more vocal.

By being on the defensive, the left, gays, and everyone against discrimination lets them control the debate. The fundies makes the rules. They say the most outrageous things, and everyone tries to reson with them. The problem is, their beliefs are irrationnal; no amount of reasoning, or even cold hard data, is going to have any weight against them. YOu should know full well that when fundies are faced by unequivocal scientific evidence that contradicts their beliefs, they just choose to disregard that evidence.

There need to be a shift in the focus of the discussions in the US debate regarding homosexuality. US gays need to stop taking all that shit from fundies, and switch the focus of the discussion: this is not(and has never been) about proving homosexuality is moral, it's about proving to all the non-fundamentalists who make up the majority of the country that it's all about prejudice, hatred, and illogical, irrationnal bias.

You don't have to be on defence just because they're on the attack: the best defence is a good offense. It's especially true in this case, because it's almost impossible to prove the morality of something, especially to people who accept dogmatic views and are completely closed to new ideas. However, their credibility is near non-existent, and that's what we should focus on. Destroy that illusion of credibility they have in the public's eye, and their ramblings are exposed for what they are; hatred spouted by old men frothing at the corners of their mouth.

How do you propose this be done? You can't win a war about morals, unless the zeitgeist allows. So - you need something unbreakable - and that means evidence.

What do we have to bring to the debate that cannot just be dismissed as opinion?

I'm with you - rip the system. But I don't want to be throwing wooden shoes into looms.

First of everything is in some way genetic.
Why do people allways think that gays dont reproduce???
Lots of Gay people have had or have Hethero-Sexual relationships.

Mostly because for the longest time society has looked down on gay people, so they have not felt reluctant to come out of the "closet"

Or they find that being gay is somehow wrong and strive to be like the social norm dictates them to be.

Have a oposing sex partner, have children etc...

He said 'one need not express a trait to pass it on.'

OMG! We agree?!?!??!

heh - lazy eye today. My Dyslexia is actin up.

How do you propose this be done? You can't win a war about morals, unless the zeitgeist allows.

Why is exactly why this war needs to stop being about morals, and start being a war about prejudice. Just like the black civil rights campaign, for example.



What do we have to bring to the debate that cannot just be dismissed as opinion?

Nothing. All we could say can be dismissed as opinion. But they already know that. What the public doesn't know yet, though, is that so are the other side's arguments, and we need to broadcast that. Right now, the far-right and fondamentalist are making their opinions pass for fact. This must be stopped.



I'm with you - rip the system. But I don't want to be throwing wooden shoes into looms.
It's working perfectly fine here in Canada. It works fine in many european countries. There's no reason it wouldn't work in the US, too, because as I said before, fundies are a minority, not a majority. They just win the majority to their point of view because they're so vocal about it, and nobody challenges the basis for their views.

OMG! We agree?!?!??!

heh - lazy eye today. My Dyslexia is actin up.
We've only been telling you so for a page or so :p

That is genetically ignorant and incorrect.

Oh, so not being tall means your children can't be?

Baldness being the most obvious example. You do not inherit baldness from your father - you inherit it from your mother's father.
Therefore - you can inherit baldness from a fully haired woman, and you can be fully haried even if your father is bald.

I.e. "one need not express a trait to pass it on." Was there a point to calling what I wrote "genetically ignorant and incorrect" and then to repeat it and then have it not be?

Oh, so not being tall means your children can't be?



I.e. "one need not express a trait to pass it on." Was there a point to calling what I wrote "genetically ignorant and incorrect" and then to repeat it and then have it not be?
He just misread your post. Please, spare his poor self the flames and acidity of your sarcasm. :p

This is a topic that has always confused me. Is sexual orientation due to genetics, or environment?

It seems illogical that being gay is genetic, since homosexuals are obviously less likely to reproduce than heterosexuals, which would eventually remove whatever gene responsible from the population. But apparently, sexual orientation has varied since day one of history, so there must be a reason why the population ratio doesn't change significantly.
It's not that simple. There are genes that are relevant to sexuality, but they are not the whole explanation (the heredity is 20-25% I think, but I don't remember exactly). Also it is not as simple as if you have gay genes you are homosexual and otherwise heterosexual. Most of the factors are not known, but the one relevant gene that is identified is one that causes attraction to men. So if a man gets it he is likely to become homosexual. But if a woman gets it she becomes heterosexual and enjoys sex more than others, so that the women who have it get more heterosexual children than average women, in addition to one or two homosexual sons. This one gene is not the whole explanation for male homosexuality, and it is irrelevant to female ditto, but it is one example of how "homosexuals don't get children" (even if that was true) doesn't preclude genes that "cause" homosexuality from being successful.

Also, I hear all the time about people who change sexual orientation at some point in their lives. I'd attribute most of those stories to closeted gays or fundamentalist propaganda. But if some of them are true, it sounds like it would have to be caused by environment.
AFAIK there are no confirmed cases of people actually changeing orientation. What they do is become celibate and learn to not miss sex too much.

And let's not forget the amount of data on animal homosexuality. I'm sure that's relevent somehow; certain species of animals have a higher percentage of homosexuality and bisexuality than others.
And most of that data is not about anything similar to human homosexuality. There are plenty of "homosexual acts", but that does not mean homosexuality , since it includes e.g. bisexuality, raping individuals of the same sex to show dominance (but then going to the opposite sex when they are horny), friendly, but not necessarily sexual, greetings that get interpreted as homosexual because individual of the same sex touch each other's nether regions, youngsters that can't tell the difference between the sexes (but become heterosexual when they grow up), birds that learn sexuality as kids (and are as likely to be attracted to shoes or cars as to other individuals of the same sex) and a lot of other things that doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.

Besides, the difference in behaviour between humans and other animals is so great, so unless you find really fundamental principles you cannot draw any conclusions about human behaviour from 'animal' ditto.

So which is it? And is it possible that our sexual orientation will change at some point in our lives?
Neither. And it might be possible, but it's unusual and probably can't be done on purpose.

He just misread your post. Please, spare his poor self the flames and acidity of your sarcasm. :p

In another thread, he linked to a part of a site I couldn't access and which redirected me to the front page. I assumed he wanted me to go to that front page, and thus I misunderstood what he was saying. You know what he did when I told him I got redirected? He called me a liar.

So, let me have my retaliatory little fun and let me make my point by accusing him of lying about dyslexia or lazy eye or whatnot, or at least of using them as crappy excuses... because, you know, misunderstandings never occur, and people are automatically liars. :rolleyes:

How do you propose this be done? You can't win a war about morals, unless the zeitgeist allows. So - you need something unbreakable - and that means evidence.

What do we have to bring to the debate that cannot just be dismissed as opinion?

I'm with you - rip the system. But I don't want to be throwing wooden shoes into looms.
Evidence doesn't work, for two reasons:
1) To them this is not about science. If you come up with all the evidence in the world they still will dismiss it. Compare to the IDiots, which is largely the same people.
2) The point you need to make is not about science, it is about ethics. You need to (re)establish the liberal principle that people have a right to do whatever they want with their own bodies, and that is none of the fundie's business. This applies regardless of how people get their sexual orientation.

Does that mean that homosexuality will actually become more infrequent, since societal attitudes today are more accepting than in the past? i.e. fewer people will be pressured to be straight.

And even if it's a recessive gene, it would gradually be removed from the gene pool; say if your mother and father both had the dominant and the recessive gene, you would have a 25% chance of getting two recessives and being homosexual, a 25% chance of getting neither recessive gene, thus ceasing to carry it, and a 50% chance of being a carrier. It's been a while since I studied biology, but it seems that the only way for that to be offset would be if that recessive gene was a fairly common mutation that appeared spontaneously.

Well, we have lots of mutations that doesn't do us any good but still hang around. A common example is myopic eyesight, caused by recessive alleles. As this probably never has been advantageous to our lineage, you could ask why so many people still carry this caracter (although the expression of the allele probably also depends on environment).
All mutations appear spontaneously, and the smaller the original population, the more likely it is to be carried on to further descendants. If you consider homosexuality to be a single, recessive allele (unlikely, but..), it could have appeared without leaving a trace in the original host, and so be carried on further to any number of children and childrens children before it "struck" when somebody mated with its relative and produced a homozygote, recessive homosexual.

As a comment to your original posting - I have never heard of homosexual animals. Bisexual, sure, lots of them, but never 100% homosexuals. Have you got any examples for my enlightenment?:)

Well, we have lots of mutations that doesn't do us any good but still hang around. A common example is myopic eyesight, caused by recessive alleles.

Ouch - just want to clarify that I don't think homosexuality is a character that doesn't do us any good! :eek: It was meant as an example of recessive alleles that are maintained for large numbers of generations only...

*covering my ass before it gets whupped*

It's an unconscious choice that one makes...thought at times I wish it was genetic to spite all the damn fundamentalists out there: :mad:

"Homosexuality is genetic...then we can use gene therapy to cure them!! But genetic engineering is against the will of God!! So how will we get rid of teh gays? I know, GE...oh wait, it goes against God"
*Fundamentalist self-destructs from circular logic*

So, let me have my retaliatory little fun and let me make my point by accusing him of lying about dyslexia or lazy eye or whatnot, or at least of using them as crappy excuses... because, you know, misunderstandings never occur, and people are automatically liars. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: But, of course! Everyone knows that--isn't it common knowledge?

It's hormones in the womb, or something.

It's an unconscious choice that one makes...

There's no proof of that, of course.

There's no proof of that, of course.
BUt how logical is it to say you can choose your sexuality? The least we know is that it isn't a choice...

Who really cares if it's genetic or not?

The simple point is that it exists.

It's important politically. If it's a choice, you have more grounds for discriminating against it, or considering it a criminal behavior. If it's genetic, then you really have no leg to stand on if you claim it isn't a civil rights issue.

BUt how logical is it to say you can choose your sexuality? The least we know is that it isn't a choice...

An "unconscious choice" would still be a choice, and there is no reliable or pertinent proof of sexual orientation being a choice of any kind, unconscious or otherwise.

It's important politically. If it's a choice, you have more grounds for discriminating against it, or considering it a criminal behavior. If it's genetic, then you really have no leg to stand on if you claim it isn't a civil rights issue.

Either way, why would it be criminal?

It's important politically. If it's a choice, you have more grounds for discriminating against it, or considering it a criminal behavior.

I beg to differ. It changes nothing.

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised.

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised.


Now if that's not a troll-like post, I don't know what is. *sits back with the popcorn and waits for the sporking to ensue*

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised.

Is that a joke?

No.

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised.
I'm not even going to bother...
http://uplink.space.com/attachments/270850-DoNotFeedTroll.jpg

Is that a joke?

The State of Georgia is a troll. Probably someone's puppet. Much like Jesussaves, even if Jesussaves was better and funnier.

I am here to post my views, just as everybody else is doing; I am not posting intentionally 'inflamatory statements' only my beliefs, I am not trying to 'troll' and neither am I a puppet.

No.
Do you really live in Georgia? Are there lots of people like you there? Because my girlfriend may be going to a Graduate program there and you're giving me serious second thoughts. I think me and her will have to discuss this.

I am here to post my views, just as everybody else is doing; I am not posting intentionally 'inflamatory statements' only my beliefs, I am not trying to 'troll' and neither am I a puppet.

It's pretty inflamatory to call someone Satanic.

Do you really live in Georgia? Are there lots of people like you there? Because my girlfriend may be going to a Graduate program there and you're giving me serious second thoughts. I think me and her will have to discuss this.

I was born and raised in Georgia, I currrently live in Texas; I'm sure your girlfriend will love the Peach State.

I was born and raised in Georgia, I currrently live in Texas; I'm sure your girlfriend will love the Peach State.
Peaches are selling me on it...

It's pretty inflamatory to call someone Satanic.

Please, don't. Just ignore it. Don't let it hijack this thread with loony religion.

It's pretty inflamatory to call someone Satanic.

To me and many other devout Christians, it would be considered 'inflamatory' to say that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'; it is condemned through out the Bible and so I hate it.

Peaches are selling me on it...

If she's in the Capital, she's probably okay... if she's out in the rural backwaters, expect our fundamentalist friend to typify what she might encounter.

I know I do, every day.

To me and many other devout Christians, it would be considered 'inflamatory' to say that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'; it is condemned through out the Bible and so I hate it.

But we don't all live by your Bible.

What happened to being a separate people? Or do you only indulge the bits you like?

That is genetically ignorant and incorrect. Baldness being the most obvious example. You do not inherit baldness from your father - you inherit it from your mother's father.
Therefore - you can inherit baldness from a fully haired woman, and you can be fully haried even if your father is bald.

Actually your example implies it is guaranteed to pass on. It's not.....

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised

im sorry the dark ages ended about 800 years ago

it is not due to moral decay. how do you then explain how gay people come from (what you may consider) good christian familys. it happen's its genetic you cant stop it, sure people try to control and suppress it but this is why people convert to homosexuality in later life. they tried to be straight but they always felt something wasnt right, upon becoming gay, they feel much happier.

there is nothing satanical or unatural about homosexuality, it is just a bit of a stigma

But we don't all live by your Bible.

What happened to being a separate people? Or do you only indulge the bits you like?

Everybody should live by the Bible though.

But we don't all live by your Bible.

What happened to being a separate people? Or do you only indulge the bits you like?

Oh, for crying out loud, please, stop feeding the troll and its jack attempt!

, and people are automatically liars. :rolleyes:

I'm lying!

To me and many other devout Christians, it would be considered 'inflamatory' to say that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'; it is condemned through out the Bible and so I hate it.
No, actually it's not condemned at all in the Bible. But things get wacky when you let people interpret texts for you.

im sorry the dark ages ended about 800 years ago

it is not due to moral decay. how do you then explain how gay people come from (what you may consider) good christian familys. it happen's its genetic you cant stop it, sure people try to control and suppress it but this is why people convert to homosexuality in later life. they tried to be straight but they always felt something wasnt right, upon becoming gay, they feel much happier.

there is nothing satanical or unatural about homosexuality, it is just a bit of a stigma

They will be punished in Hell; wait and see.

If she's in the Capital, she's probably okay... if she's out in the rural backwaters, expect our fundamentalist friend to typify what she might encounter.

I know I do, every day.
How big of a stick do you usually carry?

To me and many other devout Christians, it would be considered 'inflamatory' to say that 'homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle'; it is condemned through out the Bible and so I hate it.

Yes, I can completely see why telling a group of people that have never directly done anything to hurt or offend you that they are acceptable would wound you.

No, actually it's not condemned at all in the Bible. But things get wacky when you let people interpret texts for you.

Leviticus Chapter 20 calls for gays to be executed.

Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

They will be punished in Hell; wait and see.

How do you know this?

THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THREAD, FFS!!!

:mad:

It is caused by Satanic moral decay, often in the environment in which he/she is raised.

That maybe in Georgia but people do things different outside of Georgia.

Everybody should live by the Bible though.

why? it makes little sense why we should all follow a clearly rascist, and immoral book, based upon the teachings of a so called all powerful person who only lets people who agree with his beliefs live in eternal peace.

hmm that reminds me of a political party... hmm which one... they were rascist, homophobic... onyl liked people who agreed with their views... wait a minute is that the nazi party!!!


Oh, for crying out loud, please, stop feeding the troll and its jack attempt!

im sorry ive put the food in the cage. aggghh agghh im pressing submit, aggh aghhh ( no you are right i should drop my sword but he keeps raising his)

Leviticus Chapter 20 calls for gays to be executed.
Holy mistranslation, Batman! The actual verse says "A man shall not lie on a woman's bed, for it is an abomination", a condemnation of a man sleeping somewhere where menstruating women slept, as they were seen as unclean.

Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Newsflash. Arsenokotai translates as "male temple prostitutes", not "homosexuals".

Also, if the Bible condemns homosexuality, explain David and Jonathan.

Leviticus Chapter 20 calls for gays to be executed.

Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
"C2. Dr. Strauss confidently declares that 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 condemns homosexuality - i.e. consensual sexual acts between same-sex adults. But the original text of this passage contains Greek words whose meanings have been lost. Biblical translators have had to guess what this passage means. Various Bible translations translate the terms as: effeminate males, male homosexuals, male prostitutes, pederasts (male adults who sexually abuse boys) and catamites (boy prostitutes). Some Bibles in the English language say that the passage refers both to men who sexually abuse boys and to the boys victims that they abuse. There is every evidence that St. Paul knew of such sexual abuse, and was also aware of ritual homosexual rituals in Pagan temples. There is no evidence that he was aware of consensual, committed relationships between gay males.

It is notable that lesbians are not referred to at all in this passage. The passage will probably continue to be obscure."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_essa.htm

Leviticus Chapter 20 calls for gays to be executed.

Also 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says that homosexual offenders will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

Here's what I think: Now, you're a true Christian, right? And a true Christian, of course, takes God's word above all. And so, logically, a true Christian, aware that the bible can be mistranslated or altered over time, wouldn't trust it as a true vessle of God's word, and therefore would not obey it. A true Christian would, instead, speak to God directly on all issues. Am I right?

THIS IS NOT A RELIGIOUS THREAD, FFS!!!

:mad:

Oh, I give up. Feed it all you want, as if you're going to make any sort of difference to the jacking troll...

Oh, I give up. Feed it all you want, as if you're going to make any sort of difference to the jacking troll...

yay let the fighting commence

Oh, I give up. Feed it all you want, as if you're going to make any sort of difference to the jacking troll...

Ah, sorry Fass, you should know NS. They always feed the troll.

Oh, I give up. Feed it all you want, as if you're going to make any sort of difference to the jacking troll...

I get a kind of rush from feeding trolls. It's dangerous, and possibly pointless, but it's a guaranteed adreneline rush.

Oh, I give up. Feed it all you want, as if you're going to make any sort of difference to the jacking troll...

Sorry bud. You live in a more tolerant area. Here Religion comes into play because there are too many of the buggers around and they cause the gay question grief to no end. Guess they are afraid it will rub off.

yay we have flamed him and his ned flanders attitude to an insult away.. rejoice the thread has been cleansed

That maybe in Georgia but people do things different outside of Georgia.

Yeah, things are DEFINITELY like that in his fictional nation.

Yeah, things are DEFINITELY like that in his fictional nation.
No, they meant the RL state Georgia in the USA.

Everybody should live by the Bible though.

Why? Because you say so?

Jesus imprecates the Christian to remain separate, and to witness. He doesn't say one should remake one's nation in some perceived Christian image.

How big of a stick do you usually carry?

I'm 6'4" and 220 lbs +.

Most of the most extreme opposition seems to consider the Bible sufficient protection against Satan... but perhaps not a strong enough ward against Limeys with bad-attitudes...

No, they meant the RL state Georgia in the USA.

I'm going to assume she realized that.

Homosexuality/Bisexuality: Genetic, or not?

Not. Homosexuals can't breed. They do recruit though, and it seems the younger they do it the better for them. And folks say Christians brainwash people.. tsk! :rolleyes:

Homosexuality/Bisexuality: Genetic, or not?

Not. Homosexuals can't breed.

I'm not sterile, you know. And my parents are not homosexual, yet they had me. So, we only need heterosexuals to breed to have gay offspring.

They do recruit though, and it seems the younger they do it the better for them.

Oh, how I wish this were true. I'd be out there recruiting like there were no tomorrow.

I dunno, its a possibility. The purpose of sex is to produce offspring and keep the human race going (or growing), so it seems unlikely that it would be genetic, but mistakes do happen in nature as well, or perhaps it was originally caused by some type of inbreeding or something. Dunno.

I'm not sterile, you know. And my parents are not homosexual, yet they had me. So, we only need heterosexuals to breed to have gay offspring.



Oh, how I wish this were true. I'd be out there recruiting like there were no tomorrow.


Actually they do "recruit", read anything in schools on "homosexuality tolerance" or "sexual education" or something along those lines. Sexualizing children (who have not gone through puberty, sometimes beginnning in the 1st grade) is a big way to confuse kids about their "sexuality".

Holy mistranslation, Batman! The actual verse says "A man shall not lie on a woman's bed, for it is an abomination", a condemnation of a man sleeping somewhere where menstruating women slept, as they were seen as unclean.

The verb "yishcav" does mean "to lie," but it is a euphemism, one used regularly elsewhere, including numerous other verses in the same chapter. Also (going by Leviticus 20:13 here, not 18:22, which is phrased differently but means the same thing), there are two males referenced in the verse ("ish" and "zachar," with "zachar" typically translated broadly as "mankind"), not one, and the grammar indicates that one is committing an action directed at the other, making the euphemistic character of the verb even more explicit.

If you really wanted to you could perhaps claim that the prohibition was against men having sex in the beds of women, but then you would have to demonstrate that "mishkevei ishah" means "the beds of women," instead of the more logical translation currently used.

My Biblical Hebrew is not excellent, I could be totally wrong in what I say here, but I have not seen any convincing argument claiming so.

I think the better argument here is to point out that the verse could easily be directed at ritualized pagan homosexuality, rather than its modern expression, as the use of "toevah" ("abomination") perhaps indicates, and as the Rabbis perhaps imply in the Talmud, grouping it with the sins that are sins in order to differentiate the Jews from the pagans who surrounded them.

Not that we should be relying on the Bible to provide us with a moral evaluation of homosexuality.

I'm not sterile, you know. And my parents are not homosexual, yet they had me. So, we only need heterosexuals to breed to have gay offspring.

Firstly, I typed what I typed because it's valid homosexuals can't have homosexual sex, and reproduce. Secondly, your parents aren't gay and they had you, by that I'm assuming you're gay. By having sex, and reproducing you hope to create gay children? Personally, I really can't see the sense in that. Especially since it proves my initial point homosexuality is not genetic, and shows other things such as the child would need to be recruited by it's homosexual 'parent' or other outside influence to actually be gay. Like homosexuality has been slowly trickled into society so it's deemed more acceptable to the public, then exploited to make those that don't agree with it 'bigots', or 'ignorant'.

Oh, how I wish this were true. I'd be out there recruiting like there were no tomorrow.

My final point, it is true. If you don't realise this, then obviously it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's quite ignorant. ;)

I dunno, its a possibility. The purpose of sex is to produce offspring and keep the human race going (or growing), so it seems unlikely that it would be genetic, but mistakes do happen in nature as well, or perhaps it was originally caused by some type of inbreeding or something. Dunno.
Since Dem isn't here, let me explain to you why a certain proportion of homosexuals in a population is a survival trait.

See, on average, siblings share 50% of you genetic material. THe children of your siblings share 25%. If, instead of breeding, you help care for your siblings' children, you help ensure the continuation of your genetic material, albeit less directly. Additional caretakers drastically raise survival rate of offspring, so you end up passing on about as much of your genetic material as you would if you mated. More, perhaps, as there would be less competition for resources.

The verb "yishcav" does mean "to lie," but it is a euphemism, one used regularly elsewhere, including numerous other verses in the same chapter. Also (going by Leviticus 20:13 here, not 18:22, which is phrased differently but means the same thing), there are two males referenced in the verse ("ish" and "zachar," with "zachar" typically translated broadly as "mankind"), not one, and the grammar indicates that one is committing an action directed at the other, making the euphemistic character of the verb even more explicit.

If you really wanted to you could perhaps claim that the prohibition was against men having sex in the beds of women, but then you would have to demonstrate that "mishkevei ishah" means "the beds of women," instead of the more logical translation currently used.

My Biblical Hebrew is not excellent, I could be totally wrong in what I say here, but I have not seen any convincing argument claiming so.

I think the better argument here is to point out that the verse could easily be directed at ritualized pagan homosexuality, rather than its modern expression, as the use of "toevah" ("abomination") perhaps indicates, and as the Rabbis perhaps imply in the Talmud, grouping it with the sins that are sins in order to differentiate the Jews from the pagans who surrounded them.

Not that we should be relying on the Bible to provide us with a moral evaluation of homosexuality.
Ah, there's two verses in Leviticus then. One is worded differently than the other, and is the one I'm referring to. Additional meaning for the one I'm referring to comes from context, as it appears right in the middle of prohibitions against relations with menstruating women. I could still be wrong. I haven't been able to find my source in ages.

By the way, since you know Hebrew, could you tell me if the passage in the book with Sodom in it uses the euphemistic "know" or the literal "know"? I've heard it is the latter, but I'd like to be sure.

Since Dem isn't here, let me explain to you why a certain proportion of homosexuals in a population is a survival trait.

See, on average, siblings share 50% of you genetic material. THe children of your siblings share 25%. If, instead of breeding, you help care for your siblings' children, you help ensure the continuation of your genetic material, albeit less directly. Additional caretakers drastically raise survival rate of offspring, so you end up passing on about as much of your genetic material as you would if you mated. More, perhaps, as there would be less competition for resources.
I'm so glad we have other scientists around to keep hammering in these important points!!!

The claim that homosexuality can't be genetic because homosexuals don't breed is wrong on several levels, but the one that annoys me most is the ignorant (and incorrect) assumption that homosexuality decreases an individual organism's reproductive fitness. People need to learn what "reproductive fitness" means before they start tossing around bullshit theories about it.

The thing is, there is a far more compelling reason to believe that homosexuality is not 100% determined by genetics: human sexuality is a huge spectrum of complex human behaviors, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that such a spectrum is coded at the genetic level. We actually have a lot of reason to believe that sexuality is very maliable and fluid, something that is guided by numerous genetic, environmental, and psychological factors, because that would be the system that would be most helpful to great apes like us.

Actually they do "recruit", read anything in schools on "homosexuality tolerance" or "sexual education" or something along those lines. Sexualizing children (who have not gone through puberty, sometimes beginnning in the 1st grade) is a big way to confuse kids about their "sexuality".
Yeah, kind of like how you make white kids into black kids if you explain that black people are human beings who deserve respect.

Or, you know...not.

Actually they do "recruit", read anything in schools on "homosexuality tolerance" or "sexual education" or something along those lines. Sexualizing children (who have not gone through puberty, sometimes beginnning in the 1st grade) is a big way to confuse kids about their "sexuality".
They also have that recruiting station in Times Square.

Homosexuals can't breed.

My pregnant lesbian coworker will be shocked to hear this.

I'm so glad we have other scientists around to keep hammering in these important points!!!

The claim that homosexuality can't be genetic because homosexuals don't breed is wrong on several levels, but the one that annoys me most is the ignorant (and incorrect) assumption that homosexuality decreases an individual organism's reproductive fitness. People need to learn what "reproductive fitness" means before they start tossing around bullshit theories about it.

The thing is, there is a far more compelling reason to believe that homosexuality is not 100% determined by genetics: human sexuality is a huge spectrum of complex human behaviors, and we have absolutely no reason to believe that such a spectrum is coded at the genetic level. We actually have a lot of reason to believe that sexuality is very maliable and fluid, something that is guided by numerous genetic, environmental, and psychological factors, because that would be the system that would be most helpful to great apes like us.


I wasn't arguing the fitness. I was arguing along the lines of mentality. For example dogs or cats or many other animals that go into "heat" which is a state ready, in fact eager to undergo the reproductive process. That mentality wouldn't be present in a genetic homosexual.

I'm 6'4" and 220 lbs +.

Most of the most extreme opposition seems to consider the Bible sufficient protection against Satan... but perhaps not a strong enough ward against Limeys with bad-attitudes...
I guess that means I should carry a metal baseball bat.

Actually they do "recruit", read anything in schools on "homosexuality tolerance" or "sexual education" or something along those lines. Sexualizing children (who have not gone through puberty, sometimes beginnning in the 1st grade) is a big way to confuse kids about their "sexuality".

Oh, the heterosexist ignorance... :rolleyes:

Yeah, kind of like how you make white kids into black kids if you explain that black people are human beings who deserve respect.

Or, you know...not.


Its one thing to teach something which should be natural (such as interacial relations and equality). It is quiet another to teach how to preform sex or what the syptoms of homosexuality are to 6 year olds who do not have the physical or mental maturity to naturally know of sex.

My pregnant lesbian coworker will be shocked to hear this.
Lesbians know how to use mirrors and horizontally striped clothing.

I'm so glad we have other scientists around to keep hammering in these important points!!!

Not a scientist. Not yet at least. I just read enough about biology to remember this stuff and/or figure it out on my own.

Its one thing to teach something which should be natural (such as interacial relations and equality). It is quiet another to teach how to preform sex or what the syptoms of homosexuality are to 6 year olds who do not have the physical or mental maturity to naturally know of sex.
Please provide evidence that gay organizations are trying to teach 6 year olds how to have sex.

It is quiet another to teach how to preform sex or what the syptoms of homosexuality are to 6 year olds who do not have the physical or mental maturity to naturally know of sex.

...People like you?

Not a scientist. Not yet at least. I just read enough about biology to remember this stuff and/or figure it out on my own.
Wait, you are admitting that you READ STUFF?!

That's it, somebody get some rocks. There's a heretic who needs a-stoning!

;)

Its one thing to teach something which should be natural (such as interacial relations and equality).
Well, homosexuality is natural, as it appears in nature.

Well, homosexuality is natural, as it appears in nature.


But 6 year old's having sex, is not natural. They shouldn't be learning about sex one way or another.

But 6 year old's having sex, is not natural. They shouldn't be learning about sex one way or another.
What are you talking about?

For myself, I don't see the opposite sex as physically attractive or appealing. Ever since I can remember I always liked males. Before I even knew there was a term for it. It sucks... Growing up and feeling those urges thinking it's all normal only to become an adult and get ridiculed. There must be some genetic trait to all this. I couldn't even see myself trying to reproduce with a female if our species depended on it. Of course, I believe in evolution so my theory is that, as with some species, when they begin to over populate, disease and what have you need to take over. So it could be a build in trait to protect our species from populating ourselves right out of existence. Let's face it there are what? 7 billion people on this planet... Do we really need to keep reproducing?

genetics are very complicated. most traits are determined by many more than 1 gene, so it's not just the difference between a dominant or resessive gene. I like to compare homosexuality to alcoholism - as far as nature vs. nurture is concerned. (and there are many other things that are similar, such as obesity.) I think the role that genes play in all of these things is to give you a predisposition to something. whether that predisposition is expressed or allowed depends on the environment.

They shouldn't be learning about sex one way or another.

If it makes them educated, reasoning and unbigotted (Read: unlike you), then I'm all for it.

Ah, there's two verses in Leviticus then. One is worded differently than the other, and is the one I'm referring to. Additional meaning for the one I'm referring to comes from context, as it appears right in the middle of prohibitions against relations with menstruating women. I could still be wrong. I haven't been able to find my source in ages.

18:22 doesn't work either. The reason it doesn't is because the translation you suggest would make "zachar" ("mankind" again) the subject of the sentence, when the inflection of the verb (singular second person masculine, instead of singular third person masculine) indicates otherwise, that it is the object.

By the way, since you know Hebrew, could you tell me if the passage in the book with Sodom in it uses the euphemistic "know" or the literal "know"? I've heard it is the latter, but I'd like to be sure.

My temptation is to say "euphemistic know," because usually that is what the verb "yadah" means when used in regard to people and not objects. We see that usage elsewhere in Genesis.

In this case, though, the usage of the reference against homosexuality is unjustified - what the people of Sodom are doing is threatening to rape their guests, a double sin even leaving aside the homosexuality element, and indeed, the references to Sodom by the later Prophets (and Jesus) reference the lack of hospitality rather than the alleged homosexuality.

I like to compare homosexuality to alcoholism

That's fun for you...

But 6 year old's having sex, is not natural. They shouldn't be learning about sex one way or another.
Now there's a stupid idea.

Kids should learn about sex as soon as they ask about it. They should learn the names for "vagina" and "penis" at the same time they learn about "elbow" and "toe." If you don't teach it to them, they're going to learn it on their own, and probably will pick up some fabulous misinformation along the way. Kids in my kindergarten class would tell each other about how they had a new baby sister or brother coming, and there was always at least two or three kids who were delighted to explain to us how a baby is made.

As for learning about "sexuality," if you want to keep them from learning that shit then you better be prepared to burn all the fairy tale books. Kids learn that boys kiss girls from pretty much every Disney movie out there, so what's the big stink about them learning that boys kiss boys or girls kiss girls?

Oh, the heterosexist ignorance... :rolleyes:


Fass,if I may ask, what IS your orientation? You've gone and made me curious about your real life, damn you.

What are you talking about?
Haven't you heard? Homosexuals are all pedophiles who want to teach your toddler how to have gay orgies around bonfires made of American flags, before they all hop on the school bus for a field trip to the abortion clinic!

No, they meant the RL state Georgia in the USA.


*poke* I'm living in Georgia at this very moment -- and apparently I'm urban enough to avoid such ignorant fucktards.

Haven't you heard? Homosexuals are all pedophiles who want to teach your toddler how to have gay orgies around bonfires made of American flags, before they all hop on the school bus for a field trip to the abortion clinic!
Now, see. I'm against that kind of thing. I'm glad I can agree with something that guy said.

*poke* I'm living in Georgia at this very moment -- and apparently I'm urban enough to avoid such ignorant fucktards.
Another reason to not fear Georgia.

Firstly, I typed what I typed because it's valid homosexuals can't have homosexual sex, and reproduce.

And yet, I can jizz into vagina and get a woman pregnant at any point should I wish to. Which I indeed will - I've always wanted children. I'll be skipping the vagina, though, and it'll probably be a cup. I find it hilarious that this special, precious thing that is a heterosexual procreative intercourse (of which they have, what, three during their entire lives? Such a flimsy justification for heterosexuality they give...) can be replaced by a cup and a turkey baster.

Secondly, your parents aren't gay and they had you, by that I'm assuming you're gay. By having sex, and reproducing you hope to create gay children?

No, I hope to create children should I choose to reproduce. And science tells me my children will probably end up straight, as gay people don't have gay children more often than straight people. If one turns out gay, I guess it'll just be a boon. Not that I'd like my straight children any less, of course.

Personally, I really can't see the sense in that.

Now, there's a shocker.

Especially since it proves my initial point homosexuality is not genetic,

No, it doesn't.

and shows other things such as the child would need to be recruited by it's homosexual 'parent' or other outside influence to actually be gay.

Again, no it doesn't. Again, gay people don't have gay children more often. Do you truly know this little about the subject? Why do I even ask, it's apparent you do.

Like homosexuality has been slowly trickled into society so it's deemed more acceptable to the public, then exploited to make those that don't agree with it 'bigots', or 'ignorant'.

I know people like you are averse to the truth, but, alas, you are bigots and ignorant.

My final point, it is true. If you don't realise this, then obviously it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. That's quite ignorant. ;)

I guess I was never given the "conversion pack" when I myself was converted whenever that is to have happened. Just my luck, eh? :rolleyes: Could you please direct me to where I could get one? I'll be out on the streets first thing tomorrow, converting people. Seriously, ten percent is not enough. We need to recruit, recruit, recruit if we indeed are able to!

Another reason to not fear Georgia.

Just try to avoid lingering outside in Augusta for too long. It smells.

That's fun for you...
I know it sometimes comes across as insulting when homosexuality is compared to alcoholism, but that comparison is valid in terms of the interaction between genes and environment.

Think about that for a second. Alcoholism is, relatively speaking, a pretty simple behavioral condition: it's when a particular substance is particularly addictive to certain people. And even this simple behavioral phenotype is not controlled by a flick of a genetic switch.

Sexuality is vastly more complicated than alcoholism. Two heterosexual males may have sexual behaviors that are totally and completely different, just as two heterosexual females might, even though they have the "same" sexual orientation. They can be attracted to utterly different traits. They can express their interest in utterly different ways. They can experience sexuality in completely different ways. And these are the people who have the "same" sexual orientation!

How silly is it, then, to think that all of sexuality could be reduced to the activity of one gene, or even several?

I honestly think most people who talk about "gay genes" don't really know what a gene is, or how genes contribute to the phenotype of an organism. It is totally ok to not know that kind of stuff, but you'd be better served to ask questions until you understand it, instead of presuming to tell people what is and is not genetic.

And yet, I can jizz into vagina and get a woman pregnant at any point should I wish to. Which I indeed will - I've always wanted children. I'll be skipping the vagina, though, and it'll probably be a cup.
You know, you may want to avoid giving that cup to guests. Although, I daresay you could sell it on eBay.

I know it sometimes comes across as insulting when homosexuality is compared to alcoholism,

As long as you do the same for heterosexality, I've no problem with it.

Fass,if I may ask, what IS your orientation? You've gone and made me curious about your real life, damn you.
You've been here this long and you haven't figured out that Fass is gay?

You know, you may want to avoid giving that cup to guests. Although, I daresay you could sell it on eBay.

If the clinic lets me keep it.

As long as you do the same for heterosexality, I've no problem with it.
That's why it really should be a comparison between HUMAN SEXUALITY and alcoholism. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not two diametrically opposed features; they are forms of the same feature. Kind of like how brown eyes and blue eyes are both kinds of eyes.

You've been here this long and you haven't figured out that Fass is gay?
Fass doesn't fit the stereotype of the mincing little faerie, and there are lots of people who still think that all gay men must be like the Queer Eye guys.

Haven't you heard? Homosexuals are all pedophiles who want to teach your toddler how to have gay orgies around bonfires made of American flags, before they all hop on the school bus for a field trip to the abortion clinic!

While they worship Allah and raise taxes to pay for their evil Communist parties?

That's fun for you...

Let me clarify - I like to try to get my point across by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think most people are aware that if someone is predisposed to alcoholism, but they never drink a drop of alcohol in their life, then they will not be an alcoholic. (I mentioned obesity before as well. Someone can be predisposed to obesity, but if they watch what they eat and exercise, they can manage their weight.) I think that in many cases, homosexuality is similar. I know several people whose sexual orientations have changed at some point in their lives. In most (but not all) cases, this happened after some (possibly traumatic) big event in their lives. On the other hand, I know people who have experienced similar events, but whose sexual orientation has not changed. I think this points to the idea that there is some interaction between nature and nurture going on.

Let me clarify - I like to try to get my point across by comparing homosexuality to alcoholism. I think most people are aware that if someone is predisposed to alcoholism, but they never drink a drop of alcohol in their life, then they will not be an alcoholic. (I mentioned obesity before as well. Someone can be predisposed to obesity, but if they watch what they eat and exercise, they can manage their weight.) I think that in many cases, homosexuality is similar. I know several people whose sexual orientations have changed at some point in their lives. In most (but not all) cases, this happened after some (possibly traumatic) big event in their lives. On the other hand, I know people who have experienced similar events, but whose sexual orientation has not changed. I think this points to the idea that there is some interaction between nature and nurture going on.
Yeah, and as I was pointing out...your example may be valid, but your phrasing is misleading. It's not HOMOSEXUALITY that is comparable to alcoholism, it is ALL OF HUMAN SEXUALITY.

You've been here this long and you haven't figured out that Fass is gay?

You never know -- some people have you assume that they are gay just for the sake of the argument.

Either that, or my mind is GONE today.

You never know -- some people have you assume that they are gay just for the sake of the argument.

Either that, or my mind is GONE today.

Saying I'm gay because it's cool on teh intarwebs? That's a new one.

Saying I'm gay because it's cool on teh intarwebs? That's a new one.

Teh intarwebs are quite the strange places.

Saying I'm gay because it's cool on teh intarwebs? That's a new one.


Nope, not that one. The whole letting people assume something about you for the sake of what you are aruging at the moment.

That very well might not be your style,though I've seen others do it several times before. However, I do expect better out of you for some reason...

Yeah, and as I was pointing out...your example may be valid, but your phrasing is misleading. It's not HOMOSEXUALITY that is comparable to alcoholism, it is ALL OF HUMAN SEXUALITY.

Yes. That. Thank you.

Yes. That. Thank you.
No prob :). I think it's a good analogy for several reasons, but it also is a "bad" analogy because homosexuals are already getting told they have a disease or a malfunction, and they aren't really inclined to listen to anybody who compares their sexual orientation to an illness. And I don't blame them, because I react the exact same way when people try to tell me that my sexual orientation is sick or wrong or not a "real" sexual orientation.

Nope, not that one. The whole letting people assume something about you for the sake of what you are aruging at the moment.

Yeah, I've done that. People around here tend to make assumptions about my gender, and I don't usually bother to correct them. This can have some interesting consequences in heated debates.

For instance, about a year ago I was having a very heated discussion with another player, and I was being a bit of a jerk by continually refering to him with diminutives ("honey," "sweetie," "darling," etc). I was just doing it to emphasize how immature I felt he was being, and how ignorant his arguments were, but he took it a whole other way. He assumed I was male, and actually started a thread in moderation because he wanted the mods to make me "stop gay harassing him." When a bunch of players pointed out that I'm not a man, suddenly the "sexual harassment" didn't bother him at all...

I think it's a good analogy for several reasons, but it also is a "bad" analogy because homosexuals are already getting told they have a disease or a malfunction, and they aren't really inclined to listen to anybody who compares their sexual orientation to an illness.

I've tried to come up with some other similar analogy, but unfortunately most of what I've come up with has had the same connotation. I guess it's just that most of the time that you hear about genetics it's in reference to a disorder...

Firstly, I typed what I typed because it's valid homosexuals can't have homosexual sex, and reproduce. Secondly, your parents aren't gay and they had you, by that I'm assuming you're gay. By having sex, and reproducing you hope to create gay children?


Somebody needs a class in biology and one in human reproduction.

You understand mutations right? It involves. Nahh you look it up.

Parents don't produce clones so the fact hetro parents producing a gay child is fact of life.

Heres a news flash. GAY PEOPLE ACTUALLY PRODUCE CHILDREN!


Personally, I really can't see the sense in that. Especially since it proves my initial point homosexuality is not genetic, and shows other things such as the child would need to be recruited by it's homosexual 'parent' or other outside influence to actually be gay. Like homosexuality has been slowly trickled into society so it's deemed more acceptable to the public, then exploited to make those that don't agree with it 'bigots', or 'ignorant'.

Somebody needs classes in history.

Guess what? Homosexuality has been around for a LOOOOONGGGGG time.

I've tried to come up with some other similar analogy, but unfortunately most of what I've come up with has had the same connotation. I guess it's just that most of the time that you hear about genetics it's in reference to a disorder...
Yeah, I know, I feel the same way about it. Alcoholism is a condition that pretty much everybody is familiar with, and it just seems to get the point across better than other examples I've tried. But, at the same time, I hate having to use a disease as the analogy, because I don't think any kind of consentual sex should be viewed as a disease. :)

Yeah, I've done that. People around here tend to make assumptions about my gender, and I don't usually bother to correct them. This can have some interesting consequences in heated debates.

For instance, about a year ago I was having a very heated discussion with another player, and I was being a bit of a jerk by continually refering to him with diminutives ("honey," "sweetie," "darling," etc). I was just doing it to emphasize how immature I felt he was being, and how ignorant his arguments were, but he took it a whole other way. He assumed I was male, and actually started a thread in moderation because he wanted the mods to make me "stop gay harassing him." When a bunch of players pointed out that I'm not a man, suddenly the "sexual harassment" didn't bother him at all...

Oh good, someone caught what I was saying. People tend to assume that I am male as well. It's kind of odd.

Nope, not that one. The whole letting people assume something about you for the sake of what you are aruging at the moment.

I don't know. For some reason I see many straight people defend the rights of gay people, but in a majority of cases they have to add a "but I'm not gay" disclaimer. :\ I giggle when I see that, as I imagine myself going "but I'm not black..."

That very well might not be your style,though I've seen others do it several times before. However, I do expect better out of you for some reason...

You shouldn't. I acted like someone who didn't believe in bisexuality for a while when I got sick of all the bisexuals who claimed "everyone is truly bisexual." Seeing them deny all other sexal orientation, I though they might see the folly of their ways if someone denied theirs, but, alas, very few of them got the point.

My pregnant lesbian coworker will be shocked to hear this.

As would the lesibian couple that asked our friend (who is also gay) to make a "donation."

Just try to avoid lingering outside in Augusta for too long. It smells.
Noted.

Actually they do "recruit", read anything in schools on "homosexuality tolerance" or "sexual education" or something along those lines. Sexualizing children (who have not gone through puberty, sometimes beginnning in the 1st grade) is a big way to confuse kids about their "sexuality".

I realise it's a fine line to some minds... but saying Billy has two dads, doesn't actually 'sexualise' anything.

I don't know. For some reason I see many straight people defend the rights of gay people, but in a majority of cases they have to add a "but I'm not gay" disclaimer. :\ I giggle when I see that, as I imagine myself going "but I'm not black..."



You shouldn't. I acted like someone who didn't believe in bisexuality for a while when I got sick of all the bisexuals who claimed "everyone is truly bisexual." Seeing them deny all other sexal orientation, I though they might see the folly of their ways if someone denied theirs, but, alas, very few of them got the point.

Duly noted. I think their points were coming from a misinterpretation of the Kinsey chart, by the way. I've seen that happen before, and I'm STILL finding ways to interpret the damn thing.

I wasn't arguing the fitness. I was arguing along the lines of mentality. For example dogs or cats or many other animals that go into "heat" which is a state ready, in fact eager to undergo the reproductive process. That mentality wouldn't be present in a genetic homosexual.


They have the same equipment and guess what many homosexuals actually get the biological time clock sensation.

A lesbian couple ask our friend (who is gay) to make a "donation" so they could have a child. He liked the idea of somebody being around after he is gone......

Homosexuality was widely and openly practiced in Ancient Greece. The Trojan army had an entire section made up entirely of gay men and their lovers. The term lesbian actually comes from the island of Lesbos in Greece where the poetess Sappho lived. She taught at an all girls school and many of her poems were about the love she had for some of her students. It is by no means a recent phenomenon, and it was accepted before it was denounced.

I don't know. For some reason I see many straight people defend the rights of gay people, but in a majority of cases they have to add a "but I'm not gay" disclaimer. :\ I giggle when I see that, as I imagine myself going "but I'm not black..."

I get to go "Because I am black". Much more fun, for some reason...

You shouldn't. I acted like someone who didn't believe in bisexuality for a while when I got sick of all the bisexuals who claimed "everyone is truly bisexual." Seeing them deny all other sexal orientation, I though they might see the folly of their ways if someone denied theirs, but, alas, very few of them got the point.

To that, we owe the "Dinobots?" comment.

I realise it's a fine line to some minds... but saying Billy has two dads, doesn't actually 'sexualise' anything.
Oh, is that what he was saying.... no, I think it's fine for Billy to talk about as many dads as he actually has.

Oh good, someone caught what I was saying. People tend to assume that I am male as well. It's kind of odd.
<--Assumed you were male.

Just doing my part to help prove the point, I guess. :)

Yeah, things are DEFINITELY like that in his fictional nation.

I've been to Georgia. You live in a city right? :p

Noted.

We have several chemical plants, 2-3 paper mills, a meatpacking plant, and several other sources of bad smells. It's amusing watching tourists suddenly smack into the invisible wall of funk while walking down the street. I'm thoroughly convinced that Augustans partially lose their sense of smell eventually.

<--Assumed you were male.

Just doing my part to help prove the point, I guess. :)

I knew because of the picture she's got up on the NS Map.

I've been to Georgia. You live in a city right? :p


Yep, I'm in Augusta, the friggin mecca of assholes who love golf and can't drive for shit.

I knew because of the picture she's got up on the NS Map.

Is that the one I posted with lots of boob?

Yep, I'm in Augusta, the friggin mecca of assholes who love golf and can't drive for shit.

You're telling him to avoid you? Well, what other reason for going to Georgia?

Oh, is that what he was saying.... no, I think it's fine for Billy to talk about as many dads as he actually has.

I think the actual implication is that 'gayness' is being 'taught' as part of the syllabus. I'm saying that teaching about the family structure being malleable (e.g. Billy has two dads) is neither 'recruiting', nor anything to 'sexualise'.

Is that the one I posted with lots of boob?

Possibly. Let's check.

I think the actual implication is that 'gayness' is being 'taught' as part of the syllabus. I'm saying that teaching about the family structure being malleable (e.g. Billy has two dads) is neither 'recruiting', nor anything to 'sexualise'.
I think it would help if people just replaced homosexuality with inter-racial couples in their minds, and then tried thinking about it again.

Does showing a picture of a black woman with a white man constitute "recruiting" for interracial marriages? Does reading a book about an interracial heterosexual family constitute "sexualizing" the children? If not, then why would you assume that reading a book about a gay family would "sexualize" children?

Is that the one I posted with lots of boob?

Linkage, please. I may be gay, but I can tell you straight away, boobage is never bad.

I get to go "Because I am black". Much more fun, for some reason...

You know, I agree.

To that, we owe the "Dinobots?" comment.

Huh?

I think it would help if people just replaced homosexuality with inter-racial couples in their minds, and then tried thinking about it again.

Does showing a picture of a black woman with a white man constitute "recruiting" for interracial marriages? Does reading a book about an interracial heterosexual family constitute "sexualizing" the children? If not, then why would you assume that reading a book about a gay family would "sexualize" children?

It seems simple and obvious, but the sort of people who WANT to find evidence of 'recruiting' or 'sexualising' will find it in anything. There probably ARE people out there bitching about the Cosby's making it look like it's 'natural' and 'acceptable' to have black families in our decent white America...

Linkage, please. I may be gay, but I can tell you straight away, boobage is never bad.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/daria319/2066.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/daria319/2066.jpg

Nice. :)

You're telling him to avoid you? Well, what other reason for going to Georgia?

I kind of got that impression as well. ;)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/daria319/2066.jpg

Help! Help!

I'm being sexualised!

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!!

It seems simple and obvious, but the sort of people who WANT to find evidence of 'recruiting' or 'sexualising' will find it in anything. There probably ARE people out there bitching about the Cosby's making it look like it's 'natural' and 'acceptable' to have black families in our decent white America...
*sigh* Yeah, you're probably right. I just try to cling to the tiny, battered hope that somehow, some day, reason will get through to these people. I keep thinking that if we could only explain to them why they've got nothing to be scared of, then maybe they would quit campaigning to fuck up our children.

Help! Help!

I'm being sexualised!

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!!

Oh, pipe down, and dig in! :D

I'm saying that teaching about the family structure being malleable (e.g. Billy has two dads) is neither 'recruiting', nor anything to 'sexualise'.

I don't know if anything about the family structure is actually taught... But with the large rate of divorce, I think kids learn about this anyway, since some kids with heterosexual parents have 2 dads or 2 moms.

Help! Help!

I'm being sexualised!

Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!!

SHHHHH the thought police will hear you!

Just admire! ;)

We have several chemical plants, 2-3 paper mills, a meatpacking plant, and several other sources of bad smells. It's amusing watching tourists suddenly smack into the invisible wall of funk while walking down the street. I'm thoroughly convinced that Augustans partially lose their sense of smell eventually.
It reminds me of a Simpsons I saw a long time ago and since I'm not a Simpsons freak, I can't give you a direct quote but there was a new girl in school who asked, "Does it always smell like this around here? Like bad?" But that could just be me making up Simpsons quotes which don't exist.

*sigh* Yeah, you're probably right. I just try to cling to the tiny, battered hope that somehow, some day, reason will get through to these people. I keep thinking that if we could only explain to them why they've got nothing to be scared of, then maybe they would quit campaigning to fuck up our children.

I prefer a happier vision...

As these people rail against more and more, and bind up the rules of what is 'right' tighter and tighter, they'll eventually limit themselves to a sad, sexless existence, and breed themselves out of the genepool.

:D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v89/daria319/2066.jpg

Ah, beaten to it. :p Don't forget the caption!
I am neither angry, nor a fruit salad.

Oh, pipe down, and dig in! :D

*sigh* Okay... but only because I'm being 'recruited' into it...

and breed themselves out of the genepool:D
now we get to talk about whether or not THAT is genetic... :-P

I agree with the people who say that gayness isn't genetic or influental only.

I think genes realy have something to do with it but there will also be other factors that have something to do with it. And of course saying gays can't have childern is rubish. I can have 200 childern if I want to and find enough females, but I am gay.

Also I believe that the whole discussion about if gays are ''bad'' people is being talked by americans, is that correct? If it is I would be very surprissed that they who claim to fight for freedom and have a free country won't allow people to be gay. Why should it matter if someone likes the same or opposit sex.

Nobody cares about the fact I like tea better then coffee, why should they care that i like guys better then girls?

And why are gays bad. I never did anything against the laws in my country and I am bad simply because I don't live excatly the way some old book I, dont believe in, tells me to. And if it is against the will of your god that people are gay why did he created them in the first place?

I don't know if anything about the family structure is actually taught... But with the large rate of divorce, I think kids learn about this anyway, since some kids with heterosexual parents have 2 dads or 2 moms.

I think there was a big fuss recently, somewhere (I don't pay attention sometimes...) about schools allowing (story) books that featured non-strictly-male/female families.

The fact is though, that not everyone who is prejudiced is prejudiced in all ways. Some people are homophobic, but not racist. Just as some people who are racist are not that way towards all races other than theirs, just one. For many homophobic people, simply substituting an image of a gay couple with an interracial couple, won't make any difference because they feel completely different about those two issues. Sometimes they do coincide, but not always.

That's why some people feel the issue of whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is important. Many homophobes believe being gay is a choice, and they think it's wrong to make that choice. On the other hand, they know that race isn't a choice, and they feel it's wrong to judge someone based on something they can't control. Personally, i don't care if being gay, straight or bi are choices, either one would be perfectly valid and acceptable to me, but not everyone thinks that way.

Bigotry isn't logical. What we think is a perfectly rational thought process, they don't.

*sigh* Okay... but only because I'm being 'recruited' into it...

I can recruit people, but only to the wrong side. Aww, maaan!

I think there was a big fuss recently, somewhere (I don't pay attention sometimes...) about schools allowing (story) books that featured non-strictly-male/female families.
I think you meant to say, "Caucasian Male/Female families".

I can recruit people, but only to the wrong side. Aww, maaan!

You MEAN you have latent hetro desires? :eek:

Come on! Switch to women!

One of us, One of us, One of us, One of us!.......

I think there was a big fuss recently, somewhere (I don't pay attention sometimes...) about schools allowing (story) books that featured non-strictly-male/female families.

hrm... I suppose the argument against it being that at that age, parents should be in control of whether or not their kids read stuff like that...

I worked in a bookstore for a year while in college, and we had educational-ish story books on topics like death, mental retardation, and "I'm going to have a new brother or sister"... these are other sensitive issues, but things that some kids need to know about depending on their circumstances... I would tend to think that some kids need to know about these things at different ages than others, depending on what is going on with their family/friends/etc. So I don't think that school is necessarily the place for it. On the other hand, I don't think books like that should be banned from schools. (I've just never been a big fan of someone telling me what I or my kids can or can't read, and (many years ago) when I was in high school, my english class read several books that were on "banned" lists. I think that if teachers are adequately atuned to the maturity level of their classes, then they should be allowed to determine when any book is appropriate.

You MEAN you have latent hetro desires? :eek:
Come on! Switch to women!
One of us, One of us, One of us, One of us!.......

As my sig says, only if one of you is Róisín Murphy...

That's why some people feel the issue of whether or not sexual orientation is a choice is important. Many homophobes believe being gay is a choice, and they think it's wrong to make that choice.

Also, I'd like to throw this out there: Even if sexual orientation is a result of one or the other of environment/nurture or genetics/nature, that doesn't mean that it is any more or less of a choice.

The problem is that many parents are too embarrassed to sit down and talk to their kids about these things, so if they didn't learn them at school, they would have to base their opinions on snippets of information they hear on the playground. That causes all kinds of problems.

Another issue is that when we talk to kids about things, we do it while using too many value judgements, both positive and negative. I think we need to give kids the facts and then allow them to formulate their own opinions when they are old enough to. My mom never specifically said being gay is okay, but she also never said it was bad. I grew up believing it was perfectly acceptable. When a child asks you "mommy, what does being gay mean?" they are not asking for your personal opinion on the lifestyle, they are simply asking you what it is. There is nothing wrong with telling kids your personal opinion, but i think it's also important they know other opinions exist, and it's important for them to know that one day they will have their own.

Oh, the heterosexist ignorance...

Your version of ignorance is quite ironic.

Well, we have lots of mutations that doesn't do us any good but still hang around. A common example is myopic eyesight, caused by recessive alleles. As this probably never has been advantageous to our lineage, you could ask why so many people still carry this caracter (although the expression of the allele probably also depends on environment).
All mutations appear spontaneously, and the smaller the original population, the more likely it is to be carried on to further descendants. If you consider homosexuality to be a single, recessive allele (unlikely, but..), it could have appeared without leaving a trace in the original host, and so be carried on further to any number of children and childrens children before it "struck" when somebody mated with its relative and produced a homozygote, recessive homosexual.

As a comment to your original posting - I have never heard of homosexual animals. Bisexual, sure, lots of them, but never 100% homosexuals. Have you got any examples for my enlightenment?:)
Here's a interesting article on the subject:
http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/homosexuality/animal-homosexuality/
I didn't say that there were species that were 100% homosexuals, just that some species had a higher frequency of homosexuality than others.

And my point was that if homosexuality was caused by a single recessive gene, it would not gain a higher percentage within the population because whenever it was paired with another recessive, it would likely be removed from the population. That's just the way it seems to me, but I'm far from an expert on genetics.

There is nothing wrong with telling kids your personal opinion, but i think it's also important they know other opinions exist, and it's important for them to know that one day they will have their own.

Well, this is true of so many different things. And who can say what the "right age" for every child is to learn about sex or sexual orientation or anything else for that matter.

And if it is against the will of your god that people are gay why did he created them in the first place?

God didnt creat gay people it is a choice people make pure and simple genetics have nothing to do with it.

BUt how logical is it to say you can choose your sexuality? The least we know is that it isn't a choice...
You can even be a god-fearing fundamentalist heterosexual and know that. That is, if you have a mind capable of grasping the obvious.

God didn't create people.

There, fixed it for you.

Yes, it is true for everything, and my comment encompassed all that, it was just a discussion i was having about same-sex marriages yesterday that inspired it in the first place.

As for what age is right to tell kids these things, i once heard a child psychologist or something say that as soon as kids are old enough to ask they are old enough for you to tell them, because there are age appropriate things you can say. I tend to agree with that. Obviously five year olds won't get the same kind of detail ten year olds would, but there are still ways you can explain stuff to five year olds.

As my sig says, only if one of you is Róisín Murphy...

She is nice!

Sings well too! ;)

Also, I'd like to throw this out there: Even if sexual orientation is a result of one or the other of environment/nurture or genetics/nature, that doesn't mean that it is any more or less of a choice.

Actually no.

Genetics has random mutations. How is that a choice?

Well done Fass, more words successfully twisted. Homosexuals are good at that. 'Gay', 'Tolerance', and many other words have been twisted for use by homosexuals in the past, and passed into common usage to make them seem as if they have a secondary meaning other than the meaning they were initially used for.

Well done Fass

I second that. He does do rather well.

Liberal ConscribedComradeship? :)

Well done Fass, more words successfully twisted. Homosexuals are good at that. 'Gay', 'Tolerance', and many other words have been twisted for use by homosexuals in the past, and passed into common usage to make them seem as if they have a secondary meaning other than the meaning they were initially used for.

So what did "tolerance" mean before it was "twisted"?

Liberal ConscribedComradeship? :)

Are you ignoring the deliberate editing of your post?

God didnt creat gay people it is a choice people make pure and simple genetics have nothing to do with it.

"Not saying God is gay,
Not saying that at all.
But if Jesus Christ was God and God created all.
Then Jesus Christ created the homosexual.
There might be a little fag in us all."

Corporate Avenger - "Jesus Christ Homosexual"

Well done Fass, more words successfully twisted. Homosexuals are good at that. 'Gay', 'Tolerance', and many other words have been twisted for use by homosexuals in the past, and passed into common usage to make them seem as if they have a secondary meaning other than the meaning they were initially used for.

I don't need to twist your words, sweetie. Their inherent ugliness needs no help to be apparent.

Tolerance was previously having to put up with something begrudgingly. Although, it's new meaning would be having to accept something with open arms. Pity resistors don't work like that.

What post did I edit ConscribedComradeship?

Actually no.

Genetics has random mutations. How is that a choice?

Emphasis on the "it doesn't make it any MORE of a choice"...

I'm just trying to keep my posts as neutral as possible, while still getting my point across...

I didn't say you'd twisted my words.

I didn't say you'd twisted my words.

Well, then, you just need go elsewhere, I suppose, to make someone buy your bigotry. Oh, and to tell yourself you're not.

Tolerance was previously having to put up with something begrudgingly. Although, it's new meaning would be having to accept something with open arms. Pity resistors don't work like that.

What post did I edit ConscribedComradeship?
So, put up with homosexuality with as much grudge as you like. Just put up with it, though.

"Not saying God is gay,
Not saying that at all.
But if Jesus Christ was God and God created all.
Then Jesus Christ created the homosexual.
There might be a little fag in us all."

Corporate Avenger - "Jesus Christ Homosexual"

He did travel around with all those men. And Dan Brown aside, usually he is depicted as unmarried.

Then there's that allegedly missing bit from the Gospel of Mark....

Tolerance was previously having to put up with something begrudgingly. Although, it's new meaning would be having to accept something with open arms.

The relevance of your point is unclear. If tolerance meant something else, a different word would be used; it would have no bearing on the content of the argument.

Tolerance and acceptance still mean two different things. I don't think anyone should have to accept homosexuality with open arms, though it would be nice. I do think though that everyone should have to tolerate it.

If some people use the two words to mean the same thing, it's not because anyone has bastardized them, it's simply because some people don't know the difference.

I don't need to tell myself I'm not a bigot, I know I'm not. I simply don't buy your homosexual rhetoric like the rest of the people on this forum. Call me stubborn, ignorant, intolerant, or whatever else you like. I'm entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours. I don't hate you as a person, I just don't agree with what you do.

Rangerville why should I have to put up with it?

Rangerville why should I have to put up with it?
You should be tolerant.

This is getting funny.

He did travel around with all those men. And Dan Brown aside, usually he is depicted as unmarried.

Then there's that allegedly missing bit from the Gospel of Mark....

And, how did he get arrested? I mean... come on. That was a sting operation.

"Arrest the guys kissing"....

And, crucifixion? Puh-lease... could that be any more symbolic?

I just don't agree with what you do.

You make it sound like you think gay people are committing some kind of crime.

Rangerville why should I have to put up with it?

Because we tell you to, and we're big meanies who opress the peoples, with our evil homosexual abortion nazi agenda. And since we're evil, we needn't explain anyhing to you, just cuz. Now run along before we call our Communist hippie mercenaries to do you in, the have your existence erased by the Space Pope.

Why should I though? I can simply carry on going through life not bothering with people I don't wish to bother with, like homosexuals. That way, I've no need to tolerate anyone I don't wish to. I don't need to be told like a child who I should be made to talk, interact, and live my life with.

Because putting up with it really isn't too much to ask of anyone. You don't have to talk to gay people, or like them, or agree with them, or have anything to do with them. You do though have to deal with the fact that they exist. They always have and they always will, as long as human beings in general exist. They're not going away, so not dealing with their existence is pointless.

I don't need to tell myself I'm not a bigot, I know I'm not.


And, of course... it is how YOU perceive your attitudes that matters?

Call me stubborn, ignorant, intolerant, or whatever else you like.

Okay, but only because you asked so sweetly.

I'm entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours. I don't hate you as a person, I just don't agree with what you do.

What... trying to get along with our fellow human beings? Hoping for a better future? Loving our neighbours? Treating others as we would like them to treat us?

I can see why you'd want to rail against that kind of sick agenda.

Why should I though? I can simply carry on going through life not bothering with people I don't wish to bother with, like homosexuals. That way, I've no need to tolerate anyone I don't wish to. I don't need to be told like a child who I should be made to talk, interact, and live my life with.
What?

What you are talking about doing is tolerance. If you have nothing to do with them, but don't hate them or try to eliminate them, if you don't taunt them or insult them, you are putting up with them.

You seem to be mixing up tolerance and acceptance now. Acceptance is talking to them, being close to them, liking them. Tolerance doesn't have to be about that at all, though sometimes it is.

I don't need to tell myself I'm not a bigot, I know I'm not. I simply don't buy your homosexual rhetoric like the rest of the people on this forum. Call me stubborn, ignorant, intolerant, or whatever else you like. I'm entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours. I don't hate you as a person, I just don't agree with what you do.
Darling, nobody really cares if you agree. The only thing gay people care about is, are you arrogant enough to think that your opinion trumps their civil rights?

I don't need to tell myself I'm not a bigot, I know I'm not.

Yes, Dorothy. Say it a few more times and click your heels once more, and it'll most certainly be true.

I simply don't buy your homosexual rhetoric like the rest of the people on this forum.

Yes, because it's such evil rhetoric, to let people fuck whatever consenting adult they want.

Call me stubborn, ignorant, intolerant, or whatever else you like.

You forgot "going the way of the Dodo."

I'm entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours.

And I can tell you just how stupid your opinion is.

I don't hate you as a person, I just don't agree with what you do.

What, pay my bills and taxes? Work? Enjoy water-skiing? Fucking someone who wants me to fuck him and whom I want to fuck?

Well, gee, what a non-bigot you are... :rolleyes:

Why should I though? I can simply carry on going through life not bothering with people I don't wish to bother with, like homosexuals. That way, I've no need to tolerate anyone I don't wish to. I don't need to be told like a child who I should be made to talk, interact, and live my life with.
For somebody who claims not to need to be talked to like a child, you sure are showing a childish attitude.

"I don't like gays and you can't make me! So there!"

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you just aren't that important to gay people. I'd wager that the overwhelming majority of gay people are completely uninterested in whether or not you feel like talking to them. They're a bit more concerned with, you know, civil rights and shit. Fags have funny priorities like that.

That's the thing though Llamartina, I do believe it's a crime. One of God's laws that has been broken. As a Christian, I don't agree with it. No matter how many other so-called Christians may do. You might not think so, but I certainly do.

Like I said, Grave_n_idle, I know I'm not a bigot because whereas I don't agree with what homosexuals do, I don't hate them as a person. They can happily carry on doing as they wish, I'm not going to stop them. Each to their own as it were.

Okay, but only because you asked so sweetly.

Slightly out of context friend. But then, if taking things out of context to make yourself look good, whilst belittling others is your thing, then so be it.

What... tryong to get along with our fellow human beings? Hoping for a better future? Loving our neighbours? Treating others as we would like them to treat us?

I can see why you'd want to rail against that kind of sick agenda.

I get along very well with fellow human beings. First you take me out of context, then you dehumanise me. Pity. A better future would be nice, but I know that's not going to happen, and loving my neighbour (platonically) is par for the course I would've thought, especially when you live next door to them. Unless, you mean neighbour, as in the general population of the world, then I have no problem there either. I treat others as I'd expect them to treat me, even though some people take liberty with that from time to time. I'm not them.

I treat others as I'd expect them to treat me, even though some people take liberty with that from time to time. I'm not them.

Oh I see. You'd like others to speak bollocks to you all the time...:rolleyes:

If you really believe they can just carry on as they wish and you believe in to each his own, you are tolerating them, whether you want to or not. Even ignoring them is tolerating them.

You're not accepting them, but that's different.

That's the thing though Llamartina, I do believe it's a crime. One of God's laws that has been broken. As a Christian, I don't agree with it. No matter how many other so-called Christians may do. You might not think so, but I certainly do.

Like I said, Grave_n_idle, I know I'm not a bigot because whereas I don't agree with what homosexuals do, I don't hate them as a person. They can happily carry on doing as they wish, I'm not going to stop them. Each to their own as it were.



Slightly out of context friend. But then, if taking things out of context to make yourself look good, whilst belittling others is your thing, then so be it.



I get along very well with fellow human beings. First you take me out of context, then you dehumanise me. Pity. A better future would be nice, but I know that's not going to happen, and loving my neighbour (platonically) is par for the course I would've thought, especially when you live next door to them. Unless, you mean neighbour, as in the general population of the world, then I have no problem there either. I treat others as I'd expect them to treat me, even though some people take liberty with that from time to time. I'm not them.
So, what is your stance on gay marriage and childrens books with homosexual parents and gays in the military? Because those are things that we can actually argue about. Like and no like are suitable for fluffier threads.

Well, they seem to be at the moment..

Well, they seem to be at the moment..

Can you quote who you're talking to?

One of God's laws that has been broken. As a Christian, I don't agree with it.

Oh, who didn't see this old excuse for bigotry coming?

That's the thing though Llamartina, I do believe it's a crime. One of God's laws that has been broken. As a Christian, I don't agree with it. No matter how many other so-called Christians may do. You might not think so, but I certainly do.

Man, it must be so humiliating to be a Christian these days.


Like I said, Grave_n_idle, I know I'm not a bigot because whereas I don't agree with what homosexuals do, I don't hate them as a person. They can happily carry on doing as they wish, I'm not going to stop them. Each to their own as it were.

Except, you know, that you won't talk to them, and you feel that they're committing a crime against God. But aside from that, you're not the least bit hateful.


Slightly out of context friend. But then, if taking things out of context to make yourself look good, whilst belittling others is your thing, then so be it.
Ain't no amount of "context" that will make you less of a homophobe.


I get along very well with fellow human beings.

Except for the ones who you refuse to speak to or interact with or acknowledge. But hey, who needs talking and interacting and acknowledging to get along?


First you take me out of context, then you dehumanise me.

A person who is upset that he might be expected to talk to gay people is complaining that he is being dehumanized.

Let's all take a moment to meditate on that one.


Pity. A better future would be nice, but I know that's not going to happen,

Not if we refuse to talk to people because we're too busy obsessing over who they're fucking.


I treat others as I'd expect them to treat me, even though some people take liberty with that from time to time. I'm not them.
Wait, you just got done telling us about how nobody can make you like fags or talk to fags or accept fags, and then you turn around and cry when people decide they don't like you or accept you?

Doesn't sound like you are at all comfortable with people treating you the way you treat them.

I disagree with homosexual marriage, I disagree with showing young children anything about sex until they're at an age where they can descern about things like that. A five year needs to be learning to read, not learning to read about sex. As for the military, that's really up to them. I couldn't care less one way or the other.

I know an atheist who doesn't like gay people, and he uses the same arguments most Christians do. It seems to me those are the only arguments against homosexuality people have.

1. Its obviously not a choice, why would people choose to be homosexual in a world that is so opposed to it? You can't be attracted to the opposite sex and then all of a sudden have the hots for the same sex, it just doesn't make any sense. You're either attracted to someone of the opposite sex, someone of the same sex, or both sexes. Thats just the way it is.

2. Therefore, it is due to genetics. There are many theories about genetic homosexuality and talks about a some "gay gene" but the point is one is born predispositioned to liking either the opposite sex or the same sex.

3. If you ask yourself, what am I attracted to in terms of sex urges? Does it feel natural to you? If it looks natural, if it smells natural, if it feels natural, then certainly, it must be natural. For a lesbian/gay person, it would be natural as well to desire a member of the same sex.

4. Sure, humans are biologically supposed to engage in sexual activity with members of the opposite sex, but obviously god (or whomever you believe in) has created some flaws here and there. Loving a person doesn't necessarily mean one must procreate with them (ie. as seen in many straight relationships).

5. And... just because gays/lesbians are more accepted nowadays in some parts of the world, it doesn't "make" more people gay, more people are just feeling comfortable coming out of the closet.

6. Homosexuality simply is. It exists. Its just another aspect of human diversity.

I know an atheist who doesn't like gay people, and he uses the same arguments most Christians do. It seems to me those are the only arguments against homosexuality people have.
And every last one has been de-bunked a hundred times over. They're not just bigotted and ignorant, they're also unimaginative :).

One of God's laws that has been broken. As a Christian, I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure about this, but didn't Jesus say somthing to the effect of "live and let live"?

Well in decent discussion, I would genuinely talk to you all. As it is though, it seems to be a free-for-all on have a go at the Christian at the moment. Perhaps, it would've been better for me to have not mentioned anything at all then you could ramble on agreeing with each other until the cows come home, as it seems to me you either want to talk to a yes-man or a stereotypical Catholic/Christian punchbag.

End of discussion for me. ;)

I'm not sure about this, but didn't Jesus say somthing to the effect of "live and let live"?
To the best of my recollection, God dedicated exactly zero space in his Top Ten Rules For Good Christians to the bashing of homosexuality. Adultery (including divorce and remarriage) did make the Top Ten, but you don't hear the Christians campaigning to ban divorce or to shield kids from learning about divorced heterosexual couples.

I know an atheist who doesn't like gay people, and he uses the same arguments most Christians do. It seems to me those are the only arguments against homosexuality people have.

Speaking to people such as these one understands something very quickly. They think gay people are icky. Then they try to find an excuse for it. Religion is the primary one, but they manage to find others. It's like racists - they may try to find excuses for their behaviour, and religion was a very popular one for them as well, but in the end all it comes down to is "blacks/whites/yellows/reds/browns are yucky."

Well in decent discussion, I would genuinely talk to you all. As it is though, it seems to be a free-for-all on have a go at the Christian at the moment.

If you feel ganged up on, well, so do the racists around here.


Perhaps, it would've been better for me to have not mentioned anything at all then you could ramble on agreeing with each other until the cows come home, as it seems to me you either want to talk to a yes-man or a stereotypical Catholic/Christian punchbag.

Frankly, I would absolutely love it if there was a single homophobe who could present a coherant argument to support their beliefs. Instead, they all degenerate into whining about how everybody is picking on them, and how their beliefs are just their beliefs and nobody should be allowed to criticize them.


End of discussion for me. ;)
Or they just take their ball and go home.

If you feel ganged up on, well, so do the racists around here.

Frankly, I would absolutely love it if there was a single homophobe who could present a coherant argument to support their beliefs. Instead, they all degenerate into whining about how everybody is picking on them, and how their beliefs are just their beliefs and nobody should be allowed to criticize them.

Or they just take their ball and go home.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who spots these patterns.

I don't have a proble with Christianity, or any other religion. I know some Christians and members of other religions who are wonderful and decent people. What i have a problem with are those who use their faith, or their politics, etc. as an excuse to hate and pass judgement on other people when they have done nothing to hurt anyone else. When i hear Christian fundamentalists open their mouths i actually feel sorry for other members of the faith.