NationStates Jolt Archive

Even if this is right at least since then the vast majority of scientistsdon't think its a disorder anymore. In england there was no such political pressure to take homosexuality off the disorders list, it was discussed thoroughly by leading scientists who at the very least concluded it can't be a mental disorder foer the simple reason it does not impair or change any other aspect of homosexuals lives.

There was no evidence scientifically for them to change it, it was just pure, plain, political pressure. You've just proved that with their so-called reasonings.

I now know that mothers of homosexuals are on average more fertile, although this advantage won't help the mother survive it does mean there will be more with the trait out there.

We know there's some correlation, but we don't know what's causing what.


Also the "straight" offspring of the mother will have more chance of surviving to reproductive age because of the homosexual helpers

Why are you assuming that homosexual children will be "helpers" more often than heterosexual offspring?


and thus the straight offspring will spread the trait they got from their mother.

Or it's possible that a mother with whatever this trait is will pass the trait to her daughters, who will also be more fertile (for whatever reason), and the increase in likelihood of homosexuality will simply be a by-product.

We honestly don't know. And, frankly, since homosexuality is not 100% genetic, I think it's a bit silly to be wasting so much time pondering this.

There was no evidence scientifically for them to change it, it was just pure, plain, political pressure. You've just proved that with their so-called reasonings.
Um, dude, that's how the DSM IV works. It's a diagnostic manual. Clinicians come together to outline a manual with categories of diagnoses and lists of associated symptoms. It gets revised and changed by consensus among the community. It's not some Big Book of Answers that you're supposed to regard as the absolute final word...no good clinician would use it that way. It's a useful tool, but one of the most important lessons for new psychologists and psychiatrists is becoming aware of the limitations of these diagnostic tools.

Possibly, but why are atheists and followers of non-christian religions admitted then ?
The next step is to bar Muslims from serving.

Why are you assuming that homosexual children will be "helpers" more often than heterosexual offspring?

Because someone said something about mokeys in this thread or another thread that said something along these lines...


Or it's possible that a mother with whatever this trait is will pass the trait to her daughters, who will also be more fertile (for whatever reason), and the increase in likelihood of homosexuality will simply be a by-product.
.
Yes, i agree with this


We honestly don't know. And, frankly, since homosexuality is not 100% genetic, I think it's a bit silly to be wasting so much time pondering this.

Probably, but i have a lot of time to waste.

There was no evidence scientifically for them to change it, it was just pure, plain, political pressure. You've just proved that with their so-called reasonings.

As far as i can remember reading there was virtually no political pressure in england, read what you quoted properly.

Again, selection DOES NOT WORK on a group or species level. It doesn't. PERIOD.

Selection works on the INDIVIDUAL level. There are numerous potential advantages to an INDIVIDUAL organism that might be obtained via homosexual activity, and there are numerous ways in which the INDIVIDUAL'S reproductive fitness might be improved by homosexuality, but homosexuality is NOT going to be "selected for" simply because it happens to benefit the species as whole. Selection simply does not work that way.

An example of how homosexuality could be reproductively beneficial can be found among bonobo chimps. These chimps are our closest genetic "cousins," and in their societies the most common form of sexual contact is sex occuring between two females. These sexual encounters appear to help in maintaining the social structure, as well as helping with bonding. Females who are frequent "lovers" also tend to groom and feed each others' young more often, which increases the survival rates of their offspring. So "lesbians" are actually more reproductively successful than "heterosexual" females.

I think what people are getting stuck on is that reproductive fitness =/= making the most babies. Reproductive fitness is about producing offspring who thrive and make it to maturity. If you make 10 babies but only 2 of them survive to adulthood, your reproductive success is no better than a couple who made 2 babies but got them both to adulthood. It may actually be lower, since your own health and status may be compromised by having to expend the resources to produce 10 babies.

Hence, even if you were to assume (for the sake of argument) that "gay" animals produce fewer offspring, they may actually be MORE reproductively successful if they are somehow better able to get their offspring to thrive.
I wasn't trying to equate it with reproduction, though, yeah, I see how my remarks about benefit to a group do sound like that. I think you got the impression that I was assuming a causality -- sexual variation occurs and this is why humans, etc... I was not trying to do that. I think that sexual variation is its own phenomenon, and whatever benefit that variation may bring to a group is an entirely separate phenomenon that could just as likely occur from some other mix of individual variations -- like individuals who live long lives and retain good health and strength into old age, another randomly occurring individual variation.

I was equating sexual variation with things like hair and eye color variation, height variation, things like that. There may or may not be some minor functional effect of these things (or ever have been, in the history of us critters), but they are not distributed in any kind of a functional way. They are random variations. What I call the genetic lottery. I do not assume that there needs to be a purpose to these variations. And, obviously, if it's random, then it is not selected.

Yes, I do think that individuals who produce fewer offspring will have a better likelihood of keeping those offspring alive to adulthood, but I do not think that is why individual variation happens. There is far too much variation and it occurs far too randomly to assume that there is a such a causality.

Arguments that homosexuality is unnatural, abnormal, or a matter of choice would be totally unaffected by the data you are talking about.
Really? Perhaps. But I think that data that actually demonstrates that sexual variation occurs as a random individual variation would be quite useful. Rational, unprejudiced people already know this, but the staple anti-gay arguments are that homosexuality is somehow not natural, not normal, that it has a detrimental effect on the species, or that it is nothing but a willful choice made by people determined to be uncooperative (with the expectations of bigots, that is). Counter arguments about how genetics and evolution work fall on deaf ears because they are about process, not results, and they are complicated, and they are easy for closed-minded people to just ignore and brush off, and difficult to teach in grade school. Hard data are easier to teach and harder to refute.

Do I need such data to tell me something so obvious? No. I would be interested in it only out of simple curiosity -- a "See? Told ya so" kind of thing. But I would be happy to have it to throw in the face of those who say "homosexuality is harmful because a species that doesn't reproduce will become extinct." Oh, yeah, well... You're Wrong! KABONG!! with a set of facts. But that's just me. I'm lazy that way. Why futz with scalpels when a hammer will get the job done?

Homosexuality is natural, period. That is not in debate. It is simple fact.
Obviously.

Homosexuality may or may not be "abnormal," depending on how you define your norm. Whether or not homosexuality is natural or choice or whatever has no impact on whether or not is it "normal," because "normal" can be defined any number of ways.
Even if it were abnormal, that does not and should not affect a civil rights issue. People born without legs are abnormal, but they are still humans and citizens, obviously.

I do not think homosexuality is abnormal in any way at all, but in the civil rights context, that should be irrelevant. However, some anti-gay people try to claim (unproven) abnormality as a reason for denying rights to gays. Of course, such an argument makes no sense on its face, but I would be happy to, in addition to showing how it makes no sense, also destroy their attempts to claim abnormality. I'm not waiting for that, of course. I'd just like to have it in my arsenal.

Homosexuality is no more or less governed by choice than heterosexuality, and again, this is not in debate. It is simple fact. The only people who dispute these points are people who haven't done their homework.
Actually, I think the people who dispute this are the people who have a vested interest in denying rights to others. This is why you can show them all the logical, scientific, ethical, and historical flaws in all their arguments but they keep using them over and over again.

There is more than enough data to conclude that homosexuality is NOT the result of a selection-based species-level population control mechanism. That hypothesis has been pretty definitively refuted by piles and piles of data.

There is also more than enough data to conclude that homosexuality is natural, and that it is often a reproductively successful solution for an organism.
I don't want to and don't intend to get into an argument about the mechanisms of genetics and evolution because (A) I'm not equipped to, (B) it's not germaine to the thread, and (C) I don't disagree with you in the first place.

All I'm going to say about this is that I do not think homosexuality is a result of selection -- and I don't think I ever said it was. It is a randomly occuring individual variation that may be beneficial in an incidental way, but that part doesn't really matter anyway. In fact, it doesn't matter any more than homosexuality itself matters, and that matters no more than eye color, hair color or left/right-handedness, in my opinion.

Or maybe it's the other way around - mothers with more children are more likely to have on who decides he or she is a homosexual?
For the record: SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. What you do with that orientation may be a choice, but not the orientation itself.

Now, to steer this back towards the topic, let's pretend for a moment that it is choice (which it isn't): So the frig what?

Why should a choice of sex partner have anything to do with military service? Unless the Pentagon is proposing to have US armed forces demoralize the enemy by fucking their girlfriends better than they can, I fail to see what possible relevance a person's sex life can have to military service. I am sure there are many people in the military who make all kinds of choices in their private lives -- even to the extreme of wearing plaid with stripes -- but are never called to account for it to an officer. Why? 'Cause it doesn't matter. They don't mix clashing patterns on duty, and they don't have sex on duty, either.


PS: I know you're not a crazy person. I am using your remark to open an attack on the "it's a choice" anti-gay argument on the grounds that it is irrelevant. Please don't take it personally.

For the record: SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. What you do with that orientation may be a choice, but not the orientation itself.

Now, to steer this back towards the topic, let's pretend for a moment that it is choice (which it isn't): So the frig what?

Why should a choice of sex partner have anything to do with military service? Unless the Pentagon is proposing to have US armed forces demoralize the enemy by fucking their girlfriends better than they can, I fail to see what possible relevance a person's sex life can have to military service. I am sure there are many people in the military who make all kinds of choices in their private lives -- even to the extreme of wearing plaid with stripes -- but are never called to account for it to an officer. Why? 'Cause it doesn't matter. They don't mix clashing patterns on duty, and they don't have sex on duty, either.


PS: I know you're not a crazy person. I am using your remark to open an attack on the "it's a choice" anti-gay argument on the grounds that it is irrelevant. Please don't take it personally.
It affects them because for 1 they will constantly b harrased by straight men. Unity and moral falls when u have 1 memember who no1 likes, causing divisions. Much simpler to do this then to actually have to worry about what will end up happening later. O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.

It affects them because for 1 they will constantly b harrased by straight men. Unity and moral falls when u have 1 memember who no1 likes, causing divisions. Much simpler to do this then to actually have to worry about what will end up happening later. O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.

Gays are the same as murderers?

Jesus Christ...

It affects them because for 1 they will constantly b harrased by straight men. Unity and moral falls when u have 1 memember who no1 likes, causing divisions. Much simpler to do this then to actually have to worry about what will end up happening later. O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.
If they can not handle it they are not deserving to wear that uniform … if they are so incapable of rational thought they are not qualified.

Gays are the same as murderers?

Jesus Christ...

When compared on a religous scale, of whether they choose to commit sin or not yes they r the same, as they both choose to b sin.

When compared on a religous scale, of whether they choose to commit sin or not yes they r the same, as they both choose to b sin.
I did not CHOOSE to be attracted to both males and females … anyone that says differently is ignorant

If they can not handle it they are not deserving to wear that uniform … if they are so incapable of rational thought they are not qualified.

Um then ramifications would happen of kicking them out for being imcompetent or w/e and then things such as to harrassing and what not of fellow soldiers. Its just easier to do it this way as a preventative strike.

O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.

WTF award.

When compared on a religous scale, of whether they choose to commit sin or not yes they r the same, as they both choose to b sin.

How many times? Homosexuality is not a choice. Why would people want to choose to be persecuted?

I did not CHOOSE to be attracted to both males and females … anyone that says differently is ignorant

Thats a matter of debate, but either way u chose to act on ur attaction, just as a murder is attracted to going on killing sprees.

Um then ramifications would happen of kicking them out for being imcompetent or w/e and then things such as to harrassing and what not of fellow soldiers. Its just easier to do it this way as a preventative strike.
So we compromise equality for pragmatism? Bah the military would be better off without those bigots anyways.

For the record: SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS NOT A CHOICE. What you do with that orientation may be a choice, but not the orientation itself.

PS: I know you're not a crazy person. I am using your remark to open an attack on the "it's a choice" anti-gay argument on the grounds that it is irrelevant. Please don't take it personally.

Well, I appreciate the recommendation, if that's the right word...

If it's not a choice, then what is it? I may have missed (yet again) a new scientific finding, but the last I heard the "gay gene" theory was more or less debunked. Not like I actually pay too much attention to scientific news, but if there's something else that's come up, I'd much rather know about it than argue from ignorance.

How many times? Homosexuality is not a choice. Why would people want to choose to be persecuted?

Whether it is a choice or not, is irrelevent to my argument.

When compared on a religous scale, of whether they choose to commit sin or not yes they r the same, as they both choose to b sin.

What grade are you in? Can you even write?

Murder involves killing somebody who wanted to live.

Making love to a man is something the both of you choose to do.

They are not the same.

Thats a matter of debate, but either way u chose to act on ur attaction, just as a murder is attracted to going on killing sprees.
And hetrosexuals choose to act on their attractions as well. Hetrosexuality is as close to your comparison to murder as homosexuality is

What grade are you in? Can you even write?

Murder involves killing somebody who wanted to live.

Making love to a man is something the both of you choose to do.

They are not the same.

Can u read??? When compared on a religious scale they r the same.

Thats a matter of debate, but either way u chose to act on ur attaction, just as a murder is attracted to going on killing sprees.

You have yet to prove it's a choice.

And hetrosexuals choose to act on their attractions as well. Hetrosexuality is as close to your comparison to murder as homosexuality is

Actually no acting on hetrosexuality is not a sin, while acting on homosexuality is a sin.

Well, I appreciate the recommendation, if that's the right word...

If it's not a choice, then what is it? I may have missed (yet again) a new scientific finding, but the last I heard the "gay gene" theory was more or less debunked. Not like I actually pay too much attention to scientific news, but if there's something else that's come up, I'd much rather know about it than argue from ignorance.
Is heterosexuality also a choice? did you choose to be atracted to a member of the oposite sex?

You have yet to prove it's a choice.

U have yet to prove it isn't.

And either way it is irrelevent whether it is a choice or not, for the 3rd time i have said this, learn to read.

Is heterosexuality also a choice? did you choose to be atracted to a member of the oposite sex?

Yes i did, and for the 4th time whether it is a choice or not is irrelevent.

Actually no acting on hetrosexuality is not a sin, while acting on homosexuality is a sin.
Who cares? I don’t put any more stock in that myth then any other one. If a solder is incapable of putting that mumbo jumbo behind him in order to do his JOB he is not fit for service

Can u read??? When compared on a religious scale they r the same.

Can you write?

No they are not.

Some sins are far more grievous then others.

The act of murder involves the unwilling.

Actually no acting on hetrosexuality is not a sin, while acting on homosexuality is a sin.

So premarital hetero sex is not a sin even though its condemned more often than homosexuality is in the Bible? Hmm...

U have yet to prove it isn't.

And either way it is irrelevent whether it is a choice or not, for the 3rd time i have said this, learn to read.

It EXISTS in the animal kingdom. Animals don't choose to be homosexuals!

If it is irrelevant then stop declaring it's a choice.

Yes i did

For experimental purposes, choose to be gay.

Who cares? I don’t put any more stock in that myth then any other one. If a solder is incapable of putting that mumbo jumbo behind him in order to do his JOB he is not fit for service

Dear lord i must repeat myself, i swear just go back 10 posts and read im getting tired of saying the same things over and over.

It would b easier to discharge them this way then go thru the ramifications of what would happen with having an openly gay person in the military. For instance 1 problem it would cause is lack of unity and moral and cause division inside individual units, causing more trouble later on.

Can you write?

No they are not.

Some sins are far more grievous then others.

The act of murder involves the unwilling.

Yes they are infact being gay is more of sin then being a murderor.

Dear lord i must repeat myself, i swear just go back 10 posts and read im getting tired of saying the same things over and over.

It would b easier to discharge them this way then go thru the ramifications of what would happen with having an openly gay person in the military. For instance 1 problem it would cause is lack of unity and moral and cause division inside individual units, causing more trouble later on.

Oh yes. Those poor, bigoted soldiers. They must be protected at all costs from the icky, icky gays...

For experimental purposes, choose to be gay.

No y in the world would i choose to b a sin?

Oh yes. Those poor, bigoted soldiers. They must be protected at all costs from the icky, icky gays...

O dear lord go back and read.

Dear lord i must repeat myself, i swear just go back 10 posts and read im getting tired of saying the same things over and over.

It would b easier to discharge them this way then go thru the ramifications of what would happen with having an openly gay person in the military. For instance 1 problem it would cause is lack of unity and moral and cause division inside individual units, causing more trouble later on.

The Roman Legions and the Spartans had no problems with it and were highly feared on the battle field.

There is only a problem because of people like you.

Is heterosexuality also a choice? did you choose to be atracted to a member of the oposite sex?

Oh, 'k, I see what you're saying. I wasn't being clear, my bad. I tend to think of "x-sexuality" as "engaging in x-sexual activity" (where "x" can be hetero-, homo-, bi-, etc). Same as I think of a liar as a person who actually tells an untruth, not anyone who would like to do so in order to get out of trouble. Sorry for the mix-up.

No y in the world would i choose to b a sin?

You are 12-15 right?

O dear lord go back and read.

I have. My opinion has not changed one iota.

You are 12-15 right?
Nope older what ur point?

I have. My opinion has not changed one iota.

Then apparently u can't read because ur statment had nothing to do with my argument.

The Roman Legions and the Spartans had no problems with it and were highly feared on the battle field.

There is only a problem because of people like you.

Um i dont' know of any gay ppl being in either the roman legions or the spartan legions.

However even so that is a far diffrent world back then, not the world of politically correct crap we have today.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, stemming from early childhood traumas such as sexual abuse and the like.

You can debate that fact 'til you're blue in the face or you can spout your 'philosophies' or whatever, it doesn't change the truth.

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, stemming from early childhood traumas such as sexual abuse and the like.

You can debate that fact 'til you're blue in the face or you can spout your 'philosophies' or whatever, it doesn't change the truth.

Eww nice troll post! Boarders on sarcasm but still good! ;)

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, stemming from early childhood traumas such as sexual abuse and the like.

You can debate that fact 'til you're blue in the face or you can spout your 'philosophies' or whatever, it doesn't change the truth.

God...

Always with the trolling...

Um i dont' know of any gay ppl being in either the roman legions or the spartan legions.

However even so that is a far diffrent world back then, not the world of politically correct crap we have today.

The Spartans didn't have legions.

They world was different. The Spartans didn't have to deal with Christians and the Romans well they tried.

So does the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Have you been touched by His Noodly Appendage?

He touched me! :p [/girly voice]

Nope older what ur point?

Ok 16 then.

The Spartans didn't have legions.

They world was different. The Spartans didn't have to deal with Christians and the Romans well they tried.

So u agree that the world was diffrent and thus a comparison can't b made between 3 groups that r radically diffrent.

So u agree that the world was diffrent and thus a comparison can't b made between 3 groups that r radically diffrent.

No they can be the same.

If Christians stopped teaching hate, then there would be no problem with a gay man serving his country in the forces.

Ok 16 then.

Isn't there some sort of "online emotional age" which is the only real figure that matters on a forum? 'Cause, ya know, if he's *actually* 16... then he must think I'm like 35.

Isn't there some sort of "online emotional age" which is the only real figure that matters on a forum? 'Cause, ya know, if he's *actually* 16... then he must think I'm like 35.

His writing skills don't involve an "online emotional age"

Again a question to you.

Your id; whats the meaning behind it?

No they can be the same.

If Christians stopped teaching hate, then there would be no problem with a gay man serving his country in the forces.

If gays stopped doing homosexual acts then there would b no problem for a gay man to serve his country either.
And the only hate the Christains teach is hate the sin.

Silly people. Don't you know it is immoral to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender? A man having feelings for another man is for more reprehensible than a man dropping a bomb and vaporising an entire city, or thousands of soldiers shooting/hacking/killing one another on an open terrain. Just think of the children!

If gays stopped doing homosexual acts then there would b no problem for a gay man to serve his country either.
And the only hate the Christains teach is hate the sin.

Then why create a law or enforce a policy that punishs the sinner?

Then why create a law or enforce a policy that punishs the sinner?

Y create a law that punishes sum1 who murders?

Silly people. Don't you know it is immoral to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender? A man having feelings for another man is for more reprehensible than a man dropping a bomb and vaporising an entire city, or thousands of soldiers shooting/hacking/killing one another on an open terrain. Just think of the children!

You forgot to add sarcasm tags.

Y create a law that punishes sum1 who murders?


Because a murderer harms his victims. Homosexuals harm no one through marriage or joining the military.

"Umm, hello, work? I'd like to call in sick today. Yeah, I'm feeling a bit homosexual. Yes, again. Yes, the third time this week. Yup, it's a very persistent and chronic affliction. Now, if you don't mind I'll go get some therapy at Hooters."

We did that in the Netherlands a few months ago, in protest of some radical imam calling homosexuality a disease. Quite a few people called in sick the monday after that. :p
Funny how at the same time these people go apeshit if you seem to be insulting their religion.

If gays stopped doing homosexual acts then there would b no problem for a gay man to serve his country either.
And the only hate the Christians teach is hate the sin.

Your hate blinds you my boy.

Their acts don't even remotely hurt you. They can't convert you. Leave them alone, they aren't hurting you.

Hate the sin? :D

Hate is suggesting electroshock "therapy"

Hate is feeling like puking because you see a gay couple.

Hate is willing to disown a child and toss them from your house because they announce they are gay.

Why do you hate so much my child?

So.. Who is up for taking away the Christians' right to marriage?

What about holding intervensions or whatever the hell they call it, to de-Christianify them?

Maybe it'd also be a good idea to threaten Christians with violence & verbally abuse them in public & toss bottles, food & such, at them?

Perhaps we should have a serious debate about just how sane people can be considered, if they honestly believe dead people can walk around & hold speeches?

It might also be an idea to confront them about the belief that one should treat others, as one wishes to be treated by others?

Please understand that I don't actually recommend persecuting people, not even Christians, I'm just stunned by the NSG Christo-Fascists. How, dear wannabe-Theocrats, do you expect people to react to you? Do you think it is unreasonable for oppressed peoples to fight their oppressors? If you don't, can you perhaps see the danger to the rights & privileges you enjoy?

Y create a law that punishes sum1 who murders?

Sorry can you write that in English?

Because a murderer harms his victims. Homosexuals harm no one through marriage or joining the military.

Homosexual marriage damages traditional roles and the sanctity of marriage as a constitution, therefore damaging the fabric of society, leading to conflicts of interest, and eventually, because of gays in the military, the world will be facing off against millions of armed and trained queers.

Scary thought, no?

Although most of it was a load of twaddle and actually damaged my argument more than advanced it, but in this forum, that wouldn't really count for squat anyway....

Eeeehhh. :headbang:

His writing skills don't involve an "online emotional age"

Touché.

Again a question to you.

Your id; whats the meaning behind it?

o.O I could have sworn I answered that already, but I can't find the post now. Weird. Anyway, Koon is the name of my dorm at school. NS told me there was already a nation called "Koon", so I added the "Proxy". I try to run it as though the head RA was in charge, 'cause it amuses me.

Homosexual marriage damages traditional roles and the sanctity of marriage as a constitution, therefore damaging the fabric of society, leading to conflicts of interest, and eventually, because of gays in the military, the world will be facing off against millions of armed and trained queers.

Scary thought, no?

Although most of it was a load of twaddle and actually damaged my argument more than advanced it, but in this forum, that wouldn't really count for squat anyway....

Eeeehhh. :headbang:

Are you Jesussaves? :D

o.O I could have sworn I answered that already, but I can't find the post now. Weird. Anyway, Koon is the name of my dorm at school. NS told me there was already a nation called "Koon", so I added the "Proxy". I try to run it as though the head RA was in charge, 'cause it amuses me.

You probably did and I just missed it.

I lived in Michigan once and there is a certain epitaph that is spelled a little different that I heard used there from time to time.

I figured it was harmless but I was checking. ;)

If gays stopped doing homosexual acts then there would b no problem for a gay man to serve his country either.
And the only hate the Christains teach is hate the sin.

That was a pitiful attempt at a retort.

Are you Jesussaves? :D


Not according to my passport.

I'm kind of a confused Christian anarchist, formerly of an online debate 'team' of sorts, and trained by a guy who called himself Sephiroth.

Not according to my passport.

I'm kind of a confused Christian anarchist, formerly of an online debate 'team' of sorts, and trained by a guy who called himself Sephiroth.

Jesussaves is a legendary poster around NS, famous for his illogical pro-Christian Fundie arguments. Not a real Christian, mind, but an incredibly funny parody. To be compared favorably to him is pretty high praise of your satire.

Jesussaves is a legendary poster around NS, famous for his illogical pro-Christian Fundie arguments. Not a real Christian, mind, but an incredibly funny parody. To be compared favorably to him is pretty high praise of your satire.


Ah.

So I have damaged my arguments beyond repair then?

Smeg.

Ah, well. Glad I was of some entertainment value, at least.

*Sorry Lord, I'll try harder next time.*

You probably did and I just missed it.

I lived in Michigan once and there is a certain epitaph that is spelled a little different that I heard used there from time to time.

I figured it was harmless but I was checking. ;)

Yeah... I considered calling it something different, but it didn't really seem like it would matter too much. I try to make a point of not insulting people. (Except people who think disagreement is an insult, because they're kind of funny to annoy. Having now revealed my inner immaturity, I think I'll shut up. ;))

The Spartans didn't have legions.

They world was different. The Spartans didn't have to deal with Christians and the Romans well they tried.

Tried and were destroyed. Hmmm, Imagine that.

Step 1: Accept Christianity.
Step 2: Be destroyed.

I'll have to ponder on that one.

:mp5: Stupid government, using stupid old research to make stupid decisions.

Tried and were destroyed. Hmmm, Imagine that.

Step 1: Accept Christianity.
Step 2: Be destroyed.

I'll have to ponder on that one.

You forgot

Step 3: Internal implosion and the rise of the mounted archer.

You forgot

Step 3: Internal implosion and the rise of the mounted archer.

Christianity caused that.

Christianity caused that.

Actually it was internal corruption. Christianities part was simply timing.

The mounted horse archer invalided the Legions. They couldn't adapt so they lost their territories.

Actually it was internal corruption. Christianities part was simply timing.

The mounted horse archer invalided the Legions. They couldn't adapt so they lost their territories.

That's what the Christians want you to believe. [/tinfoil hat]

:mp5: Stupid government, using stupid old research to make stupid decisions.

I would always trust the government over any private person or religion. The government is by far the largest funder of research and it ensures that there is scientific consensus on as many issues as possible.

If we had lots of private organizations doing science, we wouldn't be able to figure out which scientists were correct.

I put my faith in the Scientific Community.

Dear lord i must repeat myself, i swear just go back 10 posts and read im getting tired of saying the same things over and over.

It would b easier to discharge them this way then go thru the ramifications of what would happen with having an openly gay person in the military. For instance 1 problem it would cause is lack of unity and moral and cause division inside individual units, causing more trouble later on.
And must I state my position again ... any person who is unable to get over the fact that their fellow solder is homosexual is obviously unfit for service.

And must I state my position again ... any person who is unable to get over the fact that their fellow solder is homosexual is obviously unfit for service.

Homophobic people should be arrested and jailed until they accept other people for who they want to be. Sex is a human right, and you are allowed by science to have sex with whoever you want. Fundies need to be educated about this.

any person who is unable to get over the fact that their fellow solder is homosexual is obviously unfit for service.

Oh no a man cannot accept something different! he must be unfit for any role in society! There are always going to be differences in people wether it be in religion, sexuality or race. the best way to promote unity in the army is to simply not mention any of these and keep everyone on a level playing field. i'd rather not know the guy sat next to me's religion than hate him cos his is the opposite to mine.
(obviously most people wont care about these things but there are those who do)

Oh no a man cannot accept something different! he must be unfit for any role in society! There are always going to be differences in people wether it be in religion, sexuality or race. the best way to promote unity in the army is to simply not mention any of these and keep everyone on a level playing field. i'd rather not know the guy sat next to me's religion than hate him cos his is the opposite to mine.
(obviously most people wont care about these things but there are those who do)
He can dislike anything he wants I am not saying that he has to like or dislike anything and he is free to think as he pleases. But if he is incompetent enough to let this effect his job performance he is not fit to perform that job.

Homophobic people should be arrested and jailed until they accept other people for who they want to be. Sex is a human right, and you are allowed by science to have sex with whoever you want. Fundies need to be educated about this.
I don’t accept that either people have the right to their own opinion. I am just saying that this is not a valid justification for your apparent inability to do your job. I would say the same thing of an atheist that was unable to work with a Christian or a woman that was unable to work with a man. Or any other combination, we are not asking you to work with someone that will endanger you (as they will have to perform to the same competency as everyone else)

I have decided to list the pentagon as a disorder . I sent them a bill along with my diagnoses .

Pentagon Lists Homosexuality as Disorder (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,101883,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)

Alas, the religious right are at it again, defying science and medicine by banging their heads against the Bible just a wee bit hard.

:headbang: Nice to know they're messing it up for the smart Christians. :headbang:

I kind of like the idea of the "don't ask, cos we don't care" policy. Sadly that's not going to be used anytime soon.

The main argument against homosexuals fighting in the armed services as far as I can see is that they would cause friction and divisions within a unit and reduce its fighting capacity.

Of course the same argument was used against black people forty years ago.

Maybe some friction would be caused, maybe divisions would created, but the armed services would adapt, as it has always done. There is no sense in perpetuating an irrational injustice on the basis that it might "rough things up" a tad.

The main argument against homosexuals fighting in the armed services as far as I can see is that they would cause friction and divisions within a unit and reduce its fighting capacity.

Of course the same argument was used against black people forty years ago.

Maybe some friction would be caused, maybe divisions would created, but the armed services would adapt, as it has always done. There is no sense in perpetuating an irrational injustice on the basis that it might "rough things up" a tad.


It would only cause friction if they didnt use the proper lube .

Get real they are fighting and dying RIGHT NOW in afghanistan and Iraq .

again its the Pentagon with the disorder and the idiots who make these dumb ass policy decisions .

retards

I have decided to list the pentagon as a disorder . I sent them a bill along with my diagnoses .

If the pentagon is your disorder then your diagnosis is "garroted by special agent -classified- , cut up into little pieces and spread across a field in -classified-

And must I state my position again ... any person who is unable to get over the fact that their fellow solder is homosexual is obviously unfit for service.

And whats ur point?

Homophobic people should be arrested and jailed until they accept other people for who they want to be. Sex is a human right, and you are allowed by science to have sex with whoever you want. Fundies need to be educated about this.

All homosexual ppl should b arresed and jailed, until they know that ppl don't want' them to b such a person.

All homosexual ppl should b arresed and jailed, until they know that ppl don't want' them to b such a person.

Lol I know some people think that but if I listened to people like you I'd have killed myself already at their request. (Very Not-Christian of them but oh well...)

All homosexual ppl should b arresed and jailed, until they know that ppl don't want' them to b such a person.

EDIT: My original post was badly phrased. All I meant to say in this post is that homosexuals have to know that some people don't like them, and that jail is not going to help anything except to draw more comparisons of homosexuals to other oppressed minority of some reporters choice, and that Wyvern Knights is stupid, even though I suspect I have to agree with most of his personal morals.

All homosexual ppl should b arresed and jailed, until they know that ppl don't want' them to b such a person.

So much for only hating the sin and not the sinner. :rolleyes:

All homosexual ppl should b arresed and jailed, until they know that ppl don't want' them to b such a person.

All AOLspeakers should be arrested and jailed until they know that people don't want to read their misspellings and abbreviations. :rolleyes:

It affects them because for 1 they will constantly b harrased by straight men. Unity and moral falls when u have 1 memember who no1 likes, causing divisions. Much simpler to do this then to actually have to worry about what will end up happening later. O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.
Do you realize that, in the above post, you are actually speaking in support of violent crimes? Harrassment, threats, bashings, beatings, even murders -- you are characterizing them all as OK social activities.

So, let's see, do I want to live with a murderer? No, and that's why I will not move next door to a bible-waving homophobe.

When compared on a religous scale, of whether they choose to commit sin or not yes they r the same, as they both choose to b sin.
Let me explain something to you (maybe someone has already said this -- I haven't caught up fully yet -- but I want to be as clear as possible with you):

I do not practice your religion. I do not care what you think your religion says about gays or about anything at all. I refuse to live according to the rules of your religion. And I will not tolerate bigotry, violence, or a culture of intimidation based on your idea of your religion.

So all your insistence on what you think is a sin or not means absolutely nothing to me. Harrassment, menacing, and assault are all against the law. There is no excuse for any of them, not even your religious views, and I will not tolerate any of them, no matter who they are committed against.

'K? We on the same page now?

Originally Posted by Wyvern Knights
It affects them because for 1 they will constantly b harrased by straight men. Unity and moral falls when u have 1 memember who no1 likes, causing divisions. Much simpler to do this then to actually have to worry about what will end up happening later. O and many c it as a sin, as large as murder, would u like to live with murderer, or rapist in ur barracks. I doubt it, as such these other men don't wan't gays in theirs.

You can really tell an opressed people when it is ok for people to endorse and take part in hateful actions against them.

EDIT: My original post was badly phrased. All I meant to say in this post is that homosexuals have to know that some people don't like them, and that jail is not going to help anything except to draw more comparisons of homosexuals to other oppressed minority of some reporters choice, and that Wyvern Knights is stupid, even though I suspect I have to agree with most of his personal morals.

Can you clarify exactly where u are on this issue?

Well, I appreciate the recommendation, if that's the right word...

If it's not a choice, then what is it? I may have missed (yet again) a new scientific finding, but the last I heard the "gay gene" theory was more or less debunked. Not like I actually pay too much attention to scientific news, but if there's something else that's come up, I'd much rather know about it than argue from ignorance.
Yes, you did miss what is actually not-so-new scientific information. As it happens, evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain during fetal brain development has been known and generally accepted by the scientific community for -- Bottle, help me out here -- nearly 20 years, I think. A "gay gene"? No. "Not a choice"? Yes, and we've known this long enough for it to be common knowledge.

And, btw, sorry, I don't actually think it's something to brag about that one doesn't pay attention to science news, but that's just me.

Look at our economy!!! These gays keep calling in sick cuz of their chronic gay disease syndromes!!! Its horrible!!!! What will we do??

Whether it is a choice or not, is irrelevent to my argument.
True. You are wrong either way.

There is no condition that anyone could be born with and no choice that anyone could make that could possibly justify the kind of open hostility against gays that you seem to want to support.

Yes they are infact being gay is more of sin then being a murderor.
Why?

Y create a law that punishes sum1 who murders?
Why not learn how to spell whole words?

Sorry, it's just really annoying.

Why not learn how to spell whole words?

Sorry, it's just really annoying.

Unfortunately, I think Wyvern is offline so we'll have to wait 'till tomorrow to see. (placates Muravyets by replacing 'till with untill)

Unfortunately, I think Wyvern is offline so we'll have to wait 'till tomorrow to see. (placates Muravyets by replacing 'till with untill)
Except that "until" has only one ell, but thanks for the thought. :D

My questions can wait until Torquemada Jr. finishes his homework.

Except that "until" has only one ell,

GASPS and quickly erases the extra "l" O.O

Yes, you did miss what is actually not-so-new scientific information. As it happens, evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain during fetal brain development has been known and generally accepted by the scientific community for -- Bottle, help me out here -- nearly 20 years, I think. A "gay gene"? No. "Not a choice"? Yes, and we've known this long enough for it to be common knowledge.

And, btw, sorry, I don't actually think it's something to brag about that one doesn't pay attention to science news, but that's just me.

Oh, alright. Missed that somewhere along the line. And I didn't mean to brag about not keeping up with science stuff, I was more just saying I don't tend to. Expect the astronomy stuff. (OMG gayness is caused by freaky emisions from teh sun! U must all wear t3h |337 sunscree|\|! ;)) Sorry if I gave the wrong impression there.

Can you clarify exactly where u are on this issue?

I think practicing a homosexual act is wrong, because my religion (I'm a Protestant but traditionalist Christian) says so. However, as I posted way above, I'm not against homosexuals being treated as equal members of society, politics, etc. Doing so is impossible in today's culture, which is very Western but not very Christian. (Obviously I'd prefer a Christian culture where such a thing could be outlawed, but again, this isn't an ideal world. And my "ideal world" is nothing like yours, probably, so trying to get the ideal world is kind of pointless.) That clear anything up?

So much for only hating the sin and not the sinner. :rolleyes:

Already said if they choose to b the sin, then they r the sin thus u hate them. Also that was in reply to a similar statment about homophoics.

All AOLspeakers should be arrested and jailed until they know that people don't want to read their misspellings and abbreviations. :rolleyes:

Huh that would b odd, but how does jailing AOL ppl affect me?

Let me explain something to you (maybe someone has already said this -- I haven't caught up fully yet -- but I want to be as clear as possible with you):

I do not practice your religion. I do not care what you think your religion says about gays or about anything at all. I refuse to live according to the rules of your religion. And I will not tolerate bigotry, violence, or a culture of intimidation based on your idea of your religion.

So all your insistence on what you think is a sin or not means absolutely nothing to me. Harrassment, menacing, and assault are all against the law. There is no excuse for any of them, not even your religious views, and I will not tolerate any of them, no matter who they are committed against.

'K? We on the same page now?

Let me explain this very carefully to u, whether or not u practice the religion is irrelevent especially to that post.
I said on a religious level they r the same, and that is true, thus to ppl that practice the religion they r the same.
U not practicing my religion has no bearing on what the ppl that do practice it believe in.

True. You are wrong either way.

There is no condition that anyone could be born with and no choice that anyone could make that could possibly justify the kind of open hostility against gays that you seem to want to support.

To u i am wrong, to me i am right, yes, using perception of things is really going to help u.

Why?

Um because it is choosing to b a sin. And also i type this way because it is faster, and i have never known any1 to have problems with reading it.

MrMopar Lists Working For Pentagon as "Disorder."

I say Homosexuality is a disorder, BUT I say that discriminating against them makes about as much sense as discriminating against people with depression, Obsessive-Compulsive disorder or congestive heart failure: None.

Edit: Crap, my comp froze and posted my reply three times?!

Yay, once again I get to trump governmental arguments with things I learned in high school.

Like in psychology class, we learned that to be a disorder, something had to fit all of these classifications

Maladaptive: The behaivior causes the subject serious harm, or generally disorders their life. This does not apply to most homosexuals, and if their life is disordered, it is more because of the reactions of others towards their behaivior than anything inherent in it.

Unjustifiable: Being gay isn't particularly justifiable, but since it isn't maladaptive, it doesn't need to be justified.

Disturbing: Some people find it disturbing, but many others do not. And in the absence of being maladaptive, other people can be disturbed all they want.

Atypical: The behaivior is dramatically outside of the norm for society. To some degree this is true, but to such a small degree today that the argument hardly holds water.

As you can see, homosexuality doesn't fit any better than liking mustard on eggs.

Already said if they choose to b the sin, then they r the sin thus u hate them. Also that was in reply to a similar statment about homophoics.
You must be a tort lawyer who can't spell. That would explain this ridiculously squirmy equivocation on the "hate the sin, not the sinner" rule. If the sinner becomes the sin, then there's no such thing as a sinner; there's only sin. So, just by labeling people as "sin," you can go around hating people all you like and still claim that you don't hate "sinners." That is one of the most spineless, self-indulgent feats of squirming I've ever seen.

But at least the bottom line is clear now: You hate gays.

Let me explain this very carefully to u, whether or not u practice the religion is irrelevent especially to that post.
I said on a religious level they r the same, and that is true, thus to ppl that practice the religion they r the same.
U not practicing my religion has no bearing on what the ppl that do practice it believe in.
Now you're squirming so much, you can't keep track of a point.

The fact that I will not conform to your religion is relevant because it explains why, even though I am not gay, I oppose any attempt to turn your religious beliefs into laws that govern the society I live in.

To u i am wrong, to me i am right, yes, using perception of things is really going to help u.
And what are you using, other than your "perception" that it should be okay to harrass, intimidate, and threaten gays who dare to show themselves among heteros?

To u i am wrong, to me i am right, yes, using perception of things is really going to help u.


To everyone, you are wrong. You think you're right because you lack the mental capacity to understand the actual differences between 'right' and 'wrong'.

And, you do not use perception during a debate. The last thing you are to do is understand and agree with the other side's point.

To understand (if you even can) what you are: http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm

Um because it is choosing to b a sin.
That does not answer my question. You said homosexuality is worse than murder. I ask you: Why?

Or are you saying that murder is not a sin?

And also i type this way because it is faster, and i have never known any1 to have problems with reading it.
That could be because they only skim your messages and then fob you off with rote answers. Since you can't be bothered to be courteous enough to write clearly, why should we bother to pay close attention to your garbled messages?

<snip>
To understand (if you even can) what you are: http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm
Fun! Even if he doesn't appreciate it, I'm going to play with this. Thanks. :)

Fun! Even if he doesn't appreciate it, I'm going to play with this. Thanks. :)

No problem. I was going to save it for awhile, but had to slam it on this guy. ;)

Stop me if you've heard this one before...


...but there are a lot fairly ample generic gay-themed threads here, so although I have been reading along a fair bit, I've also probably missed more than a few important arguments.
The one I definitely haven't seen, though, is a comprihensive response to anti-queer christian arguments from a theological perspective (which is my forte).
Have we already covered the illegitimacy of levitican law and the misconceptions people have about the sodomites' sin?

To those of you who hate or disaprove of queers from a judaic or christian perspective: Why? What passages are you basing it on?

wow, i think everyone hates Wyvern rider, and Im part of everyone. Let me tell you Wyvern... near everything you say has no bearing! other than to spurr others to prove themselves right over you, over and over and over again... your sole purpose on this debate it goive others, much more intelligent than you some creative inspiration to help their arguement!

or maybe you are just one ofthose people who goes around supporting the wrong side to help others to BE more creative with those arguments and you don't even support what your defending.... but I don't think I can give you that much credit.

so any way, lets just say this. there is a such thing asd a sinner, but hey, they can get off scott free as long as they ask forgiveness of your sacred of mighty one... kinda a messed up religion in the first place... but that means that a person cannot be counted as a sin, because a "sin" cannot sin, itself. It just doesnt work that way... and anyway, being gay isnt considered a sin under christian faith, sotomy is. and many people are gay but will not engage in anal sex, all gay people are not obsessed with having sex with their own gender. so untill you get your definitions right, I suggest you shut up.

being gay cannot be a dissorder, thanks to the clever manipulations of the definitions given by some guy/girl cant remember the name, earlyer on in this debate, thanks. but if you think it stops there, neyney, think again. being gay is inherent in the genes. they way you think comes from your chemical makeup and what you and others do to you, thats why diseases and dissorders can be spread through birth. for instance, I am angry a lot, so is my dad, so is my grandfather... a trend that is more likely to happen to men in the family, that just who we are. so if you think that calling gay people a sin is okay, yah, well, your an idiot. thats the same as calling black people sins because they are who they are. all it is is pointless discrimination with no grounding and cause/goal.

and one more time just so Wyvern can unerstand it:

wow, i think every1 hates Wyvern rider, and Im part of every1. Let me tell u Wyvern... neer everything you say has no bearing! other than to spur others to prove themselves rite over u, over + over + over again... your sole purpose on this db8 is 2 giv othrs, much more intelligent than u, some cree8ive inspiration to help their arguement!

or maybe u r just 1 ofthose people who goes around supporting the wrong side to help others to B more cree8ive with those arguments and u don't even support what your defending.... but I don't think I can give you that much kredit.

so ne way, lets just say this. there is a such thing as a sinner, but hey, they can get off scott free as long as they ask forgiveness of your sacred all mighty 1... kinda a messed up religion in the 1st place... but that means that a person cannot be counted as a sin, because a "sin" cannot sin, itself. It just doesnt work that way... and neway, b-ing gay isnt considered a sin under christian faith, sotomy is. and many people are gay but will not engage in anal sex, all gay people are not obsessed with having sex with their own gender. so untill you get your definitions right, I suggest u shut up.

b-ing gay can't b a dizorder, thnks 2 teh klever manipulations of the definitions givin bi some guy/girl cant remember the name, earlyer on in tis debate, thnks. but if u tink it stops ther, neyney, tink again. b-ing gay is inherent in the jeans. they way u tink cums from yur kemikal makeup and wat u and others do 2 u, thats why diseases and dizorders can b spread thru birth. for instance, I am angry a lot, so is my dad, so is my grandfather... a trend that is likely to happen to men in the family, that just who we r. so if u tink that calling gay people a sin is ok, ya, well, ur an idjit. thats the same as calling black people sins because they r who they r. all tis pointless discrimination wit no grounding and cause/goal.

thank you le monde egal, please enlighten bafoons among you, I hope they do come forth with so called passages, I look forward to you beating them into the dust

*laugh* that's sweet, but you haven't heard me argue yet, I could very well be a complete blithering idiot...

*laugh* that's sweet, but you haven't heard me argue yet, I could very well be a complete blithering idiot...

Hey!!! You can't....oh wait.

Ok you can be the blitering idiot. I am the village idiot!

Damn queers and their talk of Civil Rights. It's black people's fault.

Damn queers and their talk of Civil Rights. It's black people's fault.

Seriously, it's lame that you would make a totally different topic on this message board, then use the same troll statement in here. Very lame.

being gay cannot be a dissorder, thanks to the clever manipulations of the definitions given by some guy/girl cant remember the name, earlyer on in this debate, thanks.
Thank you, even if the praise is annonymous.

Yes, you did miss what is actually not-so-new scientific information. As it happens, evidence that sexual orientation is hardwired into the brain during fetal brain development has been known and generally accepted by the scientific community for -- Bottle, help me out here -- nearly 20 years, I think.

Depends on what kind of evidence you're talking about, I suppose. We currently have plenty of evidence suggesting that human sexuality (whether hetero, homo, bi, or anything else) is not set at birth.

A "gay gene"? No. "Not a choice"? Yes, and we've known this long enough for it to be common knowledge.

The dichotomy that you present is a false one. It appears that there are genetic factors that may influence how likely a person is to be homosexual, though it is also very clear that genetic factors are not the exclusive variable in this equation. There is a mountain of evidence to support the theory that our sexuality continues to change and be shaped long after birth. This doesn't equate to sexuality being a choice, however.

Human beings have a great deal of conscious control over our sexuality, possibly more than any other lifeform we know of, but we also have limits to what we can and cannot change. Try making yourself feel attracted to somebody you find unappealing, and you'll see what I mean.


And, btw, sorry, I don't actually think it's something to brag about that one doesn't pay attention to science news, but that's just me.
Agreed. It's like bragging that you can't read. "Oooh, look at me, I can remain willfully ignorant! Isn't that impressive?" No, nimrod, it's not.

I think practicing a homosexual act is wrong, because my religion (I'm a Protestant but traditionalist Christian) says so. However, as I posted way above, I'm not against homosexuals being treated as equal members of society, politics, etc. Doing so is impossible in today's culture, which is very Western but not very Christian. (Obviously I'd prefer a Christian culture where such a thing could be outlawed, but again, this isn't an ideal world. And my "ideal world" is nothing like yours, probably, so trying to get the ideal world is kind of pointless.) That clear anything up?

Thank You :) Even if we don't agree on this at least you are respectful so I accept your disagreement. (Look at this fine example of a person who allows acceptance even though they are not necessarily accepting Wyvern.... are u taking notes?)

Damn queers and their talk of Civil Rights. It's black people's fault.

You can't blame them. They got upity because the woman got the vote!

COMMENTARY: This is unrealistic, unworkable, and just plain wrong. The military is in desperate need of finding a better way than Clinton's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy. Your recommendations?

Homosexuality isn't a disease. Get rid of that stupid policy and let gays join unrestricted.

Natural selection works on the individual. It does NOT opperate on the species as a whole.
I never stated that it did work on the species, I stated that it can operate at a group/population level, not a species level.

In other words, a trait that reduces individual fitness will be selected OUT of the population, even if the population as a whole would benefit from a particular individual having that trait.

It's not that simple. If it were I doubt very much we would have examples of animals that risk their own lives to give warning to others in their social group (for instance ground squirrels' loud cries that warn others in their social group of an approaching hawk or coyote whilst signalling to the predator exactly where they [the warning ground squirrel] are). We have real life examples of traits that may be fatal to an individual at the same time as rendering a benefit to their social group.

There is absolutely no reason for us to believe that natural selection can work on the species level. Indeed, all existing evidence indicates that it does not and cannot work on the species level.
My awareness of this fact probably explains why I have never suggested otherwise.

It's actually just plain logical, and all the existing data support it.
You dont seem to be differentiating between species and population, while a species is a population and a population might be a species, not all populations are species. My use of the word population rather than species wasnt to break the monotony or because I thought it would brighten up my prose.;)

"Altruistic" trait are selected out of a population.
Oops, looks like someone forgot to tell the ground squirrels...

That's pretty much part and parcel of the fundamental theory of selection and evolution. A trait that reduces fitness will not thrive as well as a trait that increases fitness, and thus individuals expressing beneficial traits will be more successful and their traits will come to dominate the population. Obviously there are other factors included (such as natural disasters, environmental changes, etc etc etc), so outcomes can be skewed by other forces, but SELECTION simply does not work on the species as a whole. It works on individual organisms, and the species as a whole is a reflection of these individual changes.
Bottle I am not trying to claim anything whatsoever about selection occuring at a species level.

Neither of those is relavent to what I am talking about. Traits that increase individual fitness while ALSO increasing group fitness can quite easily be selected for. Hell, that's why we're social primates in the first place.

Of course it is relevent. You keep insisting that selection doesnt work beyond the individual level and then posit the premise that it doesnt work at species level as though this somehow settles it. That is a false dilema. Species level no, not beyond individual level - not necessarily.
'Kin-selection' and 'inclusive fitness' are terms that specifically refer to selection working beyond the individual level - they refer to traits that may in fact have a neutral or even negative effect on any one individual who has the trait, but are beneficial to members of a group. Our friendly ground squirrels may be an example of this theory 'in application'.

However, the "population control" model of homosexuality simply is bunk because it states that homosexuality is selected for because it helps to limit the population to sustainable levels. Selection does not work that way, period.
Along with not ever having suggested that selection works at the species level I have also never suggested homosexuality is selected for because it helps to limit the population to sustainable levels.

Depends on what kind of evidence you're talking about, I suppose. We currently have plenty of evidence suggesting that human sexuality (whether hetero, homo, bi, or anything else) is not set at birth.
I was just trying to figure out how long ago the first studies got into the news.

The dichotomy that you present is a false one. It appears that there are genetic factors that may influence how likely a person is to be homosexual, though it is also very clear that genetic factors are not the exclusive variable in this equation. There is a mountain of evidence to support the theory that our sexuality continues to change and be shaped long after birth. This doesn't equate to sexuality being a choice, however.

Human beings have a great deal of conscious control over our sexuality, possibly more than any other lifeform we know of, but we also have limits to what we can and cannot change. Try making yourself feel attracted to somebody you find unappealing, and you'll see what I mean.
I just meant there has been no "gay gene" isolated. As far as I know, no study has said definitively what causes a person to have one or another basic sexual orientation, but there is evidence -- still being worked on -- that indicates that we start with a foundation from birth, which is then shaped and developed during the course of our lives.

That's what I mean when I say that our sexuality is not a choice but what we do with it is. We are born somewhere on the spectrum of sexual variation, which includes orientation. But what kind of individual we find attractive, how we interact with people we're attracted to, how we experience sex, or if we choose not to have sex, even fetishes and neuroses -- and yes, sometimes, even what gender we'll have sex with -- all can be influenced and shaped by life experience. Sexuality is neither 100% nature or 100% nurture. It is far too complex for that.

It's like Wyvern's insistence that gays should just stop being gay. That's just ridiculous. Even a celibate gay person, or a gay person having hetero sex, is still a gay person. Always has been and always will be, no matter how they express it or suppress it during their life

Agreed. It's like bragging that you can't read. "Oooh, look at me, I can remain willfully ignorant! Isn't that impressive?" No, nimrod, it's not.

To those of you who hate or disaprove of queers from a judaic or christian perspective: Why? What passages are you basing it on?

First chapter of Romans, mainly, where Paul lists homosexuality as one of the depravities man falls into by rejecting the Creator. Also (if the one clear denouncement weren't enough), throughout the New Testament, continuing from the Old Testament, the assumed natural and good pattern is man+woman, making man+man or woman+woman a perversion in almost all interpretations I've ever heard of.

Why is it that in every section involving homosexuality there always has to be something about religion?

Because religionists have to counter everything with the old saw "God's gonna getcha for that."

Not being able to find a rational counter with a secular argument, they must result on the "Great Boogeyman in the Sky" argument, as if they even KNOW or are capable of knowing what God thinks of anything.

It is fundamentally lazy thinking taken to the highest degree.

First chapter of Romans, mainly, where Paul lists homosexuality as one of the depravities man falls into by rejecting the Creator.

Does he?

Paul actually uses the word arkensektoi (spelled something like this). The word, as far as linguists can tell, is a word that Paul made up. There is no contemporary use, so what he meant by it is very unclear. Many have posited that it does not refer to homosexuality, but instead refers to a common Roman practice of taking young boys as prostitutes. There certainly were already Greek words for having male lovers, and Paul chose not to use those words. Why?

Meanwhile, only a few versions of the Bible actually translate this word as "homosexual". Most translate it as "sexual pervert" or something along those lines.

Another of Paul's writings refers to those who put aside their natural inclinations and "burn with lust" for members of the same sex. Of course, homosexuals do not "put aside their natural inclinations". Homosexuality is the natural inclination for a homosexual. It is incredibly likely that Paul was actually referring to heterosexuals engaging in homosexual sex acts. This was actually quite common in some of the pagan religions - as people could gain favor with the temple priests or priestesses by performing sex acts on them.


Also (if the one clear denouncement weren't enough), throughout the New Testament, continuing from the Old Testament, the assumed natural and good pattern is man+woman, making man+man or woman+woman a perversion in almost all interpretations I've ever heard of.

The assumed pattern is man and woman. That makes sense, as only a small percentage of the population is homosexual. Does that mean that they are excluded?

The New Testament - even Christ himself - also made comments assuming right-handed persons. Does that mean that left-handedness is a perversion?

The New Testament - even Christ himself - also made comments assuming right-handed persons. Does that mean that left-handedness is a perversion?

Christians are the worst people on the whole world. I wish they were never here. Islam and humanism are the only religions that are nice.

Why isn't there a religion that allows you to do whatever you want?

While I'm one of the worst students in science, I know enough that science has proved there is no god, so there's no purpose to life, so I wish the christians would stop ruining my fun.

Alas, the religious right are at it again, defying science and medicine by banging their heads against the Bible just a wee bit hard.

:headbang: Nice to know they're messing it up for the smart Christians. :headbang:

I kind of like the idea of the "don't ask, cos we don't care" policy. Sadly that's not going to be used anytime soon.

As my school teachers told me, homosexuality is perfectly normal. Christians are sick though, they are anti-gay and should be arrested.

Christians are the worst people on the whole world. I wish they were never here. Islam and humanism are the only religions that are nice.

Why isn't there a religion that allows you to do whatever you want?

While I'm one of the worst students in science, I know enough that science has proved there is no god, so there's no purpose to life, so I wish the christians would stop ruining my fun.
You are ignorant of what sience can or can not show

As my school teachers told me, homosexuality is perfectly normal. Christians are sick though, they are anti-gay and should be arrested.
Why should anyone be arrested for what they believe?

iit is a good way to let it go

If someone thinks being gay is a sin, then fine. As long as he doesn't go out of his way to be an ass about it and oppose equal rights, or spend all his time trying to tell me I'll burn in hell. Like you said, such a problem is between the individual and God: and if there really is a God, and he frowns on homosexuality, then I'll clear things out with him once I meet him. I don't have to justify myself to every fundy and his brother, though.

I hate fundies like most everyone in the world, but the I think the reason that the fundies care is that they don't care so much about you, but they don't want their children to be recruited into the lifestyle.

*snip*

*applauding*

I appreciate the fact that after 7000-something posts you can still be bothered to repeat this argument. I am only a lurker and I am quite sick of all the anti-gay rants on this forum. And I definitely wouldnt be able to be bothered with actually countering such attacks with the appropriate answers. You do: Thank you. :fluffle:

I hate fundies like most everyone in the world, but the I think the reason that the fundies care is that they don't care so much about you, but they don't want their children to be recruited into the lifestyle.


Who the hell is recruiting??? I thought that is what armies do. Lifestyles, as you call it, do not recruit. Have you ever seen anyone recruiting for vegetarianism or lazy-ass-ism?

And oh yes, homosexuality is NOT a lifestyle. It is a sexual preference, that is IT. Being homosexual changes nothing in your life, except for the sex of the person you sleep with.....

But why am I even bothering:(

As my school teachers told me, homosexuality is perfectly normal. Christians are sick though, they are anti-gay and should be arrested.

As everyone i know told me, homosexuality is an abomination, All homosexuals r anti-christian and should b arrested.

Why doesn't everyone but Wyvern and C&T just leave this thread, so they can argue ineffectively for all eternity.

Why doesn't everyone but Wyvern and C&T just leave this thread, so they can argue ineffectively for all eternity.

Then i will keep myself a telegram and just copy and paste each time. Hmm higher post count.

Who the hell is recruiting??? I thought that is what armies do. Lifestyles, as you call it, do not recruit. Have you ever seen anyone recruiting for vegetarianism or lazy-ass-ism?

If PETA doesn't recruit for vegetarianism I don't know what does.

I personally believe that Homosexuality is the result of choice, events from childhood, and possibly some minor influence of genetic wiring. However, I also believe it to be correctible.excuse me...[I]correctible[I]? that would imply that there was something wrong with it in the first place. being gay is perfectly normal. they're just like everyone else except for the fact that they like the same sex.

<33

excuse me...[I]correctible[I]? that would imply that there was something wrong with it in the first place. being gay is perfectly normal. they're just like everyone else except for the fact that they like the same sex.

<33
:fluffle:

Good. At least a few still understand that difference =/= bad. Thanks.

As everyone i know told me, homosexuality is an abomination, All homosexuals r anti-christian and should b arrested.

Why not leave it to th eheavenly court then ? Warn the sinners that what they are doing endangers their immortal souls - but if they decide to go ahead anyway: let them. Free will and all. And God will judge when their time comes.

Why not let God decide then ? Warn the sinners that what they are doing endangers their immortal souls - but if they decide to go ahead anyway: let them. Free will and all.
I don't know whether God exists or not, but if he does,I've always been curious as to what our conversation will look like once I die. Somehow, I highly doubt some immortal, omniscient being who created us in his own image would be mean enough to make me fall in love with men and then have the audacity to tell me I was being an evil person for actually going out and forming a meaningful relationship with the man I fell in love with.

But that's just me.

Because religionists have to counter everything with the old saw "God's gonna getcha for that."

Not being able to find a rational counter with a secular argument, they must result on the "Great Boogeyman in the Sky" argument, as if they even KNOW or are capable of knowing what God thinks of anything.

It is fundamentally lazy thinking taken to the highest degree.
You just don't like that Christians introduce the notion of a right and wrong argument to things. You prefer that it be only based on "If it feels good, do it!"

Why not leave it to th eheavenly court then ? Warn the sinners that what they are doing endangers their immortal souls - but if they decide to go ahead anyway: let them. Free will and all. And God will judge when their time comes.
If religiously motivated bigots did that, what would they vent all their pent up rage and hate on? And how would they ever get to spend their lives telling others what to do?

I don't know whether God exists or not, but if he does,I've always been curious as to what our conversation will look like once I die. Somehow, I highly doubt some immortal, omniscient being who created us in his own image would be mean enough to make me fall in love with men and then have the audacity to tell me I was being an evil person for actually going out and forming a meaningful relationship with the man I fell in love with.

But that's just me.
Not everything you feel like doing is a gift from God. You have free-will, God calls you live righteously. I guess some people would prefer giving in to their sexual urges, then living in accordance with the righteousness and truth of God.

You just don't like that Christians introduce the notion of a right and wrong argument to things. You prefer that it be only based on "If it feels good, do it!"
He's not basing it on "if it feels good, do it". He's basing it on "live and let live".

Besides, hedonism is as valid as any other life philosophy.

Not everything you feel like doing is a gift from God. You have free-will, God calls you live righteously. I guess some people would prefer giving in to their sexual urges, then living in accordance with the righteousness and truth of God.
God never told me what he wanted. So I'm just gonna assume he wants me to live my life as I see fit, using his nice gift of free will. So I'm gonna go around and have a good life, try my best to make the world a better place, love my neighbours, be a part of the solution, not the problem; and not listen to those who would have me live my life alone and sad for the lack of a significant other.

If God has a bone with that, I'm sure he'll tell me when the time has come. Meanwhile, I just don't give the fundamentalists the credit of relaly knowing what's on his mind. They really have nothing more to stand on than I, and they certainly have not credibility than I do in that matter.

I think the Pentagon is a disorder.

They are supposed to be part of the "Defense" Department. But, when exactly was the last time the United States went to war to actually defend itself?

Not Iraq.
Not Bosnia
Not Grenada.
Not Somalia.
Not the first Gulf War.
Not Vietnam.
Not Korea.

We have to go all the way back to 1941 to find the last time the United States went to war (and actually declared war) to defend itself. Back then the "Defense" Department was more honestly referred to as the War Department.

Perhaps it is time to stop playing Orwellian games with language and introduce a little truth in government by calling it the War Department again.

I think the Pentagon is a disorder.

They are supposed to be part of the "Defense" Department. But, when exactly was the last time the United States went to war to actually defend itself?

Not Iraq.
Not Bosnia
Not Grenada.
Not Somalia.
Not the first Gulf War.
Not Vietnam.
Not Korea.

We have to go all the way back to 1941 to find the last time the United States went to war (and actually declared war) to defend itself. Back then the "Defense" Department was more honestly referred to as the War Department.

Perhaps it is time to stop playing Orwellian games with language and introduce a little truth in government by calling it the War Department again.
Frack that. It's been the Department of Defense for several generations now and there's no point in changing it.

So what's your problem with Korea, Somalia and Bosnia? I can pretty well predict what you're going to say about the others.

Frack that. It's been the Department of Defense for several generations now and there's no point in changing it.

So what's your problem with Korea, Somalia and Bosnia? I can pretty well predict what you're going to say about the others.

I did not mention or imply a problem with any of these wars (although we could discuss individual cases). What I said is that none of them involved an actual defense of the United States. In fact if you look throughout the history of this country you will find that the only foreign wars involving an actual defense of American soil or protection from a clear and present danger were World War II and the American Revolution.

All the other wars and conflicts involved something other than defending this country or "our freedoms" (as is so often invoked).

My point is that the Department of War was much more honest given that we rarely fight for our "Defense."

I did not mention or imply a problem with any of these wars (although we could discuss individual cases). What I said is that none of them involved an actual defense of the United States. In fact if you look throughout the history of this country you will find that the only foreign wars involving an actual defense of American soil or protection from a clear and present danger were World War II and the American Revolution.

All the other wars and conflicts involved something other than defending this country or "our freedoms" (as is so often invoked).

My point is that the Department of War was much more honest given that we rarely fight for our "Defense."


Well then, let us call it the Department of International Law and Order, and be done with it.

COMMENTARY: This is unrealistic, unworkable, and just plain wrong. The military is in desperate need of finding a better way than Clinton's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy. Your recommendations?


Pentagon Lists Homosexuality as Disorder (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,101883,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | June 20, 2006
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.

"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 - a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.
Another conspiracy theory...

Don't know if anyone's already posted this or not (didn't feel like going through all the pages, would've taken too long), but to those who say they know someone who "turned": as I understand it (and please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), many sociologists and other experts tend to agree that no one is 100% homosexual or heterosexual, everyone is at least a little bit bisexual. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be that the person in question did not "turn". Saying he or she "turned" is to imply that they weren't attracted to the same sex before. Logic would dictate that they most likely had been attracted to both sexes for a long time, and decided they liked their own sex more than the opposite one. This is not "turning" gay. This is accepting feelings that already existed.

Having said that, how exactly can a person look at science and say homosexuality is a choice? There have been numerous studies to show otherwise. The only reason to think that it's a choice is because either A) It's icky and I don't like it, or B) My church, parents, or other authority figure whom I look up to told me so.

Gays should be allowed in the military, and I believe women should be too.

On an only slightly related note, does anyone know if there's any truth to the rumor that Jimi Hendrix avoided the draft by pretending to be gay?

Sigh... can we lay off on the sexually related boards and talk about other things, personally id like to know what happened to bird flu? its quite a pressing issue but the news is only reporting about rubbish such as [shudder] big brother.

Christians are the worst people on the whole world. I wish they were never here. Islam and humanism are the only religions that are nice.

Ummm.......I am a Christian. I don't think I'm one of the "worst people on the whole world."

While I'm one of the worst students in science, I know enough that science has proved there is no god, so there's no purpose to life, so I wish the christians would stop ruining my fun.

You must be a pretty crappy student of science indeed if you think that science has disproven the existence of God.

As my school teachers told me, homosexuality is perfectly normal. Christians are sick though, they are anti-gay and should be arrested.

I am not anti-gay, nor am I sick.

Do you really think you can fight bigotry with more bigotry?

Not everything you feel like doing is a gift from God.

Love is a gift from God.

I guess some people would prefer giving in to their sexual urges, then living in accordance with the righteousness and truth of God.

Do you really think that demonstrating your love for another through sex is not in accordance with God's will?

It's sad, but they're closer to the truth that most people, who usually explain homosexuality as "just something". It's something biological.
Pure bs.There is no homsexuallity gene.Sexuallity is a choice, and it is my religious belief that they have made the wrong choice.I dont hate Homosexualls,but I don't really like them either, however I do think the government is wrong in labeling it a disorder, because it's not genetic or something that cannot be altered.

Originally Posted by Conscience and Truth
Christians are the worst people on the whole world. I wish they were never here. Islam and humanism are the only religions that are nice.
While I'm one of the worst students in science, I know enough that science has proved there is no god, so there's no purpose to life, so I wish the christians would stop ruining my fun.
As my school teachers told me, homosexuality is perfectly normal. Christians are sick though, they are anti-gay and should be arrested.
Look,there is no proof of the non-existense of god,evolutionary theory does'nt prove it,so it must be something only idiots got memmo'd.God exists,the big bang never happened because if all of the matter in the universe was consolidated then it would have collapsed into itself and created a supermassive black hole.Therefore everything exists because of god,also i belive that although evolution is true,it is not the way we got this far,god first created the tree and plant(the bible says it all,genisis.)then the animals,then the water dwelling beast and monster(dinosaurs) and the land dwelling beast and monsters and in the end he created man,this shows a graduall process and can make up for the periods of time where things dont evolve connectedly and evolve to rapidly by saying that god isnt a moron and created things gradually and not all at once.Also Christians(such as I) are not supposed to hate homosexualls but we are supposed to oppose it,however any christian ho calls them fags or makes jokes pertaining to their sexaul orientation are not being true christians,in short we are'nt supposed to hate you,but we're supposed to try and change you.

There is no homsexuallity gene.

Probably not, but it would be pretty foolish to suggest that there are no genes which affect sexuality.

Sexuallity is a choice,

It is? When did the sexuality fairy visit you and give you the choice to either be attracted to women or men (or both)? At what point did you consciously decide what sex you would and would not be attracted to?

the big bang never happened because if all of the matter in the universe was consolidated then it would have collapsed into itself and created a supermassive black hole.

It's so much fun watching two people who don't have the first clue what they are talking about argue. You get to see all sorts of idiotic things said.

od first created the tree and plant(the bible says it all,genisis.)then the animals,then the water dwelling beast and monster(dinosaurs) and the land dwelling beast and monsters and in the end he created man,

Actually, Genesis 2 clearly states that God made Adam, then the plants and animals, then Eve.

Also Christians(such as I) are not supposed to hate homosexualls but we are supposed to oppose it

Unless you are Christ, you can only state what you think Christians are supposed to support or oppose, not what Christians actually are. As a Christian, I find your attitude towards homosexuality to be rather un-Christlike.

Sigh... can we lay off on the sexually related boards and talk about other things, personally id like to know what happened to bird flu? its quite a pressing issue but the news is only reporting about rubbish such as [shudder] big brother.

Ignore topics with homosexuality in the title then, and start a bird flu one ;)

I am not anti-gay, nor am I sick.

Do you really think you can fight bigotry with more bigotry?

Unfortunately bigotry tends to spawn more bigotry until everything dissolves into a flame war... oh well :( .

So premarital hetero sex is not a sin even though its condemned more often than homosexuality is in the Bible? Hmm...

To try and help out here, he has not said that premarital sex is a sin, you're making up your own conclusions.

It EXISTS in the animal kingdom. Animals don't choose to be homosexuals!

If it is irrelevant then stop declaring it's a choice.

If you're talking about the animal world, many species murder their own children, and yet, we don't consider this natural. Remember, we are not animals no matter how much you wish it to be so.:p

The Roman Legions and the Spartans had no problems with it and were highly feared on the battle field.

There is only a problem because of people like you.

Let's not be regressive here okay?:cool:

Homosexuality is a mental disorder, stemming from early childhood traumas such as sexual abuse and the like.

You can debate that fact 'til you're blue in the face or you can spout your 'philosophies' or whatever, it doesn't change the truth.

What people want to believe is that everyone is okay and we have to accept them as they are. Just like some guy walking into work dressed up as a woman and wants to fight for his right to do this, even though common sense would tell us that he has some serious mental problems and psychiatry should be recommended.

Read townhall.com Mike Adams, he details this phenomenae in his past columns.

Silly people. Don't you know it is immoral to have sexual relations with someone of the same gender? A man having feelings for another man is for more reprehensible than a man dropping a bomb and vaporising an entire city, or thousands of soldiers shooting/hacking/killing one another on an open terrain. Just think of the children!

I would disagree, with the Lord, sin is sin.

Because a murderer harms his victims. Homosexuals harm no one through marriage or joining the military.

Read about the 2 lesbians who sued the Knights of Columbus when the lesbians fraudulently tried to reserve their hall. It caused the Knights harm.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html

Read about Scott Brockie, a Christian printer who was targetted by a homosexual group to print their advertisements and was sued.

Read about Chris Kempling who is a guidance counsellor (and a good one at that) and wrote a letter to the editor criticizing homosexuality and quoted many studies by the federal government and was placed on suspension.

Your hate blinds you my boy.

Their acts don't even remotely hurt you. They can't convert you. Leave them alone, they aren't hurting you.

Hate the sin? :D

Hate is suggesting electroshock "therapy"

Hate is feeling like puking because you see a gay couple.

Hate is willing to disown a child and toss them from your house because they announce they are gay.

Why do you hate so much my child?

If you don't believe in hate the sin and love the sinner I guess you couldn't ever understand and I guess that's why you called him a hater.

Read about Chris Kempling who is a guidance counsellor (and a good one at that) and wrote a letter to the editor criticizing homosexuality and quoted many studies by the federal government and was placed on suspension.
I think the very point of this thread is the government is usually full of ass-backward morons maknig studies come to the conclusions they want.

Read about the 2 lesbians who sued the Knights of Columbus when the lesbians fraudulently tried to reserve their hall. It caused the Knights harm.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html

Read about Scott Brockie, a Christian printer who was targetted by a homosexual group to print their advertisements and was sued.

Read about Chris Kempling who is a guidance counsellor (and a good one at that) and wrote a letter to the editor criticizing homosexuality and quoted many studies by the federal government and was placed on suspension.

And this proves that homosexuality is harmful to society because.... ?

snip

Read about Chris Kempling who is a guidance counsellor (and a good one at that) and wrote a letter to the editor criticizing homosexuality and quoted many studies by the federal government and was placed on suspension.
He made a public display that hinted at the inability to objectively help what is probably a large patient base of his. I would have suspended him too, highschool homosexuals are probably one of the biggest groups needing help from councilors with all the shit they have to put up with.

I think the very point of this thread is the government is usually full of ass-backward morons maknig studies come to the conclusions they want.

Thankfully, they were government studies.

He made a public display that hinted at the inability to objectively help what is probably a large patient base of his. I would have suspended him too, highschool homosexuals are probably one of the biggest groups needing help from councilors with all the shit they have to put up with.


If it really hindered his work, he would have received complaints, just one as a matter of fact before he wrote his letter. Objectively, you can't come up to the point of view which you have purported here about him.

And this proves that homosexuality is harmful to society because.... ?

Wow, you need that much help?

Okay, just for clarification from all the "fundies" here, if you can prove to me where it says in black and white (or black and yellow in the case of the bible) that being homo is a sin, I will completely respect your point of view.

However, because I have reason to doubt that being homo is a sin which has been explicitly stated in the bible, I request that you kindly discontinue citing the bible as your manual for how you treat others. People that are homosexual are still people, and unless they grow a tail, loose 1 1/2 arms, and are no longer able to reason, they are still human.

You are taught to respect your fellow man, because, in your belief, no matter how poor, old, straight, fucked up, or evil they are, you will still have to face judgement day, and that is inescapable, no? So why belittle your fellow man in the little time you have on earth to begin with. Nobody gets out of life until death, you cannot cheat in the overall game of life, your on your path, and death is the only way off the board, so be kind to your fellow man, and respect him, although he may have different views from you.

Meet with one gay couple, and ask questions about thier life, and if you think you have it hard, or you cant get far in life, think about these people. Are they not all, according to you, "God's children", and does the saying "God loves everyone" (which you engrain in your children from a young age) not apply to gays? What about black people, mexicans, jews, hindus, the poor, the rich, the old, the young, the healthy, the weak? Are some of those exceptions also?

So in other words, don't belittle your fellow man because of your beliefs, he or she has just the same rights as you. God does not hate, and neither should you. You don't have to participate in rallies, or wear rainbow clothes everyday, but please respect (or at least tolerate) these people. They try to struggle through life just like you, and you hurting them in both physical and emotional ways does not help.

Oh, just as an after thought, I wish gayness was a disease, because then we could infect more people with it.

PS: Guess what, I'm straight and Athiest!

Read about the 2 lesbians who sued the Knights of Columbus when the lesbians fraudulently tried to reserve their hall. It caused the Knights harm.

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html

Read about Scott Brockie, a Christian printer who was targetted by a homosexual group to print their advertisements and was sued.

Read about Chris Kempling who is a guidance counsellor (and a good one at that) and wrote a letter to the editor criticizing homosexuality and quoted many studies by the federal government and was placed on suspension.

...


This shows Homosexuality is harmful how, exactly? I could nitpick and do the same with fundamentalist Christians, although I suspect you would attack me for it. This proves nothing.

COMMENTARY: This is unrealistic, unworkable, and just plain wrong. The military is in desperate need of finding a better way than Clinton's "Don't ask. Don't tell." policy. Your recommendations?


Pentagon Lists Homosexuality as Disorder (http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,101883,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl)


Associated Press | June 20, 2006
WASHINGTON - A Pentagon document classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder, decades after mental health experts abandoned that position.

The document outlines retirement or other discharge policies for service members with physical disabilities, and in a section on defects lists homosexuality alongside mental retardation and personality disorders.

Critics said the reference underscores the Pentagon's failing policies on gays, and adds to a culture that has created uncertainty and insecurity around the treatment of homosexual service members, leading to anti-gay harassment.

Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jeremy M. Martin said the policy document is under review.

The Pentagon has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy that prohibits the military from inquiring about the sex lives of service members but requires discharges of those who openly acknowledge being gay.

The Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military, at the University of California at Santa Barbara, uncovered the document and pointed to it as further proof that the military deserves failing grades for its treatment of gays.

Nathaniel Frank, senior research fellow at the center, said, "The policy reflects the department's continued misunderstanding of homosexuality and makes it more difficult for gays and lesbians to access mental health services."

The document, called a Defense Department Instruction, was condemned by medical professionals, members of Congress and other experts, including the American Psychiatric Association.

"It is disappointing that certain Department of Defense instructions include homosexuality as a 'mental disorder' more than 30 years after the mental health community recognized that such a classification was a mistake," said Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass.

Congress members noted that other Pentagon regulations dealing with mental health do not include homosexuality on any lists of psychological disorders. And in a letter to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Monday, nine lawmakers asked for a full review of all documents and policies to ensure they reflect that same standard.

"Based on scientific and medical evidence the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 - a position shared by all other major health and mental health organizations based on their own review of the science," James H. Scully Jr., head of the psychiatric association, said in a letter to the Defense Department's top doctor earlier this month.

There were 726 military members discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy during the budget year that ended last Sept. 30. That marked the first year since 2001 that the total had increased. The number of discharges had declined each year since it peaked at 1,227 in 2001, and had fallen to 653 in 2004.


well it may be, because the pentagone doesn't like differences,is utter fascist
and doesn't care about people...
It just may be why,it is so close ,secret and with crappy 9/11 video footage...


May be they don't like anybody...?

I personally think if gays and gay haters would both shut the F&%* up the world would be a better place:upyours:

As far as military, i don't suppose the vast majority of soldiers who are in the service enjoy being placed in situtations where they will be Drooled over by some person of the same sex. (Dont ask, Dont tell?)

I have had numerous Gays try and talk to me out of the blue using what i would feel as improper language from some one you met in a grocery store.

Bottom line, live and let live, if guys want to love guys great, shut the f$%^ up about it, if you dont like gays because your religion says they are sinner then great, keep it to your self and shut the f&^% up.:headbang:

I think the very point of this thread is the government is usually full of ass-backward morons maknig studies come to the conclusions they want.
Couldn't have said it better, O pantless one.

Oh, just as an after thought, I wish gayness was a disease, because then we could infect more people with it.

PS: Guess what, I'm straight and Athiest!
Hah! This made me laugh.

Infecting others. Like paying "rainbow tag". Tag! You're a fag! :p

But hopefully we'd only infect attractive people.

Hah! This made me laugh.

Infecting others. Like paying "rainbow tag". Tag! You're a fag! :p

But hopefully we'd only infect attractive people.

are you that good???????

I am reminded of the speech by Michael Douglas as President Andrew Shepard in "The American President" where he speaking to the press about the attacks by Richard Dreyfus' Senator Robert Rumsen on his character.

"...and whatever your particular problem is I promise you that Bob Rumsen is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only. Making you afraid of it, and telling you who to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen is how you win elections."

The policy of the Pentagon is representative of the fact that they have only been interested in accomodating only one side of the argument. Evidence has existed for years that the arguments presented by the Pentagon against letting homosexuals openly serve have been dead for years. The public campaign has always been about how having homosexuals in the military would be prejudicial against morale and good order. How unit cohesion would be negatively affected. How allowing homosexuals to serve would present a problem with the granting of higher security clearances. The answer to all of these concerns have been there for years.

1. Morale and good order arguments present a false argument about the salicious conduct of homosexuals. When the fact of the matter is that heterosexuals in the military (and especially males) have a serious problem with salacious conduct. It is very simple to enforce a behavior standard upon members of the military, and the UCMJ covers it very clearly. The various services cover it in even more detail. Make the regulations equal for all involved, straight or not. Move on.

2. The "unit cohesion" argument has been floated for years, when to suggest that homosexuals and heterosexuals who have been equally trained under the rigorous standards of the US military would somehow have time to worry about "Pete" sucking "Jerry's" dick in combat is utterly preposterous. The trick to the training is that the training emerges under stress conditions without conscious thought. It is so second nature that the muscles take over and the mind doesn't have to engage in that particular activity. I think it is more fair to think that Generals were worried that "Pete" would suck "Jerry's" dick during the phase after combat when raw human nature takes over. But we aren't animals in the classic sense of the word. We can control our impulses with a little effort.

3. To allow homosexuals to openly serve takes the wind completely out of the sails of the security clearance problem. You can't blackmail a gay soldier for being gay when he is serving openly. The source of the blackmail is gone.

The assertion that homosexuality is a disorder has been disproven thoroughly in the 33 years since the APA removed homosexuality as a mental disorder in their catalog. So the argument presented by the Pentagon is simply downright false. It distracts from the actual meat of the issue.

are you that good???????
If I'm that good? I don't understand your question.

Wow, you need that much help?

Well, yes. Please do spell it out for me, oh supreme repository of all wisdom.
Bcause using your reasoning I can show *everything* to be harmful.

:
Originally Posted by Skaladora
Hah! This made me laugh.

Infecting others. Like paying "rainbow tag". Tag! You're a fag!

But hopefully we'd only infect attractive people.


didn't you said that?

If you're talking about the animal world, many species murder their own children, and yet, we don't consider this natural. Remember, we are not animals no matter how much you wish it to be so.:p

Actually, we do cal it natural (and it isn't "murder" when other animals do it, as they are incapable of premeditation in the way we can use it). When humans do it, it is no less natural. However, it is wrong.

And yes, we are animals, no matter how much you wish it wasn't so.

What people want to believe is that everyone is okay and we have to accept them as they are.

If they aren't hurting you, why can't you accept them as they are?

Just like some guy walking into work dressed up as a woman and wants to fight for his right to do this, even though common sense would tell us that he has some serious mental problems and psychiatry should be recommended.

He has "serious mental problems" just because he happens to like wearing a dress? If I wear pants, do I have "serious mental problems"? What about when I borrow my fiance's shirts?

Read townhall.com Mike Adams, he details this phenomenae in his past columns.

Mike Adams is an idiot who consistently either lies about the facts or attempts to make them up. Am I really supposed to care what he thinks?

didn't you said that?
Yes, I did. I just don't understand what your question of "Oh, are you that good?" means.

Keep in mind I was jesting about the gay tag. It's not like homosexuality is a disease; it's not contagious.

As far as military, i don't suppose the vast majority of soldiers who are in the service enjoy being placed in situtations where they will be Drooled over by some person of the same sex. (Dont ask, Dont tell?)

I love this argument. It just goes to show that most straight men think they are absolutely gorgeous and any gay man would obviously drool over them. Homosexuals are no less likley to be professional than heterosexuals.

I have had numerous Gays try and talk to me out of the blue using what i would feel as improper language from some one you met in a grocery store.

And I've had random straight guys ask me to "suck [their] dick," out of the blue. Assholes exist in every sexuality.

And I've had random straight guys ask me to "suck [their] dick," out of the blue. Assholes exist in every sexuality.
But of course, sweeping generalisations about such and such minority being all assholes keep being made.

Because we all know anecdotal evidence is enough to throw the stone to an entire subgroup of human beings. :rolleyes:

Yes, I did. I just don't understand what your question of "Oh, are you that good?" means.

Keep in mind I was jesting about the gay tag. It's not like homosexuality is a disease; it's not contagious.
so you were sarcastic(it was my thought)?

so you were sacactic(it was my thought)?
Of course. Please don't tell me you honestly thought it was possible to become homosexual just because a gay man came by, touched your arm and said "tag".

Homosexuality is not a disease. Therefore, it cannot be contagious.

Of course. Please don't tell me you honestly thought it was possible to become homosexual just because a gay man came by, touched your arm and said "tag".

Homosexuality is not a disease. Therefore, it cannot be contagious.
no ,but i believe nobody said such thing then ,and believe we all know each other.,,
I also can be sarcastic

He has "serious mental problems" just because he happens to like wearing a dress? If I wear pants, do I have "serious mental problems"? What about when I borrow my fiance's shirts?

Clearly you are a hairy-legged feminist with penis envy, Dem. Everybody knows that men are biologically designed to wear pants, while women are biologically designed to wear skirts, and only moral degenerates and perverts will choose to cross-dress.

Clearly you are a hairy-legged feminist with penis envy, Dem. Everybody knows that men are biologically designed to wear pants, while women are biologically designed to wear skirts, and only moral degenerates and perverts will choose to cross-dress.

So, that explains what I saw in the movie Braveheart...

I love this argument. It just goes to show that most straight men think they are absolutely gorgeous and any gay man would obviously drool over them. Homosexuals are no less likley to be professional than heterosexuals.

It also overlooks the tiny little detail about how WOMEN ARE IN THE MILITARY. I guess straight boys are so delicate that they cannot deal with another dude looking at them twice, while women are made of stronger stuff. Kind of makes you wonder why we are letting the tender little straight boys carry around guns.


And I've had random straight guys ask me to "suck [their] dick," out of the blue. Assholes exist in every sexuality.
Indeed. It really amazes me how some uber-manly straight boys will panic over a single gay guy making a pass at them...I feel like telling the straight boy to try walking a mile in my shoes. Try going to the pub as a woman. Try enduring "Ladies Night" as a woman, just once. You'll grow a thicker skin in no time.

no ,but i believe nobody said such thing then ,and believe we all know each other.,,
I also can be sarcastic
Oh. That explains it then.

It also overlooks the tiny little detail about how WOMEN ARE IN THE MILITARY. I guess straight boys are so delicate that they cannot deal with another dude looking at them twice, while women are made of stronger stuff. Kind of makes you wonder why we are letting the tender little straight boys carry around guns.


Indeed. It really amazes me how some uber-manly straight boys will panic over a single gay guy making a pass at them...I feel like telling the straight boy to try walking a mile in my shoes. Try going to the pub as a woman. Try enduring "Ladies Night" as a woman, just once. You'll grow a thicker skin in no time.

Seriously. I've never understood what horrible thing is supposed to happen as a result of being hit on by a member of one's own sex. I've been hit on by members of both genders, and I have yet to implode or spontaneously turn gay. I mostly just said "no thank you, I'm not interested," and felt flattered if anything. The only negative effect I've encountered at all has been mild annoyance and disgust with the straight guys who feel that "Hey, nice tits!" Suck my cock!" is an appropriate pick-up line. (The two women who've hit on me, on the other hand, were both entirely respectful and nice. In fact, I ended up being good friends with one of them.)

You'd really think that if a decidedly small, weak, and feminine being such as myself could endure the terrible agony of having people I'm not especially attracted to express sexual or romantic interest in me, big, manly soldiers could bear up under it...

Seriously. I've never understood what horrible thing is supposed to happen as a result of being hit on by a member of one's own sex. I've been hit on by members of both genders, and I have yet to implode or spontaneously turn gay. I mostly just said "no thank you, I'm not interested," and felt flattered if anything. The only negative effect I've encountered at all has been mild annoyance and disgust with the straight guys who feel that "Hey, nice tits!" Suck my cock!" is an appropriate pick-up line. (The two women who've hit on me, on the other hand, were both entirely respectful and nice. In fact, I ended up being good friends with one of them.)

You'd really think that if a decidedly small, weak, and feminine being such as myself could endure the terrible agony of having people I'm not especially attracted to express sexual or romantic interest in me, big, manly soldiers could bear up under it...

I never got it either. How is telling another man, "Sorry dude, you're not my type," any different than looking at a woman you are not especially attracted to the same thing? (I'm using the male example because I've actually never seen a straight woman freak out over being hit on by another woman).

Seriously. I've never understood what horrible thing is supposed to happen as a result of being hit on by a member of one's own sex. I've been hit on by members of both genders, and I have yet to implode or spontaneously turn gay. I mostly just said "no thank you, I'm not interested," and felt flattered if anything.

To be honest, I'm in far more danger of "turning gay" as a result of some of the heterosexual come-ons I've gotten. I love men, don't get me wrong, but when some 40 year old creep slithers up and asks me for my sign...*shudder*

The only negative effect I've encountered at all has been mild annoyance and disgust with the straight guys who feel that "Hey, nice tits!" Suck my cock!" is an appropriate pick-up line. (The two women who've hit on me, on the other hand, were both entirely respectful and nice. In fact, I ended up being good friends with one of them.)

Funny story: while in high school, I participated in a drag show in which I (being female) dressed up as a guy. I even used this fake stubble stuff to complete the effect. I must have made a pretty cute boy, because a gay guy hit on me. Imagine the confusion that ensued.


You'd really think that if a decidedly small, weak, and feminine being such as myself could endure the terrible agony of having people I'm not especially attracted to express sexual or romantic interest in me, big, manly soldiers could bear up under it...
The way some guys tell it, heterosexuality is something that men must cling to with both hands at all times. I guess homosexuality is so goddam appealing that if ONE SINGLE GAY GUY talks to them they will instantly find themselves in a naked pile of writhing manflesh.

I never got it either. How is telling another man, "Sorry dude, you're not my type," any different than looking at a woman you are not especially attracted to the same thing? (I'm using the male example because I've actually never seen a straight woman freak out over being hit on by another woman).
I think this may be the key clue.

From what I have gathered over the years, "femininity" is something biologically innate for women. All women are (according to the Big Book Of Gender Roles) delicate, flowery, sweet-smelling, and soft. All women are biologically designed to be feminine, and cannot ever overcome their fluffy girliness. This is why girls can't do math, build things, or be good at sports.

In contrast, masculinitiy is something very fragile, and must be defended and protected at all times. Men aren't just simply innately masculine; instead, they must establish and prove their masculinity, and they must continually confirm it lest it slip away. Men can lose their masculinity by wearing the wrong clothing, by walking the wrong way, or by having too much contact with feminine things. Men can lose their masculinity if a woman (or gay man) beats them at a game. Hell, men lose their masculinity if any woman, anywhere, succeeds at anything that isn't cleaning or getting pregnant.

This would explain why women, as a rule, do not flip the hell out when another woman approaches them, while many men will have a fit if a gay guy dares to be in the same pub with them. The very presence of the gay guy threatens the fragile masculinity of the hetero male. If the gay guy approaches the hetero male, this indicates that there is something wrong with the hetero male's masculinity; after all, if he were REALLY MANLY, the gay guy would have picked up on his UBER HETERO MANLINESS and would never have approached him.

I think this may be the key clue.

*snippety snip*

I would just like to note that this post had me laughing out loud. Well done! :)

I would just like to note that this post had me laughing out loud. Well done! :)
Heh, thanks.

Honestly, though, it's pretty much the only explanation I can work out. I mean, we've got piles of people freaking out that our schools are turning boys gay by making them sit quietly and respect their female peers. We have men writing hysterical letters to the editor about how feminism is making men into wimpy faggots, as though women can neuter men by simply having fundamental civil rights. We've got swarms of screaming hetero boys insisting that the mere existence of homosexual men is going to destroy all of masculinity for all time.

Really, is there any other explanation, besides that masculinity is a terribly tender and fragile thing? According to the model of traditional maleness, masculinity can't stand up to the EXISTENCE of non-masculine individuals, at least not if any of those individuals are allowed to act like they're actual people. That's pretty damn pathetic, if you ask me.

And they say feminists are man-haters! Pfft. The homophobes are the ones claiming that men are a bunch of terrified ninnies whose dicks will drop off at the slightest hint of danger.

I guess homosexuality is so goddam appealing that if ONE SINGLE GAY GUY talks to them they will instantly find themselves in a naked pile of writhing manflesh.
Well, that's how it happened for me.


Seriously.



(or not)

Well, that's how it happened for me.


Seriously.



(or not)
For me, it was when a woman bought me a drink. She must have slipped Teh Gay into that vodka martini, because I don't know how else I could possibly have come down with such a horrible case of faggotry.

Seriously. I've never understood what horrible thing is supposed to happen as a result of being hit on by a member of one's own sex. I've been hit on by members of both genders, and I have yet to implode or spontaneously turn gay. I mostly just said "no thank you, I'm not interested," and felt flattered if anything. The only negative effect I've encountered at all has been mild annoyance and disgust with the straight guys who feel that "Hey, nice tits!" Suck my cock!" is an appropriate pick-up line. (The two women who've hit on me, on the other hand, were both entirely respectful and nice. In fact, I ended up being good friends with one of them.)

You'd really think that if a decidedly small, weak, and feminine being such as myself could endure the terrible agony of having people I'm not especially attracted to express sexual or romantic interest in me, big, manly soldiers could bear up under it...
LOL! True.

When gay guys hit on me, like Fass did, ( HEH! ) I just say, "Thank you for the compliment, but I'm so hetero it's almost disgusting!" :D

For me, it was when a woman bought me a drink. She must have slipped Teh Gay into that vodka martini, because I don't know how else I could possibly have come down with such a horrible case of faggotry.
Well, that pretty much opened my eyes. I would never have thought the mere presence of a gay man was enough to make me turn into a flaming, screaming queen; but there I am now.

I really should've taken the fundie's warnings more seriously. My carelessness was the downfall of my masculinity. Now I am condemned to suck cock and like it, just because I was stupid enough *not* to beat a homo within an inch of his and leave him to die just for being a homo. All it took was a gentle touch from him and *poof*! A fairy appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Me.

Oh, how wrong I was.

LOL! True.

When gay guys hit on me, like Fass did, ( HEH! ) I just say, "Thank you for the complment, but I'm so hetero it's almost disgusting!" :D
Nah, it's not the hetero part that's disgusting, it's [insert mean comment about your age/physical appearance] :p

Well, that pretty much opened my eyes. I would never have thought the mere presence of a gay man was enough to make me turn into a flaming, screaming queen; but there I am now.

I really should've taken the fundie's warnings more seriously. My carelessness was the downfall of my masculinity. Now I am condemned to suck cock and like it, just because I was stupid enough *not* to beat a homo within an inch of his and leave him to die just for being a homo. All it took was a gentle touch from him and *poof*! A fairy appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Me.

Oh, how wrong I was.
ROFLMFAO!!! :D

Nah, it's not the hetero part that's disgusting, it's [insert mean comment about your age/physical appearance] :p
Uh huh. You're just jealous! :D

ROFLMFAO!!! :D
It's funny, but a little sad at the same time, because some people really do seem to think like that. For real. It's scary.

Uh huh. You're just jealous! :D
All right, all right, I admit I am. I wish I had all your experience :p

Well, that pretty much opened my eyes. I would never have thought the mere presence of a gay man was enough to make me turn into a flaming, screaming queen; but there I am now.

I really should've taken the fundie's warnings more seriously. My carelessness was the downfall of my masculinity. Now I am condemned to suck cock and like it, just because I was stupid enough *not* to beat a homo within an inch of his and leave him to die just for being a homo. All it took was a gentle touch from him and *poof*! A fairy appeared seemingly out of nowhere. Me.

Oh, how wrong I was.
It's possible that you also were faggotrified by the various masculinity-killing forces at work in our society. For instance, if a woman has ever held a position of authority over you, your masculinity took a hit. If a gay man has ever received a promotion in your field, your heterosexuality suffered. If a gay couple, somewhere, formed a monogamous, loving, committed relationship, then the very foundation of your heterosexual maleness began to crumble.

You can't be blamed, really. What hope does a mere man have of protecting his masculinity, when the entire world is hell-bent on making him into a nancy-boy wuss?

It's funny, but a little sad at the same time, because some people really do seem to think like that. For real. It's scary.
Hey! You're not telling me anything new. I KNOW some idiots like that! :(

You can't be blamed, really. What hope does a mere man have of protecting his masculinity, when the entire world is hell-bent on making him into a nancy-boy wuss?
Heh! It does take someone at least mildly secure in his masculinity to survive all that, yes? :D

It's possible that you also were faggotrified by the various masculinity-killing forces at work in our society. For instance, if a woman has ever held a position of authority over you, your masculinity took a hit. If a gay man has ever received a promotion in your field, your heterosexuality suffered. If a gay couple, somewhere, formed a monogamous, loving, committed relationship, then the very foundation of your heterosexual maleness began to crumble.

You can't be blamed, really. What hope does a mere man have of protecting his masculinity, when the entire world is hell-bent on making him into a nancy-boy wuss?
So you're saying I'm not really at fault? That my inability to beat the poor fag senseless isn't what caused me to have urges to be dominated by a big furry bear of a man wearing leather chaps? That, in fact, I'm not personally responsible for my faggotrification(I like that new word)?

*bawls in relief. Like a little girl*

Hey! You're not telling me anything new. I KNOW some idiots like that! :(
Please, please hit them repeatedly with a shovel in the face for me next time you see them. While shouting "GAYNESS IS NOT CONTAGIOUS* in their ears ringing from the blows.

Thank you in advance. I know I can count on you. ;)

All right, all right, I admit I am. I wish I had all your experience :p
Ahhh! You approach true wisdom now, Grasshopper! :D

Heh! It does take someone at least mildly secure in his masculinity to survive all that, yes? :D
Yes, dammit, that's my whole point! Men must be "secure in their masculinity," in order to survive the horrors of a world where male domination is actually being QUESTIONED by the faggots and the non-male subhuman house cleaners!!

It's such a relief to be a woman, I tell you. I can wear pants without having to worry about being secure in my femininity. I can hug another woman without having to reassure myself that I'm secure in my femininity. My femininity will not be threatened if, somewhere in the world, a man receives a promotion or holds a position of power. My femininity does not suffer every time a men's sports team wins a game.

Frankly, I don't know how you fellows get anything done, what with all the attention your masculinity needs.

Please, please hit them repeatedly with a shovel in the face for me next time you see them. While shouting "GAYNESS IS NOT CONTAGIOUS* in their ears ringing from the blows.

Thank you in advance. I know I can count on you. ;)
No need to go through all that. I just tell them that if they ever start running down another human being, gay or not, in my presence, I will Jap-slap them into the middle of next week. Since most of them know enough about me to realize that I could in fact do that very thing, they tend to STFU! :D

So you're saying I'm not really at fault? That my inability to beat the poor fag senseless isn't what caused me to have urges to be dominated by a big furry bear of a man wearing leather chaps? That, in fact, I'm not personally responsible for my faggotrification(I like that new word)?

*bawls in relief. Like a little girl*
There there. It's not your fault at all. It's the fault of the feminists and the gays and the libruls, and probably some of the uppity brown people who don't speak our language.

I think that that document is just wrong. There is absolutly nothing wrong with homosexuals. I can't believe they said that. And if anyone decides it's digusting and that homosexuals are worng, well they can go screw a cow. Homos are like you and me...they are humans too. Sorry if what I said was rough to some people's ears (which I really hope it's not) but I don't see a problem with other people's sexuality.

Yes, dammit, that's my whole point! Men must be "secure in their masculinity," in order to survive the horrors of a world where male domination is actually being QUESTIONED by the faggots and the non-male subhuman house cleaners!!

It's such a relief to be a woman, I tell you. I can wear pants without having to worry about being secure in my femininity. I can hug another woman without having to reassure myself that I'm secure in my femininity. My femininity will not be threatened if, somewhere in the world, a man receives a promotion or holds a position of power. My femininity does not suffer every time a men's sports team wins a game.

Frankly, I don't know how you fellows get anything done, what with all the attention your masculinity needs.
Sweetie ( if I may be so bold as to call you that! ;) ), my "masculinity" almost NEVER needs any "attention," and anyone wants to question it is more than welcome to do so at their leisure. :D

No need to go through all that. I just tell them that if they ever start running down another human being, gay or not, in my presence, I will Jap-slap them into the middle of next week. Since most of them know enough about me to realize that I could in fact do that very thing, they tend to STFU! :D
Jap-slap? Is that some sort of military jargon? I'm intrigued.

Sweetie ( if I may be so bold as to call you that! ;) ), my "masculinity" almost NEVER needs any "attention," and anyone wants to question it is more than welcome to do so at their leisure. :D
Yeah, but you're a freak of nature. You're a male who claims to not even CARE if there are GAY PEOPLE walking around on the planet!! You seem to think that you can be a heterosexual male even if gay men are allowed to exist and breathe our air and stuff.

There there. It's not your fault at all. It's the fault of the feminists and the gays and the libruls, and probably some of the uppity brown people who don't speak our language.
*sniffles* Thank you, mommy. You're so feminine, nurturing, and on the lookout for any attention I might need, sacrificing and forgetting yourself entirely for my well-being. Just like any good subhuman should be.


*hugs*

Jap-slap? Is that some sort of military jargon? I'm intrigued.
Not sure where I picked that up. I really should stop using it, but it's so aliterative! :D

What it usually refers to are the Japanese martial arts, which almost always involve some sort of open-hand attack or defense. Thus, "Jap-slap!" :)

Yeah, but you're a freak of nature. You're a male who claims to not even CARE if there are GAY PEOPLE walking around on the planet!! You seem to think that you can be a heterosexual male even if gay men are allowed to exist and breathe our air and stuff.
LMAO! Well, DUH! :D

*sniffles* Thank you, mommy. You're so feminine, nurturing, and on the lookout for any attention I might need, sacrificing and forgetting yourself entirely for my well-being. Just like any good subhuman should be.


*hugs*
It's what I exist for. Here, have a cookie. I quit my job so I could bake them for you boys. :)

*sniffles* Thank you, mommy. You're so feminine, nurturing, and on the lookout for any attention I might need, sacrificing and forgetting yourself entirely for my well-being. Just like any good subhuman should be.

*hugs*
LMAO! Oh, BROTHER! :rolleyes:

It's what I exist for. Here, have a cookie. I quit my job so I could bake them for you boys. :)
Ok, that's it! My scarcasm meter just pegged out! :p

Not sure where I picked that up. I really should stop using it, but it's so aliterative! :D

What it usually refers to are the Japanese martial arts, which almost always involve some sort of open-hand attack or defense. Thus, "Jap-slap!" :)
Ah, I see: like an atemi strike, or a chop. Martial arts are fun. They can also be useful tools of self-defense for fags such as I, should I ever encouter a fragile hetero boy whose masculinity is especially vulnerable.