NationStates Jolt Archive

...Oh my god, too many possible replies!

Dick is totally straight. What sort of gay guy gets so close to Bush?

Tom Foley?

I never understood the whole, "But they'll be bullied!" argument. Children will be bullied, for any number of things. If a child wants to be a bully, they will find a reason, or make one up. If the "your parents are gay," reason isn't there, another one will be found.
I've never understood it either, because I fail to see why we should base our system of law on what schoolyard bullies think.

Bullies also pick on smart kids. I guess that means we need to start making sure that smart people are banned from marrying and having kids, since having intelligent parents increases the chance that you might be born (gasp) smart!!! Bullies pick on poor kids, so maybe we should ban the poor from marrying and having children. Bullies pick on both fat and thin kids, so I guess all people who aren't in perfect physical condition should be banned from getting married. Bullies pick on short kids, tall kids, and kids with acne.

Probably best to just ban human beings from getting married and having kids altogether. Except the bullies, of course.

I'm not completely sure I understand you, but it seems as if you're saying that you don't care to be a pioneer, you'll just wait until "the majority" tells you it's okay to accept gay people.

What do you think about gay people? Do you know any? Do you think we should have equal rights with straight people?

first paragraph, half right.

second. i dont particularly like the idea, but i cant do anything to stop it so theres no point in complaining. i know lots of gay people, i've been to nearly ever gay bar in dublin(thats not alot). i've friends who are gay. they know my opinions on gay marraige and adoption.
i hate you annoying liberals, stop making everything about "equal rights". if someones "right" is counter productive for society then you take it away. if allow the "cause its my right" rule all the time, then people will be running around lawless doing they like screaming "you cant stop me its my right!" thats what child molesters say.

first paragraph, half right.

second. i dont particularly like the idea, but i cant do anything to stop it so theres no point in complaining. i know lots of gay people, i've been to nearly ever gay bar in dublin(thats not alot). i've friends who are gay. they know my opinions on gay marraige and adoption.
i hate you annoying liberals, stop making everything about "equal rights". if someones "right" is counter productive for society then you take it away. if allow the "cause its my right" rule all the time, then people will be running around lawless doing they like screaming "you cant stop me its my right!" thats what child molesters say.

Contrary to what you seem to believe, there is a thing called balance between the rights of the individual and rights of society.

If all laws had to profit society, you'd have to live in a society that kills old and sick people, forces you to take up a profession that is needed instead of one you'd like to work in, give you no say on where or how you live, etc.
If all laws were to profit the individual, there would be virtually nobody around to enforce them.

Law is based on a concept called justice. And it is not just to allow two people one thing and deny the exact same to two others. So either marriage gets abolished on the whole (which will not be practicable, as the general population will not want to part with the tradition), or else it has to be granted to every adult.

first paragraph, half right.

second. i dont particularly like the idea, but i cant do anything to stop it so theres no point in complaining. i know lots of gay people, i've been to nearly ever gay bar in dublin(thats not alot). i've friends who are gay. they know my opinions on gay marraige and adoption.
i hate you annoying liberals, stop making everything about "equal rights". if someones "right" is counter productive for society then you take it away. if allow the "cause its my right" rule all the time, then people will be running around lawless doing they like screaming "you cant stop me its my right!" thats what child molesters say.

No, rights are the same for each indivdual. You're rights are limited only to the point when you infringe upon another's rights. Case in point: You have the right to jump up and down and scream in the middle of the street as loud as you want. This right is negated when you infringe upon some else's right such as doing it late at night above the regulated decible levels deemed appropriate by your local statute. You have the right to own a gun and fire it as long as you do it legally, however that right is limited to when you shoot it at someone else. So tell me now how does someone having the right to legal priveleges of the marriage contract affect your right to the same? Does it infringe upon your right to marry who you want? Your argument is not only illogical, but insulting. Your comparrison of homosxual with child molesters is typical of the fear mongering "my morality is the only morailty" tripe. How does gay people taking care of children ansd having the legal rights of a common marriage affect your rights to the same? If it does not then you have no legal basis for your claim.

If all laws had to profit society, you'd have to live in a society that kills old and sick people, forces you to take up a profession that is needed instead of one you'd like to work in, give you no say on where or how you live, etc.

i see keeping the sick and the old productive usefull, they may still have usefull knowledge.
one should allow work as they want cause, a happy worker is a productive worker.

i see keeping the sick and the old productive usefull, they may still have usefull knowledge.
one should allow work as they want cause, a happy worker is a productive worker.

So are you saying that gay people are not useful and not productive?

i see keeping the sick and the old productive usefull, they may still have usefull knowledge.
one should allow work as they want cause, a happy worker is a productive worker.

A 70 year old lying in a coma after the 3rd stroke and being kept alive by pacemaker, artificial lung, dialysis and liquid nutrition? Useful knowledge? Really?

If you have 30% unemployed teachers in that society of yours, but a dramatic shortage of garbage collectors, its in the interest of society not to let more people study to become teacher and force them to become garbage collectors instead, isn't it?

No, rights are the same for each indivdual. You're rights are limited only to the point when you infringe upon another's rights. Case in point: You have the right to jump up and down and scream in the middle of the street as loud as you want. This right is negated when you infringe upon some else's right such as doing it late at night above the regulated decible levels deemed appropriate by your local statute. You have the right to own a gun and fire it as long as you do it legally, however that right is limited to when you shoot it at someone else. So tell me now how does someone having the right to legal priveleges of the marriage contract affect your right to the same? Does it infringe upon your right to marry who you want? Your argument is not only illogical, but insulting. Your comparrison of homosxual with child molesters is typical of the fear mongering "my morality is the only morailty" tripe. How does gay people taking care of children ansd having the legal rights of a common marriage affect your rights to the same? If it does not then you have no legal basis for your claim.

sorry a bit of confusion there. i wasnt comparing gays to child molesters, i was simply explaining why i never accept, "cause its my right as an arguement".
my country you are not allowd jump up and shouting in the middle of the street. my country you cannot by guns, unless a farmer.
my arguement is perfectly logical. your arguement is not cause you think 'rights' are more important than whats logically better for society.

So are you saying that gay people are not useful and not productive?

never said anything about kill gay people or making it illegal.

first paragraph, half right.

second. i dont particularly like the idea, but i cant do anything to stop it so theres no point in complaining. i know lots of gay people, i've been to nearly ever gay bar in dublin(thats not alot). i've friends who are gay. they know my opinions on gay marraige and adoption.
i hate you annoying liberals, stop making everything about "equal rights". if someones "right" is counter productive for society then you take it away. if allow the "cause its my right" rule all the time, then people will be running around lawless doing they like screaming "you cant stop me its my right!" thats what child molesters say.

sorry a bit of confusion there. i wasnt comparing gays to child molesters, i was simply explaining why i never accept, "cause its my right as an arguement".
my country you are not allowd jump up and shouting in the middle of the street. my country you cannot by guns, unless a farmer.
my arguement is perfectly logical. your arguement is not cause you think 'rights' are more important than whats logically better for society.

Uhm ... okay, I think.

It's not a particularly "liberal" thing to want the rights that being a citizen of the United States entail. The Supreme Court of the US, in the decision that struck down the State of Virginia's law that made inter-racial marriages illegal, declared marriage to be a right. All I'm saying is that if that is so, I simply want to avail myself of those rights, yet people in this country seem to be intent on denying them to me.

And you didn't answer my straight-forward question: do you think that homosexuals should have all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals have, or are there some rights that gay people cannot have?

sorry a bit of confusion there. i wasnt comparing gays to child molesters, i was simply explaining why i never accept, "cause its my right as an arguement".
my country you are not allowd jump up and shouting in the middle of the street. my country you cannot by guns, unless a farmer.
my arguement is perfectly logical. your arguement is not cause you think 'rights' are more important than whats logically better for society.

What is logically better for society by whose standards? Yours? Please explain to me how it is logical for society to deny the rights of one party while giving them to the other. This is of course, providing the person has done nothing wrong. Further using "cause" when you mean "because" makes you sounds more inoran than your views. Or it could be because you are a teenager and slang is just how your write. I've yet to hear how it is "logically better" from anyone who has ever used those words. What I usually get is a diatribe on religion and local customs. Explain to me how being gay, having legal rights of marriage and raising children is logically wrong for society. Explain to me how it infringes upon your life adn your rights and then I might be inclined to agree. Otherwise, your argument is still as flawed as ever and can only be deemed right under your strict guidelines of what ou personally find to be wrong. Society does not exist to adhere to your own personal views. So how does being gay destroy society?

Uhm ... okay, I think.

It's not a particularly "liberal" thing to want the rights that being a citizen of the United States entail. The Supreme Court of the US, in the decision that struck down the State of Virginia's law that made inter-racial marriages illegal, declared marriage to be a right. All I'm saying is that if that is so, I simply want to avail myself of those rights, yet people in this country seem to be intent on denying them to me.

And you didn't answer my straight-forward question: do you think that homosexuals should have all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals have, or are there some rights that gay people cannot have?

part 1; not living in america, dont know what your talking about.

paet 2; depends what you call rights. i only belief you human is naturally valid.free speech, cause its the one that lets you know what other rights are valid. the rest are just laws. you'll have to note your talking to someone who doesnt believe in morals rights or ethics.

part 1; not living in america, dont know what your talking about.

paet 2; depends what you call rights. i only belief you human is naturally valid.free speech, cause its the one that lets you know what other rights are valid. the rest are just laws. you'll have to note your talking to someone who doesnt believe in morals rights or ethics.

I'll keep that in mind.

What is logically better for society by whose standards? Yours? Please explain to me how it is logical for society to deny the rights of one party while giving them to the other. This is of course, providing the person has done nothing wrong. Further using "cause" when you mean "because" makes you sounds more inoran than your views. Or it could be because you are a teenager and slang is just how your write. I've yet to hear how it is "logically better" from anyone who has ever used those words. What I usually get is a diatribe on religion and local customs. Explain to me how being gay, having legal rights of marriage and raising children is logically wrong for society. Explain to me how it infringes upon your life adn your rights and then I might be inclined to agree. Otherwise, your argument is still as flawed as ever and can only be deemed right under your strict guidelines of what ou personally find to be wrong. Society does not exist to adhere to your own personal views. So how does being gay destroy society?

i'm not a teenager. i wright the way i do cause i'm allowed to, theres no law against it. i dont live in china were they might have such crazy laws. you complain about my typing but in your paragraph you a re missing leeters to complete words, so shut up and stop being irrelevant.

never said being gay destroys society. it is pointless asking questions that i have already answered. i have said a few times that i'm not against gays.

i'm not a teenager. i wright the way i do cause i'm allowed to, theres no law against it. i dont live in china were they might have such crazy laws. you complain about my typing but in your paragraph you a re missing leeters to complete words, so shut up and stop being irrelevant.

never said being gay destroys society. it is pointless asking questions that i have already answered. i have said a few times that i'm not against gays.


You have answered nothing. You're entire post is irrelevant so please spare me the outrage. Is it not a right to be treated equally under the law? How does refusing those rights to people make logical sense for society? Whose logic and moral structure do we adhere to in order to determine what is logical. Keep skating around the issues in an attempt to say "I've answered it all" when really all you've done is say I believe this is logically right. Guess what pal, you don't rule the roost. Further, comparing a typo to a blatant misuse of grammar is totally different and makes you sound less intelligent than before.

You said:

your arguement is not cause you think 'rights' are more important than whats logically better for society.

according to who?

You have answered nothing. You're entire post is irrelevant so please spare me the outrage. Is it not a right to be treated equally under the law? How does refusing those rights to people make logical sense for society? Whose logic and moral structure do we adhere to in order to determine what is logical. Keep skating around the issues in an attempt to say "I've answered it all" when really all you've done is say I believe this is logically right. Guess what pal, you don't rule the roost. Further, comparing a typo to a blatant misuse of grammar is totally different and makes you sound less intelligent than before.

i regard as one of those annoying hot headed people who think evreything they say i right and dont listen to others. i have been asked a few times do i think gays are evil or destructive, what ever. and i have answered it so no point in asking me again.
also rephrase questions to remove thye words rights and equality, we then may be able to understand each other.

further more. i'm allowed type what i want. i'm allowed misspell and have bad grammar. i'll live in a somewhat free country. if want to start controlling freedom of speech, move to china.

You said:

your arguement is not cause you think 'rights' are more important than whats logically better for society.

according to who?

logic has nothing to do with morals and such.

logic has nothing to do with morals and such.

so in other words you can call something logical without providing the basis for that logic and I'm supposed to accept it. My question was not do you think gay people are evil. My question, which you avoid at all costs is "do you think it is okay to treat one set of people differently than others without legal justification? How does denying gay rights make a more logical world than not? Thanks, I'll await your answer and ignore you until you start espousing something that resembles a point.

part 1; not living in america, dont know what your talking about.

paet 2; depends what you call rights. i only belief you human is naturally valid.free speech, cause its the one that lets you know what other rights are valid. the rest are just laws. you'll have to note your talking to someone who doesnt believe in morals rights or ethics.

so in other words you can call something logical without providing the basis for that logic and I'm supposed to accept it. My question was not do you think gay people are evil. My question, which you avoid at all costs is "do you think it is okay to treat one set of people differently than others without legal justification? How does denying gay rights make a more logical world than not? Thanks, I'll await your answer and ignore you until you start espousing something that resembles a point.

I think he did answer it in his reply to my question. See the 2nd paragraph of his reply above. If he doesn't believe in morals, right or ethics, I suppose you can't expect logic to enter into any of it.

Edit: And I suppose we've slipped way off the point. I don't begrudge Mary Cheney any of the happiness she finds in becoming a mother. I do wish her public record on supporting the GLBT community were better. And I do wish she'd had more of an effect on her father's stance on these issues. The Vice President's support for his daughter is diminished by his equal support for the anti-gay planks in the Republican Platform.

so in other words you can call something logical without providing the basis for that logic and I'm supposed to accept it. My question was not do you think gay people are evil. My question, which you avoid at all costs is "do you think it is okay to treat one set of people differently than others without legal justification? How does denying gay rights make a more logical world than not? Thanks, I'll await your answer and ignore you until you start espousing something that resembles a point.

i spot two questions there.

1-only a miltary dictatorship can break countries own laws. rephrase question.
if you want to "do you think it is okay to treat one set of people differently?". then i say yes. cause we do. all countries do. criminals are treated differently to non-criminals. pregant people get maternaty leave others dont.

2-again i dont believe having equal rights is important as some people say it is, cause no one in the world has equal rights. i dont have the 'right' to vote in japan, but the japanese do.

I think he did answer it in his reply to my question. See the 2nd paragraph of his reply above. If he doesn't believe in morals, right or ethics, I suppose you can't expect logic to enter into any of it.

what people call 'morally right' is not the same as logical. i only go by what i think is logical and rational to what is more productive.

my apologies. I always regaard people who have no morals, rights, or ethics out of hand. Hell, then I suppose killing someone is just fine and dandy as there clearly is no moral, ethical, or practical reason why not. Clearly if you are a human you are valid, or something like that. Therefore as a human if you have the ability to do it no one should be there to stop you. Do I have it correct now?

i spot two questions there.

1-only a miltary dictatorship can break countries own laws. rephrase question.
if you want to "do you think it is okay to treat one set of people differently?". then i say yes. cause we do. all countries do. criminals are treated differently to non-criminals. pregant people get maternaty leave others dont.

2-again i dont believe having equal rights is important as some people say it is, cause no one in the world has equal rights. i dont have the 'right' to vote in japan, but the japanese do.

You aren't a citizen of Japan, so you quite rightly cannot vote there. I never said I expected to have rights in any country other than my own. Now, if you became a Japanese citizen and were then denied your rights because you're a tall, round-eyed European, you would have a cause for complaint.

so logically it's right to kill someone who has killed someone for that someone who has killed soemone may kill some more. Therefor taking one life is better than allowing for the logical possibility that that one life may be responsible for the taking of far more lives. I'm just trying to work out this rationalization that Gorias works under. Assuming that his only argument is that logically we must reproduce to propogate the species thos which cannot reproduce (ie. gay men) should not be allowed as they defy logic. Sorry the world doesn't work in algorhythmic absolutes though.

my apologies. I always regaard people who have no morals, rights, or ethics out of hand. Hell, then I suppose killing someone is just fine and dandy as there clearly is no moral, ethical, or practical reason why not. Clearly if you are a human you are valid, or something like that. Therefore as a human if you have the ability to do it no one should be there to stop you. Do I have it correct now?

it is illogical to randomly kill someone you dont know. they may be a doctor, a scientist or another important member of society that may serve you in the future. also keeping the random kindness of strangers is useful.

to make it clearer. i have no problem with, if wasnt going to be put in jail for, finding i think is a counter productive person in society(child molesters, terrorists and such), not only killing them, but making a coat out of thier skin, take out useful organs for donation and eating the rest.

if we were to meet an to have a conversation, it will quickly come clear to as it does most people i meet. i am a person that tries to surpress my human compassion. my irration human compassion usually only comes out in situations involving kids, the handicapped and torture.

You aren't a citizen of Japan, so you quite rightly cannot vote there. I never said I expected to have rights in any country other than my own. Now, if you became a Japanese citizen and were then denied your rights because you're a tall, round-eyed European, you would have a cause for complaint.

i wasnt complaining about not being able to vote in japan, i was merely making an example.

so logically it's right to kill someone who has killed someone for that someone who has killed soemone may kill some more. Therefor taking one life is better than allowing for the logical possibility that that one life may be responsible for the taking of far more lives. I'm just trying to work out this rationalization that Gorias works under. Assuming that his only argument is that logically we must reproduce to propogate the species thos which cannot reproduce (ie. gay men) should not be allowed as they defy logic. Sorry the world doesn't work in algorhythmic absolutes though.

i prefere the death penalty to the normal idea of jails. but i do prefere slave labour or brainwashing.
gay men can still have a function in the world.

Tom Foley?

err, Mark Foley actually.

i wasnt complaining about not being able to vote in japan, i was merely making an example.

I know, I was replying to your example. Equal rights all around the world is still a dream and may always be a dream.

Yes, criminals are treated differently but criminals have broken the laws of their countries. Yes, only pregnant people get maternity leave (though there may be some leeway on this over here, where fathers can get leave, too; it's not common by any means). So, yes, some classes of people do get different treatment based on who they are. But you don't think that gay people are deserving of fewer rights or privileges than other citizens? I believe that's what you said. You're simply annoyed that we disturbed you by insisting on those rights and privileges?

i prefere the death penalty to the normal idea of jails. but i do prefere slave labour or brainwashing.
gay men can still have a function in the world.

good, so that function could still be parenting either through adoption or invitro fertilization of another female. Or if they could stomach it, the old fashioned way. So there is no logicval reason to deny allowing homosexuals to be parents in one way or the other. You can call it logical and I'll call it a right. Either way the results are the same.

good, so that function could still be parenting either through adoption or invitro fertilization of another female. Or if they could stomach it, the old fashioned way. So there is no logicval reason to deny allowing homosexuals to be parents in one way or the other. You can call it logical and I'll call it a right. Either way the results are the same.

i'm against invitro fertilization. off topic, not explaining.

again i say, i'm not against the idea off gays adopting. i just dont think its practical not. some day maybe. that day could be tomorrow.

IBut you don't think that gay people are deserving of fewer rights or privileges than other citizens? I believe that's what you said. You're simply annoyed that we disturbed you by insisting on those rights and privileges?


alright now i can answer your question. yes to the privileges one. allready explained why.

Assume homosexuality is purely a choice. I choose it. Why should I be denied my rights as a citizen of the United States of America, born and raised here, because of that choice?

I'm not saying you should be denied any rights because you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. I am taking exception with what some people choose to define as rights. I don't think a person has a right to marry someone of the same gender, nor does anyone have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. The state grants licences for people to marry members of the opposite gender, so marriage isn't a right, it's a privalige. Addoption is also a privalige. I think it's wrong to legally discriminate against people for any act that is not a violation of law, but currently same-sex marriage is against the law, so the matter is a legal difficulty.

I, personly, will fight against giveing same-sex couples the right to marry and to adopt children (though I don't feel it's right to tell women that she can't have children, so I suppose lesbians who have their own children have a loop hole I feel it would be wrong to close), for the same reason that I support our current drug and seat belt laws; I believe that all of these behaviors (homosexuality, drug abuse, not wearing your seat belt) are harmful to the people that engage in them, and I feel it is prudent to legally discourage (though not to proscribe) people in those activities.

blah blah blah, they've done EKGs comparing homosexuals to heterosexuals and found differences. They done blood tests in response to stimuli which procve a correlation. They've done MRI that measure brain activity and proven a correlation in the way homosexual react in contrary to heterosexuals.

They have also proven that repetitious behavior changes your brain shape. These responses are conditioned responses, and can also be conditioned out of a person by their choosing to deny those impulses. And one of the first things that any student of science should learn is that 'correlation does not equal causation'.

So in your world homosexuals can become straight so they won't suffer from their choices? They'd chose something that would have them ridiculed and treated with distain? Really?

Some people choose to get drunk publicly on a regular basis. This is also a source of ridicule and is likewise treated with disdain, yet people do it.

They'll accept there's a fat gene, but not one that can make you gay.

I ceded in my post that there may be some people that have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality. That doesn't mean that genetics are making their choices for them. Not all people with the 'fat gene' are obese, so apparently genetics don't control us.

these educated people are so stupid. Dr's, Deans, Geneticists, Molecular biologists, all idiots!!!!!!!!

Anyone who says that other people, or chemistry, or anything else for that matter, controls you like a puppeteer controls a puppet would tell you that which is not true. We are given the power to choose and to act for ourselves, no one and no force can take that from us. I stand by the principle of free will, because it is truth. If all the 'wise' men of this world should declare against this principle I would still stand by it.

I don't want to quarrel with you sir (or mis), but I believe that you deceive yourself if you believe that someone, or some force (such as chemistry) controls your decision-making process.

Did you get a visit from the sexuality fairy who gave you a choice in what gender(s) you would be attracted to that the rest of humanity missed out on?

I personally believe that homosexuality is a sign of emotional trauma. I have a few homosexual friends, and they all seem to have some sort of trauma attached to affection. I believe that homosexuality is a product of abnormal psychology, and can and should, be treated like any other psychosis.

I believe that most homosexuals are convinced that they are homosexual at an early and impressionable age, and from that point onward they reinforce this mentality with repeated thoughts and actions, until that urge is so deeply seated in their personality that they find the urge nigh irresistible.

I know of recovered homosexuals that confirm my hypotheses upon this subject. They are happier now, and have no difficulty being attracted to, and enjoying heterosexual relationships. But it was a struggle for them to right themselves.

I don't expect most of you to agree with me, but this is what I believe. You may decide for yourselves what you will believe.

I'm not saying you should be denied any rights because you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. I am taking exception with what some people choose to define as rights. I don't think a person has a right to marry someone of the same gender, nor does anyone have the right to marry someone of the opposite gender. The state grants licences for people to marry members of the opposite gender, so marriage isn't a right, it's a privalige. Addoption is also a privalige. I think it's wrong to legally discriminate against people for any act that is not a violation of law, but currently same-sex marriage is against the law, so the matter is a legal difficulty.

I, personly, will fight against giveing same-sex couples the right to marry and to adopt children (though I don't feel it's right to tell women that she can't have children, so I suppose lesbians who have their own children have a loop hole I feel it would be wrong to close), for the same reason that I support our current drug and seat belt laws; I believe that all of these behaviors (homosexuality, drug abuse, not wearing your seat belt) are harmful to the people that engage in them, and I feel it is prudent to legally discourage (though not to proscribe) people in those activities.

Ah, a privilege, not a right? That's a cop-out. You take away my rights by saying it isn't a right. What next? "Voting is a privilege, not a right, so ..." "Living anywhere you like is a privilege, not a right, so ..."

And yet, the US Supreme Court wrote in Loving vs Virgina:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Since the 14th Amendment establishes equal protection under the law, without specifying under what categories, how can this principle not be extended to same-sex couples? It's shabby and not worthy of this country.

I personally believe that homosexuality is a sign of emotional trauma. I have a few homosexual friends, and they all seem to have some sort of trauma attached to affection. I believe that homosexuality is a product of abnormal psychology, and can and should, be treated like any other psychosis.

I believe that most homosexuals are convinced that they are homosexual at an early and impressionable age, and from that point onward they reinforce this mentality with repeated thoughts and actions, until that urge is so deeply seated in their personality that they find the urge nigh irresistible.

I know of recovered homosexuals that confirm my hypotheses upon this subject. They are happier now, and have no difficulty being attracted to, and enjoying heterosexual relationships. But it was a struggle for them to right themselves.

I don't expect most of you to agree with me, but this is what I believe. You may decide for yourselves what you will believe.

Well, I will give you this, that unlike any number of people around here, you actually said what you believe with no pussy-footing.

I personally believe that homosexuality is a sign of emotional trauma. I have a few homosexual friends, and they all seem to have some sort of trauma attached to affection. I believe that homosexuality is a product of abnormal psychology, and can and should, be treated like any other psychosis.

I believe that most homosexuals are convinced that they are homosexual at an early and impressionable age, and from that point onward they reinforce this mentality with repeated thoughts and actions, until that urge is so deeply seated in their personality that they find the urge nigh irresistible.

I know of recovered homosexuals that confirm my hypotheses upon this subject. They are happier now, and have no difficulty being attracted to, and enjoying heterosexual relationships. But it was a struggle for them to right themselves.

I don't expect most of you to agree with me, but this is what I believe. You may decide for yourselves what you will believe.

Wow, that's so full of shit. Really, one of the stupidest posts ever written on this forum, and believe me, this forum has seen its fair share of idiocy over the years. What you posted, though, really takes the cake.

The nature versus nurture argument will never be satisfactorily resolved.

But this whole nonsense about "recovering" homosexuals as if I have a disease just bothers me. Not all folks who claim that they are gay are, I have no idea why.

In my experience, you claiming that "emotional trauma" has to do with self-identified homosexuality is sloppy or perhaps even wishful thinking. I have a great deal of experience with both traumatized homosexuals and well-adjusted homosexuals, and I find no genuine correlation between emotional health and actual verifiable homosexuality. It's just another popular myth promulgated by folks who really have no idea what they are talking about.

Ah, a privilege, not a right? That's a cop-out. You take away my rights by saying it isn't a right. What next? "Voting is a privilege, not a right, so ..." "Living anywhere you like is a privilege, not a right, so ..."

And yet, the US Supreme Court wrote in Loving vs Virgina:

Since the 14th Amendment establishes equal protection under the law, without specifying under what categories, how can this principle not be extended to same-sex couples? It's shabby and not worthy of this country.

Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

"Article 16 (1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

You know, I see this "marriage is not a right, but a privilege" poppycock so often it isn't even funny anymore. It's clear that the people who spout it have no idea what they are talking about.

Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

"Article 16 (1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

You know, I see this "marriage is not a right, but a privilege" poppycock so often it isn't even funny anymore. It's clear that the people who spout it have no idea what they are talking about.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. We heterosexuals have always viewed marriage as a privilege; that's why there are no unhappy marriages and no divorces: because we revere it so. Who do these hypocrits think they're fooling?

I'm not saying you should be denied any rights because you choose to live a homosexual lifestyle.

This is contradictory with what you later say. You clearly think that homosexuals should not receive equal treatment under the law.

I, personly, will fight against giveing same-sex couples the right to marry and to adopt children (though I don't feel it's right to tell women that she can't have children, so I suppose lesbians who have their own children have a loop hole I feel it would be wrong to close), for the same reason that I support our current drug and seat belt laws; I believe that all of these behaviors (homosexuality, drug abuse, not wearing your seat belt) are harmful to the people that engage in them, and I feel it is prudent to legally discourage (though not to proscribe) people in those activities.

How is homosexuality a behavior? Last time I checked, it was a sexual orientation.

I personally believe that homosexuality is a sign of emotional trauma. I have a few homosexual friends, and they all seem to have some sort of trauma attached to affection. I believe that homosexuality is a product of abnormal psychology, and can and should, be treated like any other psychosis.

So you just ignore all of the studies that have been done in this area and make something up? Gotcha.

I believe that most homosexuals are convinced that they are homosexual at an early and impressionable age, and from that point onward they reinforce this mentality with repeated thoughts and actions, until that urge is so deeply seated in their personality that they find the urge nigh irresistible.

Convinced how? By whom?

I know of recovered homosexuals that confirm my hypotheses upon this subject. They are happier now, and have no difficulty being attracted to, and enjoying heterosexual relationships. But it was a struggle for them to right themselves.

If they "have no trouble" being attracted to members of the opposite sex, then they were never homosexual to begin with. Bisexual, perhaps, but not homosexual.

There is no such thing as a "recovered homosexual." There are people who are pushed into denying their own feelings. There are people who are bisexual and choose to only date those of the opposite sex. But there isn't a single shred of evidence that homosexuals can be "recovered" and turned into heterosexuals.

I don't expect most of you to agree with me, but this is what I believe. You may decide for yourselves what you will believe.

When your "beliefs" begin to affect others, and are not only based outside of evidence, but are, in fact, contrary to it, it isn't a matter of "agree to disagree." If you want to believe that the world is flat, that's your problem, but you definitely shouldn't take action based on that idea that affects others.

Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

"Article 16 (1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

You know, I see this "marriage is not a right, but a privilege" poppycock so often it isn't even funny anymore. It's clear that the people who spout it have no idea what they are talking about.

I'm sure we can find many other violations of the Declaration, long before we get to Article 16, and I'm SURE every country in the world views the Declaration as the Law of the Land, supreme above their own governments... LOL

Not to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states:

"Article 16 (1): Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution."

You know, I see this "marriage is not a right, but a privilege" poppycock so often it isn't even funny anymore. It's clear that the people who spout it have no idea what they are talking about.

Oh, they know. They know that if they admit that there is a right to marry, then they cannot continue to deny it to other people and still claim to be the guardians of democracy and fair play. Saying, "It's a privilege that you earn by conforming to society's norms" is the ultimate escape clause for these people. And it isn't funny anymore, I agree. It's just very tiresome and sad.

Oh, they know. They know that if they admit that there is a right to marry, then they cannot continue to deny it to other people and still claim to be the guardians of democracy and fair play. Saying, "It's a privilege that you earn by conforming to society's norms" is the ultimate escape clause for these people. And it isn't funny anymore, I agree. It's just very tiresome and sad.

People will always oppress other people for some reason, and when they are caught they deny everything, or make up some BS story. The thing that really galls me is that they seldom have their own lives together, but still feel ultimately qualified to judge.

New Rule: You aren't qualified to make decisions about other people's lives if you can't manage your own life.

I don't want to quarrel with you sir (or mis), but I believe that you deceive yourself if you believe that someone, or some force (such as chemistry) controls your decision-making process.
not that I am a doctor, but being the brother in law of two, and cousin of several more and...drum roll please: married to a soon to be doctor...

I have to say, your position is sooo week. There is tons of evidence that chemicals, environment, place in order of children the mother has, and a thousand other things can indeed have an effect on the gayness or not of a child. I've been forced to listen to this argument all my life, and while I don't really care one way or the other, thought it important to point out that you're wrong...if only because my family would get all pissy with me if I said that lol!