General Wants Gay Ban Lifted

[Missileman]

Its not a choice, its innate in every single one of us.....unles you believe all science to be wrong.

So what you are arguing is that in essence, there are no homosexuals, only heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexual activity. If you are really honest with yourself, you will see that doesn't make any sense. I base that opinion on the fact that I could never choose to engage in it. The only other possibilities are they are born that way OR it's a mental disease...either way it's not a choice.

[OCA]

So what you are arguing is that in essence, there are no homosexuals, only heterosexuals who choose to engage in homosexual activity. If you are really honest with yourself, you will see that doesn't make any sense. I base that opinion on the fact that I could never choose to engage in it. The only other possibilities are they are born that way OR it's a mental disease...either way it's not a choice.

No, people can choose to engage in homosexual acts. Its like with heroin or crack, lets say you are at a party and someone is their with a heroin needle or a crack pipe and says "hey you want to try some?" Well with all the info out there and pictures and stories of junkies,you never ever see one that isn't dirty and strung out, why would anyone choose to shoot up or hit the pipe? Yet they do it all the time. Same with homosexuality.

[Ado]

What basic right were they being denied in the first place? Now remember before you answer that from all evidence they chose their lifestyle.

No--I was shown evidence that it is a medical disease
and told that it needs to be treated as such.


Even if it is a lifestyle choice, are we then saying
that we are only willing to extend rights in the Constitution
for people that have exactly the same lifestyles?

Are they made aware of that when they forfeit wages?
Where is the list or description of acceptable lifestyle
choices in the Constitution??--I'm not sure that mine
exactly fits the expectations. I may need to make
adjustments.

Where is all that written? Was that a signing statement? :p

[OCA]

No--I was shown evidence that it is a medical disease
and told that it needs to be treated as such.


Even if it is a lifestyle choice, are we then saying
that we are only willing to extend rights in the Constitution
for people that have exactly the same lifestyles?

Are they made aware of that when they forfeit wages?
Where is the list or description of acceptable lifestyle
choices in the Constitution??--I'm not sure that mine
exactly fits the expectations. I may need to make
adjustments.

Where is all that written? Was that a signing statement? :p

Your argument is a strawman and being defeated everyday in front of your very eyes. The states that have voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage have each and every one had a challenge to the ban on constitutional grounds and to date in each one the ban was found to be constitutional and upheld.

Anything else I can help you with?

[Bubbalicious]

If homosexuality is genetic, and not a chosen lifestyle???

Why is the homosexual population in America only 5% out a population of 300 million?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness#Cultural_stigmatisation


Approximately 8 to 15% of the adult population is left-handed.

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, Roman Catholic nuns in United States elementary schools would punish children for using their left hand to write, typically by slapping their left hand with a ruler if they attempted to pick up a pen with it. As late as the early 20th century, school teachers in the Netherlands would force right-handed writing (thus, ambidexterity) on left-handed writing children. An example of such treatment involves baseball players Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth, who both hit and threw left-handed and wrote right-handed after enduring left-handed suppression during their formative years.

Left-handedness was often interpreted as a sign of Satanic influence, and thus prohibited. Many examples can be found in the Christian-Greek scriptures in which the wicked or evil sit at the left hand of God, while the righteous sit at the right hand of God, during the Last Judgment. The Inuit also believed that every left-handed person was a sorcerer.



Ridiculous, isn't it?

[Missileman]

No, people can choose to engage in homosexual acts. Its like with heroin or crack, lets say you are at a party and someone is their with a heroin needle or a crack pipe and says "hey you want to try some?" Well with all the info out there and pictures and stories of junkies,you never ever see one that isn't dirty and strung out, why would anyone choose to shoot up or hit the pipe? Yet they do it all the time. Same with homosexuality.

1. I don't think you can compare drug use to sex. There's a huge difference to tempting someone to take a hit off a joint and getting someone to take a hit off your "joint".

2. You didn't refute my argument that the idea that everyone is heterosexual and some choose to partake in homosexuality doesn't make sense.

[OCA]

1. I don't think you can compare drug use to sex. There's a huge difference to tempting someone to take a hit off a joint and getting someone to take a hit off your "joint".

2. You didn't refute my argument that the idea that everyone is heterosexual and some choose to partake in homosexuality doesn't make sense.


Notice I didn't talk about weed, I don't clasify weed with that other dangerous shit. So yes the heroin and crack use was very relative and completely refuted that queers don't choose their lifestyle.

[OCA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-handedness#Cultural_stigmatisation


Approximately 8 to 15% of the adult population is left-handed.

Until the latter part of the twentieth century, Roman Catholic nuns in United States elementary schools would punish children for using their left hand to write, typically by slapping their left hand with a ruler if they attempted to pick up a pen with it. As late as the early 20th century, school teachers in the Netherlands would force right-handed writing (thus, ambidexterity) on left-handed writing children. An example of such treatment involves baseball players Lou Gehrig and Babe Ruth, who both hit and threw left-handed and wrote right-handed after enduring left-handed suppression during their formative years.

Left-handedness was often interpreted as a sign of Satanic influence, and thus prohibited. Many examples can be found in the Christian-Greek scriptures in which the wicked or evil sit at the left hand of God, while the righteous sit at the right hand of God, during the Last Judgment. The Inuit also believed that every left-handed person was a sorcerer.



Ridiculous, isn't it?

For Chrissakes its mattskramer! Lol what a stupid analogy!:lmao: :lmao:

[Bubbalicious]

For Chrissakes its mattskramer! Lol what a stupid analogy!:lmao: :lmao:

The demographic percentages are about the same, which makes homosexuality about as "abnormal" or "deviant" as left-handedness. And up until not too long ago people actually thought it was something that went against biblical teaching and could and should be "cured."
So what's ridiculous about the analogy exactly?
You going to site some lunkhead from Focus on the Family as an expert now and assert that that's not ridiculous?:lmao:


BTW and JTO, heteroes contract and transmit AIDS too.

[jillian]

For Chrissakes its mattskramer! Lol what a stupid analogy!:lmao: :lmao:

I'm going to agree with Bubbles on this one. Ignorance leads people to believe something different which they don't understand is deviant or subject to change because they CHOOSE to believe that.

Thinking someone gay can "change" is absurd. Not withstanding what that psycho Fred Phelps would have people believe.

Seriously, dude, you aren't one of the bible thumpers, you work in the real world. Surely you've had a gay friend at some point or another in your life. Ask them if anyone is going to "choose" to isolate themselves from their families and be subject to ridicule from people who haven't the slightest understanding of what their lives are.

[Bubbalicious]

Seriously, dude, you aren't one of the bible thumpers, you work in the real world. Surely you've had a gay friend at some point or another in your life. Ask them if anyone is going to "choose" to isolate themselves from their families and be subject to ridicule from people who haven't the slightest understanding of what their lives are.

Yeah, just so they can get legislation passed and make it societally acceptable for them to engage in a lifestyle that doesn't really come naturally to them anyway. Makes a buttload of sense. :uhoh:

[OCA]

I'm going to agree with Bubbles on this one. Ignorance leads people to believe something different which they don't understand is deviant or subject to change because they CHOOSE to believe that.

Thinking someone gay can "change" is absurd. Not withstanding what that psycho Fred Phelps would have people believe.

Seriously, dude, you aren't one of the bible thumpers, you work in the real world. Surely you've had a gay friend at some point or another in your life. Ask them if anyone is going to "choose" to isolate themselves from their families and be subject to ridicule from people who haven't the slightest understanding of what their lives are.

Not the if you are against homosexuality you are ignorant crap again! You must have something better than that.

Never had a queer friend and if I one of my friends came to me now and said they like to smoke poles i'd cut them off faster than you can spit, i'm not an enabler.

[OCA]

Yeah, just so they can get legislation passed and make it societally acceptable for them to engage in a lifestyle that doesn't really come naturally to them anyway. Makes a buttload of sense. :uhoh:

Queers don't really want to get married, they want legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is the vehicle they are using to try and get there, unfortunately they are driving a car that is missing a motor.

Oh yeah, no legislation gets passed because the voters resoundingly say no.

[OCA]

The demographic percentages are about the same, which makes homosexuality about as "abnormal" or "deviant" as left-handedness. And up until not too long ago people actually thought it was something that went against biblical teaching and could and should be "cured."
So what's ridiculous about the analogy exactly?
You going to site some lunkhead from Focus on the Family as an expert now and assert that that's not ridiculous?:lmao:


BTW and JTO, heteroes contract and transmit AIDS too.

Most don't take their lefthand and shove it up their buddy's ass.....oh no wait queers are into that too along with having AIDS sex while whacked on crystal meth.

Heteros originally contracted AIDS thanks to queers infecting the blood supply in the late 70's early 80's, to date homos contract AIDS in far greater numbers than heteros due to their promiscuous lifestyle and distain for monogamy.

[Missileman]

No, people can choose to engage in homosexual acts. Its like with heroin or crack, lets say you are at a party and someone is their with a heroin needle or a crack pipe and says "hey you want to try some?" Well with all the info out there and pictures and stories of junkies,you never ever see one that isn't dirty and strung out, why would anyone choose to shoot up or hit the pipe? Yet they do it all the time. Same with homosexuality.

So, 95% of people are born with an instinctual pre-disposition to not use heroin or crack? Link it.

[Bubbalicious]

Queers don't really want to get married, they want legitimization of their perversion of choice and marriage is the vehicle they are using to try and get there, unfortunately they are driving a car that is missing a motor.

you're basing this on . . . ?

[OCA]

So, 95% of people are born with an instinctual pre-disposition to not use heroin or crack? Link it.

Nobody is born with an instinctual predisposition to smoke poles or smoke crack, both are a choice and thats the whole point. Follow along please.

[Missileman]

distain for monogamy.

Yet when they petition to enter into legally-binding monogamous relationships, it is you who offers nothing but disdain.

[Bubbalicious]

Most don't take their lefthand and shove it up their buddy's ass.....oh no wait queers are into that too along with having AIDS sex while whacked on crystal meth.

Heteros originally contracted AIDS thanks to queers infecting the blood supply in the late 70's early 80's, to date homos contract AIDS in far greater numbers than heteros due to their promiscuous lifestyle and distain for monogamy.

straight people do meth. straight people manufacture and sell meth. straight people also have unprotected sex while high on the meth that they manufacture and sell.
what's AIDS sex? heteroes contract AIDS from gay people? how does that work exactly?

[OCA]

you're basing this on . . . ?

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10166

OWNED

[OCA]

Yet when they petition to enter into legally-binding monogamous relationships, it is you who offers nothing but disdain.

Because the dirty little secret is its a sham. See link posted within last few minutes by me.

[Bubbalicious]

http://uk.gay.com/headlines/10166

OWNED

weak

one gay married couple separated and that means all gays lobbying for gay marriage have some ulterior motive for it? LOL.
The divorce rate for heteroes is at least 50% isn't it? So I guess that means no heterosexual person believes in marriage or monogamy then. They're just in it for the wedding gifts or something.

[Missileman]

Nobody is born with an instinctual predisposition to smoke poles or smoke crack, both are a choice and thats the whole point. Follow along please.

It's you who is lost. If you are going to compare drug users to homosexuals, then in order for your comparison to be valid, you also must compare non-drug users to heterosexuals.

[OCA]

straight people do meth. straight people manufacture and sell meth. straight people also have unprotected sex while high on the meth that they manufacture and sell.
what's AIDS sex? heteroes contract AIDS from gay people? how does that work exactly?

Bubba, you are gonna have to start bringing your A game here, i'm beginning to feel guilty about pummeling you like this, its like shooting fish in a barrel.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999699/site/newsweek/

Of course the author had to do the pc thing and say its not exclusively a province of queers but haven't seen any advertisements for or against this type of sick shit aimed at normal people.

OWNED AGAIN

[OCA]

It's you who is lost. If you are going to compare drug users to homosexuals, then in order for your comparison to be valid, you also must compare non-drug users to heterosexuals.

For the love of God, this your M.O., you muddle the conversation with inane comparisons, its usually why I ignore threads you are involved in. Non-drug users to heteros has nothing to do with this topic.

Out of curiosity's sake please explain how you figure it has anything to do with drug use, homosexuality and choice.

[Bubbalicious]

Bubba, you are gonna have to start bringing your A game here, i'm beginning to feel guilty about pummeling you like this, its like shooting fish in a barrel.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999699/site/newsweek/

Of course the author had to do the pc thing and say its not exclusively a province of queers but haven't seen any advertisements for or against this type of sick shit aimed at normal people.

OWNED AGAIN

Ever tried driving through a trailer park in say Arkansas? That's hetero meth head heaven.

[OCA]

weak

one gay married couple separated and that means all gays lobbying for gay marriage have some ulterior motive for it? LOL.
The divorce rate for heteroes is at least 50% isn't it? So I guess that means no heterosexual person believes in marriage or monogamy then. They're just in it for the wedding gifts or something.

God its so easy with you, bring in the bullpen because the starter is getting rocked! Please do not cite stats on DebatePolicy that you can't back up.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923080.html



Weak? They were the pioneers, the leaders of the movement in Massachusets and as soon as it gets passed....boom! They get divorced so they could lick other snatch.

[OCA]

Ever tried driving through a trailer park in say Arkansas? That's hetero meth head heaven.

I'm beginning to think you are one of these posters who when proven wrong deny it or ignore it. Hint....its really not the preferable way to be around here.

[Missileman]

For the love of God, this your M.O., you muddle the conversation with inane comparisons, its usually why I ignore threads you are involved in. Non-drug users to heteros has nothing to do with this topic.

Out of curiosity's sake please explain how you figure it has anything to do with drug use, homosexuality and choice.

It was YOUR stupid comparison, not mine. You claim that homosexuality is a choice, just like drug use. In order for a homosexual to choose to engage in homosexuality, he/she has to conquer an instinctual desire to mate with the opposite sex, right? For your comparison to be valid, drug users would have to conquer an instictual desire to avoid drugs. If you still think your comparison is valid, you need to provide some evidence that humans have an innate prohibition against drug use.

[Ado]

Your argument is a strawman and being defeated everyday in front of your very eyes. The states that have voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage have each and every one had a challenge to the ban on constitutional grounds and to date in each one the ban was found to be constitutional and upheld.

Anything else I can help you with?

Have you helped me yet?

No one has explained to me why the current
"thinking" or 'the will of the people' really makes
sense or is fair.

For everyone who doesn't meet your criteria
as a perfect citizen, and doesn't deserve
full basic rights, then give them back some
money. Because the advertising that
America is the best place in the world to
live, and is superior to all other places, is false.

The American Dream is false. You have nothing
to sell, but you take peoples' money, then
discriminate and slander them.

If all these people think that their "will"
is the right thing to do, then I submit
that they find a another country that fits
their thinking.

No country that wants to advance itself
and be superior and spread Democracy
and be the 'best government' on Earth,
would bog itself down with petty judgements
like this. It shows contempt for what the
founding fathers outlined for us, and
not any kind of caring, as was mentioned,
except caring for personal agendas.

[Yurt]

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/4/06 | Gudrun Schultz


Posted on 10/04/2006 4:42:23 PM PDT by wagglebee



LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

See the CDC’s report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5445a1.htm

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

HIV/AIDS Rates Rise Sharply in Canada: 51% of Infections Among Homosexual Men
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06080305.html

Homosexuality Triggering HIV Escalation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111812.html

Medical Journalist Says Reliance on Condoms Spreads HIV/AIDS
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062304.html

Officials Prepare for Gay Outgames by Amassing Emergency HIV Drugs
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06073102.html

[Yurt]

=Ado;6684]Have you helped me yet?

No one has explained to me why the current
"thinking" or 'the will of the people' really makes
sense or is fair.

What are you referring too? You do realize we live in a democracy.


For everyone who doesn't meet your criteria
as a perfect citizen, and doesn't deserve
full basic rights, then give them back some
money. Because the advertising that
America is the best place in the world to
live, and is superior to all other places, is false.

And pray tell, which country are you moving too? This argument is so full of fallacies it is sad. Just because your view is in the minority, somehow makes this country not the best place to live. Weird rationale.


The American Dream is false. You have nothing
to sell, but you take peoples' money, then
discriminate and slander them.

Saudi Arabia wants YOU.


If all these people think that their "will"
is the right thing to do, then I submit
that they find a another country that fits
their thinking.

Are you well? You just said this country is NOT the best place to live and that this country lies, steals, and discriminates. Leave if it is so bad.


No country that wants to advance itself
and be superior and spread Democracy
and be the 'best government' on Earth,
would bog itself down with petty judgements
like this. It shows contempt for what the
founding fathers outlined for us, and
not any kind of caring, as was mentioned,
except caring for personal agendas.

You find homosexuals spreading aids at an alarming rate, petty? Sick.

[CockySOB]

Have you helped me yet?

No one has explained to me why the current
"thinking" or 'the will of the people' really makes
sense or is fair.

For everyone who doesn't meet your criteria
as a perfect citizen, and doesn't deserve
full basic rights, then give them back some
money. Because the advertising that
America is the best place in the world to
live, and is superior to all other places, is false.

The American Dream is false. You have nothing
to sell, but you take peoples' money, then
discriminate and slander them.

If all these people think that their "will"
is the right thing to do, then I submit
that they find a another country that fits
their thinking.

No country that wants to advance itself
and be superior and spread Democracy
and be the 'best government' on Earth,
would bog itself down with petty judgements
like this. It shows contempt for what the
founding fathers outlined for us, and
not any kind of caring, as was mentioned,
except caring for personal agendas.

Where to start? Let's try this.

The USA is a representative democracy wherein the individual states currently have the authority to decide who is granted a marriage license within their individual jurisdictions. This does not mean that those who do not have such a license cannot cohabitate, nor that they cannot appear in public showing signs of affection. They are not prevented by the government from practicing adult, consensual, homosexual intercourse, nor are they prevented from calling their relationship a "marriage" as a matter of common definition. But where the problem arises is when the more rabid pro-homosexual advocates choose to try to impose a new definition of the traditional "marriage" (man-woman) by judicial fiat. This has led to the backlash against these rabid advocates and homosexuals in general, including many states adopting "defense of marriage" laws via state legislation. So whether you think this is fair or not is irrelevant. The will of the majority to elect representatives who craft legislation is upheld, and barring a ruling which says such laws are un-Constitutional, the will of the people is validated as being the norm.

As to your tripe about how America isn't the best place to live and the like... well... feel free to not come here, or to leave if you already are here. I really don't understand how you can have the audacity to claim that your own opinion should be the law of the land, and even though you are in the minority, anyone that doesn't agree with you should leave. The impression I get is that you think we should all live in the World According to Ado. Hubris, thy name is Ado.

And your little spiel about petty judgments goes to show how ignorant you truly are. It is our freedom which allows us to openly debate these "petty" issues at length without fear of governmental intrusion. Even though we have people here from all walks of life, and from an extremely wide variety of personal ideologies, we can meet and discuss. That's a huge part of what our founding fathers wanted for us - you might be familiar with it via the First Amendment.

[Bubbalicious]

I'm beginning to think you are one of these posters who when proven wrong deny it or ignore it.

uh huh . . and then what did the pot say to the kettle?


Hint....its really not the preferable way to be around here.

Is that a threat of some sort?

[OCA]

Have you helped me yet?



The American Dream is false. You have nothing
to sell, but you take peoples' money, then
discriminate and slander them.

If all these people think that their "will"
is the right thing to do, then I submit
that they find a another country that fits
their thinking.



:eek: :eek: :eek:

Uhh tinfoil alert.

Dude find a new thread, your over your head and leaking oil in this one.

[OCA]

uh huh . . and then what did the pot say to the kettle?



Is that a threat of some sort?

Show me where you proved me wrong and I ignored it, please don't bring up the lefthand shit because I don't want you to be laughed at anymore.

No threat pardner, just trying to say that ignorance ain't bliss around here.

[jillian]

Show me where you proved me wrong and I ignored it, please don't bring up the lefthand shit because I don't want you to ba laughed at anymore.

No threat pardner, just trying to say that ignorance ain't bliss around here.

Dunno, I'm still waiting for you to prove her wrong on this subject. Or me for that matter. ;)

How ya doing with that demographic research, btw? Having much luck with that? :p

[OCA]

Dunno, I'm still waiting for you to prove her wrong on this subject. Or me for that matter. ;)

How ya doing with that demographic research, btw. Having much luck with that? :p

I'm on a fact roll today, have you been paying attention? Hell I even linked to MSNBC and they lean hard to the left.

What demographics you talking about? The rich queers? Seems only gay sites and publications care about such things since most everyone does not consider financial status to be a sign of excellent cognitive skills.

[Bubbalicious]

Show me where you proved me wrong and I ignored it, please don't bring up the lefthand shit because I don't want you to be laughed at anymore.

No threat pardner, just trying to say that ignorance ain't bliss around here.

Well how about your continued assertion that homosexuality's a mental illness, despite people pages back posting documentation from the American Psychiatric Association stating that it's not.
But you think it's yucky, so that's that, right?

[OCA]

Well how about your continued assertion that homosexuality's a mental illness, despite people pages back posting documentation from the American Psychiatric Association stating that it's not.
But you think it's yucky, so that's that, right?

Uhhhhh you saw the link that went along with my assertion that the APA was forced under political and financial pressure to remove homosexuality from its list of treatable disorders, right?

Heck even still today psychiatrists are ridiculed by homosexual groups and homosexual apologists such as we have here on the board for proving that they can in fact treat a homosexual and one either get them to not participate in homosexual acts anymore or in many cases reverse their lifestyle choice back to the norm of heterosexuality.

[Bubbalicious]

Uhhhhh you saw the link that went along with my assertion that the APA was forced under political and financial pressure to remove homosexuality from its list of treatable disorders, right?

Heck even still today psychiatrists are ridiculed by homosexual groups and homosexual apologists such as we have here on the board for proving that they can in fact treat a homosexual and one either get them to not participate in homosexual acts anymore or in many cases reverse their lifestyle choice back to the norm of heterosexuality.

No. Where was it from? Newsmax? Mission America?

[CockySOB]

Well how about your continued assertion that homosexuality's a mental illness, despite people pages back posting documentation from the American Psychiatric Association stating that it's not.
But you think it's yucky, so that's that, right?

Here's a nice collection of "evidence" which is used to support the idea that homosexuality is not a mental illness. It includes many, MANY citations about studies done which support the thesis that homosexuality is not a treatable mental ilness.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Now here's the rub. The studies used to support the theory have very limited sample set sizes. For example, the Hooker survey which is the primary source for the APA decision to remove homosexuality from the list of treatable mental ilnesses, used a total of 60 individuals - 30 self-declared homosexuals and 30 self-declared heterosexuals. Her studies used a combination of Rorschach, TAT and MAPS tests to try to differentiate homosexual and heterosexual in the survey group. From a scientific standpoint, the only way her conclusion is supportable is if her testing methods and expectations were valid. Based on the sample sizes and composition of the sample groups, I'd have a difficult time accepting her results as anything other than suggestive of a lack of correlation. I certainly wouldn't accept them on their face as being definitive.

What is interesting that for all the evidence pointing to the possibility that sexual orientation/preference has biologic components, there is no definitive proof that such is a fact. Of course this should also indicate to those who think homosexuality is solely a choice that the possibility does exist that sexual orientation/preference may be determined before we exit the womb.

Now, I know this means I've basically told both camps here to get a clue, so bring on the flames.

[jillian]

Here's a nice collection of "evidence" which is used to support the idea that homosexuality is not a mental illness. It includes many, MANY citations about studies done which support the thesis that homosexuality is not a treatable mental ilness.
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

Now here's the rub. The studies used to support the theory have very limited sample set sizes. For example, the Hooker survey which is the primary source for the APA decision to remove homosexuality from the list of treatable mental ilnesses, used a total of 60 individuals - 30 self-declared homosexuals and 30 self-declared heterosexuals. Her studies used a combination of Rorschach, TAT and MAPS tests to try to differentiate homosexual and heterosexual in the survey group. From a scientific standpoint, the only way her conclusion is supportable is if her testing methods and expectations were valid. Based on the sample sizes and composition of the sample groups, I'd have a difficult time accepting her results as anything other than suggestive of a lack of correlation. I certainly wouldn't accept them on their face as being definitive.

What is interesting that for all the evidence pointing to the possibility that sexual orientation/preference has biologic components, there is no definitive proof that such is a fact. Of course this should also indicate to those who think homosexuality is solely a choice that the possibility does exist that sexual orientation/preference may be determined before we exit the womb.

Now, I know this means I've basically told both camps here to get a clue, so bring on the flames.

Actually, it's an interesting analysis. I'd go so far as to say there isn't any reason to think that both nurture and nature don't co-exist as a basis for formation of any given personality trait.

What the article doesn't say is that homosexuality is a "choice" in the way that choosing vanilla ice cream over rice pudding for dessert is a choice.

[CockySOB]

Actually, it's an interesting analysis. I'd go so far as to say there isn't any reason to think that both nurture and nature don't co-exist as a basis for formation of any given personality trait.

Quite possible. I know from firsthand experience that environment affects mental state which affects biochemistry which affects... ad infinitum.


What the article doesn't say is that homosexuality is a "choice" in the way that choosing vanilla ice cream over rice pudding for dessert is a choice.

And you ignore the stated conclusion specifically, don't you?

"We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. "

You can throw all manner of statements around about what the article doesn't say (like butterflies emerge from your butt on the blue moon). The fact is that you're dodging the content because you can see that it directly undermines your own position on homosexuality.

[Bubbalicious]

it directly undermines your own position on homosexuality.

how so?

[CockySOB]

how so?

That is a biologic or genetic condition as a matter of fact. The fact is that while the possibility exists that there are biologic or genetic factors, there is no empirical evidence which proves that supports that thesis.

Likewise, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that sexual preference is not simply a conscious choice as some here have espoused.

Kinda undermines BOTH camps now doesn't it? Both have done nothing but throw absolutes back and forth all the while ignoring the only real fact - we don't have enough understanding of human physiology and the effects of our environment on our physiology and individual psychologies.

[Bubbalicious]

That is a biologic or genetic condition as a matter of fact. The fact is that while the possibility exists that there are biologic or genetic factors, there is no empirical evidence which proves that supports that thesis.

Likewise, there is sufficient evidence to support the idea that sexual preference is not simply a conscious choice as some here have espoused.

Kinda undermines BOTH camps now doesn't it? Both have done nothing but throw absolutes back and forth all the while ignoring the only real fact - we don't have enough understanding of human physiology and the effects of our environment on our physiology and individual psychologies.

I just don't see the logic of anyone entertaining the notion that it's a conscious choice. Take a gay person in a place like Saudi Arabia. They get caught, they get publicly stoned to death. Why would someone choose that?
And one of the reasons I brought left-handedness into it a page or two back is that no one has much idea what causes that either. I just know that I might as well try to write with my feet as with my right hand. I have no conscious choice about that, even though it's statistically abnormal and at one point it really freaked people out. Homosexuality is like that. Ask a gay person.

[CockySOB]

I just don't see the logic of anyone entertaining the notion that it's a conscious choice. Take a gay person in a place like Saudi Arabia. They get caught, they get publicly stoned to death. Why would someone choose that?

And one of the reasons I brought left-handedness into it a page or two back is that no one has much idea what causes that either. I just know that I might as well try to write with my feet as with my right hand. I have no conscious choice about that, even though it's statistically abnormal and at one point it really freaked people out. Homosexuality is like that. Ask a gay person.

The problem is that you, just like so many others view homosexuality as a simple "black or white" or "right or wrong" issue without considering the many possible contributory factors. Some view homosexuality simply in terms of conscious choice, while others claim that it must simply be genetics. The simple fact is that the more complex a machine, the more factors come inti play which affect how that machine operates. The human body is an exceptionally complex machine that we only understand somewhat.

As far as your little "ask a gay person" statement, I have done so. In fact, we've discussed it at length a number of times, usually over beers at the local pub, or over cappuccino at the local coffee house. And of course we've discussed this on this board and others before. Fortunately, most of my friends are quite open-minded and learned, which makes discussing issues like this enjoyable and enlightening. Yeah, there are some who cling to their preconceptions, but for the most part, those who cling to either "biology-only" or "choice-only" have some self-worth/rationalization issues to deal with and as such have trouble looking at this objectively.

You brought up the left-handedness thing, but to OCA IIRC. OCA doesn't need me to defend his positions, and I don't feel the need to defend a position which is not my own.

[OCA]

The problem is that you, just like so many others view homosexuality as a simple "black or white" or "right or wrong" issue without considering the many possible contributory factors. Some view homosexuality simply in terms of conscious choice, while others claim that it must simply be genetics. The simple fact is that the more complex a machine, the more factors come inti play which affect how that machine operates. The human body is an exceptionally complex machine that we only understand somewhat.

As far as your little "ask a gay person" statement, I have done so. In fact, we've discussed it at length a number of times, usually over beers at the local pub, or over cappuccino at the local coffee house. And of course we've discussed this on this board and others before. Fortunately, most of my friends are quite open-minded and learned, which makes discussing issues like this enjoyable and enlightening. Yeah, there are some who cling to their preconceptions, but for the most part, those who cling to either "biology-only" or "choice-only" have some self-worth/rationalization issues to deal with and as such have trouble looking at this objectively.

You brought up the left-handedness thing, but to OCA IIRC. OCA doesn't need me to defend his positions, and I don't feel the need to defend a position which is not my own.

Cocky I can assure you that I have no self worth/rationalization issues i'm grappling with currently.

[CockySOB]

Cocky I can assure you that I have no self worth/rationalization issues i'm grappling with currently.

Then is it safe for me to assume that if it is scientifically proven that our sexual predilections are based in our genetics and formed before we exit the womb, that you will re-evaluate your stance on homosexuality as being "choice-only?" (IIRC you've said this before, but I just want to confirm this again here.)

BTW, acknowledging a definitive source for our sexual tendencies does not automatically infer that homosexuality is not an abnormality which should not be treated or corrected to benefit society. Just so the record is straight. We have a vast number of genetic conditions which are "natural" yet which we as a society treat for the betterment of the individual and/or society at large. Debating whether homosexual tendencies and actions should be treated similarly cannot be adequately addressed until the root causes are defined properly.

[Grumplestillskin]

For shits and giggles why don't you post these links and rebuttals because the fact that you say you won't post them again and I don't remember them leads to believe that maybe you are trying to bullshit us because i've never seen you effectively rebut anything on any topic ever.

1) Because I already did so over a three day period on the USMB
2) I'm not going to the trouble again because when I did do it last time it was ignored. NOTE: I said ignored, NOT refuted...
3) I went back and did a search for my posts on the USMB - it only goes back 500, and I'll be buggered if I'm gonna go through every one again to prove something I have already done. If this was a completely different MB with a host of new people, I MIGHT be keen to do so, but to post the same info again to the same people is not worth the effort.

As for your last sentence, maybe you need to learn to read and know what a debate really is. I won't hold my breath tho'...

[Bubbalicious]

Yeah, there are some who cling to their preconceptions, but for the most part, those who cling to either "biology-only" or "choice-only" have some self-worth/rationalization issues to deal with and as such have trouble looking at this objectively.
So I take it they didn't agree with your point of view then.


You brought up the left-handedness thing, but to OCA IIRC. OCA doesn't need me to defend his positions, and I don't feel the need to defend a position which is not my own.
I didn't bring that or anything up specifically for him.

[Pale Rider]

First off, I say it's bigoted, because I think any blanket hatred of an entire group of people is bigoted.

Jill... stop... just STOP! Who the hell in here said they "HATED" fags? WHERE does is it say "HATE"?

Why do you people do that? You complicate the debate with WORTHLESS accusations, they GOOD people NEED NOT DEFEND! Is it a tactic to deflect away from the REAL ISSUE?

"I" don't "HATE" queers. Them as "people", whatever, they have as much right to live as "I" do, or "you", or anybody else in my opinion. But yes, WHAT THEY DO, the THINGS THEY DO TO EACH OTHER, turn my ever lovin' stomach. What they do turn's the stomach of ANY "NORMAL" person. Even you. And DON'T DENY IT! Unless you're ready to tell me you'd LIKE, TO LICK ANOTHER WOMAN'S COCHIE! If not, then YES, it DISGUSTS YOU TOO. So PLEASE... lay off the "hate" thing. No one here is saying that. "DISGUST", "NONACCEPTANCE", it's "UNNATURAL", "VILE", "PERVERSE", you hear all those things, but NOT HATE!

So from here on out, in these discussions, if you homo apologists and enablers pull out these NAMES and LABELS you're SO FOND OF, to call ANYONE that opposses YOUR OPINION, then we know you've lost the arguement and are just slinging BULL SHIT!

Instead, why don't you try and argue to us why it is you think "UNNATURAL" acts are A-OK. Why is it that going 180% against the grain of nature is a beautiful thing, and we should all sing and dance and slap backs with the purpetrators?

Tell us that, instead of just throwing around two bit buz words that mean nothing.

[Grumplestillskin]

Instead, why don't you try and argue to us why it is you think "UNNATURAL" acts are A-OK.

Because it is no unnatural to them. Simple.

[OCA]

Because it is no unnatural to them. Simple.

And that is why they need help.

[OCA]

1) Because I already did so over a three day period on the USMB
2) I'm not going to the trouble again because when I did do it last time it was ignored. NOTE: I said ignored, NOT refuted...
3) I went back and did a search for my posts on the USMB - it only goes back 500, and I'll be buggered if I'm gonna go through every one again to prove something I have already done. If this was a completely different MB with a host of new people, I MIGHT be keen to do so, but to post the same info again to the same people is not worth the effort.

As for your last sentence, maybe you need to learn to read and know what a debate really is. I won't hold my breath tho'...

Ok....*mental note* Chump likes to bullshit.

[Pale Rider]

Because it is no unnatural to them. Simple.

So you're telling me, that because a twisted, sick mind thinks it's OK, I should to?

My fucking God... that is SOOOO rediculous... :uhoh:

[Grumplestillskin]

And that is why they need help.

They only need help in the same way a hetro needs help..Hint: They don't...;)

[OCA]

So you're telling me, that because a twisted, sick mind thinks it's OK, I should to?

My fucking God... that is SOOOO rediculous... :uhoh:

Chumps an enabler. If Chump had a junkie friend he'd go out and score 50 bags for them just so he wouldn't have to attempt to help them face their problem. He's scared of the truth because dammit it might upset someone lol:laugh:

[Grumplestillskin]

Ok....*mental note* Chump likes to bullshit.

Ok...*mental note* OFA is too lazy to look up Grump's posts on the USMB...

[Grumplestillskin]

So you're telling me, that because a twisted, sick mind thinks it's OK, I should to?

My fucking God... that is SOOOO rediculous... :uhoh:

To you it is sick. That is your opinion. It is noted...(shrug)..No reason for you to interfere in their lives. I thought you conservatives were for being left alone - get rid of govt out of our lives, and let people persue happiness etc...

[Grumplestillskin]

Chumps an enabler. If Chump had a junkie friend he'd go out and score 50 bags for them just so he wouldn't have to attempt to help them face their problem. He's scared of the truth because dammit it might upset someone lol:laugh:

Drug addiction is a problem and a choice. Homosexual behaviour is neither. A homo can no more decide they are gay than you can that you are straight. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[OCA]

Ok...*mental note* OFA is too lazy to look up Grump's posts on the USMB...

OCA did not make the claim, but I guess because Chump said it must be true*sigh*

[OCA]

Drug addiction is a problem and a choice. Homosexual behaviour is neither. A homo can no more decide they are gay than you can that you are straight. You are comparing apples and oranges.


Looking for that proof of gay by birth but dammit I just can't find it!

By default its a choice.

Homos have a choice to bang chicks or dudes, or are you telling me they have no control over their own cocks?

[OCA]

To you it is sick. That is your opinion. It is noted...(shrug)..No reason for you to interfere in their lives. I thought you conservatives were for being left alone - get rid of govt out of our lives, and let people persue happiness etc...


We are for pursuit of happiness, we are also for treatment of the mentally infirmed.

[Bubbalicious]

Looking for that proof of gay by birth but dammit I just can't find it!

By default its a choice.

Homos have a choice to bang chicks or dudes, or are you telling me they have no control over their own cocks?

ask a gay person

[Grumplestillskin]

Looking for that proof of gay by birth but dammit I just can't find it!

By default its a choice.

Homos have a choice to bang chicks or dudes, or are you telling me they have no control over their own cocks?

Looking for that proof of hetro by birth but dammit I just can't find it!


Homos have a choice to bang chicks or dudes, or are you telling me they have no control over their own cocks?

No, they have no control over who they are attracted to. So are you telling me that a gay guy really does like women, but he bangs guys out of choice? Riiiggghhhtttt.....

[Bubbalicious]

So are you telling me that a gay guy really does like women, but he bangs guys out of choice? Riiiggghhhtttt..... :lmao:

[Grumplestillskin]

We are for pursuit of happiness, we are also for treatment of the mentally infirmed.

Being gay is not a mental ailment, any more than being hetro is.

Do you have two different sets of rules regarding sexuality?
Hetros don't have to prove anything with regard to their sexual choices, but homos do? Why?

[Pale Rider]

To you it is sick. That is your opinion. It is noted...(shrug)..No reason for you to interfere in their lives. I thought you conservatives were for being left alone - get rid of govt out of our lives, and let people persue happiness etc...

No... really... I don't want to have any more to do with them than I HAVE to. Interfere in their life isn't something I want to do, and don't.

If you were, however, getting back to fags in the military, THEY are INTERFERING with OTHER people's lives. How about that?

[Pale Rider]

Looking for that proof of hetro by birth but dammit I just can't find it!
Wha... ? A few BILLION people isn't enough?

[Grumplestillskin]

THEY are INTERFERING with OTHER people's lives. How about that?

They are? How?

[OCA]

ask a gay person

Yeah, like they are gonna admit they made a fucked up lifestyle choice. You must be kidding!

[OCA]

Looking for that proof of hetro by birth but dammit I just can't find it!



No, they have no control over who they are attracted to. So are you telling me that a gay guy really does like women, but he bangs guys out of choice? Riiiggghhhtttt.....

Ahh sometimes I think i'm in Romper Room talking to a child, I guess I have to prove to you that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west also, eh?

Yep, they made a choice whether it be conscious or subconscious. Maybe Bobby couldn't get a date to the prom or no girls talked to him and the leather wearing faggot down the street was all too willing to show Bobby the love that he was missing in his heart as well as the tubesteak that was missing from his browneye.

[Pale Rider]

They are? How?

By upsetting the "natural" balance of things.

[Grumplestillskin]

Wha... ? A few BILLION people isn't enough?

So your only evidence is that they were born that way? Cool. Ditto homo's. Case proven. Thread over! :D

[Grumplestillskin]

Yep, they made a choice whether it be conscious or subconscious. Maybe Bobby couldn't get a date to the prom or no girls talked to him and the leather wearing faggot down the street was all too willing to show Bobby the love that he was missing in his heart as well as the tubesteak that was missing from his browneye.

Taking a leaf out of your book. Prove it.

[Pale Rider]

So your only evidence is that they were born that way? Cool. Ditto homo's. Case proven. Thread over! :D

Not so fast kimosabi... I was born "normal". Homo's act out unnatural impulses. Case still open.

[Grumplestillskin]

Not so fast kimosabi... I was born "normal". Homo's weren't. Case still open.

Who decides what normal is? So now you are saying homo's behaviour isn't learned, but they were born that way - and you weren't? Is that what you are saying? How come it is OK for you to born the way you are, but they aren't?

[OCA]

Who decides what normal is? So now you are saying homo's behaviour isn't learned, but they were born that way - and you weren't? Is that what you are saying? How come it is OK for you to born the way you are, but they aren't?

Civilized society must exist on a firm set of norms and society has deemed that homosexuality does not fit into normal parameters...so society, the majority of it anyway, decides.

Every single living human being according to science is born with the innate urge to mate with the opposite sex, disprove that Einstein.

[OCA]

Taking a leaf out of your book. Prove it.


Chump you can do better than this, at least make an effort.

[Bubbalicious]

Yeah, like they are gonna admit they made a fucked up lifestyle choice. You must be kidding!


So are you telling me that a gay guy really does like women, but he bangs guys out of choice? Riiiggghhhtttt.....

Ignoring something?

[Pale Rider]

Who decides what normal is?
Nature son. Nature. No denying it. (And this is where you homo apologists arguements always break down into absurdity.)

So now you are saying homo's behaviour isn't learned, but they were born that way - and you weren't? Is that what you are saying? How come it is OK for you to born the way you are, but they aren't?
You know as well as I do that there has been no proof of a fag gene. So saying they were born that way is hardly arguable.

But, queers have abnormal impulses. They can, at that point, either "choose" to ignore them, or "choose" to act on them. Either way, it's a choice.

To bad too many of them act on the perversions instead of getting the help they need.

[OCA]

Ignoring something?

Uhhh slick I ain't ignoring shit, thats fucking right, a queer lifestyle choice perversionist has the ability to go and bone a chick, they decide to go smoke the pole, why they make the decision is the 64,000 dollar question.

[Grumplestillskin]

Civilized society must exist on a firm set of norms and society has deemed that homosexuality does not fit into normal parameters...so society, the majority of it anyway, decides.

And norms change. Men can own land, women can vote, and blacks in Alabama can now drink out of the same fountains as whites...


.Every single living human being according to science is born with the innate urge to mate with the opposite sex, disprove that Einstein.

It's your assertion - you prove it...

[Grumplestillskin]

Uhhh slick I ain't ignoring shit, thats fucking right, a queer lifestyle choice perversionist has the ability to go and bone a chick, they decide to go smoke the pole, why they make the decision is the 64,000 dollar question.

It's an easily answerable one. They are attracted to the same sex, just like you are attracted to the opposite...pretty basic really..

[Grumplestillskin]

Nature son. Nature. No denying it. (And this is where you homo apologists arguements always break down into absurdity.).

So now it is nature. I thought you guys believed god was nature. It is not natural for humans to fly, yet we get in planes every day..(shrug)


You know as well as I do that there has been no proof of a fag gene. So saying they were born that way is hardly arguable.

So what re the fag gene. There is no gene for hetro either, or any gene that tells me the Brussel sprouts taste like crap and watermelon is great...



But, queers have abnormal impulses. They can, at that point, either "choose" to ignore them, or "choose" to act on them. Either way, it's a choice.

They can no more choose, than you can re women...


To bad too many of them act on the perversions instead of getting the help they need.

They need no help when enacting what to them is natural...

[Pale Rider]

So now it is nature. I thought you guys believed god was nature. It is not natural for humans to fly, yet we get in planes every day..(shrug)
We're talking about the human body. Not airplanes. Can you walk outside and fly? No. Try and stay focused OK?




So what re the fag gene. There is no gene for hetro either, or any gene that tells me the Brussel sprouts taste like crap and watermelon is great.
Um.... yes... there is a gene that determines "man" and "woman". Are you that far out of ideas to debate with?





They can no more choose, than you can re women...
Yes, they can. No one is holding a gun to their head telling them to suck cock.




They need no help when enacting what to them is natural...
Even a faggot knows what he's doing is wrong, but he does it anyway. That's sick in the head.

[OCA]

It's an easily answerable one. They are attracted to the same sex, just like you are attracted to the opposite...pretty basic really..

Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex. You know more than scientists?

[OCA]

And norms change. Men can own land, women can vote, and blacks in Alabama can now drink out of the same fountains as whites...



It's your assertion - you prove it...

Comparing Blacks who are born the way they are and queers who choose their lot in life is kind of thin, don't ya think?

[Bubbalicious]

Uhhh slick I ain't ignoring shit, thats fucking right, a queer lifestyle choice perversionist has the ability to go and bone a chick, they decide to go smoke the pole, why they make the decision is the 64,000 dollar question.

It sure is :uhoh: :rolleyes:

[Bubbalicious]

Hey, OCA, you're ignoring this one too.


Yeah, just so they can get legislation passed and make it societally acceptable for them to engage in a lifestyle that doesn't really come naturally to them anyway. Makes a buttload of sense. :uhoh:

[CockySOB]

So I take it they didn't agree with your point of view then.
Yeah, they didn't agree that looking at the issue objectively was worthwhile. Instead, they chose to hide in their overly-simplified worlds rather than face the possibility that their preconceptions might be wrong. On one hand you do have a lot of heterosexuals who simply dismiss homosexuality as being sinful and bad out of hand. On the other hand you have a number of homosexual advocates who adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that sexual tendencies are more a product of social learning than of genetic inheritance. Prudence though, says that until there is definitive proof one way or the other.

So here's a question for you, Bubba. Which do you believe is the wisest course of action for our society: treat sexuality as a learned trait; treat sexuality as a genetic trait; or, withhold judgment until definitive proof exists one way or the other?

[Missileman]

Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex. You know more than scientists?

Dammit! You just bent the needle on my bullshit detector AGAIN!

[Bubbalicious]

Yeah, they didn't agree that looking at the issue objectively was worthwhile. Instead, they chose to hide in their overly-simplified worlds rather than face the possibility that their preconceptions might be wrong. On one hand you do have a lot of heterosexuals who simply dismiss homosexuality as being sinful and bad out of hand. On the other hand you have a number of homosexual advocates who adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that sexual tendencies are more a product of social learning than of genetic inheritance. Prudence though, says that until there is definitive proof one way or the other.

So here's a question for you, Bubba. Which do you believe is the wisest course of action for our society: treat sexuality as a learned trait; treat sexuality as a genetic trait; or, withhold judgment until definitive proof exists one way or the other?

I don't see that judgment is necessary either way.

I don't dismiss the notion that environmental factors may play a part - from gay people I've talked to and the material I've read on the subject though, I don't think that's the case.

My point is and has been all along that to be sexually attracted to people of one's own gender is obviously not a conscious choice - any more than it's a conscious choice to be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. It's just a relatively rare but normal human condition.

[Grumplestillskin]

Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex. You know more than scientists?

Which scientists?

[Grumplestillskin]

We're talking about the human body. Not airplanes. Can you walk outside and fly? No. Try and stay focused OK?

Same analogy tho re what is natural and what isn't. Are you an expert on the human body, its brain and its function?


Um.... yes... there is a gene that determines "man" and "woman". Are you that far out of ideas to debate with?

Chromosomes determine sex, not genes...


Yes, they can. No one is holding a gun to their head telling them to suck cock.

Why would they? Nobody puts a gun to your head either. And?


Even a faggot knows what he's doing is wrong, but he does it anyway. That's sick in the head.

What they are doing is not wrong. Only in your warped mind...

[Grumplestillskin]

Comparing Blacks who are born the way they are and queers who choose their lot in life is kind of thin, don't ya think?

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing them at all, I was illustrating that mores/morals/values change

[CockySOB]

I don't see that judgment is necessary either way.

I don't dismiss the notion that environmental factors may play a part - from gay people I've talked to and the material I've read on the subject though, I don't think that's the case.

My point is and has been all along that to be sexually attracted to people of one's own gender is obviously not a conscious choice - any more than it's a conscious choice to be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. It's just a relatively rare but normal human condition.

So can I count that as one more for the "it'd be prudent to wait until the facts are all in to say that sexual preference is genetic or learned?" Or does this go in the "it's my opinion based on my own experiences that sexual preference is most likely determined before we exit the womb?" Or perhaps both statements are valid for you? Opinion doesn't necessarily require that science has validated it to still be valid. But science does require that any theory be adequately defended before it can be presented as fact.

(Where is Kagom anyway? I liked that boy. Good head on his shoulders. And probably has relevant perspective for this discussion.)

[Grumplestillskin]

treat sexuality as a learned trait; treat sexuality as a genetic trait; or, withhold judgment until definitive proof exists one way or the other?


How about this option: whatever happens between consenting adults is their own business. There is nothing needing treating - only bigots minds....and only they can treat that themselves....

[darin]

How about this option: whatever happens between consenting adults is their own business. There is nothing needing treating - only bigots minds....and only they can treat that themselves....

I'm amazed at your sanctioning of destructive behavior in people. I generally feel if people want to slowly kill themselves - more power to them...such as smoking, heavy drinking, meth, cocaine, homosexual activities, etc. But those people also put a DRAIN on society; and the homophiles desire to have the activies SANCTIONED is what bothers me. Again, if somebody could be treated and recover from homosexuality, wouldn't it be a GOOD thing? Adding years to their lives...reducing their risks of HIV/Domestic violence/Suicide, etc.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm amazed at your sanctioning of destructive behavior in people. I generally feel if people want to slowly kill themselves - more power to them...such as smoking, heavy drinking, meth, cocaine, homosexual activities, etc. But those people also put a DRAIN on society; and the homophiles desire to have the activies SANCTIONED is what bothers me. Again, if somebody could be treated and recover from homosexuality, wouldn't it be a GOOD thing? Adding years to their lives...reducing their risks of HIV/Domestic violence/Suicide, etc.

They are not asking you to sanction anything other than behaviours that you already enjoy. HIV is a disease that is prevelent amongst the homosexual community. Domesitic violence and suicide are just as prevelent in hetro relationships too. I would also surmise that many suicides by homos are caused by society rejecting them and putting them at the periphery of society. I do not find homosexual sexual preference as destructive behaviour.

[stephanie]

They are not asking you to sanction anything other than behaviours that you already enjoy..

What about being married???

That's the biggie.... as I said before....
I don't care what they do to each other....
I just don't want it shoved in face as being NORMAL..
I sure as hell don't discuss my sex life out in the open, why should I have to share theirs??

But their now demanding special rights....

Sorry Charlie & Charlie
Or Charline & Charline....

[CockySOB]

How about this option: whatever happens between consenting adults is their own business. There is nothing needing treating - only bigots minds....and only they can treat that themselves....

How about you actually try reading the posts instead of trying to find Waldo in them? "Nothing needing treating...." According to whom exactly? See, that's what we grown-ups are discussing, whether there is any scientific basis to consider homosexuality to be something in need of treatment, or not. But unlike yourself, we are discussing this whilst producing educated sources, and not a simple "I said so, so that's the truth!" When you grow up and your balls actually manage to drop (assuming they do) then by all means, join the conversation. until then, run along and play with the other close-minded know-it-alls who haven't even managed to get past the Dick-and-Jane books.

And for the record, what happens between consenting adults IS pretty much their business. Unless of course, society deems that such activity may be harmful to the individuals or society at-large. That's what the debate is about. However you bringing in your trite little one-liners does NOT contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion. So please, do EVERYONE a favor and shut the hell up! At least until you can act like a rational, intelligent human being.

[Grumplestillskin]

How about you actually try reading the posts instead of trying to find Waldo in them? "Nothing needing treating...." According to whom exactly?

Do you think hetrosexuality needs treating?


See, that's what we grown-ups are discussing, whether there is any scientific basis to consider homosexuality to be something in need of treatment, or not.

And I say that there is no scientific basis so therefore it does not need treating.


But unlike yourself, we are discussing this whilst producing educated sources, and not a simple "I said so, so that's the truth!" When you grow up and your balls actually manage to drop (assuming they do) then by all means, join the conversation. until then, run along and play with the other close-minded know-it-alls who haven't even managed to get past the Dick-and-Jane books.

What educated sources? There is nothing simple about it Cock. As for being a grown up, grown up don't head down the ad hominem alley like you continually do. You see yourself as some sort of doyan of messageboard police and some sort of intellectual god whose narcisstic ego needs satiating by setting the agenda on this thread. Get over yourself. I have a certain belief regarding homosexuality. It doesn't involve science. You think it does, fine. Doesn't make your opinion right or wrong, nor does it make mine. It makes us different. As for close-mindedness, there is plenty on this board via the anti-homo mob, yet you fail to address them. How elitist of you....


And for the record, what happens between consenting adults IS pretty much their business..

Yep..


Unless of course, society deems that such activity may be harmful to the individuals or society at-large. That's what the debate is about.

Exactly, and IMO that activity is not harmful to society or the individuals. I have yet to find any solid proof...


However you bringing in your trite little one-liners does NOT contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion.

Are you sure you aren't getting Pale, OCA and I mixed up? Don't be such an intellectual snob. Your little diatribes and feeble attempts at intellectual oneupmanship are nothing more than self-absorbed verbal masterbation. I have contributed plenty to this thread - a lot more than just one liners. Again, get over yourself...


So please, do EVERYONE a favor and shut the hell up!.

Who is everyone? You? Pale? OCA? Why don't you shut up until you can act like a member of the human race, and not take yourself so seriously. You are the conservative MFM on this board...good luck to you.


At least until you can act like a rational, intelligent human being.

When I see what certain anti-gay advocates on this very thread have said, the above comment can only be laughed at with the derision is deserves....:laugh:

Please, I hope you find a cure for having to walk through doors sideways - having a huge head does that...

[Pale Rider]

Yeah, they didn't agree that looking at the issue objectively was worthwhile. Instead, they chose to hide in their overly-simplified worlds rather than face the possibility that their preconceptions might be wrong. On one hand you do have a lot of heterosexuals who simply dismiss homosexuality as being sinful and bad out of hand. On the other hand you have a number of homosexual advocates who adamantly refuse to consider the possibility that sexual tendencies are more a product of social learning than of genetic inheritance. Prudence though, says that until there is definitive proof one way or the other.

So here's a question for you, Bubba. Which do you believe is the wisest course of action for our society: treat sexuality as a learned trait; treat sexuality as a genetic trait; or, withhold judgment until definitive proof exists one way or the other?

With all the psychobabble aside, how about conducting oneself as nature intended, and do what's moral?

[Pale Rider]

My point is and has been all along that to be sexually attracted to people of one's own gender is obviously not a conscious choice...
It may or may not be. That is arguable. But acting out the attraction most certainly IS a CONSCIOUS CHOICE.


- any more than it's a conscious choice to be sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex. It's just a relatively rare but normal human condition.
It's no more NORMAL than the impulse to KILL someone. That is an absurd claim.

[Pale Rider]

Which scientists?

Lame... very, very lame. I think you're just about out of steam. Your replys certainly are.

[Grumplestillskin]

Lame... very, very lame. I think you're just about out of steam. Your replys certainly are.

Huh? I haven't even started. What scientists Pale? Put up or shut up....

[Pale Rider]

Same analogy tho re what is natural and what isn't. Are you an expert on the human body, its brain and its function?
It doesn't take an expert to know that a man is supposed to be attracted to woman, not another man.




Chromosomes determine sex, not genes...
Whatever.




Why would they? Nobody puts a gun to your head either. And?
Then you admit that a queers actions are a choice made without outside influence.




What they are doing is not wrong. Only in your warped mind...
So in my mind, I'm a man attracted to women, and that's WARPED? :laugh:

And in your mind, men tossing each other up the poop shoot is? :lmao:

Keep 'em coming.... I'm getting a good belly laugh at this shit.

[Pale Rider]

Huh? I haven't even started. What scientists Pale? Put up or shut up....

Fuck chumpie, you want names and phone numbers? :lmao:

You've pasted being rediculous. Now your just a joke.

[Pale Rider]

How about you actually try reading the posts instead of trying to find Waldo in them? "Nothing needing treating...." According to whom exactly? See, that's what we grown-ups are discussing, whether there is any scientific basis to consider homosexuality to be something in need of treatment, or not. But unlike yourself, we are discussing this whilst producing educated sources, and not a simple "I said so, so that's the truth!" When you grow up and your balls actually manage to drop (assuming they do) then by all means, join the conversation. until then, run along and play with the other close-minded know-it-alls who haven't even managed to get past the Dick-and-Jane books.

And for the record, what happens between consenting adults IS pretty much their business. Unless of course, society deems that such activity may be harmful to the individuals or society at-large. That's what the debate is about. However you bringing in your trite little one-liners does NOT contribute in any meaningful way to the discussion. So please, do EVERYONE a favor and shut the hell up! At least until you can act like a rational, intelligent human being.


Another person that's got you figured out chumpie.

[Grumplestillskin]

It doesn't take an expert to know that a man is supposed to be attracted to woman, not another man.

Says who? You? Humans are sentient beings. We don't just eat, shit, sleep and fuck like most animals. We have sentinent thoughts. We are a lot more complex, which cannot be just fobbed off with "Oh, nature says" BS....


Then you admit that a queers actions are a choice made without outside influence.

Not necessarily. Could be. But what you seem to be saying is that it is normal for a male to choose a female partner but abnormal for a male to seek a male. You are stating one choice is ok, the other not. I'm saying both are ok. It's up to the individual.


So in my mind, I'm a man attracted to women, and that's WARPED?

No, you thinking they are perverts and weirdos is warped. I think that you being attracted to women is A-OK :2up: as is a man who is attracted to a man.


And in your mind, men tossing each other up the poop shoot is? :lmao:.

The idea of men giving each other up the poop shoot makes me gag. But, it's none of my business what consenting adults do. Whether they wanna play hide the sausage up each other's butts, eat scrambled eggs, or get married.

[Grumplestillskin]

Fuck chumpie, you want names and phone numbers? :lmao:

You've pasted being rediculous. Now your just a joke.

IOW, I'll troll, flame and do ad hominems...about your style and ability. Carry on!

[Grumplestillskin]

Another person that's got you figured out chumpie.

No, what you see is a conservative version of MFM. And instead of offering up half a dozen veiled threats or telling him to modify his behaviour like you did with MFM, you champion his cause Fale....Not exactly becoming of a mod, but not surprising considering it is you. Sllluuurrppp!! What was that? Your credibility going down the gurgler...:pee: Maybe it's time to hand in your badge Wyatt....or is it a lugar circa WWII?

[Pale Rider]

They are not asking you to sanction anything other than behaviours that you already enjoy.
No, they're not asking us to sanction their behavior... they're DEMANDING it.


THE THREAT TO SOCIETY

Even more alarming than the destructive effect upon the individual is the threat that the activists’ agenda poses upon society as a whole. Again we repeat, the traditional family—one father, one mother, and their natural or adopted children—is the basic building block of society. Not just our society, but society as a whole. The history of civilization proves that when a particular society strays from this norm, that society deteriorates.

Homosexual activists are not simply seeking acceptance of individuals who engage in homosexual behavior. Rather, the primary, clearly stated focus of their agenda is normalization, complete social acceptance, of homosexual relationships and the undermining of the traditional family. Just as we cannot stand by silently and watch individuals lured into a destructive lifestyle, we also cannot stand by silently and watch militant activists chip away at the very foundation of our cultural heritage and our Judeo-Christian belief system.

Statements such as the above evoke some basic questions and challenges that need to be addressed. Who are these “activists” to whom we repeatedly refer? What is this “agenda”? Is it really anything more than the contrivance of heterosexual, “right-wing” activists who are repulsed and/ or threatened by the presence of homosexual behavior in society?

Among others, these activists are the leaders and active members of the gay and lesbian clubs; the owners, editors and writers of the homosexual periodicals; and influential spokespersons, including many prominent actors and politicians. Their agenda involves a well-thought-out, cleverly executed and well-funded campaign to confuse and deceive the American public.

One of the most widely circulated homosexual campaign articles was first published in 1987 in the homosexual magazine Guide. It was titled The Overhauling of Straight America, and it contained a literal blueprint for homosexualizing our culture and vilifying all who are opposed to the normalization of homosexual behavior. That plan has been embellished and enlarged. And that plan is working.

These well-organized activists have embellished that plan in numerous treatises published since that time, but they have never deviated from the two primary areas of attack set forth there. First, normalize the behavior. With the enlisted help of the mass media and the arts, among others, in an incredibly short period of time, homosexuality has come to be accepted by a majority of the public as an alternative behavior pattern rather than as a dangerous distortion of God’s plan for human sexuality. Secondly, vilify the remaining opposition. All those who oppose and who would try to expose this deviation for what it is, have been depicted as villains—hate mongers, narrow-minded bigots, intolerant and unloving people. As a result of this successful tactic, the voice of compassion has been stifled.

One very important part of the homosexual activists’ agenda is to raise the awareness of homosexuality, or simply stated, to talk about homosexuality frequently and loudly. In virtually every area of our lives, the homosexual activists have been successful in raising the homosexual issue. Every one of us has been forced to be a part of the argument regarding homosexuality and marriage; homosexuality and adoption; homosexuality and civil rights; homosexuality and minority status; homosexuality and the armed forces. The list goes on.

Consistently, in all of these areas, it is the minority position of the homosexual activists that has been heard most clearly. To a degree, the reason for that lies in the pro-homosexual bias of the entertainment and news media. To a much larger degree, however, the reason lies in the fact that gay and lesbian activists have been able to silence criticism by defining any opposition to the disease of homosexuality as “homophobia.” With this inflammatory, coined epithet, gays and lesbians have thrown anyone who expresses compassionate or personal disapproval of homosexuality into the same category as those who dislike, hate or harm those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Have they been successful? Results seem to say so. Many major corporations have succumbed and have granted “domestic partner” benefits, benefits traditionally reserved for married couples and their families, to homosexual partners and other non-traditional living arrangements. Employment discrimination laws now include “sexual orientation” in their language. Many cities, counties and municipalities have added “sexual orientation” to their anti-discrimination ordinances. More changes in the political and work-place arenas lie just over the horizon.

THE SCHOOL AGENDA

Of even more concern to the pro-family position than the unhealthy changes in these arenas, is the stronghold that has been established by gay and lesbian organizations in our schools. Powerful national organizations are behind the drive to homosexualize our schools—at the collegiate, secondary and even primary levels.

The most influential such organization, and a very well funded one, is GLSEN—Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Among other activities, this group organizes homosexual clubs and “gay-straight alliances” in our schools. From information gained on GLSEN’s own website, we know that GLSEN-sponsored clubs now exist in 19 school districts in the Greater Cincinnati area alone. The purpose of these clubs is to train gay and lesbian students for activism and to encourage “straight” students to experiment with homosexual behavior as defined above.

A sister organization is PFLAG—Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays—which encourages parents of students to volunteer for activism on homosexual issues. And reinforcing the efforts of these organizations are the ACLU and the NEA, the nation’s most influential union and an organization that aggressively pushes homosexual issues in schools.

Nowhere has the drive to normalize homosexual behavior and silence opposition been more organized and more effectively orchestrated than in our schools. On a regular basis in public schools, under the guise of anti-bias or multi-cultural education, simple statements expressing disapproval of homosexuality for moral, religious or health reasons are categorized as “hate,” “homophobia” or “discrimination.” As a result, an environment has been created in which students, who have heard a different message at home or at their place of worship, have been forced to censor themselves. Eventually, the silent resistance weakens. Resignation follows. And then acceptance.

The drive to normalize homosexual behavior in our schools takes many forms and frequently is masked in positive, deceitful language. Many schools have adopted “non-discrimination” policies that single out “sexual orientation.” Such policies have been used to label anything to which homosexual activists object, including too much emphasis on the traditional family or heterosexuality, as “discriminatory.”

Recently, schools across the nation have been encouraged to adopt “anti-bias” or “safe school” policies. The language, “anti-bias” and “safe school,” practically forbids opposition. Again, careful examination reveals the hidden agenda. The wording of these policies specifies “sexual orientation” and they have been used to associate all objections to homosexual behavior with “hate.” Students place themselves at risk of disciplinary action simply for stating their faith-based views on homosexual behavior.

Federally-supported, required diversity or tolerance programs for students and teachers exist in most public schools—even at the elementary level. The lessons taught here equate acceptance of homosexuality with religious and racial tolerance. They portray traditional values, and those who hold them, as “hateful.” Homosexual role playing frequently is encouraged.

Room does not permit us to elaborate on the many other avenues through which the homosexual message has infiltrated our schools. But we hardly have scratched the surface here.

The reason that the homosexual activists’ agenda concentrates so heavily on schools is obvious. In the workplace and political arenas, some opposition to normalization of homosexual behavior still exists. With a well-executed agenda in our schools, that opposition will be non-existent in the next generation.

THE CIVIL RIGHTS APPROACH

One tactic used by homosexual activists to attain complete social acceptance of homosexual behavior is to seek special rights for homosexuals. By disguising their demands under the umbrella of the civil rights movement, they have been frighteningly successful. They compare “homosexuals” as a group to truly disenfranchised classes such as racial minorities and women. Many in the population have accepted that comparison without examining the legitimacy of the claim.

Persons who practice homosexual sodomy do not demonstrate any of the characteristics that identify disenfranchised classes. They are not discriminated against in any of the ways considered essential by the courts—economic status, educational opportunity or political representation. In fact, the level of education and the average income of homosexuals are considerably above the average education and income for the population in general. A study of their movement shows that they clearly enjoy all the legal rights and privileges of other citizens.

Civil rights laws have been enacted in our country in order to protect classes of people from discrimination based on status—on immutable, distinguishing characteristics that have nothing to do with behavior. A person’s race, for example, has nothing to do with that person’s lifestyle or behavior patterns. To remove race as a criterion for social decision-making thus makes sense.

Homosexuals cannot be characterized by any such status, but only by their behavior, i.e., by the fact that they choose to practice sexual acts with members of the same sex. If the argument could be made that this behavior pattern qualifies for “civil rights” protection, the same argument could be made for innumerable “classes” of behavior, ranging from the most frivolous recreational preferences to repulsive, deviant sexual preferences.

By claiming the need for special protection, those who practice homosexual behavior are asking for rights that other citizens do not have. The homosexual activist desires to coerce others not to take into account the inclination of homosexuals to practice same-sex sodomy when they make decisions, even though those others—including employers, landlords, and parents—have a right to take this preference into account. Our courts always have protected such “legitimate discrimination” as a basic right. To give such special protection or privilege to homosexuals is to take away that basic right. There are legitimate, common-sense reasons for taking into consideration a person’s sexual preference in making personal decisions, especially when that preference is associated with infections disease and emotional disorders.

To return to our friend’s question, CCV is not “against homosexuals.” However, we do not consider homosexuality an alternative lifestyle or even a “sexual preference.” We believe that homosexual behavior is unhealthy and destructive to the individual, to families, and thus to communities and to society as a whole.

Compassion compels us to reach out to support healing of individuals who have been drawn into the homosexual lifestyle. And healing is possible!

Statistics show that as a behavior pattern becomes more accepted by society, more people will be tempted to experiment with that behavior. Although the actual percentage of our population that would identify as homosexual still is less than 2% (nowhere near the 10% that homosexual activists claim) this percentage could change dramatically in the next ten to fifteen years if concerned, informed citizens do not actively resist the organized effort to normalize homosexual behavior in our society, especially in our schools.

At the outset of this paper we stated that the militant agenda of homosexual activists represents the single greatest threat to our Judeo-Christian family values, and to societal stability as a whole, of this generation. We hope that you understand our rationale for that statement and will join us in resisting, on every front, the organized effort to normalize homosexual behavior in our society.

http://www.ccv.org/Homosexuality-Where_CCV_Stands.htm




HIV is a disease that is prevelent amongst the homosexual community. Domesitic violence and suicide are just as prevelent in hetro relationships too. I would also surmise that many suicides by homos are caused by society rejecting them and putting them at the periphery of society. I do not find homosexual sexual preference as destructive behaviour.

Wrong... VERY, VERY WRONG... you need to educate yourself instead of continuing making these foolish, preposperous statements. I'll help you educate yourself this once....


HIV/AIDS

Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus.

A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50 percent chance of getting HIV by middle age. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (Late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, p.1)

As of 1998, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) nearly 90 percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, June, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10 (1)).

Even more alarming, the Center for Disease Control & Prevention reported in 1998 that an estimated half of all new HIV infections in the United States are among people under 25. Among 13-to 24-year-olds, 52 percent of all AIDS cases reported among males in 1997 were among young men who have sex with men. (CDC Fact Sheet: "Young People at Risk," Center for Disease Control & Prevention, National Center for HIV, STD and TB Prevention Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, July 24, 1998

Researchers at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver conducted a study to assess how HIV infection and AIDS is impacting the mortality rates for homosexual and bisexual men. Lead by R.S. Hogg, et al and published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (vol. 27, no. 3, 1997, pp 657-661) they reached an alarming conclusion.

"In a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is eight to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday. Under the most liberal assumptions, gay and bisexual men in this urban center are now experiencing a life expectancy similar to that experienced by all men in Canada in the year 1871."

Physical Health Risks

In addition to AIDS, there is a long list of maladies attendant upon the homosexually active population. Of particular concern is anal cancer. According to J. R. Daling et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90, the risk of anal cancer soars by 4000 percent among those who engage in anal intercourse.

Other maladies include chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus (HPV) or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B & C and syphilis.

Emotional/Mental Health Risks

Two extensive studies published in the October 1999 issue of American Medical Association Archives of General Psychiatry confirmed the existence of a strong link between homosexuality and suicide, as well as other mental and emotional problems.

Youth who identify themselves as homosexual, lesbian and bisexual are four times more likely than their peers to suffer from major depression; three times more likely to suffer anxiety disorders, four times more likely to suffer conduct disorders, six times more likely to suffer from multiple disorders and more than six times more likely to have attempted suicide.

Many homosexual activists point their finger at homophobia as the cause of these disorders, but the most extensive studies have been done in the Netherlands and New Zealand where homosexuality is widely accepted.

In an interview with Zenit News, Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a child and adult psychiatrist in practice for more than 27 years, said, "Compared to controls who had no homosexual experience in the 12 months prior to the interviews, males who had any homosexual contact within that time period were much more likely to experience major depression, bipolar disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia and obsessive compulsive disorder. Females with any homosexual contact within the previous 12 months were more often diagnosed with major depression, social phobia or alcohol dependence."

He concluded by saying, "Men and women with a history of homosexual contact had a higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders measured in the study. These findings are the result of a lifestyle marked by rampant promiscuity and an inability to make commitments, combined with unresolved sadness, profound insecurity, anger and mistrust from childhood and adolescence."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0088.html

[Pale Rider]

The idea of men giving each other up the poop shoot makes me gag.

Why's that?

(By the way, you're losing this discussion... bad.)

[Grumplestillskin]

No, they're not asking us to sanction their behavior... they're DEMANDING it.


Your first link is nothing but a diatribe with no facts to back it up. It is on a website run by people who openly admit they are trying to restore Judeo-Christian morals into the US. Of course they are gonna rant against homosexuality. And let me be clear - that post is just a rant, nothing more, nothing less.

Your second link, I'd like to actually see the study. Last time somebody posted similar on the USMB, I did a google and found a link from the source of the anti-gay link saying they had been absolutely misquoted and the research was bogus. If you have a copy of the study it would be appreciated. Will try and look myself too...

[Grumplestillskin]

Why's that?

(By the way, you're losing this discussion... bad.)

Because I like women. And men on men doesn't do it for me. BTW, why didn't you add the rest of my comment that came with that. It qualified the above statement.

As for losing the discussion, I'm so far ahead of you I've just won the World Series, and you're trying desperately to GET IN to the minor leagues...:laugh:

[Pale Rider]

Because I like women. And men on men doesn't do it for me.

And why doesn't it "do it for you"?

[Grumplestillskin]

And why doesn't it "do it for you"?

Because it doesn't. For the same reason for some men it does do it for them. It is the way they are. No mystery. No predetermining factors. No "natural" affiliation. Just the way it is. Just like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were/are geniuses. Just the way they are....

[stephanie]

[QUOTE=Grumplestillskin;6850]Because it doesn't. For the same reason for some men it does do it for them. It is the way they are. No mystery. No predetermining factors. No "natural" affiliation. Just the way it is. Just like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were/are geniuses. Just the way they are....[/QUOT

[OCA]

Hey, OCA, you're ignoring this one too.

No ignore, everyone knows that if you use heroin and become a junkie you usually end up dirty or a prostitute etc. etc. etc. its never pretty but............people choose to do it all the time, never heard of someone being forced to shoot up with a 9mm to their head.

Everyone knows that homosexuality is wrong and the choice brings difficult consequences yet people CHOOSE homosexuality everyday.

Your being purposely obtuse with these ignore comments, bring your A game.

[OCA]

Dammit! You just bent the needle on my bullshit detector AGAIN!

Oh really, you know the scientist who has discovered the definitive gay gene or genes? If you do please share!

[OCA]

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing them at all, I was illustrating that mores/morals/values change

It was wrong to discriminate against Blacks based solely on skin color, homosexuals however are not currently being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, they are however prohibited from attaining certain things such as marriage, inheritances etc. etc. because of laws, laws that are based on the norms that society has deemed to be neccessary for its civilized continuance.

If homos get "special rights" for theirselves why not change the law for Johnny Mormon who wants to have 5 wives, all between the ages of 11-15?

You see the slippery slope.

[jillian]

It was wrong to discriminate against Blacks based solely on skin color, homosexuals however are not currently being discriminated against in any way, shape or form, they are however prohibited from attaining certain things such as marriage, inheritances etc. etc. because of laws, laws that are based on the norms that society has deemed to be neccessary for its civilized continuance.

If homos get "special rights" for theirselves why not change the law for Johnny Mormon who wants to have 5 wives, all between the ages of 11-15?

You see the slippery slope.

No slippery slope, just the same stuff that was said in opposition to intermarriage between blacks and whites if you go back to the law prior to Loving v Virginia.

Mostly, though, you think it's okay for kids who are gay to feel this type of desperation?

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/ramsay/homosexuality-suicide/08-dead-gay-youth-suicide.htm

Oh... just for the record. The demographic info that you're looking for, the REASON gays have more disposable income for vacations is they, as a group, have more money. People can't travel when they're fighting to pay for food and a place to live. Now, part of that is they are single, focused on profession and mostly dual income, no kids, if they're in a long term relationship.

But it does show that they operate at a higher financial level as a demographic group. And, for the record, I do believe one of my links was to the NY Times Travel Section... hardly a "gay publication", though it would be more likely to be fair on the subject than say a paper out of a less urban area.

[OCA]

No slippery slope, just the same stuff that was said in opposition to intermarriage between blacks and whites if you go back to the law prior to Loving v Virginia.

Mostly, though, you think it's okay for kids who are gay to feel this type of desperation?

http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/ramsay/homosexuality-suicide/08-dead-gay-youth-suicide.htm

Oh... just for the record. The demographic info that you're looking for, the REASON gays have more disposable income for vacations is they, as a group, have more money. People can't travel when they're fighting to pay for food and a place to live. Now, part of that is they are single, focused on profession and mostly dual income, no kids, if they're in a long term relationship.

But it does show that they operate at a higher financial level as a demographic group. And, for the record, I do believe one of my links was to the NY Times Travel Section... hardly a "gay publication", though it would be more likely to be fair on the subject than say a paper out of a less urban area.

And i'm down with them having more income if its because they are single, just as long as they aren't granted "special rights" such as marriage.

Kids aren't born gay, ever.

Again comparison of homosexuality, a choice, to the struggle for racial equality, a birth condition, is, well I can't even say its thin, there is zero correlation.

[Missileman]

Oh really, you know the scientist who has discovered the definitive gay gene or genes? If you do please share!

That's NOT what you said.

To refresh your memory:

You said, "Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex."

If you have information on the scientific community at large advocating that position, please share.

[OCA]

Oh a fwiw it is better to be dead than living the queer lifestyle in my book. Maybe these kids need someone who cares for them enough to help them get the help to straighten(all pun intended) their lives out instead of some jackass telling them "its ok, you can't help it"......arrrgh that shit is soooooooo wrong, freakin enablers!

[OCA]

That's NOT what you said.

To refresh your memory:

You said, "Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex."

If you have information on the scientific community at large advocating that position, please share.

Science, scientists, tomato, tomahto.....can you find the gay gene or genes? No? Until then its a choice by default.

[Missileman]

Science, scientists, tomato, tomahto.....can you find the gay gene or genes? No? Until then its a choice by default.

Why, because you say so? They haven't yet found the gene that causes colo-rectal cancer...does that make it a choice by default?

You made this statement:
"Science doesn't think they are attracted naturally to the same sex.", yet you still didn't provide information that ANY scientist has concluded homosexuality is a choice.

FWIW, I doubt that there is a gay gene. I believe that a miswiring occurs during fetal brain development. There are plenty of studies that have shown male and female brains are wired up differently that makes a miswiring explanation feasible.

[CockySOB]

Do you think hetrosexuality needs treating?
Irrelevant. Although if you get down to it, there are heterosexuals who fail to restrain their urges and commit all manner of atrocities, including rape. Now, taking that into consideration, and considering that we DO treat such individuals according to a number of protocols, then it stands to reason to say that treating homosexuality has a marked parallel to the reasons we treat aberrant heterosexual behavior.


And I say that there is no scientific basis so therefore it does not need treating.
And since you say so, it must BE so? And to think later in the same post you accuse ME of having a big head! LOL!


What educated sources? There is nothing simple about it Cock. As for being a grown up, grown up don't head down the ad hominem alley like you continually do. You see yourself as some sort of doyan of messageboard police and some sort of intellectual god whose narcisstic ego needs satiating by setting the agenda on this thread. Get over yourself. I have a certain belief regarding homosexuality. It doesn't involve science. You think it does, fine. Doesn't make your opinion right or wrong, nor does it make mine. It makes us different. As for close-mindedness, there is plenty on this board via the anti-homo mob, yet you fail to address them. How elitist of you....
Little tool, I don't feel the need to fight other peoples' battles for them. Just because I do not wish to argue a point, does not mean that I embrace it.


Exactly, and IMO that activity is not harmful to society or the individuals. I have yet to find any solid proof...
To borrow your own rather pathetic argument, where's your proof that homosexual action is beneficial to society?


Don't be such an intellectual snob. Your little diatribes and feeble attempts at intellectual oneupmanship are nothing more than self-absorbed verbal masterbation. I have contributed plenty to this thread - a lot more than just one liners. Again, get over yourself...
Intellectual snob? Little man, if you want to discuss the issues with anything more than simple emotional or sensational pleas, you MUST use intelligence and science. Well, I guess YOU don't because your opinion is what should rule the world, now isn't it? The only thing you've contributed to is the waste of bandwidth. Your "style" (and believe me I use the word as loosely as I have ever used it) is amateurish and akin to a kindergartener's playground argument. "Does too! Does not! Does too! etc." Perhaps you never made it past the very early grades and you never had to learn how to formulate a decent argument, let alone defend a thesis in post-secondary education.

BTW, you, Pale and OCA do resemble flip sides of the same coin - with one exception. They DO provide links to evidence which supports their position. I may find some of their positions untenably weak, but unlike you they DO provide some groundwork with which to evaluate their positions.


When I see what certain anti-gay advocates on this very thread have said, the above comment can only be laughed at with the derision is deserves....
In other words, you're in this less for the truth, and more because you want to argue. That would fit with my opinion of your "style." You're unable or unwilling to engage in an intelligent debate, and you choose to deflect rather than answer any criticisms using a combination of ill-formed logic and rhetoric. Considering this, I doubt you *could* manage to get a post-secondary education in any scientific field.


Please, I hope you find a cure for having to walk through doors sideways - having a huge head does that...
Feeling a tad bit inadequate? I'd figure you'd be used to that feeling by now. After all, anyone reading this thread from start to finish will easily be able to determine who got their ass handed to them time and again. Aren't you glad you jumped to conclusions about me earlier in this thread and thus earned my attention?

[CockySOB]

FWIW, I doubt that there is a gay gene. I believe that a miswiring occurs during fetal brain development. There are plenty of studies that have shown male and female brains are wired up differently that makes a miswiring explanation feasible.
Just curious MissileMan, did you read that article from AllPsych (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html)? It discusses some of the specific studies related to potential biologic origins for our sexual orientation. I'd be interested in your opinion of the piece.

[Gunny]

No, what you see is a conservative version of MFM. And instead of offering up half a dozen veiled threats or telling him to modify his behaviour like you did with MFM, you champion his cause Fale....Not exactly becoming of a mod, but not surprising considering it is you. Sllluuurrppp!! What was that? Your credibility going down the gurgler...:pee: Maybe it's time to hand in your badge Wyatt....or is it a lugar circa WWII?

Pathetic. For your info, I was asked to not respond to MFM's bullshit, so I didn't. See how easy THAT is? And see how one-sided it ISN'T?

You're shooting off your mouth without knowing all the facts and it makes YOU look like the fool with no credibility.

[Missileman]

Just curious MissileMan, did you read that article from AllPsych (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html)? It discusses some of the specific studies related to potential biologic origins for our sexual orientation. I'd be interested in your opinion of the piece.

Just finished it. There appear to be several potential factors...nothing time and research can't sort out though. The larger the number of factors involved though, the longer it's going to take.

[CockySOB]

Just finished it. There appear to be several potential factors...nothing time and research can't sort out though. The larger the number of factors involved though, the longer it's going to take.

My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the input!

[OCA]

Just finished it. There appear to be several potential factors...nothing time and research can't sort out though. The larger the number of factors involved though, the longer it's going to take.

How much more time do they need? Could it just possibly not be a genetic or not a womb event etc. etc. and just simply be a lifestyle choice just like one chooses to live in a double wide?

I base this upon the fact that they have spent x amount of time and x amount of dollars and to date there is nothing, nada.

Now before I get the cancer correlation from someone the cancer cells(pick your cancer) are well known as well as what causes the cells to be there in most instances what we haven't found is the cure.

[Gunny]

How much more time do they need? Could it just possibly not be a genetic or not a womb event etc. etc. and just simply be a lifestyle choice just like one chooses to live in a double wide?

I base this upon the fact that they have spent x amount of time and x amount of dollars and to date there is nothing, nada.

Now before I get the cancer correlation from someone the cancer cells(pick your cancer) are well known as well as what causes the cells to be there in most instances what we haven't found is the cure.

I'm curious to know just what proving or disproving it being genetic is supposed to accomplish. Genetic or not, it isn't normal.

[OCA]

I'm curious to know just what proving or disproving it being genetic is supposed to accomplish. Genetic or not, it isn't normal.

It takes away the crutch they lean on.

[Missileman]

I base this upon the fact that they have spent x amount of time and x amount of dollars and to date there is nothing, nada.


I base my opinion on my belief that no "true" heterosexual could choose to engage in homosexual sex as you allege.

[Gunny]

I base my opinion on my belief that no "true" heterosexual could choose to engage in homosexual sex as you allege.

Sure they could and for a variety of reasons. Rebellious/countercultural behavior. Inability to deal emotionally with those of the opposite gender. Not giving a damn what you stick it in as long as it feels good. Abuse or experimentation that leads one to believe they no longer have a choice. I'm sure you've heard the old saying "suck one c*ck and you're a c*cksucker for life?"

I'm not saying that there aren't those that for whatever reason aren't just attracted to the same gender. I'm just disagreeing with your notion that no one would choose to be homosexual.

[Missileman]

Sure they could and for a variety of reasons. Rebellious/countercultural behavior. Inability to deal emotionally with those of the opposite gender. Not giving a damn what you stick it in as long as it feels good. Abuse or experimentation that leads one to believe they no longer have a choice. I'm sure you've heard the old saying "suck one c*ck and you're a c*cksucker for life?"

I'm not saying that there aren't those that for whatever reason aren't just attracted to the same gender. I'm just disagreeing with your notion that no one would choose to be homosexual.

Disagree or not, I don't know any heterosexuals who have said, "ya know, under the right circumstances, I think I'd like to try that". Maybe you do.

[dirt mcgirt]

Sure they could and for a variety of reasons. Rebellious/countercultural behavior. Inability to deal emotionally with those of the opposite gender. Not giving a damn what you stick it in as long as it feels good. Abuse or experimentation that leads one to believe they no longer have a choice. I'm sure you've heard the old saying "suck one c*ck and you're a c*cksucker for life?"

I'm not saying that there aren't those that for whatever reason aren't just attracted to the same gender. I'm just disagreeing with your notion that no one would choose to be homosexual.
So if you believe it's a choice, do you think it's a mental illness?

[Grumplestillskin]

Pathetic. For your info, I was asked to not respond to MFM's bullshit, so I didn't. See how easy THAT is? And see how one-sided it ISN'T?

You're shooting off your mouth without knowing all the facts and it makes YOU look like the fool with no credibility.

Which has what to do with Pale taking Cock's side on this thread? He is a mod, you aren't. THAT is my point. And I know plenty of facts regarding MFM. You are looking like a fool shooting your mouth of because you have commented on something from a left-field POV...

[Pale Rider]

Because it doesn't. For the same reason for some men it does do it for them. It is the way they are. No mystery. No predetermining factors. No "natural" affiliation. Just the way it is. Just like Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein were/are geniuses. Just the way they are....

So you first try to explain "why" homosexuality doesn't appeal to you by just saying, "because it doesn't". But then you go on to say, "Just the way it is". JUST THE WAY IT IS? YOU MEAN LIKE NATURE? Yes. Nature. You know it, I know it, the man in the moon knows it. Spinning and lying about it is just pure dishonesty, to yourself, and everyone around you.

You've contradicted yourself for everyone to see. You're talking in circles.

Further, what you tried to say without admitting it is, that you find homosexual acts disgusting. The exact same thing I've said, to which you call me a bigot. Well man, if I'm a bigot, then so are you.

[Gunny]

Which has what to do with Pale taking Cock's side on this thread? He is a mod, you aren't. THAT is my point. And I know plenty of facts regarding MFM. You are looking like a fool shooting your mouth of because you have commented on something from a left-field POV...

Ummm ... dude .... perhaps you need to review. Let's start with you claiming MFM's response to me was no worse than mine, but you weren't smart enough to look far enough back to see who started what.

Then we can move on to the fact that I've known cocky for about 5 years and he is in no way anything near MFM. He backs up his posts with facts, common sense and logic, all of which sets him far and away above MFM.

As far as I'm concerned, the person coming from left field would be the one interjecting his dumb ass into the middle of something that was none of his business.

Now, let's DO try and move on. Can you address the topic of the thread and why or why not you think it's a good idea? Or can't you?

[Gunny]

So if you believe it's a choice, do you think it's a mental illness?

Depends on how you define "mental illness." Is it abnormal? Yes.

Going on the actual evidence that exists here and now, it is a behavioral disorder. The exhibited behavior being the evidence.

There is no evidence to prove whether or not it is genetic, and I doubt there will ever be clear cut evidence either way because the extremists of both sides are the only ones presenting theories.

[Grumplestillskin]

Irrelevant. Although if you get down to it, there are heterosexuals who fail to restrain their urges and commit all manner of atrocities, including rape. Now, taking that into consideration, and considering that we DO treat such individuals according to a number of protocols, then it stands to reason to say that treating homosexuality has a marked parallel to the reasons we treat aberrant heterosexual behavior.

Rape is also about power and making somebody do something against their will. A homosexual act between two consenting adults does not fit the parameter of your so-called protocols and therefore is not a valid argument. There is no parallel.


And since you say so, it must BE so?

It is my POV. I am not demanding you accept my POV, I'm just giving it..


Just because I do not wish to argue a point, does not mean that I embrace it.

Ah Big Tool, bingo. Now you're starting to get it..


To borrow your own rather pathetic argument, where's your proof that homosexual action is beneficial to society?

I'm not trying to prove homosexuality is beneficial or not beneficial to society. I think it has minimal impact on society, much like hetrosexuality. I treat homosexuality as somebody's sexual preference, not a microcism of a personality that needs dissecting to meet somebody's bigotted view of the world (and to clarify - as it is obvious a Simpleton like you needs things constantly spelling out for them - I do not mean YOU are being bigotted. I do realise a lot of your argument comes from a Devil's Advocate POV)


Intellectual snob? Little man, if you want to discuss the issues with anything more than simple emotional or sensational pleas, you MUST use intelligence and science.

Intelligence yes. Science? In the case of homosexuality? Not IMO. Only if you believe there is some underlying psychological reason for homosexuality. I don't think that. I just think some men like men, ditto women. It's not rocket science. It's nothing major, just the way some people are.


Well, I guess YOU don't because your opinion is what should rule the world, now isn't it? The only thing you've contributed to is the waste of bandwidth. Your "style" (and believe me I use the word as loosely as I have ever used it) is amateurish and akin to a kindergartener's playground argument. "Does too! Does not! Does too! etc."

No, not at all re my opinion. What is grating you, is you are one of these people that like to storm onto a thread, think you are Big Intellectual Man on Campus, and we should conform to your debating style or else you will revert to the piss weak ad hominem style (which you are superb at BTW - most mental midgets are). Mine is not so much a "does too, does too" style, more a "Why should I explain something scientficially, that in my opinion doesn't need explaining so". That aside, I have said this once, and I'll say it again - obviously hasn't gone through that excuse of a brain you have - I have refutted most of these argument before. Am not going to do it again to suit you.


Perhaps you never made it past the very early grades and you never had to learn how to formulate a decent argument, let alone defend a thesis in post-secondary education.

Oh, right, you're one of these guys, who through sheer luck managed to get a part time lecture gig at a community college, but whose inflated ego thinks he should be HOD at Harvard or Yale....


BTW, you, Pale and OCA do resemble flip sides of the same coin - with one exception. They DO provide links to evidence which supports their position. I may find some of their positions untenably weak, but unlike you they DO provide some groundwork with which to evaluate their positions.

And I found holes in those same links you could drive a Mac Truck through in previous posts on the USMB...Why would I revisit those same premises YET AGAIN, when it took me three days last time only for the silence to be deafening...


In other words, you're in this less for the truth, and more because you want to argue. That would fit with my opinion of your "style." You're unable or unwilling to engage in an intelligent debate, and you choose to deflect rather than answer any criticisms using a combination of ill-formed logic and rhetoric. Considering this, I doubt you *could* manage to get a post-secondary education in any scientific field.

Of course I engage in intelligent debate. You say this to me, yet look at your first two posts to me on this thread. Is that your definition of intelligent? You are right re post-secondary education in a scientific field. Other than a cursory interest, science isn't even on my radar. It rarely interests me, therefore why would I want to get an education in that field? What is my ill-informed logic? Step up or shut up, or are you one of these flamers that are just here to troll?


Feeling a tad bit inadequate? I'd figure you'd be used to that feeling by now. After all, anyone reading this thread from start to finish will easily be able to determine who got their ass handed to them time and again.

Show me one post where I got my arse handed to me. Inadequate? Against who? You? :lol:


Aren't you glad you jumped to conclusions about me earlier in this thread and thus earned my attention?

Why? Do you fancy yourself as some sort of intellectual tough guy? If you do, don't give up your day job. My four year old gives me more pause for thought than you do. Maybe you should make your posts clear and come out and say what you mean instead of beating around the bush. I think you post in the style you do because you like those little "gotchas" that occur when soembody posts ambiguously on purpose, thus my masterbation analogy. Something that you are more than adequate at it seems.

[Grumplestillskin]

Ummm ... dude .... perhaps you need to review. Let's start with you claiming MFM's response to me was no worse than mine, but you weren't smart enough to look far enough back to see who started what.

Then we can move on to the fact that I've known cocky for about 5 years and he is in no way anything near MFM. He backs up his posts with facts, common sense and logic, all of which sets him far and away above MFM.

As far as I'm concerned, the person coming from left field would be the one interjecting his dumb ass into the middle of something that was none of his business.

Now, let's DO try and move on. Can you address the topic of the thread and why or why not you think it's a good idea? Or can't you?

You and MFM started going hammer and tongs at each other from the get go. his arrogant style of posting - rightly - got on your wick. I see Cocky and him cut from the same cloth. I don't need to see five years worth of Cocky's post to have his number. MFM backs up his posts with facts, common sense and logic too.

I have stated that I have no problem with the gay ban lifted. It should be treated as a non-issue. Kowtowing to the wants of bigots should never be acceptable. And it is bigotted behaviour...

[Grumplestillskin]

So you first try to explain "why" homosexuality doesn't appeal to you by just saying, "because it doesn't". But then you go on to say, "Just the way it is". JUST THE WAY IT IS? YOU MEAN LIKE NATURE? Yes. Nature. You know it, I know it, the man in the moon knows it. Spinning and lying about it is just pure dishonesty, to yourself, and everyone around you.

Just because I don't like homosexual acts doesn't mean I don't think they should have rights. I hate houses that are painted blue. Doesn't mean people should not be able to paint their house blue.


You've contradicted yourself for everyone to see. You're talking in circles.

No I am not. You are taking a simple/easy view of the subject. I have already stated that us humans are the sentinent beings on the planet. Nothing is black and white for us, thus the nature analogy is not pertinent to the debate (IMO of course).


Further, what you tried to say without admitting it is, that you find homosexual acts disgusting. The exact same thing I've said, to which you call me a bigot. Well man, if I'm a bigot, then so are you.

Finding a homosexual act horrible is not bigotted. Finding it horrible when it has no affect on me and then trying to enact or support legislation, is. That is where we differ and you meet the definition...

[Gunny]

You and MFM started going hammer and tongs at each other from the get go. his arrogant style of posting - rightly - got on your wick. I see Cocky and him cut from the same cloth. I don't need to see five years worth of Cocky's post to have his number. MFM backs up his posts with facts, common sense and logic too.

I have stated that I have no problem with the gay ban lifted. It should be treated as a non-issue. Kowtowing to the wants of bigots should never be acceptable. And it is bigotted behaviour...

When that behavior is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the US military, what you call "bigotted" is warranted. Any time anyone makes a decision they are guilty of bigotry, so throwing that label around doesn't work.

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military would destroy the esprit de corps -- the kinship that military people rely on to keep themselves and each other alive. No matter what you legislate, you can't legislate THAT, but you can legislate it out of existence.

No normal, alpha-male is going to trust a gay fully, and that isn't speaking of the ones who just openly hate gays.

The possible gain is not worth the detrimental effect it would have.

And you are wrong about Cocky, but whatever.

And you're wrong about MFM. He suffers from an inability to see the forest for all the trees.

[Grumplestillskin]

When that behavior is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the US military, what you call "bigotted" is warranted. Any time anyone makes a decision they are guilty of bigotry, so throwing that label around doesn't work.

But gays are already in the military. Have they destroyed the "good order and discipline" in the forces? Are they the cause directly, or the catalyst? If they are the cause directly, then that should be addressed. If they are the catalyst, not their problem. No re bigotry. It has a specific meaning.


Allowing gays to serve openly in the military would destroy the esprit de corps -- the kinship that military people rely on to keep themselves and each other alive. No matter what you legislate, you can't legislate THAT, but you can legislate it out of existence.

That is the crux I guess. And it is sad that is the case. In Holland they have openly gay soldiers and policemen. Apparently hasn't affected the moral.


And you are wrong about Cocky, but whatever.

I have posted to him long enough to know...:thumb:


And you're wrong about MFM. He suffers from an inability to see the forest for all the trees.

That is because you disagree with him on everything...:dunno:

[OCA]

Disagree or not, I don't know any heterosexuals who have said, "ya know, under the right circumstances, I think I'd like to try that". Maybe you do.

Missile chicks are experimenting with lesbianism all the time. Guys I assume do to but don't talk about it because they might receive a beating. Could you imagine? "Hey Jim, I tried to take a cock up my ass the other night but I just didn't care for it" LMFAO!

[OCA]

And I found holes in those same links you could drive a Mac Truck through in previous posts on the USMB...Why would I revisit those same premises YET AGAIN, when it took me three days last time only for the silence to be deafening...












No you didn't. If these posts were there and all these links that poke holes in our sound logic were there you would be chomping at the bit to provide them. Your so full of shit, if they exist provide them, if they don't please refrain from making bogus claims on this board.

[Grumplestillskin]

No you didn't. If these posts were there and all these links that poke holes in our sound logic were there you would be chomping at the bit to provide them. Your so full of shit, if they exist provide them, if they don't please refrain from making bogus claims on this board.

I am chomping at the bit, just don't have the time. They exist, and they are on the USMB...go check out. Biggest problem in trying to find them is not so much that I've made over 2500 posts on the USMB, but trying to find the thread. I don't know if it was a homo thread or one that morphed. I've gone back 20 pages of threads on the current events board...nada...(shrug). There is nothing bogus about it...

[OCA]

I am chomping at the bit, just don't have the time. They exist, and they are on the USMB...go check out. Biggest problem in trying to find them is not so much that I've made over 2500 posts on the USMB, but trying to find the thread. I don't know if it was a homo thread or one that morphed. I've gone back 20 pages of threads on the current events board...nada...(shrug). There is nothing bogus about it...

Not for me to look, you made the claim so you bring the posts. Until such time we will consider you full of shit.

[Grumplestillskin]

Until such time we will consider you full of shit.

Considering the source, I can live with that...

[OCA]

Considering the source, I can live with that...

After your pathetic performance the last week or so your 1 line quips seem sort of sad. Hell everyone has had a piece of your ass this week.

[CockySOB]

After your pathetic performance the last week or so your 1 line quips seem sort of sad. Hell everyone has had a piece of your ass this week.

Consider that he thinks arguing with his four-year old is a better than attempting to engage in intelligent debate. I can understand that though, because Grumpy probably wins an argument or two with his kid ("did too! did not!" arguments). Too bad the mental midget isn't capable of supporting his position with anything substantial around here.

What I find truly interesting is how he jumped into the thread putting words in my mouth, and demanded that I support his argument. Since then, he's been backpedaling and trying to deflect rather than simply admit that he erred. Not surprising though, because if he is stuck at the mental and emotional level of a four-year old, he would not likely understand the concept of responsibility. And maturity? LOL! He might find it someday, but I doubt it. A troll he is, as defined by his own actions.

I also find it entertaining that someone who flat-out says he has no interest in sciences or even advanced education can try to deride me for my career. I teach computer science at a community college, and yet this dolt is trying to infer that this is somehow a menial career? Here's a question, what is the toughest part of Grumpy's "career" (job is a better choice of words for it though)? Is it "can I super-size that for you for a quarter?" Or perhaps "how am I supposed to clean the grease trap again?"

[OCA]

Consider that he thinks arguing with his four-year old is a better than attempting to engage in intelligent debate. I can understand that though, because Grumpy probably wins an argument or two with his kid ("did too! did not!" arguments). Too bad the mental midget isn't capable of supporting his position with anything substantial around here.

What I find truly interesting is how he jumped into the thread putting words in my mouth, and demanded that I support his argument. Since then, he's been backpedaling and trying to deflect rather than simply admit that he erred. Not surprising though, because if he is stuck at the mental and emotional level of a four-year old, he would not likely understand the concept of responsibility. And maturity? LOL! He might find it someday, but I doubt it. A troll he is, as defined by his own actions.

I also find it entertaining that someone who flat-out says he has no interest in sciences or even advanced education can try to deride me for my career. I teach computer science at a community college, and yet this dolt is trying to infer that this is somehow a menial career? Here's a question, what is the toughest part of Grumpy's "career" (job is a better choice of words for it though)? Is it "can I super-size that for you for a quarter?" Or perhaps "how am I supposed to clean the grease trap again?"


:lol: :lol:

Holy hell I thought he was making that up about the JUCO, what a freakin elitist!

Anyway I doubt he will provide these supposed links that poke holes through our points, I mean what kind of dolts does he take everyone for that he thinks we will by the story of "it took 3 days to find them but when I found them I didn't cut and paste them over to here", puhleease!

[CockySOB]

:lol: :lol:

Holy hell I thought he was making that up about the JUCO, what a freakin elitist!

Anyway I doubt he will provide these supposed links that poke holes through our points, I mean what kind of dolts does he take everyone for that he thinks we will by the story of "it took 3 days to find them but when I found them I didn't cut and paste them over to here", puhleease!

Well, after close to 15 years in the field as a freelance systems analyst and software engineer, I went looking for a change of career. I lucked out in landing the full-time faculty position because I wasn't even looking for it. I was originally looking for something more "brain-dead" like network administrator or the like. Something I was over-qualified for, but which I could earn a decent 40-hr per week paycheck. When I went in for the interview for the network position, the administration saw my credentials, saw that I had conducted a number of seminars and boot-camps in my career, and offered me the faculty position which pays better and offers summers off. Pretty sweet deal to be truthful. Anyway, it's affording me time to pursue a Masters degree in Bioinformatics, which is something I never had time for while self-employed.

And as to his posting his supporting link from USMB, that's his decision. As this is a new board, one would assume that not everyone would automatically know to go looking for his alleged "supporting links" at another site, more so because he used a different moniker over there than he does here. But perhaps I'm using too many big words and complex thought patterns here. After all, this is the world according to Grump, and whatever he believes is fact, right? I wonder where the International Church of Grump has its main campus?

[Grumplestillskin]

Finally doing some homework for you. This is but one example of rebuttal. From a Pale link no less. There are others around, but I can't be bothered looking for them. Check out post 187
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=432763#post432763

[CockySOB]

:lol: :lol:

Holy hell I thought he was making that up about the JUCO, what a freakin elitist!

Anyway I doubt he will provide these supposed links that poke holes through our points, I mean what kind of dolts does he take everyone for that he thinks we will by the story of "it took 3 days to find them but when I found them I didn't cut and paste them over to here", puhleease!

Oh, and to be fair, you and Pale could probably post a few more links over here too. After all, just because a core of this board's membership might remember things from the other board, doesn't mean everyone will, nor does it really excuse not providing supporting evidence when you assert a "fact."

BTW, the reason I never jumped on you, Pale or the like is because none of you tried to put words in my mouth. I appreciate that. As such, you've taken a higher ground than Grump has, in my opinion.

[Grumplestillskin]

Consider that he thinks arguing with his four-year old is a better than attempting to engage in intelligent debate. I can understand that though, because Grumpy probably wins an argument or two with his kid ("did too! did not!" arguments). Too bad the mental midget isn't capable of supporting his position with anything substantial around here.

What I find truly interesting is how he jumped into the thread putting words in my mouth, and demanded that I support his argument. Since then, he's been backpedaling and trying to deflect rather than simply admit that he erred. Not surprising though, because if he is stuck at the mental and emotional level of a four-year old, he would not likely understand the concept of responsibility. And maturity? LOL! He might find it someday, but I doubt it. A troll he is, as defined by his own actions.

I also find it entertaining that someone who flat-out says he has no interest in sciences or even advanced education can try to deride me for my career. I teach computer science at a community college, and yet this dolt is trying to infer that this is somehow a menial career? Here's a question, what is the toughest part of Grumpy's "career" (job is a better choice of words for it though)? Is it "can I super-size that for you for a quarter?" Or perhaps "how am I supposed to clean the grease trap again?"

For a start, I never said I had no interest in advanced education, only science. And one of your main bitches is that I put words in YOUR mouth..:lol: I also reiterate, you purposefully post in ambiguous terms to "get" the win/point. Your approach is sophmoric at best. You should take your immature desire for oneupmanship back to the playground - adults are talking....

Biggest laugh though? I had no idea you worked at a community college. Man, did I have you pegged :laugh: :lmao:

[Grumplestillskin]

I mean what kind of dolts does he take everyone for that he thinks we will by the story of "it took 3 days to find them but when I found them I didn't cut and paste them over to here", puhleease!

Probably the kind of dolt who doesn't read posts properly. I said that when I posted those posts originally, it was over a period fo three days and took a lot of time to do. That last link I posted? Took 2 hours to find and was buried on page 37 of back threads. Like I've got that kind of time.

[Gunny]

But gays are already in the military. Have they destroyed the "good order and discipline" in the forces? Are they the cause directly, or the catalyst? If they are the cause directly, then that should be addressed. If they are the catalyst, not their problem. No re bigotry. It has a specific meaning.

They are not identified, nor are they allowed to identify themselves as "gay." Heterosexuals do not identify themselves as "heterosexuals," nor should gays be allowed to identify themselves by their aberrant behavior.big·ot·ry

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


—Synonyms 1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

Not so specific.


That is the crux I guess. And it is sad that is the case. In Holland they have openly gay soldiers and policemen. Apparently hasn't affected the moral.

Holland doesn't even crack the top 40.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/


I have posted to him long enough to know...:thumb:


That is because you disagree with him on everything...:dunno:


I disagree with anyone that uses literalism, intellectual dishonesty, delusion, and deflection as the main components of their debating style. I personally am not going to take shit off some turd who thinks that because he was a Naval officer that he is automatically right in everything he says or does. I didn't take it in real life, and I'm not about to start doing it now.

[Grumplestillskin]

I disagree with anyone that uses literalism, intellectual dishonesty, delusion, and deflection as the main components of their debating style. I personally am not going to take shit off some turd who thinks that because he was a Naval officer that he is automatically right in everything he says or does. I didn't take it in real life, and I'm not about to start doing it now.

So Holland doesn't make the top 40 in firepower. What does that have to do with gays in the military?

I hear ya re MFM, and he was definitely condescending - as was Cocky in his first couple of salvos my way. As for delusion and dishonesty, I disagree....

[OCA]

Finally doing some homework for you. This is but one example of rebuttal. From a Pale link no less. There are others around, but I can't be bothered looking for them. Check out post 187
http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=432763#post432763

Uhhh nice try but they found the data flawed...so fucking what? Pale used a bad source but that don't mean they disproved shit. All they said was the study was flawed.

[OCA]

Probably the kind of dolt who doesn't read posts properly. I said that when I posted those posts originally, it was over a period fo three days and took a lot of time to do. That last link I posted? Took 2 hours to find and was buried on page 37 of back threads. Like I've got that kind of time.

If you don't have the time don't make the claim.

[Gunny]

So Holland doesn't make the top 40 in firepower. What does that have to do with gays in the military?

I hear ya re MFM, and he was definitely condescending - as was Cocky in his first couple of salvos my way. As for delusion and dishonesty, I disagree....

It means that Holland obviously does not give a whole lot of priority to its military. Hard to compare that to a superpower that DOES.

[OCA]

Here is a study where the data is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar.

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

[jillian]

Here is a study where the data is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar.

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

You think some bogus religious site which talks about the opposite of homosexuality being the G-dly view of man is "solid as the rock of Gribralter"?

*shaking head incredulously*

[Grumplestillskin]

It means that Holland obviously does not give a whole lot of priority to its military. Hard to compare that to a superpower that DOES.

Not hard at all. What do you mean they do not give a lot of priority to their military? Geographically they are a very small nation. You'd have to give stats re spending on the military re GDP etc. The first three nations in your link are their due to their population a geographical size. Your graph is in no way linked to Dutch gays and their military. At best it is a strawman's argument..

[Grumplestillskin]

Uhhh nice try but they found the data flawed...so fucking what?

Er, considering that was my ONLY point - that links on the USMB provided by anti-homos had been proven wrong - I'd say it's a big So Fucking What?


Pale used a bad source but that don't mean they disproved shit.

It proved the source was crap and considering that is all I was trying to do, and said so to you, that's all she wrote. Thanks for playing...

[Grumplestillskin]

Here is a study where the data is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar.

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

Jaysus H Christ. What are we gonna do with you OCA? I'm beginning to think you might be a troll. :laugh: :laugh: Let's see. I post a link from the USMB. You admit in a following post that the data posted was bad. You state "so what?" You then post a link stating it is the last word on the subject. The freaking link uses the same dude that I had in my link that even you said was flawed. Are you freaking serious...

From your link: In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

From mine: Given what I now know, I believe there are flaws with Paul Cameron's study. (From Bill Bennett no less)

This would be laughable if it wasn't such a serious subject. You have told me several times I have had my arse handed to me on a plate, then you score an own goal....:eek2:

Oh, and who's Paul Cameron?
Early in 1984, all members of the American Psychological Association received official written notice that "Paul Cameron (Nebraska) was dropped from membership for a violation of the Preamble to the Ethical Principles of Psychologists" ...it would be remarkable that the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States (and other professional associations, as noted below) went to such lengths to disassociate itself from one individual.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" ....At its August, 1986 meeting, the ASA officially accepted the committee's report and passed the following resolution:

The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research. Information on this action and a copy of the report by the Committee on the Status of Homosexuals in Sociology, "The Paul Cameron Case," is to be published in Footnotes, and be sent to the officers of all regional and state sociological associations and to the Canadian Sociological Association with a request that they alert their members to Cameron's frequent lecture and media appearances."8

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

[CockySOB]

Here is a study where the data is as solid as the rock of Gibraltar.

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/hosx_lifspn.htm

I noticed the article cites studies which have the same inherent weakness that the homosexual advocates use - small sample size. I also noticed that some of the same studies are used, but the results interpreted differently than the advocates did.

For example, I noticed the Kinsey and Hooker studies were referenced but the interpretation yields differs from the bent that the homosexual advocates take. This would be a prime example of why we want well defined studies with specific goals and large sample sizes - doing so removes ambiguity.

I am interested in this Spada Report. I hadn't heard of it before, so I'm going to have to do some reading and researching of it before I can speak on it further.

My initial impression is that the article you linked is heavy on statistics which need verified and corroborated. Unfortunately the article itself doesn't provide direct citation, so it would be easy to dismiss most of the mentioned surveys out of hand. If the authors had been more thorough, the article would be much better (more professional).

[Ado]

What are you referring too? You do realize we live in a democracy.
And pray tell, which country are you moving too? This argument is so full of fallacies it is sad. Just because your view is in the minority, somehow makes this country not the best place to live. Weird rationale.
Saudi Arabia wants YOU.
Are you well? You just said this country is NOT the best place to live and that this country lies, steals, and discriminates. Leave if it is so bad.
You find homosexuals spreading aids at an alarming rate, petty? Sick.

I think you misunderstand. You are unhappy with the diversity
of people that live here. So much so, you waste time with
courts and legalities to legislate LIFESTYLES, instead of more
important problems to solve. I said, your type should leave.

We already had the Civil War, passed the Civil Rights Act
and the racists lost--now get a clue or leave.

You can't openly hate the blacks, so now you have
to find another group to hate. Sorry, woman-
hating was taken away from you too.

Can you get a clue how things are meant to be
here, or do we have to waste another 30 years
trying to tell the perfect whites what is fair?

[Ado]

Where to start? Let's try this.

The USA is a representative democracy wherein the individual states currently have the authority to decide who is granted a marriage license within their individual jurisdictions. This does not mean that those who do not have such a license cannot cohabitate, nor that they cannot appear in public showing signs of affection. They are not prevented by the government from practicing adult, consensual, homosexual intercourse, nor are they prevented from calling their relationship a "marriage" as a matter of common definition. But where the problem arises is when the more rabid pro-homosexual advocates choose to try to impose a new definition of the traditional "marriage" (man-woman) by judicial fiat. This has led to the backlash against these rabid advocates and homosexuals in general, including many states adopting "defense of marriage" laws via state legislation. So whether you think this is fair or not is irrelevant. The will of the majority to elect representatives who craft legislation is upheld, and barring a ruling which says such laws are un-Constitutional, the will of the people is validated as being the norm.

As to your tripe about how America isn't the best place to live and the like... well... feel free to not come here, or to leave if you already are here. I really don't understand how you can have the audacity to claim that your own opinion should be the law of the land, and even though you are in the minority, anyone that doesn't agree with you should leave. The impression I get is that you think we should all live in the World According to Ado. Hubris, thy name is Ado.

And your little spiel about petty judgments goes to show how ignorant you truly are. It is our freedom which allows us to openly debate these "petty" issues at length without fear of governmental intrusion. Even though we have people here from all walks of life, and from an extremely wide variety of personal ideologies, we can meet and discuss. That's a huge part of what our founding fathers wanted for us - you might be familiar with it via the First Amendment.

How on earth would giving equal marriage benefits
change the definition of each person's or each couple's
marriage? The reason current legislation keeps
being upheld is because people think it puts their
stamp of approval or disapproval on it--as if it
needs to be made. There is no argument other
than judgemental power that keeps this from
being allowed to any couple other than a man-woman
union.

If straight people had any faith at all in their beliefs
they'd grant it for any alternative unions. The fact that
they have to shut it down, shows how insecure they are
in themselves, and shows the need to tell others
how to live.

All this is, is an excuse to retain power for the
perfect people. Like you never graduated from
high-school and left your senior proms.

I doubt the creators felt the need to legislate
this baloney, and besides that we had a war
and changes to the Constitution to grant
equality.

[Ado]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

Uhh tinfoil alert.

Dude find a new thread, your over your head and leaking oil in this one.

doh--clever :pee:

[Gunny]

Not hard at all. What do you mean they do not give a lot of priority to their military? Geographically they are a very small nation. You'd have to give stats re spending on the military re GDP etc. The first three nations in your link are their due to their population a geographical size. Your graph is in no way linked to Dutch gays and their military. At best it is a strawman's argument..

Comparing the US military to what goes on in Holland is the strawman argument here. In case you haven't noticed, the US doesn't have a lot in common with most European nations. What the Dutch do or don't do in their military is in no way relevant to what the US does or doesn't do in ours.

We don't go to war in klompen either.;)

[Gunny]

I think you misunderstand. You are unhappy with the diversity
of people that live here. So much so, you waste time with
courts and legalities to legislate LIFESTYLES, instead of more
important problems to solve. I said, your type should leave.

We already had the Civil War, passed the Civil Rights Act
and the racists lost--now get a clue or leave.

You can't openly hate the blacks, so now you have
to find another group to hate. Sorry, woman-
hating was taken away from you too.

Can you get a clue how things are meant to be
here, or do we have to waste another 30 years
trying to tell the perfect whites what is fair?

One can legally hate whoever one wants to, so you would be incorrect. Hating isn't just a privilege for the intellectually dishonest who want to tell everyone who and what they can and cannot hate.

The only hating I see going on at the moment is from you. Perhaps YOU should leave.

[Gunny]

How on earth would giving equal marriage benefits
change the definition of each person's or each couple's
marriage? The reason current legislation keeps
being upheld is because people think it puts their
stamp of approval or disapproval on it--as if it
needs to be made. There is no argument other
than judgemental power that keeps this from
being allowed to any couple other than a man-woman
union.

If straight people had any faith at all in their beliefs
they'd grant it for any alternative unions. The fact that
they have to shut it down, shows how insecure they are
in themselves, and shows the need to tell others
how to live.

All this is, is an excuse to retain power for the
perfect people. Like you never graduated from
high-school and left your senior proms.

I doubt the creators felt the need to legislate
this baloney, and besides that we had a war
and changes to the Constitution to grant
equality.

Speaking of baloney, what a backwards-assed argument. What is this, the natural progression from slinging "homophobe" around like a weapon? now it's the couples' insecurities?

:lmao:

[manu1959]

How on earth would giving equal marriage benefits
change the definition of each person's or each couple's
marriage? The reason current legislation keeps
being upheld is because people think it puts their
stamp of approval or disapproval on it--as if it
needs to be made. There is no argument other
than judgemental power that keeps this from
being allowed to any couple other than a man-woman
union.

If straight people had any faith at all in their beliefs
they'd grant it for any alternative unions. The fact that
they have to shut it down, shows how insecure they are
in themselves, and shows the need to tell others
how to live.

All this is, is an excuse to retain power for the
perfect people. Like you never graduated from
high-school and left your senior proms.

I doubt the creators felt the need to legislate
this baloney, and besides that we had a war
and changes to the Constitution to grant
equality.


in your world can i marry my sister? brother? mother? father? daughter? son? cousin? aunt? uncle? all of them?

i mean i need to be treated equally....

afterall my mother is old and needs medical care so maybe i will just marry her and get health insurance through work.....

[OCA]

Here's another one folks.....oh and now that I do a little more research Mr. Cameron was 86'd because he would not follow the pc route of his colleagues and hide the truth. All the supposed categories of queers he did not include is hogwash.

http://www.straight-talk.net/gay/facts.shtml

[OCA]

I guess Catholics are a bunch of homophobic bigots also:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

[Pale Rider]

Finding a homosexual act horrible is not bigotted. Finding it horrible when it has no affect on me and then trying to enact or support legislation, is. That is where we differ and you meet the definition...


Wrong. Let's review... here's the deffinition of bigot...


6 results for: bigot
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
big·ot /ˈbɪgət/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun [B]a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1590–1600; < MF (OF: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perh. < OE bī God by God]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key
n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

THAT, grump, describes YOU to a TEE! YOU are completely INTOLERANT of my view that DIFFERS from YOUR'S.

YOU are a BIGOT!

[OCA]

Holy shit here is a completely different study that mirrors Cameron's findings and also mirrors Center For Disease Control stats:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html

[Missileman]

Here's another one folks.....oh and now that I do a little more research Mr. Cameron was 86'd because he would not follow the pc route of his colleagues and hide the truth. All the supposed categories of queers he did not include is hogwash.

http://www.straight-talk.net/gay/facts.shtml

Anyone have a knife I can borrow? I went to the link provided, read what was there, and the needle on my bullshit detector flew across the room and is now securely lodged in the wall.

And in case you wonder why I say it's bullshit, any source that claims knowing the truth without all the facts is flat out full of it.

From the site: "The truth is no one is born "gay" - no one. In most all cases one's homosexuality has everything to do with childhood."

The TRUTH is, if they could prove it, it would be on every billboard, in every medical journal, and in every newspaper across the globe.

[Pale Rider]

Consider that he thinks arguing with his four-year old is a better than attempting to engage in intelligent debate. I can understand that though, because Grumpy probably wins an argument or two with his kid ("did too! did not!" arguments). Too bad the mental midget isn't capable of supporting his position with anything substantial around here.

What I find truly interesting is how he jumped into the thread putting words in my mouth, and demanded that I support his argument. Since then, he's been backpedaling and trying to deflect rather than simply admit that he erred. Not surprising though, because if he is stuck at the mental and emotional level of a four-year old, he would not likely understand the concept of responsibility. And maturity? LOL! He might find it someday, but I doubt it. A troll he is, as defined by his own actions.

I also find it entertaining that someone who flat-out says he has no interest in sciences or even advanced education can try to deride me for my career. I teach computer science at a community college, and yet this dolt is trying to infer that this is somehow a menial career? Here's a question, what is the toughest part of Grumpy's "career" (job is a better choice of words for it though)? Is it "can I super-size that for you for a quarter?" Or perhaps "how am I supposed to clean the grease trap again?"

More like it says on the back of his smock... "how may I help you"... "walmart".

[Missileman]

Holy shit here is a completely different study that mirrors Cameron's findings and also mirrors Center For Disease Control stats:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html

Hate to break it to ya, but that WAS Cameron's study. Having a Hobbit moment are we?

[OCA]

Holy fuck! Check out the male to male categories here....and they say its not a dangerous lifestyle choice and its normal lol.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

[Pale Rider]

Holy shit here is a completely different study that mirrors Cameron's findings and also mirrors Center For Disease Control stats:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jun/05060606.html

Hell there's HUNDREDS of them brother. You could search all day and never find the end of them.

Homosexuality is a vile sickness. Those supporting it should be ASHAMED of themselves for helping further such a perverted, sick, mental illness. If the queer supporters REALLY DID care for the fags they know, they'd emphasize how important it is for them to seek help, rather than encouraging them to continue such destructive behavior.

[OCA]

Hate to break it to ya, but that WAS Cameron's study. Having a Hobbit moment are we?

No slick, go back and read it again. An independent Vancouver group's study mirrored Cameron's findings. You didn't read it or you didn't read down far enough.

Even if it was is it your assertion that Cameron was wrong and queers don't have a vastly shorter life expectancy?

[Pale Rider]

Holy fuck! Check out the male to male categories here....and they say its not a dangerous lifestyle choice and its normal lol.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

It's natures way of cleaning up the mess... :wink2:

[Missileman]

No slick, go back and read it again. An independent Vancouver group's study mirrored Cameron's findings. You didn't read it or you didn't read down far enough.

Even if it was is it your assertion that Cameron was wrong and queers don't have a vastly shorter life expectancy?


In an interview with lifesitenews.com, Dr. Paul Cameron, the President of the Family Research Institute and the scientist who headed the study, indicated that he was not at all surprised by the findings. Rather he said that it only served as further confirmation for what had long been known and other studies have already shown.

Is this the study that got him 86'd? I don't know, do you? I would call the CDC a credible source and if they say that homosexuals don't live as long, I'll take their word for it.

It's their life, if they shorten it, it's on them. I would make the same distinction for smokers, drug abusers, and anyone else who engages in dangerous activities, like Steve Erwin for instance.

[Ado]

One can legally hate whoever one wants to, so you would be incorrect. Hating isn't just a privilege for the intellectually dishonest who want to tell everyone who and what they can and cannot hate.

The only hating I see going on at the moment is from you. Perhaps YOU should leave.

No.

[dirt mcgirt]

More like it says on the back of his smock... "how may I help you"... "walmart".
Wow. Great moderating ability there. More bullshit double standards.

[jimnyc]

Wow. Great moderating ability there. More bullshit double standards.

Threads and post ARE NOT places to throw around gripes about staff. Send me a PM if you have issues.

[dirt mcgirt]

Threads and post ARE NOT places to throw around gripes about staff. Send me a PM if you have issues.
Sorry Jim. Other posters and myself received warnings posted in threads and not via PM. Now that I know that that is going to be the norm around here, I will comply.

[jimnyc]

Sorry Jim. Other posters and myself received warnings posted in threads and not via PM. Now that I know that that is going to be the norm around here, I will comply.

There's a little difference you are missing - those who posted the warnings were STAFF. We do that so others see can see the process, and know best when lines have been crossed -as opposed to deleting posts.

And there's also quite a difference between staff posting a warning, and a member posting complaints about the board.

[Bubbalicious]

It may or may not be. That is arguable. But acting out the attraction most certainly IS a CONSCIOUS CHOICE.


It's no more NORMAL than the impulse to KILL someone. That is an absurd claim.

So they should have sexual relationships with people they're not attracted to? How do you do that? And you equate homosexuality between two consenting adults with murder. Nice. How perfectly reasonable.

[Bubbalicious]

You think some bogus religious site which talks about the opposite of homosexuality being the G-dly view of man is "solid as the rock of Gribralter"?

*shaking head incredulously*

ROFL!

[Gunny]

No.

Why not? You obviously have a problem with democracy. You want to dictate what people are allowed to think, and if they don't agree, you tell them to leave.

What makes you think your brand of intolerance is somehow better than those you are accusing of being intolerant?

[Gunny]

So they should have sexual relationships with people they're not attracted to? How do you do that? And you equate homosexuality between two consenting adults with murder. Nice. How perfectly reasonable.

The equation is correct, and incorrect, both. Comparing homosexuality to murder insofar as its impact/harm to others, there is no comparison IF the comparison is two consenting adults doing as they wish in the privacy of their own home vs. the unwarranted taking of someone's life.

Insofar as both being abnormal behavior, the equation is correct.

[Pale Rider]

So they should have sexual relationships with people they're not attracted to? How do you do that? And you equate homosexuality between two consenting adults with murder. Nice. How perfectly reasonable.

To answer your first and second question, "you get the help you need to be normal".

Secondly, men who have the urge to engage in sex with other men, is about as twisted of an urge as it is to want to kill someone. Both are unnatural urges. To act them out is the same thing. You're making a choice to do something that is WRONG!

[OCA]

Holy fuck! Check out the male to male categories here....and they say its not a dangerous lifestyle choice and its normal lol.


http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

Boy the silence from the homosexual apologists on this link is deafening.

[jillian]

Boy the silence from the homosexual apologists on this link is deafening.

Silence? Apologists? Interesting. Tell ya what... in that oooooh scawy... link, go look at the transmission of HIV/AIDS through high risk heterosexual conduct....

Cheers. ;)

Be careful out there!

[OCA]

Silence? Apologists? Interesting. Tell ya what... in that oooooh scawy... link, go look at the transmission of HIV/AIDS through high risk heterosexual conduct....

Cheers. ;)

Be careful out there!

Honey you do know how to read percentages, right?

If queers are anywhere from 2-5% of the population, depending on what source you are using, then taking their percentage of the population and then factoring in male to male aids cases makes their numbers absolutely off the charts, high risk hetero doesn't even come close percentage wise but of course since we are like 95% of the population our sheer numbers will be higher.

Was this a disingenuine attempt to get over on me or do you really not know anything about percentages and numbers?

[jillian]

Honey you do know how to read percentages, right?

If queers are anywhere from 2-5% of the population, depending on what source you are using, then taking their percentage of the population and then factoring in male to male aids cases makes their numbers absolutely off the charts, high risk hetero doesn't even come close percentage wise but of course since we are like 95% of the population our sheer numbers will be higher.

Was this a disingenuine attempt to get over on me or do you really not know anything about percentages and numbers?

The point, sweetie, is that the largest increases in HIV/AIDS are among heterosexual women.

And unless you're planning on having unprotected sex with someone who's infected, then I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.

[Yurt]

The point, sweetie, is that the largest increases in HIV/AIDS are among heterosexual women.

And unless you're planning on having unprotected sex with someone who's infected, then I wouldn't worry too much about it if I were you.

Where is your cite?

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/4/06 | Gudrun Schultz


Posted on 10/04/2006 4:42:23 PM PDT by wagglebee



LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

See the CDC’s report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5445a1.htm

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

HIV/AIDS Rates Rise Sharply in Canada: 51% of Infections Among Homosexual Men
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06080305.html

Homosexuality Triggering HIV Escalation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111812.html

Medical Journalist Says Reliance on Condoms Spreads HIV/AIDS
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062304.html

Officials Prepare for Gay Outgames by Amassing Emergency HIV Drugs
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06073102.html

[jillian]

Where is your cite?

California Homosexual Organization Admits HIV/AIDS is “Gay Disease
LifeSiteNews ^ | 10/4/06 | Gudrun Schultz


Posted on 10/04/2006 4:42:23 PM PDT by wagglebee



LOS ANGELES, California, October 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease.”

According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men.

The ad campaign, which is also running in magazines, is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.

In 2005 US health officials reported an alarming eight percent increase in HIV infection rates in one year alone among homosexual and bisexual men. The Center for Disease Control also warned that a survey of 15-29 year old men who engaged in homosexual activity “reported that the proportion of unrecognized HIV infection was as high as 77 %.”

A report by the Public Health Agency of Canada, released in August 2006, revealed a sharp increase in HIV/AIDS infections, with 51 percent of infections found in men engaging in homosexual activity.

See the CDC’s report:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5445a1.htm

See related LifeSiteNews coverage:

HIV/AIDS Rates Rise Sharply in Canada: 51% of Infections Among Homosexual Men
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/aug/06080305.html

Homosexuality Triggering HIV Escalation
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05111812.html

Medical Journalist Says Reliance on Condoms Spreads HIV/AIDS
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jun/06062304.html

Officials Prepare for Gay Outgames by Amassing Emergency HIV Drugs
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/jul/06073102.html

CDC only looks at this country. And lifesite.net doesn't count. ;)

Good try, though.

Now try looking at the numbers on an international basis (real numbers, not skewed numbers editorialized by a religious anti-gay site that talks about "fetal rights").

And then, if you're so inclined, you can look at the numbers of AIDS deaths versus deaths from other causes. I think you'll find that the hysteria with regard to AIDS is overstated, though the disease still needs to be addressed and, hopefully, cured.

[OCA]

CDC only looks at this country. And lifesite.net doesn't count. ;)

Good try, though.

Now try looking at the numbers on an international basis (real numbers, not skewed numbers editorialized by a religious anti-gay site that talks about "fetal rights").

And then, if you're so inclined, you can look at the numbers of AIDS deaths versus deaths from other causes. I think you'll find that the hysteria with regard to AIDS is overstated, though the disease still needs to be addressed and, hopefully, cured.

Didn't know this was an international board. Thought we were talking homos in America.

So anything religious is not kosher with you?

[Bubbalicious]

Silence? Apologists? Interesting. Tell ya what... in that oooooh scawy... link, go look at the transmission of HIV/AIDS through high risk heterosexual conduct....

Cheers. ;)

Be careful out there!

don't forget intravenous drug use :)

[OCA]

don't forget intravenous drug use :)

Hit the link before you speak, IV drug use isn't even close to male to male butt sex.

[Bubbalicious]

To answer your first and second question, "you get the help you need to be normal".

Secondly, men who have the urge to engage in sex with other men, is about as twisted of an urge as it is to want to kill someone. Both are unnatural urges. To act them out is the same thing. You're making a choice to do something that is WRONG!

your personal opinion.

[Ado]

Why not? You obviously have a problem with democracy. You want to dictate what people are allowed to think, and if they don't agree, you tell them to leave.

What makes you think your brand of intolerance is somehow better than those you are accusing of being intolerant?

I can live here and not tell people what to do behind closed doors,
& not make judgements about peoples' sex lives, and respect them
as contributing tax payers and equal citizens.

If that gives you an inferiority complex, maybe you need to
examine why.

But it probably would be easier for you to pack your bags.
Bye! I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year.

[Gunny]

I can live here and not tell people what to do behind closed doors,
& not make judgements about peoples' sex lives, and respect them
as contributing tax payers and equal citizens.

If that gives you an inferiority complex, maybe you need to
examine why.

But it probably would be easier for you to pack your bags.
Bye! I hear Venezuela is lovely this time of year.

I've earned the right to live here. What've you done lately? Besides tell people what they should think?

If you want me gone so bad, bring your bad ass on down here and move me; otherwise, just STFU about it.

As far as your argument goes, please point out specifically who said they cared what people do behind closed doors, and feel free to quote that person or persons.

[Bubbalicious]

please point out specifically who said they cared what people do behind closed doors, and feel free to quote that person or persons.

anyone who's said it's morally wrong obviously cares. Anyone upset about this general wanting the military ban lifted cares.

[Gunny]

anyone who's said it's morally wrong obviously cares. Anyone upset about this general wanting the military ban lifted cares.

I believe it is morally wrong.

I have posted twice my objection to gays being openly allowed into the military and why. Common sense and logic.

What consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own home is none of my business, and I don't propose to make it my business.

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about it being brought outside the privacy of the home and into the public domain.

But your assertion that people who believe it to be morally wrong and/or object to gays being allowed openly into the military obviously care what they do in the privacy of their own home is incorrect.

[Bubbalicious]

But your assertion that people who believe it to be morally wrong and/or object to gays being allowed openly into the military obviously care what they do in the privacy of their own home is incorrect.

I don't see how you can believe something's morally wrong and not care whether it ever happens.

[Pale Rider]

your personal opinion.

Yes, my opinion, and I admit that. Unlike some other *BIGOT* liberals here that love to state THEIR *opinion* as FACT.

[Gunny]

I don't see how you can believe something's morally wrong and not care whether it ever happens.

Why? I'm not doing it, nor am I predisposed to spying on my neighbors to see if they are.

[MtnBiker]

32 pages, :eek:

[Bubbalicious]

Why? I'm not doing it, nor am I predisposed to spying on my neighbors to see if they are.

I don't know why. That's for you to figure out. But it bugs you that people do it or you wouldn't have a moral problem with it.

[Missileman]

But we aren't talking about that. We're talking about it being brought outside the privacy of the home and into the public domain.


Don't you think it's ________(fill in the blank) [foolish, counter-productive, illogical, childish] to try to delude oneself into believing that if you don't see them, they don't exist?

I am as repulsed by the public display of affection between two men as you are. However, I'm willing to acknowledge that they have the same right to do so as any heterosexual couple and not wanting to see it, I don't watch.

[Ado]

I've earned the right to live here. What've you done lately? Besides tell people what they should think?

If you want me gone so bad, bring your bad ass on down here and move me; otherwise, just STFU about it.

As far as your argument goes, please point out specifically who said they cared what people do behind closed doors, and feel free to quote that person or persons.

How have you EARNED the right to live here more than me or
anyone else born here and who has worked here their whole lives?

If you need to make laws about who does what to whom
sexually, obviously you think about it and are concerned.

I'm letting you know that you and your condescending
attitude don't belong here.

You and your kind is on notice. You don't belong in our government,
in our workplaces, in our restaurants, in our schools, on our
playgrounds, in our neighborhoods, until you get out of other
peoples' business and start cleaning up your own act
and learn how to be a decent human being, and respect
all taxpayers & citizens as equals.

There is no room here for your kind anymore. Hit the road.

[Gunny]

I don't know why. That's for you to figure out. But it bugs you that people do it or you wouldn't have a moral problem with it.

Illogical.

I think something is morally wrong.

Somebody else is doing something I think is morally wrong in the privacy of their own home.

I don't see where this is supposed to "bug me." Again, I'm not doing something I think is morally wrong.

If that's how you think, it doesn't mean it's necessarily how others think.

[Bubbalicious]

Illogical.

I think something is morally wrong.

Somebody else is doing something I think is morally wrong in the privacy of their own home.

I don't see where this is supposed to "bug me." Again, I'm not doing something I think is morally wrong.

If that's how you think, it doesn't mean it's necessarily how others think.
Are you in favor of a Constitutional gay marriage ban?

Whether you engage in the activity is beside the point. I'm morally against child molestation. The idea disgusts me. I think sentences for that should be tougher all over. And the fact that it happens, just the idea in general, pisses me off. It doesn't matter one iota whether I engage in it or not.

[Gunny]

How have you EARNED the right to live here more than me or
anyone else born here and who has worked here their whole lives?


I didn't say I earned the right to live here more than you or anyone else. Learn to read.


If you need to make laws about who does what to whom
sexually, obviously you think about it and are concerned.

What law have I supported or "made: about who does what to whom sexually?

I'm letting you know that you and your condescending
attitude don't belong here.

You and your kind is on notice. You don't belong in our government,
in our workplaces, in our restaurants, in our schools, on our
playgrounds, in our neighborhoods, until you get out of other
peoples' business and start cleaning up your own act
and learn how to be a decent human being, and respect
all taxpayers & citizens as equals.

There is no room here for your kind anymore. Hit the road.

Quite the presumptuous twerp, you are. You have done nothing since opening your suck but jump to conclusions, when obviously you don't know a damned thing about me.

Not only are you ignorant and intolerant, but illiterate as well. There's never been room for your kind among educated people. Go find the Romper Room Board.

[Gunny]

Are you in favor of a Constitutional gay marriage ban?

Whether you engage in the activity is beside the point. I'm morally against child molestation. The idea disgusts me. I think sentences for that should be tougher all over. It doesn't matter one iota whether I engage in it or not.

I am not in favor of a Constitutional gay marriage ban. I am however, against identifying same-sex unions with the term "marriage", and I believe the issue should rest with the voters in each state.

None of which has anything to do with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

Whether or not I engage in the activity IS the point. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is just as it implies ... consenting adults.

Child molestation obviously is not between consenting adults, and is in fact an adult abusing a child. I would shoot a child molestor with about the same emotion I would a rattlesnake.

[Bubbalicious]

I am not in favor of a Constitutional gay marriage ban. I am however, against identifying same-sex unions with the term "marriage", and I believe the issue should rest with the voters in each state.

None of which has anything to do with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.

Whether or not I engage in the activity IS the point. What consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is just as it implies ... consenting adults.

Child molestation obviously is not between consenting adults, and is in fact an adult abusing a child. I would shoot a child molestor with about the same emotion I would a rattlesnake.

Okay so you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm talking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They think it's sick and wrong what gay people do with eachother in their bedrooms and they want it put a stop to. Legally. I'm sure you've heard of these people. Many of them are the same ones that got real upset when the USSC struck down state sodomy laws.

[Gunny]

Okayso you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm tlking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They care what gay people do with eachother in their own bedrooms and want it put a stop to. Legally.

You don't seem to be able to get past the part where I can believe something morally wrong without letting the fact that others do it "bug me."

I don't believe my morals belong in ANYONE's bedroom.

I'm not trying to preach; rather, explain myself. I will answer for MY sins. You will answer for yours. As long as your sins aren't interfering with my life in any way, that's between you and God. Not me, you and God.

If you ask me if I disapprove, I will tell you if I disapprove. But I have better things to do than concern myself with what consenting adults do behind closed doors.

[Gunny]

Okay so you don't have a moral problem with homosexuality then? Cool. I'm talking to the wrong guy. I wish you'd said so earlier and saved us both the time.
Others do have a problem with it.. They think it's sick and wrong what gay people do with eachother in their bedrooms and they want it put a stop to. Legally. I'm sure you've heard of these people. Many of them are the same ones that got real upset when the USSC struck down state sodomy laws.

I think you are confusing moral objection with self-appointed, overly-self-righteous religious extremists who think they should dictate every facet of everyone's life according to their extreme beliefs.

[retiredman]

"What law have I supported or "made: about who does what to whom sexually?"

duh.... the continued ban on gays in the military

[darin]

"What law have I supported or "made: about who does what to whom sexually?"

duh.... the continued ban on gays in the military

Dude? There IS NO ban on people who like to have sex with members of the same sex, in the military. There IS a ban on them OPENLY talking about their illness - or DISPLAYING a propensity to commit those acts. In other words - you can ENJOY having deviant kinds of sex; you just can't talk about it/brag about it. In OTHER words - keep that shit where it belongs, tucked away in your private life - OR seek help so you can QUIT. :)

[dirt mcgirt]

Allowing gays to serve openly in the military would destroy the esprit de corps -- the kinship that military people rely on to keep themselves and each other alive. No matter what you legislate, you can't legislate THAT, but you can legislate it out of existence.

No normal, alpha-male is going to trust a gay fully, and that isn't speaking of the ones who just openly hate gays.

The possible gain is not worth the detrimental effect it would have.
This is the classic argument of why gays shouldn't be allowed into the military. During peace time and in the 90's, the military was downsizing and the argument against allowing homos to serve openly into the military was pretty much non-debatable. However, circumstances are different today and the arguments for allowing homos to serve openly has a little more weight. If we do allow gays into the military then we are going to allow them to pick up some of the burden and the hardships placed on our military due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing gays to serve openly means that we would have more recruits, more translators, and less deployments for some Soldiers. I think the question being presented to some Soldiers today boils down to would I want to serve with an openly gay Soldier if it means that I don't have to go to Iraq for one or two more tours. For me, I'm married with kids and am a lot more accepting compared to when I joined the military straight out of high school. I would have had a huge problem with gay Soldiers serving openly back then especially since I was living in the barracks. But now it doesn't bother me and if it means that I can spend a year at home with my kids and wife instead of doing that 3rd tour in Iraq, I'd highly consider it.

[jillian]

Don't ask don't tell is a pretty good policy in general, not just the military

In another post, I said how much I hate those rainbow stickers on cars. Like I really want to know who is gay.

But, since some people insist on telling us what their sexual preferences are... let me suggest a few of my own (this should be fun!)

BONDAGE
ZOO-PHILE (this one could have a picture of a pony)
SCAT LOVER (a white bumper sticker with a brown streak down the middle)
FETISH
FOOT WORSHIPPER

but here's the one that would offend people the most

S T R A I G H T

Not for nothing, someone who has a foot fetish, matched with someone who doesn't mind that (even though it skeeves me), so what?


I think openness would be no different from exposure to any other group you've never had contact with. They'd be humanized. I think people in the trenches, backing each other up, working together with the type of comeraderie that is found in the military, would get to know and understand each other. They would become more than labels like "gay" or "straight" and sexuality would be only one aspect, and a pretty unimportant one at that, of the person. These arguments aren't much different from the arguments which were made when the troops were desegregated and I've never known of a military guy who came out a racist because someone who has your back, has your back, regardless of color. The same is true about gay troops, only they aren't allowed to talk about it. That's the only difference, because no one's saying gays can't serve, it's *openly* gay people who are subject to discharge.

So... the guy next to you in the trenches might be gay, you just don't know. :)

[darin]

If we do allow gays into the military then we are going to allow them to pick up some of the burden and the hardships placed on our military due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing gays to serve openly means that we would have more recruits, more translators, and less deployments for some Soldiers.

That's just not true. It's wild speculation at best.

Again - NOTHING prevents homosexuals from joining the Military. There are undoubtedly homosexuals IN the military.

The Law states:


Unless one of the numerous exceptions from 10 U.S.C. 654(b) applies, the policy prohibits anyone who has sexual bodily or romantic contact with a person of the same sex from serving in the armed forces of the United States, and prohibits any homosexual or bisexual from disclosing his or her sexual orientation, or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The policy also requires that as long as gay or bisexual men and women in the military hide their sexual orientation, commanders are not allowed to investigate their sexuality. :no: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dont_ask_dont_tell)

Therefore - Gays CAN serve - they just can't have sex with members of THEIR sex. :) (which makes them NOT gay, IMO - having an URGE to have sex with another man is NOT the same as 'having sex' with another man. Just like having an URGE to rob a bank doesn't make one a Bank-robber).

That said - even if 'openly gay' people were allowed to join, that 1/10th of the 1-3% of the population who is eligiable could very-well cause NORMAL people to resist enlisting/seeking commission.

Even if normal people did NOT reduce their rates of enlisting/commissioning, that 1/10th of 1-3% of the population who would consider joining would name little-to-no easement in the burden of forces.

ANOTHER thing to keep in mind...Homophiles promised gays would flock to courthouses like the Salmon of Capistrano after Gay Marriage laws were passed...hasn't happened, IMO. Therefore it's logical to conclude passing Homophile-appeasement regulations about enlistements/commissions would serve NO measurable purpose, except to frustrate soldiers already IN.

In my (not so) humble opinion, of course.

[darin]

Not for nothing, someone who has a foot fetish, matched with someone who doesn't mind that (even though it skeeves me), so what?


I think openness would be no different from exposure to any other group you've never had contact with. They'd be humanized. I think people in the trenches, backing each other up, working together with the type of comeraderie that is found in the military, would get to know and understand each other. They would become more than labels like "gay" or "straight" and sexuality would be only one aspect, and a pretty unimportant one at that, of the person. These arguments aren't much different from the arguments which were made when the troops were desegregated and I've never known of a military guy who came out a racist because someone who has your back, has your back, regardless of color. The same is true about gay troops, only they aren't allowed to talk about it. That's the only difference, because no one's saying gays can't serve, it's *openly* gay people who are subject to discharge.

So... the guy next to you in the trenches might be gay, you just don't know. :)


Pipedream, Jillian. And as a black man, it's SO COMPLETELY offensive to see people comparing RACE to sexual preference. There's no 'preference' or 'discovering who he REALLY is' for the Black Man.

[jillian]

Pipedream, Jillian. And as a black man, it's SO COMPLETELY offensive to see people comparing RACE to sexual preference. There's no 'preference' or 'discovering who he REALLY is' for the Black Man.

And evidence suggests that sexual preference is only one of many personality traits for which there is, at a minimum, a genetic predispostion.

My point was that exposure leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to tolerance. Tolerance leads to judging people on their own merits.

Wouldn't know the color of your skin, hon. It's a non-issue. I like or dislike people on their own merits. :thumb:

[darin]

And evidence suggests that sexual preference is only one of many personality traits for which there is, at a minimum, a genetic predispostion.


Uh - Jillian? Evidence suggests QUITE the contrary...that's why many of us are scratching our heads; we keep hearing YOUR camp shout things like "People are BORN Gay!" and "It's GENETIC" - without any credible evidence for your position.



My point was that exposure leads to knowledge. Knowledge leads to tolerance. Tolerance leads to judging people on their own merits.

Wouldn't know the color of your skin, hon. It's a non-issue. I like or dislike people on their own merits. :thumb:


But tolerance is BAD a lot of times - and again, it's not the PEOPLE most of us have a problem with. It's their behaviour. Their preference for distorted, un-natural, and harmful activities.

My skin is sorta an olive-color..not middle-eastern...more white than that.

:)

[jillian]

Uh - Jillian? Evidence suggests QUITE the contrary...that's why many of us are scratching our heads; we keep hearing YOUR camp shout things like "People are BORN Gay!" and "It's GENETIC" - without any credible evidence for your position.

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.


But tolerance is BAD a lot of times - and again, it's not the PEOPLE most of us have a problem with. It's their behaviour. Their preference for distorted, un-natural, and harmful activities.

My skin is sorta an olive-color..not middle-eastern...more white than that.

:)

I think ultimately we each have the right to determine the behaviors in which *we* engage. We aren't our brothers' keepers, so to speak. And something that exists between two consenting adults, and has no effect whatsoever on my life, isn't something in which interference can be justified.

My skin's olive, too. lol... the Belarusian blood thangy. ;)

[darin]

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.



OH MY GAWD...No way you just WROTE That!! LMAO!!!
Jillian - honestly, you've GOT to be joking....you HAVE to be joking..

Here's Just ONE exmaple of a PRO-GAY, NON religious article on the subject:

http://www.resurrection.org/Rejecting_the_Gay_Brain.html

Highlights:


The most famous of all the "gay brain" studies must surely be the research of Simon LeVay, who claimed that he discovered a modest but significant difference in the size of an already tiny section of the brain, the hypothalamus, in a group of dead straight and gay men. His 1993 book _The Sexual Brain_ is an effort at popularizing his theory that sexuality in all its forms is ultimately attributable to physical structures of our brains, everything from mere sexual orientation to preferences for specific kinds of sexual acts and positions. The many serious flaws in LeVay's research and conclusions have been pointed out repeatedly, as have the tentative and problematic nature of the other work that has been done on identifying the biological causes of homosexuality. For example, there was no way to tell from the brains LeVay studied whether the differences in brain structure were the cause or the effect of homosexual behavior. Moreover, there was no verifiable way to determine the men's actual sexual behavior, since they were dead by the time the research was done -- the assumption was simply made that the ones who died from HIV infection were homosexuals.


The wish is especially strong among gays and lesbians, who have of course long insisted that sexual orientation be understood as outside of the realm of individual choice, both because that is how so many of us subjectively experience our sexual desires, and also because the "no choice" argument is directly linked to claims for equal protection under civil rights laws. Such an essentialist understanding of homosexuality is the foundation of current mainstream gay and lesbian political self-representation. Proof of the biologically "hardwired" nature of homosexual desires, in the optimistic scenario of gay people and their progressive straight friends, must inevitably lead to greater acceptance and fair treatment.

However, the problem with the "no choice" position on homosexuality is that in order to be effective it requires us to forget about the important distinction between desire and behavior. The position implies that a desire one can't help feeling is a desire one is *entitled* to satisfy: thus because homosexuals can't help feeling same-sex attractions, they should therefore be allowed to act on those attractions. However, the logic of this argument cannot hold up to much scrutiny. While we may have no choice about our feelings and desires, we routinely and continually *do* exercise control over our actions. As the right-wing opponents of gay rights point out, just because you have a desire does not necessarily mean that you should act on it.




I think ultimately we each have the right to determine the behaviors in which *we* engage. We aren't our brothers' keepers, so to speak. And something that exists between two consenting adults, and has no effect whatsoever on my life, isn't something in which interference can be justified.

My skin's olive, too. lol... the Belarusian blood thangy. ;)

You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We each DETERMINE the behaviours in which we engage.

You're lost in your third sentence, lost or naive because homosexuality hurts MANY aspects of society; financially, morally, and takes a big chunk out of our collective common-sense.

[CockySOB]

All the *credible* information points the way I indicated. It's the religious-based stuff that's unreliable because it starts with a bias and skews numbers.

*groan*

The scientific evidence points to the possibility that human sexuality (including orientation) may have significant biological factors, as well as psychological and sociological factors. You choose to only embrace evidence which supports your position, and you seem to ridicule those who embrace other evidence which supports their positions. You are every bit the blind ideologue that those who claim that our sexuality is solely a choice are.

You start with your own bias (that homosexuality is a pre-determined aspect of our biology) and you proceed to cite only the statistics which support your bias, and you refute the validity of anything that might undermine your position. Can you not see the hypocrisy in your statement?

As I've been saying, science has not made any concrete determinations yet, and there seems to be enough controversy to make ideological statements suspect from the outset. Yes, that applies to my view of those who simply cite religious texts as well as those who treat inconclusive statistics and questionable scientific credentials as "fact."

[darin]

For the record: I'm not suggesting we aren't biologically or environmentally pre-dispositioned for an attraction to one or the other - I'm saying we ALL have the ability to choose to engage in homosexual behaviour - or NOT. :) NOT engaging in the practice means one is NOT homosexual.

[jillian]

OH MY GAWD...No way you just WROTE That!! LMAO!!!
Jillian - honestly, you've GOT to be joking....you HAVE to be joking..

Here's Just ONE exmaple of a PRO-GAY, NON religious article on the subject:

http://www.resurrection.org/Rejecting_the_Gay_Brain.html

Highlights:

Resurrection.org isn't a religious site? Come on, Darin. That's just goofy. I logged in to it and ALL it is is a religious site. But why would I check, right?

*shaking head*


[QUOTE]You hit the nail on the head with your first sentence. We each DETERMINE the behaviours in which we engage.

You're lost in your third sentence, lost or naive because homosexuality hurts MANY aspects of society; financially, morally, and takes a big chunk out of our collective common-sense.

Puleeeze. A gay relationship has no more effect on society than Brittany Spear's 18 hour marriage. I simply couldn't care less. And *that* is the point. You don't get to determine other people's "morality".

[darin]

Resurrection.org isn't a religious site? Come on, Darin. That's just goofy. I logged in to it and ALL it is is a religious site. But why would I check, right?

*shaking head*



You didnt read the article...that's lame.

The author is gay. That article has been re-printed on many sites.

http://eserver.org/bs/14/Sartelle.html

There's another re-print of the article.

Searching google will put that article on MANY pages.

Silly Jilli.




Puleeeze. A gay relationship has no more effect on society than Brittany Spear's 18 hour marriage. I simply couldn't care less. And *that* is the point. You don't get to determine other people's "morality".

So - More disease, More domestic violence, more immorality, Reduced years from life (gay people die, on average MUCH earlier), the lack of pro-creation ability....so many ways homosexuality hurts everyone.

[The ClayTaurus]

I wonder if a gay man would be just as prone to domestic violence in a straight marriage as a gay one.

[darin]

I wonder if a gay man would be just as prone to domestic violence in a straight marriage as a gay one.

A man isn't gay if he's not having sex with other men.

[jillian]

A man isn't gay if he's not having sex with other men.

You really believe that? :confused: