Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Thursday, February 18, 2010

Chosen for or by? This is an interesting little view. At lest good enough to start a discussion.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

ExpsRedemption

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Expsredemption,

Mulling your options?

Somoco has convinced me that he was just born stupid.

#3 I was actually born smart. I've just been dumbed down by a public education and society in general.

No LOD, not me. I know others might be. Wanted to make sure that those who were homosexual understood that they do have the capacity to enjoy their rights to marrying a person of the opposite sex and still be happy. I guess you can say that I am pro-choice here as I will advocate for that choice in a proactive way.

See, they have the same rights and capability to be happy and in love with a person of the opposite sex as any heterosexual person, they just choose not to.

I read somewhere that just 2% of gays in SanFran were born that way, and the other 98% just got sucked into it....

Re #5: You also have the choice to be with someone of the same sex, so why don't you?

#8

It is not my preferred status. I have chosen to love a heterosexual female, as I find her much more attractive (there is more to attraction than appearance) than someone of the same sex.

Also, logically it does not make sense to me to do that as I would prefer to have children, it only seems natural.

So, if it is 100% naturally occuring, why not look for a "cure"? What does homosexuality bring to the benefit of mankind table?(honest question) Is there a skill set lost by mankind if homosexuality is "cured"? If it could be "cured" during pregnancy, what would the loss to society be?

If you agree that homosexuality brings along certain benefits heterosexuality does not, then do you also have to agree that certain races of people bring their own benefits and drawbacks to society?

I am now prepared for the onslaught of attacks for my line of questioning. 3...2...1....

interesting questions.

Is homosexuality less healthy than heterosexuality? If so, why do we not approach it like other unhealthy incidences at birth?

This seems to me where you are going there Elcid. I may not agree, but it is interesting.

Leave those pretty boys alone. If they go straight, none of us dog-boys will ever get layed again.

So you do find men attractive, just not as much as women?

Are people born as homophobic creeps or do they have to learn that behavior???

Danni, interact with the article, not your emotions invoked by the article.

Thanks.

To #12 - Do you wish to oversimplify the context and meaning of attraction? Are we talking in terms of simply physical attraction? What kind of attraction are you talking about? I am talking about multiple facets of attraction. You seem to be one sided.

To #12 - Do you wish to oversimplify the context and meaning of attraction? Are we talking in terms of simply physical attraction? What kind of attraction are you talking about? I am talking about multiple facets of attraction. You seem to be one sided.

#15 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-18 02:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oops, meant #13.

"Danforth has convinced me that some people are just born gay."

It took me, the white guy in the civil rights march, to convince you?

10 seconds in a lesbian bar would've done the same.

"Wanted to make sure that those who were homosexual understood that they do have the capacity to enjoy their rights to marrying a person of the opposite sex"

In other words, Exps is willing to allow others rights he gets to take for granted, as long as they do exactly what he says and marry who he wants them to marry, rather than who they want to marry.

"What does homosexuality bring to the benefit of mankind table?"

Interior decoration and floral design.

"If it could be "cured" during pregnancy, what would the loss to society be? "

Even better would be a cure for bigotry and intolerance.

What exactly do those bring to the benefit of mankind?

"What does homosexuality bring to the benefit of mankind table?"

Population control. I believe that, as population increases, so does the percent of those born gay in an attempt by nature to try and control the growth.

I'm talking about the kind of attraction that leads to desires of intercourse.

"I'm talking about the kind of attraction that leads to desires of intercourse."

Oh, silly me! I thought you said, "Please pass the potatoes."

That would be a no there Ness.

"Wanted to make sure that those who were homosexual understood that they do have the capacity to enjoy their rights to marrying a person of the opposite sex"

In other words, Exps is willing to allow others rights he gets to take for granted, as long as they do exactly what he says and marry who he wants them to marry, rather than who they want to marry.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-18 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice select quote.

You don't seem to understand that if it is a choice that they make, they are the ones that opt out of the benefits, I don't opt them out of the monetary benefits. I think we should drop all monetary benefits anyway.

Sis this all about money again Dan? Last time we talked about this you made it all about the money.

If you are fighting for the "rights" and "benefits":

Are you willing to fight with me so that I can get the same benefits that an "African"-American, Native American, First Nations People, innuet and the like get for college?

Are you willing to help me fight against the affirmative action movement and stop people from getting jobs just because they fit a certain profile?

Nobody seems able to interact with the article and the potential incidence that they are making a choice rather than being born a specific way.

"Is it or isn't it [a matter of choice]?"
Honestly, I do not know.
"Does it matter?"
Not to me.
"Is sexuality something you can take off and put on like a hat?"
Doubtful.

"You don't seem to understand that if it is a choice that they make, they are the ones that opt out of the benefits"

What "choice" makes one ineligible for equality?

"Sis this all about money again Dan? Last time we talked about this you made it all about the money."

No, I didn't, and that shows how little you were paying attention. My wife and I got over 1,000 advantages the moment we said "I do", including legal protections, adoption privileges, assumptions at death, medical decisions, the right to be on the spouse's health care, and another 1,400 or so advantages, including monetary ones. For example, a gay couple pays into the SS system at the same rates as my wife and I, yet get nothing upon death of the partner, unlike my wife and I. Most important, however, is one group has been systematically denied the same legal super-protections that another group gets to take for granted.

Let me ask you again: how long have you been married?

"Are you willing to fight with me so that I can get the same benefits that an "African"-American, Native American, First Nations People, innuet and the like get for college?"

YOu seem not to realize that your perception of unfairness about those people getting benefits for college as a justification for being unfair in a different manner to a different minority group is pretty poor logic.

So if you're not at all attracted to men, what choice did you really make?

" the potential incidence that they are making a choice rather than being born a specific way."

On my first day of kindergarten, I vividly remember looking across the room and seeing a very cute, blue-eyed blonde girl, the kind so blonde her eyelashes are blonde. I was smitten. What the heck did I know about choice? All I knew was...she was pretty!

To hear my gay friends talk about it (and I've been in the arts over a generation and --- gasp! --- there are some gays in the arts), the same thing happened to them, except the blonde happened to be of the same gender.

My advice: get to know at least three gay people. They're nowhere near as scary as all you homophobes pretend.

To me it is inescapable, the only reasons some people object to gay marriage are (1) they believe their religion forbids it or (2) they just want to punish gay people for being gay. I can understand the first group but disagree with their desire to inflict their religious beliefs on others but I don't really have the same desire to be understanding at all of the second group. They are just mean spirited and deserve to be ignored.

(1) they believe their religion forbids it or (2) they just want to punish gay people for being gay

There is also group (3): their egos are so big that they think they are SO attractive that anyone will lose all control around them.

Group (4): People who fear the temptation

Group (5): People who fear their spouses will fall to the temptation

Group (6): Unhappy bastards who just need to hate

Danforth, I don't mind them getting the benefits, or everyone losing theirs so that things are fair, that is not a problem.

I don't care if they let them get married, I don't care if they give them civil unions, I don't care if they cancel marriage for heterosexuals.

However, if there is a system set up, and a certain circumstance is set up in which people get benefits if they take part in that circumstance, and there are individuals who choose not to take part, it should be no problem that those who choose not to take part, do not get benefits.

They can still be happy and have the benefits and still be equal.

Unless you think that affirmative action, special ethnic benefits for college and ethnic privilege are equally devised.

So, what do you guys think about the study if it were true?

I told you how long I was married Danforth.

You also have not defined love either.

If you really want to know how long I have been married you can figure it out from post #28

What do I think of the study? I can quote the article which sums up my point of view perfectly:

Is it or isn't it? Does it matter?

It matters a little bit. If they make the choice to participate in something outside what is considered marriage, should we really change it to cater to them when it was their choice to go against it in the first place?

Even better would be a cure for bigotry and intolerance.

What exactly do those bring to the benefit of mankind?

#21 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-18 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, your intolerance and bigotry need to be cured for sure. Starting with yours towards any position that differs from your own.

Answer the fucking question douche - what does homosexuality bring to the table of humanity that heterosexuality does not? Your response of interior decoration and floral design indicates your own intolerance and bigotry described above.

If you cannot find an answer then the search for a "cure" would be worthwhile to mankind? Has not a fucking thing to do with tolerance. How tolerant are you of cancer idiot. Not trying to compare homosexuals to cancer - before you libtards jump to the conclusions I know you will.

I am not debating that homosexuals contribute to mankind - I am ASKING if it is only because they are homosexuals that they contribute. If they were heterosexual, is a benefit lost? Its an honest debate. If you can't engage in it, your a tool.

should we really change it to cater to them when it was their choice to go against it in the first place?

Yes we should. Tyranny of the Majority and all.

"Rights are not there to protect the popular thought because the popular thought doesn't need protection; rights are there to protect the thought you hate the most"- Larry Flynt

Not gonna answer my #30? No surprise.

Its an honest debate. If you can't engage in it, your a tool.

#38 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

somehow your tone does not lead one to believe you are interested in an honest debate.

what does homosexuality bring to the table of humanity that heterosexuality does not?

Did you know that Alexander The Great was a homo?

I did not!

I suppose humanity could have done fine without him though.

would you like the rest of the list of Great Homo's? It is pretty long!

Alexander the Great
*Macedonian Ruler, 300 B.C.
Socrates
*Greek Philosopher, 400 B.C.
Sappho
*Greek Woman Poet, 600 B.C.
Hadrian
*Roman Emperor, 1st-2nd c.
Richard the Lionhearted
*English King, 12th c.
Saladin
*Sultan of Egypt and Syria
Desiderius Erasmus
*Dutch Monk, Philosopher
Francis Bacon
*English statesman, author
Frederick the Great
*King of Prussia
Lord Byron
*English poet, 18th c.
Walt Whitman
*U.S. poet, author, 19th c.
Oscar Wilde
*Irish author, 19th c.

Marcel Proust
*French author, 20th c.
Colette
*French author, 20th c.
Gertrude Stein
*U.S. poet, author, 20th c.
Alice B. Toklas
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Federico Garcia Lorca
*Spanish author, 20th c.
Cole Porter
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Virginia Woolf
*English author, 20th c.
Leonard Bernstein
*U.S. composer, 20th c.
Pope Julius III
*1550-1555
T.E. Lawrence
*English soldier, author, 20th c.

Jean Cocteau
*French writer, director, 20th c.
Charles Laughton
*English actor, 20th c.
Marguerite Yourcenar
*Belgian author, 20th c.
Tennessee Williams
*U.S. Playwright, 20th c.
James Baldwin
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Andy Warhol
*U.S. artist, 20th c.
Michelangelo
*Italian artist, 15th c.
Leonardo Da Vinci
*Ital. Artist, scientist, 15th c.
Christopher Marlowe
*Eng. Playwright, 16th c.
Herman Melville
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Horatio Alger, Jr.
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Tchaikovsky
*Russian composer, 19th c.

Willa Cather
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Amy Lowell
*U.S. author, 19th & 20th c.
E.M. Forster
*English author, 20th c.
John M. Keynes
*English economist, 20th c.
Ludwig Wittgenstein
*Australian mathematician, 20th c.
Bessie Smith
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Noel Coward
*English playwright, 20th c.
Christopher Isherwood
*English author, 20th c.
Pier Paolo Pasolini
*Italian film director, 20th c.
Yukio Mishima
*Japanese author, 20th c.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*U.S. stateswoman, 20th c.

Imagine how much better they could have been if they did CHOOSE to be fags- the Right.

Julius Caesar
*Roman Emperor, 100-44 B.C.
Augustus Caesar
*Roman Emperor
Harvey Milk
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Bayard Rustin
*U.S. Civil Rights activist, 20th c.
James I
*English King, 16th-17th c.
Queen Anne
*English Queen, 18th c.
Marie Antoinette
*French Empress, 18th c.
Melissa Etheridge
*U.S. Rock Star, 20th c.
Pope Benedict IX
*1032-1044

Pope Benedict IX *1032-1044!!!?

wow!

May Sarton
*U.S. author, (1912 - 1995)
Edna Ferber
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Elton John
*English Rock Star, 20th c.
Margaret Fuller
*U.S. writer, educator, 20th c.
Montezuma II
*Aztec ruler, 16th c.
Peter the Great
*Russian Czar, 17th-18th c.
Langston Hughes
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Pope John XII
*955-964
Madame de Stael
*French writer, 17th-18th c.
Martina Navratilova
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c.
Greg Louganis
*U.S. Olympic swimmer, 20th c.
Billie Jean King
*U.S. tennis star, 20th c

Roberta Achtenburg
*U.S. politician, 20th c.
Barney Frank
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Gerry Studds
*U.S. Congressman, 20th c.
Hans Christian Andersen
*Danish author, 19th c.
Tom Dooley
*U.S. M.D. missionary, 20th c.
J. Edgar Hoover
*U.S. director of the FBI., 20th c.
Frida Kahlo
*Mexican artist, 20th c.
Suleiman the Magnificent
*Ottoman ruler, 15th c.
Rock Hudson
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz
*Mexican author, 16th c.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
*U.S. author, 19th c.
Candace Gingrich
*Gay Rights activist, 20th c.

Margarethe Cammermeyer
*U.S. Army Colonel, 20th c.
Zoe Dunning
*U.S. Military Reservist, 20th c.
Tom Waddel
*U.S. M.D., Olympic star, 20th c.
Kate Millet
*U.S. author, 20th c.
Janis Joplin
*U.S. singer, 20th c.
Rudolf Nuryev
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Waslaw Nijinsky
*Russian dancer, 20th c.
Ernst Rhm
*German Nazi leader, 20th c.
Dag Hammerskjold
*Swedish UN Secretary, 209th c.
Aristotle
*Greek philosopher, 384-322 B.C.
Paula Gunn Allen
*Native American author, 20th c.
Angela Davis
*U.S. political activist, 20th c.
June Jordan
*U.S. author, activist, 20th c.
Rainer Maria Rilke
*German poet, 20th c.
James Dean
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Montgomery Clift
*U.S. actor, 20th c.
Baron VonSteuben
*German General, Valley Forge
Edward II
*English King, 14th c.

Is Donner having some sort of seizure?

A link would work so much better than span Donner.

We need a "spam" flag.

I saw a few surprises on that list. Could we have done without them? Maybe... Would they have been just as good at what they did if they were heterosexuals?

Maybe...but, I doubt it. Your sexuality is intrinsic to who you are.

A link would work so much better than span Donner.

#53 | Posted by kanrei

It was done to make a point...do you think Elcid would get it from a link? Probably not if it wasn't one he approved of.

do you think Elcid would get it from a link?

Do you think he is going to get it from 8 posts of spam or do you think he will skip the massive wall of text like the rest of us?

Here is a hint: nobody other than you read any names on those lists. We all just scrolled past them and commented on something relevant and not cut and pasted.

So OK ELCID... your turn in this honest debate you asked for.

Think humanity could have done without all those Homo's? Think they could have done what they did for humanity if they denied their true sexuality and got the "cure"?

Kanrei-

You don't have to read if if you don't want but they are now there for reference.. If Rcade thinks it was spam he'll take care of it for you... I think it makes the point very well.

Personally I look forward to the day when the U.S. treats gays like everyone else, lets them marry, whatever, so that they can STFU about their gayness, and ElCid can stop projecting his closeted homosexuality on these countless homo threads.

Do you think he is going to get it from 8 posts of spam or do you think he will skip the massive wall of text like the rest of us?

#57 | Posted by kanrei

I don't think he will ever "get it" I think the list is impressive...and I am not even gay.

Elton John is gay?

Not gonna answer my #30? No surprise.

#40 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-18 03:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Some choices may not be difficult to make, but they are still choices.

I may not have a desire to get hit by a car, and have a desire to not get hit by a car, yet I still choose not to get hit by the car.

You seep to be unable to understand choice.

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-18 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well Danforth, I mean Donner, you seem to miss that not all of those people were homosexual, rather some of them were bisexual, which would render more toward choice than it would toward "born that way".

Also, did their homosexuality help them accomplish what they accomplished? What does homosexuality have to do with Alexander the Greats accomplishments?

Citing people with great accomplishment who just happen to be bi-sexual or homosexual does nothing toward what Elcid was asking.

What is the intrinsic benefit of being homosexual over heterosexual is what I think he is asking. Y our emotionalism in response to the question caused you to miss the mark.

You seem to be unable to see what was primary and secondary to the situation. It happens that they accomplished a lot and were bi or homosexual, not that they accomplished a lot because they were bi or homosexual.

Here is a hint: nobody other than you read any names on those lists. We all just scrolled past them and commented on something relevant and not cut and pasted.

#58 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-18 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

You would be incorrect. I read the list of names before even reading your posts suggesting that people would not read them. it is important to read as much as possible when in a discussion, unless of course you are going to oversimplify or intentionally mis-characterize the other persons argument(s).

I think the list is something to behold, however I don't think it has much effect on the question.

Re#64

I disagree. Your sexuality is intrinsic to who you are and how you deal with situations. It colors how you view the world. I would say the world would be be a very different place without them just the way they were.

I don't know if being a homosexual is what made Alexander Great but I bet he would have been very different if he wasn't.

I don't know if being a homosexual is what made Alexander Great but I bet he would have been very different if he wasn't.

#66 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-18 04:17 PM

Less likely to lead men around by the spear, perhaps.

#66 |

A number of people on your list are questionable. Bacon was married, and almost married twice, it is a fringe belief that he may have been inclined more toward men. At the most he would be bi-sexual. It seems as though he never acted on that though and therefore did not really impact his life as far as we can tell. He was happily in love with females.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it is answering the question that elcid is asking.

What is the benefit of homosexuality is what I think he is getting at, not what have homosexuals that is beneficial.

or more likely maybe it gave him some great insight into the workings of the mind of men and allowed to flourish as a great leader.

So you could choose to have sex with a man? I call bullshit on mechanical grounds.

So you could choose to have sex with a man? I call bullshit on mechanical grounds.

#70 | Posted by ness_gadol

maybe not... but a man can choose to have sex with you!

The question is whether or not this thread gives Expsredemption a chub.

It certainly does not. It is pretty depressing actually to see that most individuals cannot rationally speak about something without letting their emotions drive their reactions. For instance, Danni and Ness sometimes Danforth as well, even though he mostly plays advocate or ignorant.

When they hear something they don't want to hear they freak and become distracted from the progression being discussed.

#69 | I doubt it. It would only give him an outlook at the bi or homosexual male mind and therefore would be a negative effect toward the most likely majority of soldiers who were heterosexual.

Alexander: "Lets all stop and have a tea-party, why take the women of the other village, women ... ick..."

Soldiers: "Man, why are we following this idiot, we have missed so many scores so far because of his freaking tea parties. Time fur Mutiny..." And thus how Alexander the Great began to fall.

"I told you how long I was married Danforth."

No you didn't, you skirted around the issue. Now that I think of it, weren't you about to get married a few months ago?

And yet you went on that jag yesterday telling folks what marriage was all about?

Specifically: how long have you been married?

Here's the irony the liberals have given us: they want generally to insist that gays are genetically that way, and that the right to terminate a pregnancy is absolute. In this world, eventually, scientists will find a test for the "gay" gene, and will present their findings to pregnant women in the same way they do with Down's Syndrome. And she'll have a choice to make: would I like to have grandchildren one day? Is it right to bring a gay child into the world that's so full of animosity and closed-mindedness toward gays? Would it be the humane thing to do to terminate the pregnancy?

It's coming. By embracing the dogma of total "reproductive choice", gays are rushing toward their own extinction.

" did their homosexuality help them accomplish what they accomplished?"

Well in Michaelangelo's case, of course. Had he not been interested in the male bodies at the marble quarry the would would not have The David.

"A number of people on your list are questionable. Bacon was married"

So was Rock Hudson.

"By embracing the dogma of total "reproductive choice", gays are rushing toward their own extinction."

All the more reason to end the bigotry now.

"would would" = world would

Elton John is gay?

#63 | Posted by Corky at 2010-02-18 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag (X)Finally realized why Elton called him his 'tiny dancer.'

#69 | I doubt it. It would only give him an outlook at the bi or homosexual male mind and therefore would be a negative effect toward the most likely majority of soldiers who were heterosexual.

Folks- sexuality was very differently back then. It was more common that older men had sexual relations with young male teens not older males with older males.

What is accepted as "normal" changes with the passage of Time.

What may seem normal to some of us today, the gay love of one man for another, in ancient days was frowned upon as a threat to masculinity and the structure of society. Love between grown men and teenage boys was the only proper way for two males to love each other. The men vied to be chosen by the boys as their lovers and the boys, ideally, were educated and led into adulthood by their lovers. Their love was an erotic love, and it often had its sexual aspects, but, as many of the philosophical and oratory texts show, men were expected to refrain from penetrating their beloved boys.

Donnagirl is creeping me out.

Nothing emotional about it. I just think you're talking out of your ass and don't realize it because you lack the experience that would quickly demonstrate how absurd your position is.

Crackfish isn't gay, no matter what everyone says.

You can tell by just looking at him.

www.tvgasm.com

What may seem normal to some of us today, the gay love of one man for another, in ancient days was frowned upon as a threat to masculinity and the structure of society. Love between grown men and teenage boys was the only proper way for two males to love each other. The men vied to be chosen by the boys as their lovers and the boys, ideally, were educated and led into adulthood by their lovers. Their love was an erotic love, and it often had its sexual aspects, but, as many of the philosophical and oratory texts show, men were expected to refrain from penetrating their beloved boys.

#80 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-18 04:58 PM

Expsredemption is trying to decide if he wants to pop a woody over that one.

Where did you get that from, that would be helpful to know so that it could be evaluated.

Also, is this homosexuality or bisexuality? Thirdly, of what benefit is it intrinsically?

All the more reason to end the bigotry now.

#77 | Posted by Danforth
* * *

Funny. It wouldn't be pro-life conservatives aborting their gay child, but pro-choicers. Is it "bigoted" to abort a Down Syndrome child? Is it racist to ask why far higher abortion rates occur in minority households?

I don't have a horse in this race. I just appreciate irony wherever I can find it. When conservatives wonder how many scientists and engineers are snuffed out because of abortion, they're laughed at. In a few years, will we be wondering how many floral arrangers and Queer Eye extras abortion has claimed?

I give it . . . 5 years, 10 at the most.

#82, that is your choice to make. What is your problem with what I am saying? Are you upset that I did not choose to agree with you? Maybe it is because I was born that way that I can 't agree with you. In fact if I stole it would be because I was born that way, if I were an alcoholic it is because I was born that way. If i were a murder it would be because I was born that way.

Just because something is there does not mean you choose it.

"would I like to have grandchildren one day?"

Gays can have children, or adopt, much like when one parent or the other is infertile. That "parent" who would be deciding to abort would be making that decision based on the fear of how Neanderthals treat homosexuals.

"It wouldn't be pro-life conservatives aborting their gay child"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

"Just because something is there does not mean you choose it."

Tell us about the day you "chose" to be straight.

Okay. Lemme ask you: should it be legal to abort a child because he is gay?

Homosexuality is not a choice. What I chose NOT to do is pretend.

I do not Choose who I am attracted to.

AGAIN, I say unto you

It's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

I hope you have a daughter, I hope she marries a gay closteted man who cheats on her because of people like you forced him into the closet!

That would teach him a lesson, Tyger. If he doesn't think much of gays now, that would sure fix things.

that was directed to

#87 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-18 05:08 PM | Reply

Donnagirl is creeping me out.

#81 | Posted by cookfish at 2010-02-18 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:getting flashbacks again

every action has an equal and opposite reaction

Reap as yea sow

When was Anne Heche lying to herself? When she was straight? Or when she was a lesbian? Or when she was straight again?

"Lemme ask you: should it be legal to abort a child because he is gay?"

That depends. Should it be legal to abort a child if a Republican or a Democratic gene is found?

"When was Anne Heche lying to herself? When she was straight? Or when she was a lesbian? Or when she was straight again?"

Stop dreaming RiR. You have no chance with her either way.

RE:85

sorry I usually post the links too

www.gay-art-history.org

That depends. Should it be legal to abort a child if a Republican or a Democratic gene is found?

#97 | Posted by Danforth
* * * *

I think abortion should be illegal in every circumstance, except when the life of the mother is at mortal risk.

If your friend said that she learned that her son was going to be born gay, and sought an abortion, would you have a problem with that?

"Lemme ask you: should it be legal to abort a child because he is gay?"

That depends. Should it be legal to abort a child if a Republican or a Democratic gene is found?

#97 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-18 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me ask you both a question. Should it be legal to abort a child if there is no medical reason to abort the child?

"When was Anne Heche lying to herself? When she was straight? Or when she was a lesbian? Or when she was straight again?"

#96 | Posted by rightisright

Why do you care, weirdo?

Likes fat trucker types

#100 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2010-02-18 05:25 PM | Reply | Flag

I've told you too many times now, I don't want to fuck you!

"except when the life of the mother is at mortal risk."

Including rape and incest?

"If your friend said that she learned that her son was going to be born gay, and sought an abortion, would you have a problem with that?"

Yeah. The same problem I would have if she was doing it because he was a Republican, or left-handed, or green-eyed.

#103, well he cares because it is incumbant upon his argument. If you are born either homosexual or heterosexual, then Ann Heche was born three times. The other alternative is that people choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.

When was Anne Heche lying to herself? When she was straight? Or when she was a lesbian? Or when she was straight again?

#96 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-18 05:23 PM | Reply | Flag

It's just NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

I don't get it. Who cares?

"Should it be legal to abort a child if there is no medical reason to abort the child?"

The alternative is empowering the state to make a decision that should be personal.

I'm not pro-abortion, I'm anti-government imposition. I'd like to see as few as possible, and I believe the only path to that is frankness, embracing reality, and education. Other countries with lower abortion rates do it via an open and honest discussion with their children, as well as admitting obvious facts, like kids are going to have sex.

I've told you too many times now, I don't want to fuck you!

#104 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-18 05:28 PM | Flag: River in Egypt

"If you are born either homosexual or heterosexual"

Why can't like Anne Heche be born bisexual?

I mean...you chose, didn't you? That means you were born bisexual.

I would say that we are born non sexual if anything. I understand what you are staying, and I would be willing to admit to that, I can accept that all individuals are born bisexual as it is the even ground. I don't know if it is accurate enough but it will suffice for the time being.

I know most people here will want to simplify the conversation down to the most immediate understanding rather than looking at it from the broadest perspective.

Maybe Anne Heche was born confused. It's just funny that in a thread about whether or not homosexuality is a choice or genetic, I have to hear rants from the gay crowd about how there's no question about it, then it's suddenly nobody else's business why someone seems to choose anything and everything.

Couldn't care less one way or the other, frankly. Gays seem to want it both ways--they shouldn't be judged because they were born that way, but want to have their lifestyle and choices celebrated. Whatever.

#111

Also, that quite out of context is misleading. I was talking from the "born that way perspective."

Quote in full:
well he cares because it is incumbant upon his argument. If you are born either homosexual or heterosexual, then Ann Heche was born three times. The other alternative is that people choose to be homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual.

So Danforth and Donner, honestly, what is the downfall of the homosexual argument, the difficult point to get through? Keep it to that side.

You can both answer in the same post if you desire.

"Gays seem to want it both ways--they shouldn't be judged because they were born that way, but want to have their lifestyle and choices celebrated."

Celebrated = treated equally.

"what is the downfall of the homosexual argument, the difficult point to get through?"

Equality.

They want what my wife and I get to take for granted.

I don't get it. Who cares?

Because there's a shrill little group of people who want society to redefine the meanings of institutions as they've been understood for thousands of years--- while at the same time advocating for recognition from the state as a specific class of citizen worthy of special treatment and benefit.

How seriously the homosexual should be taken in pursuit of these things is entirely dependent upon whether or not his unfortunate "sexual preference" is an innate affliction----or if he's just being a disgusting fucking pervert too self-absorbed to control his sick impulses like the rest of us have to.

Going way back in the thread, it is not at all shocking that JeffnSkidmark has quick access to a webpage that shows you how to suck your own dick.

Couldn't care less one way or the other, frankly. Gays seem to want it both ways--they shouldn't be judged because they were born that way, but want to have their lifestyle and choices celebrated. Whatever.

#113 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-18 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag

Can you please stop contridicting yourself!

You say you don't care about it but you have a lot to say!

You CLEARLY don't understand there is NO "lifestyle" we ALL make different choices about how we live our lives, we don't sign a pledge to live like every other gay person.

If you say so.

or if he's just being a disgusting fucking pervert too self-absorbed to control his sick impulses like the rest of us have to.

#118 | Posted by Jak_Se_Mao at 2010-02-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag

So you have "sick impulses?

Sounds like you are the pervert, not me!

"worthy of special treatment and benefit."

Bullshit. You can't name one "special treatment" gays want that my wife and I don't already get.

"or if he's just being a disgusting fucking pervert too self-absorbed to control his sick impulses like the rest of us have to"

And there you have it, folks: Jak Se Mao admitting he's in the closet.

So you have "sick impulses?

Not "sick".

I'd an impulse to sit on my ass all day and drink beer instead of go to work.

But I suppressed it, and did what I had to do.

Why should anyone's particular perversion be treated any differently?

Think humanity could have done without all those Homo's? Think they could have done what they did for humanity if they denied their true sexuality and got the "cure"?

#59 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-18 04:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

To the first part - it is unanswerable and you knew that going into your typing fit. I did not ask about specific individuals rather specific traits or skills. If you want to compare apples to apples, do you think humanity could have done without all the heteros? I can absolutely answer NO. (for none other than the pro-creation aspect). Hardly a creative reason for saying heterosexuals bring more to the table than homosexuals but a measureable one.

Your list, though highly questionable in some cases, is pretty small in the context of history. What trait is common amongst them? Please tell me the skill that came from their homosexuality?

If you want to offer up something to do with creativity - that makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bullshit about "denying" their sexuality. What the hell does that have to do with their contribution to society?

Traits Donnerboy. What traits or skills? Does homosexuality bring better reasoning skills along with it? More intelligence? More creativity?

Back to your list - don't know where you got it (your little black book maybe?) - but you missed John Lennon.

Can you please stop contridicting yourself!

You say you don't care about it but you have a lot to say!
* * * *

That's not a contradiction. I have a lot of opinions on a lot of things. Doesn't mean I'm personally involved.

I think Greece should be kicked out of the EU, for example, as an example to the other EU members, as well as to reduce the spreads on EU CDS. Doesn't mean my life will be impacted in the slightest, whatever happens. See the difference? Seriously--do you really think I care about the personal life of Anne Heche? Do I have to be related to her to bring her up in conversation without you getting into a hissy fit about it? But if homosexuality isn't a choice, as you say, explain why in some very famous cases, it seems to be.

"what is the downfall of the homosexual argument, the difficult point to get through?"

Equality.

They want what my wife and I get to take for granted.

#117 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-18 05:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

No No Donner, what is the negative aspect of THEIR argument, not what is stopping them from getting their perfect argument across to people.

What is their arguments weakness.

Going way back in the thread, it is not at all shocking that JeffnSkidmark has quick access to a webpage that shows you how to suck your own dick.

Damn Joe. That is the second time today someone on this blog has made me laugh out loud.

"No No Donner"

Are you a fucking moron?

Oh wait...yes, you are.

"What is their arguments weakness."

Idiots like you.

Couldn't care less one way or the other, frankly. Gays seem to want it both ways--they shouldn't be judged because they were born that way, but want to have their lifestyle and choices celebrated. Whatever.

#113 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-18 05:39 PM | Reply | Flag

You say you don't care in the first sentenance, then make a judgemental statement that implies you believe we "make a choice" and live a "lifestyle" and "should be judged" which means you have a negative impression of gay people.

That is by defination a contridiction.

You DO care, and you do have "personal" involvement or you would not speak out against gay people.

No No Donner, what is the negative aspect of THEIR argument, not what is stopping them from getting their perfect argument across to people.

What is their arguments weakness.

#127 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-18 05:59 PM | Reply | Flag

Did your pill kick in?

Speaking of homosexuals ...

Dick Cheney bounded up on stage after his daughter finished her speech at CPAC and received a rousing ovation.

Did Cheney repeat his line "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter"? Do they even remember who ran up our debt and deficits so high? Do they care?

Conservatives have conveniently and incredibly short memories ...

Back to your list - don't know where you got it (your little black book maybe?) - but you missed John Lennon.

#125 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

yes I DO miss John Lennon but I don't think he was really gay. I think you are referring to rumors he had "gay tendencies" or are you referring to the fact he was a bit feminine at times? He had no qualms bucking the system and I think he would have been clear and up front about it if he was.

As for the list I think it makes it's own point. If all or even most of those on the list we homo's and we had "cured" them Humanity would have lost a great deal.

What traits make them special? What skill comes from being a homosexual?

I am not even sure it is a valid question but let me try anyway...Well, I guess we can start with the skill of being honest with yourself about yourself and who you are not what someone else thinks you should be. Loving yourself for who you are so that you can truly love others is a great skill. From that many other skills follow naturally. I think a lot of heterosexuals have that skill too but I know a lot of them that don't.

They hate themselves and they hate others who are "different" yet who are happy with themselves.

Love brings more love and hate brings more hate to the world.

BTW- the list is not my list...I should be so lucky to have known even one of them personally.

Let's turn the question around and see if it works...

Please tell me the skill that came from their heterosexuality? I don't think it really makes sense to ask that does it?

I should be so lucky to have known even one of them personally.

well... except for that Nazi guy maybe

Speaking of homosexuals ...

Dick Cheney bounded up...

my brain jst exploded

DONNER

No doubt Cheney will be railing about deficits soon.

Conservatives suffer from chronic CRS (Can't Remember Shit) - unless it's Clinton and Carter deflections they threw around here until January 20, 2009.

Now they whine about 'Bush deflections', even though Bush and Cheney had no problem running up debt and deficits - with Cheney stating "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter". LMAO

Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II account for $10 Trillion of our national debt.

You DO care, and you do have "personal" involvement or you would not speak out against gay people.

#130 | Posted by tygersilver
* * *

You're right. Wanna come over and spoon?

You're right. Wanna come over and spoon?

#137 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-18 07:07 PM | Reply | Flag

No thanks!

Fine Dan, if you don't want to be honset and talk about the limitations of the homosexuals point, I will tell you the limitations of the heterosexual point of view, so far as it concerns THEMSELVES.

The heterosexual arguement is limited based on what circumstances by which one becomes homosexual. If it is by birth, then it cannot be controlled by the individual as well as in other circumstance. If it is by choice, then it effects the requirement to cater to their cause as they would be the ones who chose to do something different than what was already taking place.

Example:
a)"African"-American applies for college and gets special grant based on skin color and ethnicity. White child in same economic situation with same needs cannot access that grant even though he could not help but to be born white. Not fair.

b) the ability to pick race and ethnicity are available, with the knowledge that there is a program that gives incentives to "african"-american individuals. One chooses to be "african"-american, undergoes some difficulty but receives special aid. One chooses not to be "african"-american, does not get the aforementioned aid, however knew before hand that this would be the case. Fair

Example 2:
a) There are requirements (possible for all to accomplish) that must be met in order to receive special funding for college, one student meets said requirements and gets funding, other student (knowing that if he does not make the requirements there is no funding) does not meet said requirements, complains, sues and then is given special funding. Not fair

b)There are requirements (Possible for all to accomplish) that must be met in order to receive special funding for college, one student meets said requirements and gets funding, other student (knowing that if he does not make the requirements there is no funding) does not meet said requirements and therefore gets no funding. Fair.

If homosexuals or any group gets to make a choice, and knows that they choice they make may not give them access to benefits that another group has been offered, one should not cater to the cause. Otherwise every special interested group would get the same thing, everyone would be rewarded or penalized for the same thing regardless of whether they meet requirements or not.

No doubt Cheney will be railing about deficits soon.

Conservatives suffer from chronic CRS (Can't Remember Shit) - unless it's Clinton and Carter deflections they threw around here until January 20, 2009.

Now they whine about 'Bush deflections', even though Bush and Cheney had no problem running up debt and deficits - with Cheney stating "Ronald Reagan proved deficits don't matter". LMAO

AU- his minions are already here...

www.drudge.com

DONNER

And they're just as wacko as Sarah Palin.

Of course they had no problem bringing up Clinton every chance they got when Bush was in office!

GOP: The Party of NO! (Responsibility)

For all those who claim that homosexuality is a choice... why don't you put that to the test?

Go to www.redtube.com - it's a fairly decent porn site with a diverse selection. Everything from run-of-the-mill missionary to Japanese robotic penetration machines and Brazilian Fart Porn. Find a video featuing women. Preferrably lesbians or female masturbation... no cock. Just to keep it controlled. Time how long it takes you to get a boner. Don't masturbate, just turn off the video once you have a boner, let it go away, and do something else to clear your mind for a bit. Some laundry. Whatever.

Go back and look in the gay section. Find a video with no women in it and time how long it takes you to get a boner. Don't worry, if you're uncomfortable with your sexual identity, remember you're doing this for science. It doesn't make you gay. Once again, resist whatever urges you may have to masturbate.

Now a bit of musing... Did you have to decide to get a woody when you watched the women? Did you have to fight the urge to stand at attention while watching flaming butt sex? Think on that one for a second.

"Did you have to decide...."

I imagine a not a few persons in prison had to. Or do you think they were all gay to start with?

That would be one of those infamous yes/no questions.

But I'm sure it's all just well and good if done in moderation.

I imagine a not a few persons in prison had to.

I see where you're going, but I don't think it's a valid comparison. Choosing to allow rape to prevent violence upon your person is not the same as self identifying from youth as gay. Surely you can agree with that.

I guess what I'm saying is that someone who was previously married, had kids, robbed a bank, and came out queer would be more a result of abuse than sexuality.

"Choosing to allow rape...."

I'm sure that happens. But what about men who are just horny and frustrated? You don't think that happens? And isn't that a choice?

I've heard some startling stories this year from a young sailor having done sea duty. Not all of his shipmates can possibly be gay.

"Not all of his shipmates can possibly be gay."

those that didn't go homo found new and exotic uses for the onboard exhaust funnels.

But what about men who are just horny and frustrated?

OK. I get you now. I have to agree that is indeed a choice. But could it not also be that sexuality is mutable? It's like the old cartoon joke where the really hungry characters hallucinate that the other is really a baked ham or can of beans.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

new and exotic uses for the onboard exhaust funnels.

I heard a story about something like that from an ex-Navy friend. According to him some sort of vacuum pump was involved.

I completely agree that sexuality is mutable. All available evidence points to that. So how does the genetic theory of fixation fit into that?

I mean---If sexuality is genetically plastic in expression---That knocks great gaping holes into more than one PC point of view.

Maybe someone has had a different experience...

Every gay guy I know or knew has been a fatty. Why is that?

"Every gay guy I know or knew has been a fatty. Why is that?"

Uhh, because you have a preference for fat dudes?

Uhh, because you have a preference for fat dudes?

#156 | Posted by NerfHerder at 2010-02-18 10:44 PM

My preferences notwithstanding, I drummed for the local theatre production of "school house rock," and met lots of gay guys. They were all cool guys n all, don't get me wrong, but every one was fat. Just wondering if there's a tendency for the homosexual community to also be chubby.

If sexuality is genetically plastic in expression---That knocks great gaping holes into more than one PC point of view.

I don't follow you. If you're referring to the presence of a pervasive either/or dichotomy, I guess give me an example.

If sexuality is genetically plastic in expression---That knocks great gaping holes into more than one PC point of view.

You apparently don't understand the meaning of the term "plasticity". Phenotypic plasticity is a just the capacity for an organism to change aspects of its phenotype in response to changing conditions or stimuli. It is by no means a conscious act.

If there is phenotypic plasticity in sexual orientation, "becoming" gay would be analogous to your body producing more red blood cells after you spend time at high altitude. You don't have any say in whether you acclimatize to altitude or not. You are born with the ability to do so.

I don't follow you.

That's because Zed doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about half the time.

"Fine Dan, if you don't want to be honset and talk about the limitations of the homosexuals point..."

The "limitations of the homosexuals point" is the same "limitation" as the black person's point during segregation: none at all. The question is whether one group should be treated under the law as second-class citizens.

"The heterosexual arguement is limited based on what circumstances by which one becomes homosexual"

Unless you "became" heterosexual, that's bullshit. Were you born bisexual? Do you still feel it's a choice for you to be gay or straight? Tell us about the day you "chose", or do you still have to choose every day?

"Otherwise every special interested group would get the same thing"

Equality? Why does that threaten you? You rail on about African-Americans getting advantages you seemingly didn't get, yet you're more than willing to turn around and do unto others what you've admitted you wouldn't want done unto you: deny them advantages you have. Since you've professed in the past to being a Christian, you've obviously entirely missed the point.

"If it is by choice, then it effects the requirement to cater to their cause"

Why? What choice does someone make that makes them ineligible for equal rights under the law? There's no crime someone can commit where they lose their right to marry. Not murder, or theft, or adultery, or fraud, or any other crime. Only via something that isn't a crime in any of the 50 states: being gay.

For all those who claim that homosexuality is a choice... why don't you put that to the test?
Go to www.redtube.com - it's a fairly decent porn site with a diverse selection. Everything from run-of-the-mill missionary to Japanese robotic penetration machines and Brazilian Fart Porn. Find a video featuing women. Preferrably lesbians or female masturbation... no cock. Just to keep it controlled. Time how long it takes you to get a boner. Don't masturbate, just turn off the video once you have a boner, let it go away, and do something else to clear your mind for a bit. Some laundry. Whatever.
Go back and look in the gay section. Find a video with no women in it and time how long it takes you to get a boner. Don't worry, if you're uncomfortable with your sexual identity, remember you're doing this for science. It doesn't make you gay. Once again, resist whatever urges you may have to masturbate.
Now a bit of musing... Did you have to decide to get a woody when you watched the women? Did you have to fight the urge to stand at attention while watching flaming butt sex? Think on that one for a second.
#143 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-02-18 09:28 PM

The only reason this test is even possible is thanks to the internet. Most people would never have access to video pornography, and it instantly became an internet staple. The reality is that Christian puritanical and fundamental abuses retard sexual growth for generations and it's now completely obvious that pornography, internet and otherwise doesn't generally harm communities. Your test is not only a standard for sexual interest or capacity, but also testimony to our technological success over fundamental hypocrisy and it's sexual dysfunction.

[straight-faced] I would love to know the honest data from your study, but I imagine it's not too far off from what is already common-sense regarding human sexuality.

he said "butyes", heh heheh.

Is there a skill set lost by mankind if homosexuality is "cured"? If it could be "cured" during pregnancy, what would the loss to society be?

#10 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-18 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Broadway musicals and fabulous fashion design

so it would be a net gain

Is homosexuality a choice?

No.

The existence of bisexuals and the prison sex phenomenon notwithstanding.

Those who would refuse to recognize gay folk's civil rights need to believe that is a choice so they continually float the notion that being gay is a choice despite all the overwhelmingly incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Be Well.

Ya can't choose to be a common tater rather than a dick tater?

Ya can't choose to be a common tater rather than a dick tater?

Yeah, but mostly Spud is just a speck-tater.

Be Well.

speck-tater.....sounds like a size problem.

You don't seem to understand that if it is a choice that they make ...

You're willing to conclude that sexuality is a choice, based on the fact that you linked the first page on Google for the term "is homosexuality a choice?" The author of your piece is a random Suite 101 user whose evidence for her claims is random observations from high school.

For people who favor actual science over random web pages, there's significant evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality.

Going way back in the thread, it is not at all shocking that JeffnSkidmark has quick access to a webpage that shows you how to suck your own dick.
#117 | Posted by JOE

Watch it, Joe. I got erased from the thread for simply reprinting what Jeff wrote and making an observation that it seemed, well, weird.

If sexual preference is entirely genetically fixed, that presents larger society with some intereresting dilemmas in regards to how to deal with a wide variety of individual behaviors they now punish as being matters of conscious, evil choice.

Homosexuality was among that group not very long ago.

"There's significant evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality..."

Sure. There's also more than significant evidence for things that modify that flat statement.

I find it fascinating that, in environmental situations where homosexuality must obviously be a choice for many, that obvious and everyday fact gets glossed over.

Oh---Just in passing---If I read ZOMBIE right---And of course that's simple to do---No matter WHAT manner of sexual expression you engage in, and no matter WHAT your conscious understanding of environment and experience of emotion is---You NEVER have any control, much less ANY awareness, of what you are doing.

That's pretty damned stupid.

Who cares if homosexuality is a choice or not, zed? Why do you you care if one guy wants to suck another guy's dick?

It's not for me, but I don't give a shit if someone else wants to engage in it -- be it by choice or design.

ou don't seem to understand that if it is a choice that they make ...

You're willing to conclude that sexuality is a choice, based on the fact that you linked the first page on Google for the term "is homosexuality a choice?" The author of your piece is a random Suite 101 user whose evidence for her claims is random observations from high school.

For people who favor actual science over random web pages, there's significant evidence of a genetic basis for homosexuality.

#167 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-19 07:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Listen, I do not have an assigned position, I am here for the debate. If you want to assign a position to me (that would be asinine for you to do) feel free, but it simply shows that you and Dan and others are not willing to look at it in the case that you can be wrong. You make your positions known (unless you inform otherwise) and therefore stick to them with no inclination to change no matter what evidence is shown. This little article is just to bring up discussion, not be proof of any one position. Don't be as assumptions as Danforth Rcade, you will quickly become an unintentionally new Nazi murdering middle aged man who lost his job.

Anyway, with your example dealing with genetics, people have the genetical disposition to be an alcoholic as well, but even though the genetic possibility is there they still have to choose to be an alcoholic. It involves action, they choose to pick up a drink, they don't have to pick up a drink.

Even much of genetic predisposition is a based on choices if it is going to become a reality. As Danforth said about being born nonsexual (he says bisexual) I can see that taking place, as we develop different capacities upon our choosing even though we may have genetic predispositions.

I keep getting this equality nonsense from Danforth, yet he is not willing to fight against affirmative action and special college funding. IFF it is a choice then they are the ones that opted out of the benefit. You do not have to reward those who opt out of something that they are entirely able to take part in if it wasn't for their choice. I don't know how that does not make sense to people.

Some things are set, if you do something different than what is set, then you don't get the benefits. New home buyers get a benefit if they meet the requirements for the 8,000 dollars. If you do not meet the requirements, you do not get the 8,000 dollars.

I am sure people who do not meet the requirements would like the 8,000 dollars and they could not control how the program was set up, so should they get the 8,000 dollars as well?

There's also more than significant evidence for things that modify that flat statement.

So what? If you believe that sexuality is influenced by genetics, then you refute the argument that it's entirely a choice.

To the people who think it is a choice: When did you choose heterosexuality? What made you choose it? Is it possible that someday you might change your mind?

Who cares if homosexuality is a choice or not, zed? Why do you you care if one guy wants to suck another guy's dick?

It's not for me, but I don't give a shit if someone else wants to engage in it -- be it by choice or design.

#173 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-19 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

Goat, it is an issue of principle. If it is a choice it changes the argument of equality and the raving on the part of social justice and civil rights. Instead of someone being bigoted (if it is naturally occurring that individuals are homosexual) it would just be a situation where people just don't decide to broaden the scope of a program for people who opted out of it, willingly.

It becomes an issue of, do we give everything to everybody and become more of a communistic country (which is fine) or do we stay the same way we are (which is fine).

You do not have to give all things to all people, especially when things have been set for years and all of a sudden someone chooses to behave differently and then wants the same benefits they were completely capable of receiving if they had just chose differently. If this happens, then rules and requirements slowly mean absolutely nothing.

There's also more than significant evidence for things that modify that flat statement.

So what? If you believe that sexuality is influenced by genetics, then you refute the argument that it's entirely a choice.

To the people who think it is a choice: When did you choose heterosexuality? What made you choose it? Is it possible that someday you might change your mind?

#175 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-19 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

I chose heterosexuality when I understood sexuality, its purpose and function and had a desire for a mate and children. It was common sense to me that a man was made for a woman. Eventually emotional, physical, sexual and other desires formed through more intentional interaction with the other sex. Before that I had no real sexual desire for either sex. A state of nuetral.

I then made a choice.

In regard to changing my mind later, anything is possible, however I am quite happy with the choice that I made and tend to stick with things after I make my choices and find there is no reason to change my mind.

Listen, I do not have an assigned position, I am here for the debate.

Fine, but the link you chose is not particularly open-minded or insightful. Sexuality is a complex subject, but I think anyone who actually knows gay people ought to recognize that they didn't make a conscious choice one day to be attracted to the same sex. There's definitely a scientific basis for the belief that genetic factors play a role in the sex we are attracted to.

... people have the genetical disposition to be an alcoholic as well, but even though the genetic possibility is there they still have to choose to be an alcoholic.

Alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholic. They choose to drink or not. There's a difference. An alcoholic who stops drinking for 30 years is still an alcoholic at the end of that period.

I would not expect someone to cater to my choices if there was something already established prior to my choice.

. If it is a choice it changes the argument of equality ...

How is one guy who sucks a dick less equal than one who likes to munch carpet? I admit the former is way creepier in my eyes, but if he's not harming anyone how does his choice of what sexual organ he puts his mouth or tongue into make him less equal?

Alcoholics don't choose to be alcoholic. They choose to drink or not. There's a difference. An alcoholic who stops drinking for 30 years is still an alcoholic at the end of that period.

Wrong. They do choose to drink, and then they choose to keep drinking even when it is ruining their life and the lives around them. Each drink they pick up, the make the choice to pick it up off the table or bar or whatever they pick it up off of.

Someone with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism can drink normally if they can practice self control. They do not have to become an alcoholic. Alcoholic is a term that has a specified definition.

Alcoholics make the choice to be alcoholics when they over drink and continue to over drink for an extended period of time until they are deemed an alcoholic. They did make that choice. After they stop, the fact that they are still an alcoholic is the consequence of their choice to drown themselves in fermented drink.

Even if it is a choice, I think that the focus on who gay people are attracted to clouds the issue. Its more important to understand who they are NOT attracted to. This understanding makes arguments that they have opted out of traditional marriage fall flat. It isn't true that they could have just as easily opted for heterosexual marriage because they couldn't do it with the requisite degree of enthusiasm that heterosexuals take for granted.


Someone with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism can drink normally if they can practice self control.

Since this not 1933, you might want to look into this a little deeper. That's about the time the "character defect" self control BS began to be recognized as BS.

How is one guy who sucks a dick less equal than one who likes to munch carpet? I admit the former is way creepier in my eyes, but if he's not harming anyone how does his choice of what sexual organ he puts his mouth or tongue into make him less equal?

#180 | Posted by goatman at 2010-02-19 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

It doesn't make him less equal, it make the issue of special incentives to one group not an issue of equality and unfair bias, but rather an issue of choosing not to partake of those benefits.

Marriage as it is defined is a right for each individual. If they do not marry someone of the opposite sex, then they would be opting out of that right. I don't consider marriage a right, but a privilege so this doesn't matter to me really.

The point is, when someone makes a choice not to get special money, we do not have to give them special money. It would be nice if we did, but there is no need to for the part of equality.

and all of a sudden someone chooses to behave differently

#176 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

This is the problem right here. This guy thinks that homosexuality was invented sometime in the past few decades purely for the reason of challenging the establishment.

There is no reasoning with such a person.

I admit the former is way creepier in my eyes,

But is it any creepier than a portly balding middle aged man taking nude self portraits on the beach and sharing them with us?

Since this not 1933, you might want to look into this a little deeper. That's about the time the "character defect" self control BS began to be recognized as BS.

#183 | Posted by TedBaxter at 2010-02-19 09:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

Well I am sorry if people are such weak individuals that they cannot say "hmm, I know I am predisposed to alcoholism, if I have a drink I can only have just one or two)and then manage to prevent themselves from becoming a vomiting pants pissing drunken mess that is a sad state of affairs.

People have control over their actions. They still choose whether they are going to be an alcoholic or not. If you don't drink, you cannot be an alcoholic. If you are predisposes and yet just drink one beverage on occasion and control yourself, you are not an alcoholic.

You can't control things that you are predisposed to Ted? So you have a predisposition to being overweight, you didn't make the choice to eat a 20,000 calorie diet each day and become morbidly obese?

Since this not 1933, you might want to look into this a little deeper.

No kidding. I'd love to see Exp run that idiotic notion by some alcoholics. Alcoholics can't "drink normally." If they could, they wouldn't be alcoholics.

When I drink, I can take it or leave it at any time. Other people in my life take a drink and immediately go out of control with it.

That's the reality. People who claim otherwise, as if alcoholism is merely a character defect they can cure if they practice moderation, are in severe denial of reality.

But is it any creepier than a portly balding middle aged man taking nude self portraits on the beach and sharing them with us?

I'm not sure. I'd have to see the pic, but probably not

#185 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 09:42 AM | Reply | Flag

That is incorrect. This is an IFF (that is if and only if) ... then discussion. If it is a choice, then this is the why these things are not true..

It would be wrong to victimize those who do not recognize your choice when you did in fact make a choice.

It is a different story to be upset with people who victimize someone for something that they cannot control.

That is the point being discussed here.

Is the inequality rage unjust because they cannot control their position, or is it a non argument because they chose their position. That is what this is about.

If you read, you would understand that I did not take a position in terms of objectively but only subjectively for the sake of this discussion.

The point of the discussion is to find out how it would impact the issue of homosexuality and rights. At least on my part.

You actually believe that you CHOSE to be straight?

You can sit there and honestly say that you remember making a conscious decision that you would never have sex with another male?

You are so full of shit.

They cannot CHOOSE to be alcoholic. They CAN choose to be a practicing alcoholic or not.

Something in there that I sense but can't quite point to is that you are alcoholic and are wanting to convince yourself that you are not. Because it's only weak losers are alcoholic.

Ahh, Goat. You've seen the pic.

You can sit there and honestly say that you remember making a conscious decision that you would never have sex with another male?

He didn't say never. He's reserving the right to choose to become a homosexual later.

It must be interesting to live in a world where nothing you do is influenced by genetics. So much freedom. I think I will choose today to have blue eyes instead of brown ones.

Are you talking about the one I posted of myself? I didn't think so because 1) I am not portly, 2) I haven't even begun to bald, I have a full head of thick hair, and 3) I didn't take it.

Are we talking about the same photo or not? If so, you stand corrected.

When I drink, I can take it or leave it at any time. Other people in my life take a drink and immediately go out of control with it.

That's the reality. People who claim otherwise, as if alcoholism is merely a character defect they can cure if they practice moderation, are in severe denial of reality.

What is it a disease that takes over the control of their hands and mouths that disables their brains from saying, "hey idiot, stop."?

I have an alcoholic living in my house until he gets his life together. He has been going through the classes for a long time. He got tired of people blaming it on a "disease" rather than taking responsibility for their actions. He asked me one day if I thought it was a disease. I told him no. They may have an addictive personality, but it can be learned to be controlled as you don't give up everything, you have to learn moderation and balance. He has begun doing so and found it much better than sitting there and blaming it on some "disease" when he is the one who picked up the successive series of drinks.

Now I understand and have sympathy for the alcoholic, because I understand that it is difficult for them to have that control and almost too late after they have given in to it for years a a time, however difficulty is never an excuse. Sometimes we have to do difficult things. That is a part of being mature.

It is difficult to practice self control, however that is no excuse for a lack there of and a blaming of your lack of self control on a "disease" that does not have the capability to make you pick up another drink and pour it down your throat.

That is the point being discussed here.

I disagree. So far, the discussion has been:

You: Gays choose to be gay.

Everyone else: No, that's not quite how it works....

You: Since gays choose to be gay, X....

Everyone else: Um, were you listening? I just said...

You: And since they make this choice, it makes total sense to deny them equal rights.

Everyone else: WTF? Are you listening?

You: I don't understand why no one agrees with me that homosexuality is a choice.

I need an explanation for what my gay friend said:

"When I came out of the closet, ALL my hetero friends were supportive. When I decided to stop engaging in homosexual behavior, ALL my gay friends were angry, one even threatened violence."

WHY would that be?
Could it be that the gay community cannot "tolerate" individual choice and responsibility in these issues?

Well, I guess we can start with the skill of being honest with yourself about yourself and who you are not what someone else thinks you should be. - DANFORTH

WTF? Heterosexuals don't do this? You have taken a valid discussion and turned it into an equality discussion - which has nothing to do with the topic of the post.

Fact: Homosexuals have a harder time being accepted than heterosexuals in America and maybe the entire world.

Fact: America, and the world, is populated by human beings. Human beings are flawed and will never as a group become perfectly unselfish, unbiggoted, completely accepting individuals. (sorry liberals this is truth - on both sides of the aisle).

Theory: Homosexuality is a genetic trait and not a choice.

Supposition: If it is a genetic trait can it be "cured"?

Question: If it can be "cured" and human beings are going to be more accepting of heterosexuals than homosexuals (as proven throughout history and again is not going to change given we are flawed beings), why would you not have your child "cured"?

Question: If everyone has their child "cured" does humanity lose certain skill sets not found in heterosexuals?

Question: Would you chose to be homosexual?

Could it be that the gay community cannot "tolerate" individual choice and responsibility in these issues?

#198 | Posted by kirk at 2010-02-19 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

See "Chasing Amy".

I stand corrected. Must admit I didn't study it at great length, other than to ask "why?".

So I just stick with trending portly and middle aged.

See? Win, win.

You can sit there and honestly say that you remember making a conscious decision that you would never have sex with another male?

He didn't say never. He's reserving the right to choose to become a homosexual later.

It must be interesting to live in a world where nothing you do is influenced by genetics. So much freedom. I think I will choose today to have blue eyes instead of brown ones.

#194 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-19 09:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

This would be incorrect also. I did not say that things are not influence by genetics. I am also not arguing that the case is definitely that they choose to be homosexual, but rather, what are the ramification if it were their personal choice.

There are many things that we may have genetic predisposition to, but need our actions in order to accomplish. Just because I am more prone to be heavier, does not mean that I have to be heavier. I can control that. Same with Alcoholism, if one is prone, they can still control it, as it is dependent upon their action whether they become that or not. If it is the same with sexuality, you may have the propensity to be sexual, however in what action you take with your sexuality is your choice. Even genetic behavior is dependent upon learned behavior.

It must be interesting to live in a world where nothing you do is influenced by genetics.

"Kakko ii, da na?" would say my buddy Eriko.

They may have an addictive personality, but it can be learned to be controlled as you don't give up everything, you have to learn moderation and balance.

If the person living with you is an alcoholic, I think it is extremely bad advice to tell them they can learn to drink in moderation.

That's not been the experience of people in my life at all. They either abstain from drinking entirely or they fall off the wagon and hurt their lives. There's no middle ground.

So I just stick with trending portly and middle aged.

You got the "middle age" right. (I'm 54) One out of four ain't bad for you, teddy.

He asked me one day if I thought it was a disease. I told him no. They may have an addictive personality, but it can be learned to be controlled as you don't give up everything, you have to learn moderation and balance. He has begun doing so and found it much better than sitting there and blaming it on some "disease" when he is the one who picked up the successive series of drinks.

IMO, the "disease" label to alcoholism isn't so much about what the alcoholic is experiencing as much as what the people close to the alcoholic are experiencing.

It's similar to living with someone with cancer....you have no control over this affliction, how it destroys this person, how it affects their behavior, attitude, and the direction the disease takes them. You can be supportive and loving but in the end, alcoholism tears a person up (like cancer can) and you have little control. You can't just yell "stop having cancer!!!". Too many people try that tactic with alcoholism.

(I'm 54)

Damn...that's old...

;)

Whatever. Creepy part is you'd post it in the first place.

the "disease" label to alcoholism isn't so much about what the alcoholic is experiencing as much as what the people close to the alcoholic are experiencing.

I disagree. All the alcoholics I know are tormented by their need to drink. It's almost like it's the hardest part to talk about: They know that their actions are hurting others, but they still can't kick the habit.

They may have an addictive personality, but it can be learned to be controlled as you don't give up everything, you have to learn moderation and balance.

If the person living with you is an alcoholic, I think it is extremely bad advice to tell them they can learn to drink in moderation.

That's not been the experience of people in my life at all. They either abstain from drinking entirely or they fall off the wagon and hurt their lives. There's no middle ground.

#204 | Posted by rcade at 2010-02-19 10:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

I do not egg him on to drink. I do not ask him to drink. I do not drink in his presence. He has no desire to drink again as he sees it having no purpose at this point. However he does not see it is a disease and things it is a cop-out to his own personal responsibility . Self control is for other aspect of his life that he has addictive tendencies. He has learned to control it.

You can't give up everything, thus you have to learn to control yourself, don't take an extra drink, don't have a cigarrete, don't go out to eat another night this week, don't buy those extra clothes, don't etc. etc. Exhibit control.

Also, what do you say about Kirk's point?

I disagree. All the alcoholics I know are tormented by their need to drink. It's almost like it's the hardest part to talk about: They know that their actions are hurting others, but they still can't kick the habit.

#209 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 10:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Difficulty is no excuse and I don't think that alcoholism should ever be compared to the struggle that a cancer patient goes through.

Do they or do they not choose to pick up the drink, and the next, and the next?

Who's fault is that?
If they didn't pick it up, would be get drunk (given that no one is picking it up for them and you are not going to play some semantic game here)?

It is quote obvious that they want the drink, it is not against their will. Alcoholism cannot make you drink against your will, as you have the capability to not pick up the drink.

Exhibit control.

Don't have sex for the rest of your life.

After all, according to you gay people can just decide to not have sex with same-sex partners at any point in time.

Show us control.

Difficulty is no excuse

I hope you realize that the more you post, the more credibility you lose.

If you didn't realize that, consider this a "heads-up."

All the alcoholics I know are tormented by their need to drink. It's almost like it's the hardest part to talk about: They know that their actions are hurting others, but they still can't kick the habit.

I understand, believe me. But what you describe is difficult for many people to call a "disease" which was my point. The "disease" part of it is more closely related to how alcoholism affects others near the afflicted.....just like other diseases do. I know the disease label hasn't been created just for that purpose and that it is meant to be directed towards the affliction itself.

It's just my experience that the "disease" part of this affliction makes more sense when you apply it to the loved ones living with the afflicted.

Also, what do you say about Kirk's point?

I think it's silly. His pal announced he was gay, then later told his gay friends he "decided to stop engaging in homosexual behavior"? Perhaps his gay friends were upset because he treated their sexual orientation as if it was simply "behavior" they could decide to change. Since they have faced bigotry all of their lives based on that premise, and some of them probably have relatives who think they can unlearn gayness, they took it personally. What a shock.

Ness, Why is exred.losing credibility? He does make sense. I have a weight problem, my parents have a weight problem. Do I blame my parents for the way I look. (no) I am the one who choices whether to work out and eat properly. I cannot blame them for the bad choices I make. Would you agree or disagree?

#216 | Posted by John610fan at 2010-02-19 10:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

John, you have obviously been dealt a bad hand in the game of life. How can you resist that twinkee?You deserve a job, retirement and healthcare benefits on us. IT IS NOT YOUR FAULT! - The left.

Exhibit control.

Don't have sex for the rest of your life.

After all, according to you gay people can just decide to not have sex with same-sex partners at any point in time.

Show us control.

#212 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 10:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

Difficulty is no excuse

I hope you realize that the more you post, the more credibility you lose.

If you didn't realize that, consider this a "heads-up."

#213 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 10:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

What you fail to realize is that some individuals can separate the emotional from the rational when discussing something. I am not putting in any of my personal beliefs, personal approaches, or personal feeling.

I am discussing it from a different point of view in order to understand the implications.

It seems to me that you are the one that does not understand that this is a discussion, This is what takes place on this board. People talk about things, hopefully from different viewpoints than they hold in order to better understand all facets of the discussion so as to come to a more informed idea wherever they may land.

If you are not open to ideas changing, don't discuss, if you are not open to finding something you believed your whole life to be wrong, don't discuss.

It is pretty simply. Nothing I am saying is stand alone or complete. I am speaking objectively in terms of the control thing. I sympathize with people and I understand that everyone undergoes similar struggles, however objectively it comes down to the fact that difficulty is no excuse and we need to make sure we do as much as possible to exhibit control when it comes to our own personal responsibility.

There is a subjective position, however I am not arguing from that here today. I am offering up a different side.

I do not have to be emotionally tied to my arguments to. It takes away from understanding what others are saying.

You ask questions I answer them and all you say is "bullshit" because I didn't give you the answer that you wanted me to give you.

I can see homosexuality being a choice, I can also see it being something out of their control. I can also see everyone being born almost sexually nuetra with the faculties to be either or. No problem there.

I am willing to take either side at any time. However here since everyone is emotionally approaching the argument from the "homosexuals are born that way and it is inequality taking place" side, I took the opposite.

If it is a choice, what happens? Can it be inequality when the system was set up the way it was, not out of disdain for the homosexual group, but simply for the purpose of helping families with children.

Ultimately alcoholics choose to take a drink. They pick it up, they pour it down, they control whether they get drunk due to the volume of alcohol they consume. This is a fact.

If you know you are doing something that is in your physical control, you can stop it. It may be difficult, but that does not excuse you from it.

Nass, I have exhibited control in not having sex until I was married. There were plenty of opportunities with my future spouse, plenty of times we wanted to (because that is how our genetics commanded in some peoples minds) however, we chose not to, knowing the consequences of those actions.

I don't see what your point in 212 is. Even if I said I was going to do that, you would say "bullshit" and even if I did do that, and tried to prove it you would say "bullshit."

I sympathize with people in difficult situations, and difficult lives, however it is not an excuse for bad negative behavior if negative behavior is undertaken.

...what do you say about Kirk's point?

Kirk's got a point now?

News to Spud!

* scans thread *

I need an explanation for what my gay friend said:

"When I came out of the closet, ALL my hetero friends were supportive. When I decided to stop engaging in homosexual behavior, ALL my gay friends were angry, one even threatened violence."

WHY would that be?

First off, just cos ALL the guy's friends who sed anything openly were supportive doesn't mean they all were.

Secondly, by choosing to stop having gay sex the guy is basically saying that he feels there is something immoral about having gay sex.

How could any gay person in good conscience "Support" that nonsense?

Finally choosing to stop having gay sex in no way, shape or form means yer friend has stopped being gay as you've claimed before.

K?

Be Well.

Re #216:

Do I blame my parents for the way I look. (no)

Exps is trying to write off sexuality as a lifestyle choice similar to what kind of underwear you buy. No offense to you, but it's bullshit.

Ness, toke a read of 218 and start learning how to exhibit self control in terms of your emotional clouding of the issue. You don't even understand what I am saying or why I am saying it.

Here is how the discussion goes:

#1: If it is a choice...
#2: It isn't a choice!!!!!!
#1: You can't really say that, but if it is a choice...
#2: It isn't a choice!!!!! It will never be a choice!!!! Inequality!!!! Bigot!!!!!! ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!! Na, na na na, na na na na. ....

This is why the discussion is going nowhere, because you are unable to look at the argument from the other side of the aisle. You refuse to think that you might be incorrect.

I clue as to whether it is that they are born that way or choose to be homosexual. However I do wonder and have opinions on what the impact of that would be on the equality issue and the fairness issue.

How about this:

IF IT IS A CHOICE, we still live in a country dedicated to FREEDOM of choice and equal rights for all. Counter THAT!

If you are not open to ideas changing, don't discuss, if you are not open to finding something you believed your whole life to be wrong, don't discuss.

That's awesome. Seriously, I get a kick out of this.

Nothing I am saying is stand alone or complete.

You don't say?

I sympathize with people

No, you don't.

~TL;DR interlude~

If you know you are doing something that is in your physical control, you can stop it. It may be difficult, but that does not excuse you from it.

And why the hell should a gay person not enjoy gay sex just because it makes you feel icky? Give me an honest answer to that.

Nass, I have exhibited control in not having sex until I was married.

Good for you.

however it is not an excuse for bad negative behavior if negative behavior is undertaken.

You have yet to show that homosexuality is negative behavior.>

I clue as to

I have no clue as to ***

Ness,
I think that over simplify his argument. I am not sure you can say that since he said he was just taken the other side, because more people were on the later. I cannot be sure what the right answers is but I know that when it comes to making choices we as humans do show lack of control at times. If it is a Twinkie, a drink or sexual orientation. We make those choices daily sometimes we say "no" other times give in. Do you think it is wrong for a person to step up boundaries on what they can and cannot have?

Do you think it is wrong for a person to step up boundaries on what they can and cannot have?

This is a thread about homosexuality. I think it's wrong for a gay person to feel like their life is wrong or invalid simply because it makes others uncomfortable.

If you know you are doing something that is in your physical control, you can stop it. It may be difficult, but that does not excuse you from it.

And why the hell should a gay person not enjoy gay sex just because it makes you feel icky? Give me an honest answer to that.

Nass, I have exhibited control in not having sex until I was married.

Good for you.

however it is not an excuse for bad negative behavior if negative behavior is undertaken.

You have yet to show that homosexuality is negative behavior.>

#223 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 10:58 AM | Reply |

If you would step out from behind your emotional shield you would understand that some of these things are dealing with alcoholism and general control and others are dealing with homosexuality.

You seem unable to distinguish and understand the two.

Also from your quotation of me, which you seem to read over without understanding.

"if negative behavior is undertaken."

If negative behavior is undertaken, so unless YOU think that homosexual behavior is negative behavior, this is not talking about that now is it?

The whole point is upon their choice.

In regard to Kanrei, this is correct, we have the freedom of choice and things of that nature, however you do not have the freedom to change the systems for someone else and decry it as inequality just because you chose to do something different and yet want the same benefits as the group that you chose not to be a part of.

We are also free to give incentives to who we desire, giving incentives to married couples for the sake of families was what it was made for, not to spite homosexuals. if it is a choice, they could have had those benefits just as equally as anyone else, however they chose a route that did not offer that, as those benefits were set up for married heterosexuals for any reason. It is not inequality just because they don't receive the benefits. They might want them, but they chose not to have them. If they benefits were set up specifically to spite homosexuals that would be unfair, however if they are choosing a way that is outside of the specifications for the help, then they don't get it.

Same with a couple of first time home buyers and a couple of non first time home buyers. It is not unfair to give the first time couple an incentive and not the other couple, that is just how it was set up.

In regard to Kanrei, this is correct, we have the freedom of choice and things of that nature, however you do not have the freedom to change the systems for someone else and decry it as inequality just because you chose to do something different and yet want the same benefits as the group that you chose not to be a part of.

The group is "Americans" and "Humans" who are seeking love and happiness. How are they choosing something different? Two adults fall in love and want to commit to one another and want the SAME RIGHTS as every other couple.

This is a thread about homosexuality. I think it's wrong for a gay person to feel like their life is wrong or invalid simply because it makes others uncomfortable.

#226 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 11:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

No one is saying that they have to feel like their life is wrong or invalid, we are asking as to whether they made the choice to that life or not, and depending on that choice, do they have the right to cry out about inequality as much as they try to cry out about it?

If you choose not to fulfill specifications for some program, do you deserve to get the benefits just because others do. If you say yes, does this go over into everything in life?

This is not a "is homosexuality good or bad" thread. You seem to be unable to understand that.

This is a, is it is choice or not a choice and if it is a choice how does that impact the charge against others that they are being treated unequally just because they do not get the same benefits of a program that another group who chooses differently gets.

If you would step out from behind your emotional shield you would understand that some of these things are dealing with alcoholism and general control and others are dealing with homosexuality.

Why do you keep accusing me of being emotional because I disagree with you? That's very dismissive.

If negative behavior is undertaken, so unless YOU think that homosexual behavior is negative behavior, this is not talking about that now is it?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

This is not a "is homosexuality good or bad" thread.

Show of hands: who agrees with this statement?

The group is "Americans" and "Humans" who are seeking love and happiness. How are they choosing something different? Two adults fall in love and want to commit to one another and want the SAME RIGHTS as every other couple.

#228 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

Problem, how are they stopped from having love and happiness just because they do not get certain benefits? Benefits set up to help families if I may add, not to spite homosexuals.

They know that they can have the benefits with one choice and not get them with the other, they choose the latter situation and don't get benefits as the benefits were not set up for that purpose (to increase love and happiness).

They would know what does and does not get the benefits.

What about the couple who first time buys a home, and the couple who does not.

Should all people get all benefits that all other people get since we are all equal, or are there times when requirements dictate who gets benefits and who doesn't without effecting equality?

Benefits set up to help families if I may add, not to spite homosexuals.

Except those benefits are given to all couples; with children or not, so the whole "given to help families" argument is beyond flawed.

Should all people get all benefits that all other people get since we are all equal, or are there times when requirements dictate who gets benefits and who doesn't without effecting equality?


If some get benefits that others do not, then you are not equal by definition.

It is like Fox News saying they are "Fair and Balanced" and "right leaning." You cannot be balanced and leaning.

Ness,
I am aware of the feelings you have on this issue. I thought we are talking about the issue: Can Homosexuality be a choice or is it genetic? If the debate is on this topic I do not know how a "gay person" would feel like their life is wronged. We are just stating what we think. I find it hard to believe any body would care about anything we write on this board.Nevertheless, I do believe it may help us to gain a "new perspective" if we are open to the topics. I am not suggesting , you are not but just wanted to add to the conservation. What do you think?

If negative behavior is undertaken, so unless YOU think that homosexual behavior is negative behavior, this is not talking about that now is it?

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.

Your reactionary statement assumed that I was saying homosexual behavior was negative behavior, however I said in general that "if negative behavior is undertaken..."

So there is no way that I was referring to homosexuality unless of course you take homosexuality to be negative behavior, you would have seen negative behavior and thought of homosexuality as negative behavior and therefore reacted the way you did.

If is a qualifier. It does not render definite circumstances. If negative behavior is taking place, not that negative behavior was taking place.

I do not know how a "gay person" would feel like their life is wronged.

Matthew Shepard

I find it hard to believe any body would care about anything we write on this board.

The fact that people like Exps exist is frightening.


#233 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

The only way around this issue then in the broad scope of humanity is Communism. Everyone gets the same thing, therefore everyone is completely equal.

I don't have a problem with that if that is how things are going to work, however in America we are also free to give incentives to those who we desire, people are not entitled to what they are given, but it is given as in incentive to a group for a purpose at a given time.

I just think when they are in control of choosing to take up that incentive or not, it makes their claims a little fuzzy.

Your reactionary statement

There you go again.

So there is no way that I was referring to homosexuality unless of course you take homosexuality to be negative behavior, you would have seen negative behavior and thought of homosexuality as negative behavior and therefore reacted the way you did.

Priceless.

The only way around this issue then in the broad scope of humanity is Communism. Everyone gets the same thing, therefore everyone is completely equal

I don't agree. I think you are confusing "equal access" with "equal possessions." The government MUST view all people the same. Life can treat us differently. There are consequences to choice naturally, but not to all choices. Homosexual marriage, to me, falls under the "equal access."

#236 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2010-02-19 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

Ness, you say these things and you don't even know what I really believe, you don't understand what I am saying even now, and yet you make these kind of decisions, and yet decry the mistreatment of homosexuals?

Consistent.

#239 |

Kan, not if homosexual marriage does not exist. They have access to marriage as it stands, if it is the case that their sexuality is their choice, however they choose not to take part in that marriage that they have equal access too.

That is not my fault, that is not the governments fault. It really is no fault anywhere but rather a different choice that they choose which self limits their access.

However originally, everyone had equal access. It was their choice that impacted the equality of the access, not the access itself.

Ness, do you want to understand what I am saying and what the point of this discussion is, or do you want to continue to believe whatever it is that you believe, regardless of whether you are correct or incorrect?

Ness,
I have not read anything from exred. that would make me frightening of his existence. Why does he offend you so much? Can you give me some examples.

Exp,
Religion narrowed the scope of who can love who and government followed to get elected. It is totally the government's fault that extra rights are given to couple A but denied couple B simply because of a chromosome imbalance.

Government does not marry, they join two people together in a civil union. Marriage has religious connotations attached to it, but it seems everyone can see the logic of "civil unions." That means we are not fighting about rights, but about words and meaning. Screw the terms, let's get to the crux of it already.

#244 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag

Ah, Kan be careful, we are speaking from the position that their lifestyle is a choice, not decided for them genetically.

Don't get it mixed up.

In this scenario, couple be could easily be couple A if they decided to be, However, knowing the outcome of their decision, they decided that they would follow lifestyle B by choice even though they had access to the benefits of lifestyle A through the equal ability to make that choice as well.

Ah, Kan be careful, we are speaking from the position that their lifestyle is a choice, not decided for them genetically.

Don't get it mixed up.


I'm not. Some choose and others are born that way; there is no universal path to gayness IMHO. We are talking about rights and equality. You say choice of who you love negates equality and I say it doesn't.

Expsr,
What is your main point? Is your main point that IF homosexuality is a choice they opt out of the benefits of marriage? Is that what the whole thing boils down to?

Kan, in the realm of it being something out of their control, I can see the civil union/marriage discussion the way you see it. Benefits should be applied by the term civil union and marriage should be a stand alone religious defined concept outside of the governments regard.

However when you talk about homosexual marriage, that cannot take place as you said, because the prerequisites for it in the religious construct are, at the foundation a man and a woman.

If it becomes a choice, I don't think we should change the meaning of words just because some people choose not to fit into the previous category, they should make their own work or category since they are the ones who choose not to be defined by the previous precepts to the term.

#247 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag

Kan, this is the construct of this argument

1. If homosexuality is strictly determined outside of an individuals control, what are the ramifications in terms of equality and things of that nature

2. If homosexuality is something that an individual chooses, knowing the impact it will have based on that choice, what are the ramifications in terms of equality and things of that nature.

My point is, if you choose to be unequal, it is not up to the other side of the position to change everything to make sure you are equal. That makes no sense.

These are not my positions, but how I would see things working if these things were the case.

I don't think we should change the meaning of words

Like I said, "That means we are not fighting about rights, but about words and meaning. Screw the terms, let's get to the crux of it already."

John 610,

The main point is this.

What is the impact on benefits and equality a)if people are homosexual outside of their control and )b. If people choose to be homosexual, aware of the current accesses to benefits.

I think there is a drastic effect on the equality argument if homosexuality is a choice. That is if.

if you choose to be unequal,

There is the problem IMHO: you view homosexuals as unequal to begin with. I cannot overcome this obsticle to reason. To continue this debate will only lead to hostility between us. We should probably move on.

#251 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag

Right. as I said, if it is outside of their control, and they are stuck that way, they should be given the same benefit.

If they chose to be homosexual and had originally had equal access to the benefits, then it does not make sense to cater when they chose to be "unequal" if people still see it as unequal.

Posed and unanswered - typical. Try try again:

Fact: Homosexuals have a harder time being accepted than heterosexuals in America and maybe the entire world.

Fact: America, and the world, is populated by human beings. Human beings are flawed and will never as a group become perfectly unselfish, unbiggoted, completely accepting individuals. (sorry liberals this is truth - on both sides of the aisle).

Theory: Homosexuality is a genetic trait and not a choice.

Supposition: If it is a genetic trait can it be "cured"?

Question: If it can be "cured" and human beings are going to be more accepting of heterosexuals than homosexuals (as proven throughout history and again is not going to change given we are flawed beings), why would you not have your child "cured"?

Question: If everyone has their child "cured" does humanity lose certain skill sets not found in heterosexuals?

Question: Would you chose to be homosexual?

Question: Would you let your child be born homosexual if there was a "cure"?

Really would like to hear one of the open minded lefties answer the questions. Since no one could come up with an exclusive beneficial trait of homosexuality other than musicals and interior design.

#253 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 11:55 AM | Reply | Flag

That would be incorrect.

I do not vie homosexuality as unequal. I think they should have the same benefits. If their homosexuality is out of their control, they should be granted the same benefit.

If homosexuality is their choice and they choose to be outside of those benefits, I do not see them as unequal, but they chose not to take the benefits knowing that one choice leads to benefits, and the other leads to not benefits. If it is their choice, the have the same access as anyone else making that choice, as heterosexuals would have to make the choice to be heterosexual as well.

Fair enough Exp. I did not mean to imply homophobia from you.

As I do not believe we choose to be straight, so too do I not believe they choose to be gay. Given the world today and how gays are treated, why would anyone CHOOSE it?

#255 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

I find that it is very hard to get individuals, both from the right and the left to look at something and affirm a potential position that is in opposition to their current position.

Most people do not want to look at something critically because they do not want to find out that they had misunderstood it for x period of time.

No one likes to take a position that might make room for the opposition to further strengthen their point, as most people are not really looking for THE truth, but rather THEIR truth.

Okay - I've waited long enough to weigh in after watching this - most people will get the wrong idea, but isn't EVERYTHING we do from the time we rise until the time we retire in the evening a choice?

For instance, I CHOSE to have pulled pork and cabbage for breakfast instead of toast and eggs.

How we lead our lives is by choice. Free will. My work here is done.

#257 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-02-19 12:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Unfortunately people hate and by the same token, love adversity. To overcome adversity is a real time movie played out in peoples lives.

It is not only the religious that are the martyrs today. People have a desire to be a martyr to some level.

Why would someone become a Christian or a jew in a muslim country that persecutes? Why would somebody be the attorney for a murderer who has already been caught red handed?

People like challenge, difficulty and being different. Minority syndrome I like to call it. We all want to be the minority so that we have something to blame our hard times on other than ourselves and our attitude and life outlook.

#259 | Posted by nanc at 2010-02-19 12:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I see what you are saying. You choose to have glade air fresheners instead of Renuzit because they just don't have the same odor masking capabilities. (they need some heavy capability with that pork and cabbage in the morning)

#261 - Something like that...I just happen to believe our entire life is one choice after another - sometimes you have to let your children have Cheetos for breakfast so they can realize by lunchtime how hungry they are after eating all that air. Some things leave you empty - some things leave you full.

Guess my work here WASN'T done...*8D

Exp
You say people want to be different? In my life I have not observed this. How do you define "Minority syndrome"?

I don't think being gay is a choice. But acting like an obnoxious over the top flamer is a choice. Kind of like being Italian American isn't a choice but being a Guido is. It cracks me up when a flamboyant queen claims to have been born that way. You were born gay. You choose to act like a charicature.

This whole Gay is a Choice thing it very revealing of something.

Consider this: If you are a heterosexual, try to imagine engaging in a complete range of the sexual activities you most like with your significant other. Then imagine doing the same with a member of your own sex.

Is there any way that a 'choice' would apply here? Really?

Unless you are seriously confused, 'choice' would be the last thing that comes to mind.

It seems to me that the only ones who seriously could see 'choosing' to do the nasty with another dude or dudette are the ones advancing this stupid idea.

In other words, the only fools proposing the 'Gay is a choice' bullshit are seriously fucked up.

#264 | Posted by John610fan at 2010-02-19 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

It is the theory of rebellion, people rebel against what is accepted, people want to change things, people want to be the victim so that they have some course of action or reason to say that their actions were not their fault.

it is the "you made me do it" type of syndrome. Like American. We kill Muslims because the Muslims made us kill them.

That is a load of crap. We want to be the victim, however a good majority of the disdain is our fault.

Everyone wants to be innocent and oppressed so that they do not have to think they their consequences may be from their actions rather than the actions of others.

Just think of Christianity. many Christians always want to claim that they are being persecuted or treated unfairly, crying that they need to change things, or change countries to be more Christian, when they knew this was going to be a consequence when they became a Christian. They knew that they would be persecuted and that they would not be in control, however they like to complain about how unfair the circumstances are that they chose to be a part of.

If you make a choice, deal with the consequences without complaining. It is also the same with individuals getting an abortion simply because it will effect their lifestyle. "I won't be able to be a kid, I won't be able to do this or that... .woe is me and be sad for me..." However, the whole reason we are sad for that person going through the difficulties they are going through is because of a choice they made and a consequence of the choice that they made.

People like to be the victim as much as possible. It takes responsibility off of them and places it on someone else.

ince no one could come up with an exclusive beneficial trait of homosexuality other than musicals and interior design.
#255 | Posted by ELCIDCE90
==============
EC...what is an exclusive beneficial trait of heterosexuality?

#266 | Posted by axe at 2010-02-19 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

So you are not saying that it is a choice, but rather that it is disgusting and wrong?

I am not really getting your point? If homosexuality is a choice based on a persons preference, it doesn't matter what you think about that being a choice. If it is true it is true, if it is not, it is not.

Why would someone choose to get drunk and ruin their life every day - they do

Why would someone choose to smoke cigarettes and ruin their lungs when they could not do it and stay more healthy? - people make that choice

Why would someone choose to stick needles through any part of their body imaginable for the sake of astchetics? - people make that choice

Why would someone choose to eat and eat and eat when they know they will become morbidly obese? - people make that choice.

People make a whole lot of choices that don't make sense, It doesn't make them any less of a choice.

#268 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have to take his whole premise and address it before you can ask that question there buddy. Since it is talking about the difficulty with acceptance and if there was a cure, would you do it etc. It doesn't really apply to heterosexuality in the same way at the moment.

EC...what is an exclusive beneficial trait of heterosexuality?

#268 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 12:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pro creation - continuation of the species. Well, a benefit for some - a drawback for others.

Ex,

My poorly worded post was trying to make the point that no heterosexual person could seriously think that a 'choice' is involved here.

Only a homosexual or bi-sexual person could propose this concept of 'choice'.

Pro creation - continuation of the species. Well, a benefit for some - a drawback for others.

#271 | Posted by ELCIDCE90

Pro creation is not the sole domain of heteros

Pro creation is not the sole domain of heteros

#273 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag: needs remedial sex education course

You have to take his whole premise and address it before you can ask that question there buddy. Since it is talking about the difficulty with acceptance and if there was a cure, would you do it etc. It doesn't really apply to heterosexuality in the same way at the moment.

#270 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
=
hetero, homo,=human...no difference to their contribution to mankind.

EC...what is an exclusive beneficial trait of heterosexuality?

Pro creation is not the sole domain of heteros

#273 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 01:03 PM | Reply | Flag: needs remedial sex education course

#274 | Posted by axe
there are alot of children of g/l couples out there.

MMIKE

You have to take his question in context, you are missing most of the point with it.

And he just gave you a contribution to mankind. The furthering of man kind is a contribution. It is beneficial.

The ability to raise children who were born from you out of your body and bring about a greater understanding as to why life is so precious. We would not even have this model if there were no heterosexuals to give birth.

He answered your question, why don't you answer his?

It is true that their are children of "loving gay couples" but the process of how it works is credited to hetero couples. However, this does mean we can say that hetero couples are supperior ,but that they can have more of an impacted on society.

Alcoholics make the choice to be alcoholics when they over drink and continue to over drink for an extended period of time until they are deemed an alcoholic. They did make that choice. After they stop, the fact that they are still an alcoholic is the consequence of their choice to drown themselves in fermented drink.

#181 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag: apparently does not have a clue as to the nature of the Disease called Alcoholism

An Alcoholic cannot moderate his or her drinking. It is a disease of the brain. The brain chemistry has changed for the alcoholic. The alcoholic can and will drink until they die. The disease will kill the host if left untreated. They cannot "control" it. The only "cure" for alcoholism is to never drink again. It never goes away but it can be made dormant. It is also genetic in nature (but has other factors too). some are more "susceptible" than others because their parents may have been alcoholics.

So, if we are to relate the two in any way it would be the only "cure" for homosexuality would be to never have sex again.

However, this does mean we can say that hetero couples are supperior

I don't think so since gay couples cannot reproduce, that means it is the hetero couples that are raising gay kids.

He answered your question, why don't you answer his?
277 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
==================
homosexual couples do give birth...
his question was answered...
a person's contribution to mankind is not soley whether they pass along their genes gay or straight...

what do you say of childless couples should they be denied marrage? if procreation is the only factor in his/your model, then they should be denied the rights of fertile couples.

"I think he meant to say "this does not mean that we can say that hetero couples are superior"

Donner, It is possible for someone who has struggled with alcoholism to take one drink and not drink any more yes or no?

Their brain is a part of their self, and it controls their arms and mouth so that they cannot pick up or drink another drink, yes or no?

They have control over their arms and mouth and cognizance before drunk to realize, " I need to stop before I am drunk", yest or no?

This becomes a self control issue? Yes or no?

If you cannot control yourself, abstain from the activity all together. Yes or no?

#281 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 01:35 PM | Reply | Flag

With your qualification there Mike, you just admitted that you did not answer his question.

His question was what advantage or skill, trait that is beneficial do homosexuals brig to the table that heterosexuals do not?

You did not answer that.

Also, that question is based on an underlying hypothesis, of which you have not even addressed and therefore could not answer the question fully.

Kanrei,
I am reading this right do you think hetero couples are better in some way than homo couples?

However, this does mean we can say that hetero couples are supperior
I don't think so since gay couples cannot reproduce, that means it is the hetero couples that are raising gay kids.

#280 | POSTED BY KANREI AT 2010-02-19 01:27 PM | REPLY | FLAG:
sorry forgot the quote

I am reading this right do you think hetero couples are better in some way than homo couples?

You are reading it FAR from right. Try again.


However, this does mean we can say that hetero couples are supperior

I don't think so

John, you mean to say that you 1) Do think that heterosexual couples are superior, for 2) Don't think that heterosexual couples are superior?

Which was my point. The pro creation is a credited to hetero couples but this does not mean they are superior to homosexual couples. I was trying to show that just because you can accredit a group with achievements does not mean the those achievements define the group as a whole or as something special.

You see, this is what I like, when people ask questions when they misunderstand what a person is saying, or are not sure what the person is saying, rather than making up their own mind what they were saying.

Kan, it seems you are one of the few individuals on here who can have a civil and reasonable discussion on topics without flipping out like most of the others.

Much appreciated.

Kan, it seems you are one of the few individuals on here who can have a civil and reasonable discussion on topics without flipping out like most of the others.

Depends on the subject and whom I am debating. I lose it just as bad if not worse than most here =D

"for 2) Don't think that heterosexual couples are superior?"

for should be or.

Sorry for all the mistakes. my background in the entry box is white and my lettering is light gray for some reason, can't really see.

Ok, so you are agreeing with Kan then. Which makes sense.

#279
I think that's the argument in a nutshell.

His question was what advantage or skill, trait that is beneficial do homosexuals brig to the table that heterosexuals do not?
You did not answer that.
Also, that question is based on an underlying hypothesis, of which you have not even addressed and therefore could not answer the question fully.

#283 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
================

ER... it was answered, no contribution "advantage or skill, trait that is beneficial" offered by either group heterosexual or homosexual.
=================

hetero, homo,=human...no difference to their contribution to mankind.

#275 | Posted by mmike

#279
I think that's the argument in a nutshell.

Part of the argument is whether you can be unequal if you have chosen the state of which you are calling unequal.

Donner, It is possible for someone who has struggled with alcoholism to take one drink and not drink any more yes or no?

Depends... there are some that if they get a hold of ANY alcohol cannot stop once they start.

Their brain is a part of their self, and it controls their arms and mouth so that they cannot pick up or drink another drink, yes or no?

No it is not so simple for an addict. The BRAIN IS their self. Especially an alcoholic. Alcoholism is a disease of the brain. The brain craving alcohol can convince the brain of anything to get more alcohol. Behavior is affected.

They have control over their arms and mouth and cognizance before drunk to realize, " I need to stop before I am drunk", yest or no?

This becomes a self control issue? Yes or no?

NO! Definitely not. Alcoholism is a disease of the BRAIN. The brain controls the arms and mouth. An alcoholic must struggle for life to not take that first drink and an alcoholic does not have the cognizance to control themselves once they start drinking again. You really should read up on this.

I suggest you start with this book: Beyond the Influence: Understanding and Defeating Alcoholism

If you know and alcoholic please pass this information to them. It could possibly save their life.

No it is not so simple for an addict. Especially an alcoholic. The BRAIN IS their self.

That sentence was out of order...

Part of the argument is whether you can be unequal if you have chosen the state of which you are calling unequal.

#295 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
===============

if by state you mean homosexuality, then no because homosexuality is not a choice.

I have studied it. I think there is far too much excuses for difficulty in a lot of things today. That is why we have so many bogus disorders and people on medication for stuff that they can handle through diet and discipline.

I understand the alcoholics bane, as we all have something like that to deal with, however I do not agree that they have no control over it. They may willingly submit to the disease, but I don't think that the disease has the power to overcome them.

Like you said, if it comes to it, don't pick up the drink. Self control.

There is a point where they are in control of themselves and must keep it.

Either way, this thread is about homosexuals and whether they are intrinsically or choose to be homosexual and how that deals with equality.

One of the factors standing in the way of accomplishing equality is of course figuring out what we really mean by equality, as it can be a stick situation with that.

I mean, not everyone is equal, not everyone will be equal, and we cannot force people to be equal. Of course this is speaking on various levels of equality.

Sexual attraction, which is the basis of sexual orientation, is fixed before birth and can be artificially induced in lab animals. Sexual IDENTITY, which is our self perception in terms of our sexual orientation, often changes over time and is therefore 'fluid'. But research shows that most people who define themselves as bisexual eventually transition to homosexual self identification.

#298 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-19 02:22 PM | Reply | Fla

And if it is?

#299 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 02:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You have been told by at least 50 people, in 50 different ways

"Homosexuality is not a choice"

WHY ARE YOU SO OBSESSED WITH HOMOSEXUALITY?

post after post after post

Are you surrounded by gay people? Are they all out to get you? Trying to get to your children? Taking over your city, town, and state? Everywhere you turn, having sex out in the street in broad daylight?

I'm gay and you think about gay sex more than I do! You must have a never ending stream of gay porn running through your brain! I can't watch more than 30 minutes or so at a time and at most a few times a week, so I gotta give you credit for thinking about nothing else for days at a time!!

You must be insatiable!!

Great 300 posts.

Jest, are you saying that homosexuals are due to mutations? They are mutants? That doesn't sound good if that is what you are proposing.

I imagine in the beginning of procreation there was no need for homosexuals, so that could be what you are saying.

Is this what you are proposing?

#302 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

Funny, but dishonest.

We are talking about choice or no choice and how that effects equality. It is something much more than what you suppose. This makes me suppose that this is the reason why you have not interacted at a higher level in the discussion.

I have studied it.... I understand the alcoholics bane, as we all have something like that to deal with, however I do not agree that they have no control over it.

Bro...You need to "study" it again. You either studied in the 1980's when they did not understand it or you seriously missed something. You do not understand the Alcoholics Bane at all. People are dying because they have been convinced by society that they are just bad people and they should be able to "control" it.

Approximately 14 million Americans are addicted and hundreds of thousands die each year because of folks thinking like you do.

Here is a tidbit to chew on. The Health Insurance companies now recognize Alcoholism as a Disease of the brain and authorize expensive treatments in Rehab centers across America.

They wouldn't do that unless they HAD TOO.

As for homosexuality. It is a brain controlled behavior that has genetic AND environmental factors. If you have homosexual tendencies the only "cure" would be to deny those tendencies to yourself and/or by abstaining from sex.

I am sure that might work for some but it is not an answer at all. And do you want people to go around denying their true nature just to please you?

And apparently, it doesn't even work well for those who think homosexuality is inherently evil. No need to look further than the Catholic Church for examples of that and there are many others.

Grok on that!

Funny, but dishonest.

We are talking about choice or no choice and how that effects equality. It is something much more than what you suppose. This makes me suppose that this is the reason why you have not interacted at a higher level in the discussion.

#304 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 02:45 PM | Reply | Flag

By clicking on your username we can see ALL the posts you have made...did you know about this feature?

page after page after page of posts

you have made a FEW posts on other topics (butt) you have written PAGES, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF WORDS about homosexuality, you think about little else!!

Has anyone tried my porn experiment yet?

Jest, are you saying that homosexuals are due to mutations? They are mutants? That doesn't sound good if that is what you are proposing.
I imagine in the beginning of procreation there was no need for homosexuals, so that could be what you are saying.
Is this what you are proposing?
#303 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
===============
aren't we all the product of mutation?
unfortunately we are an end product and have no control of our initial station in life.

#305 | Posted by donnerboy at 2010-02-19 02:49 PM | Reply | Flag

Hey, they don't have to please me. I don't mind what they do, but when it comes to charges of inequality, if it is something the is designated by choice I don't think that is a proper or fair charge.

I am not saying that it is a choice they make, but if it is, I dont't think they have grounds to decry inequality.

#306 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is probably because it is such a large topic, in which many people participate, causing the threads to be very long and therefore many posts to accumulate.

Most people who are really trying to understand a point of discussion discuss it in great detail as to come to a conclusion.

I understand that this is not how you function. That is fine.

Most other threads die a quick death, however when threads continue I continue to post as I enjoy discussing and looking at different sided and getting different viewpoints.

Not everything is to prove how right you are and wrong someone else is, but rather to get an idea of how other people are thinking about things, what is keeping them from thinking about it more clearly, and if they are able to think about it at all in the first place.

I have found that many people refuse to think about topics past what they want to see.

Thank you for your example.

I stand corrected. Must admit I didn't study [the pic] at great length, other than to ask "why?"....

Posted by TedBaxter at 2010-02-19 10:00 AM

Phoenix fainted.

I don't think even now she's recovered from her surprise when clicking on that link. LOL

No one has listed one benefit exclusive to homosexuality yet?

It's a simple question folks.

But a damn hard one to answer isn't it?

Deflections aside, the only verifiable benefit to heterosexuality I can think of is pro-creation.

If the gene(s) could be isolated and a baby could be "cured" during pregnancy, would you, or would you allow your child to be born gay? If so, why?

Humans are flawed, anyone who thinks that the elimination of bigotry resulting in total acceptance of homosexuality is deluded. Or any kind of bigotry for that matter - man has a proclivity to like - well like minded individuals.

Would you cure alcholism in the womb if you could or allow your child to be born an alcholic? Would you abort a baby if you knew it was going to be born alcholic or gay if there was no "cure"?

This discussion has nothing to do with equality as some have perverted the thread to discuss. It also has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Of course, if it is proven that some choose their sexual preferences all bets are off. An alcoholic does not make a lucid decision to become one. He/she can make the decision to have a drink placed in front of them, but as RCADE stated - once an alchy always an alchy.

So like any other human trait, if it is isolated and determined to provide no benefit to society, why not look for a "cure" or "correction"? So far, none of the great thinkers on this website have found a good reason to not attempt to remove or correct the gene from being transmitted to a baby during pregnancy yet.

Interesting thread. I believe homosexuals are born that way.

I knew from about the first grade that boys apppealed to me. Just didn't know why.

Not to stereotype, but I had a friend whose son was always interested in Broadway shows, Judy Garland, the whole bit, and his gay tendencies were obvious at only 13, maybe younger. He grew up to be openly gay.

Another couple who were long time friends of my parents had three kids -- two girls and one boy. The one girl grew up to be a lesbian, and the son was homosexual too. All three kids were brought up in the same household, same environment and parental teachings, yet two out of the three turned out to be gay. How else could you explain that except to say homosexuality must be in the genes since birth?

The only people who think homosexuality is a choice, are those for whom it is a choice---bisexuals. Only bisexuals think homosexuality is a choice.

How does homosexuality get compared to alcoholism AGAIN?

Homosexuality is not a disease.

The fact is homosexuals are and always have been a portion of every society.

It does not matter WHY!

It does not need to be PREVENTED!

It does not harm you in any way!

It just is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

How about a transgender?

I have a problem with this. I believe this is a mental illness-to want to mutilate one's sex organ.

Though I understand that people say that they are a woman in a man's body or vice versa. But I would argue that this is just the manifestation of their mental disease.

Not everything is to prove how right you are and wrong someone else is, but rather to get an idea of how other people are thinking about things, what is keeping them from thinking about it more clearly, and if they are able to think about it at all in the first place.

#309 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 03:41 PM | Reply

What you fail to understand is that people like you try to make decisions about other people and how they should be discriminated against based on erroneous information and prejudiced opinion. You are doing harm to other people over something that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

It does not harm you in any way!

It just is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

#314 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 03:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

That can be proven incorrect. It does not benefit me in any way either. Does it benefit you? How?

So, another question since no one can answer the first, if homosexuals are born with the proclivity to be attracted to same sex individuals, can heterosexuals be born with the proclivity to be repulsed by such behavior? If someone can get "turned on" by seeing two men together, is it not possible that someone can be just as "turned off" by the same sight?

If you are willing to accept the first possibility but not the second - well, there goes your "acceptance" theory out the window. What was someone saying about not having the self control to stop having homosexual relationships if you were born that way? Not having self control for being repulsed by the behavior seems like it should be just as acceptable.

What you fail to understand is that people like you try to make decisions about other people and how they should be discriminated against based on erroneous information and prejudiced opinion. You are doing harm to other people over something that is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

#316 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 04:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

This discussion has nothing to do with homosexuals already on the planet tyger. It has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with the nature vs nurture argument on homosexuality and homosexuality's benefits to mankind. No one is suggesting on this thread you have an operation to change your sexuality. No one on this thread is debating gay marriage or gay rights.

Please put your knee back down and tell me how homosexuality benefits mankind in a way heterosexuality does not.

Are you pro choice - if so, you are doing harm to other people over something that is none of your business.

If it is none of our business why do you have to tell people that you are homosexual, and why do you want it to become other people's business by looking to get a homosexual marriage and or divorce?

Are you pro choice - if so, you are doing harm to other people over something that is none of your business.

#318 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-19 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pro-choice people harm no other people. Pro-choice people fight for the rights of other people.

FTFY

Are you pro choice - if so, you are doing harm to other people over something that is none of your business.

#318 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-19 04:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pro-choice people harm no other people. Pro-choice people fight for the rights of other people.

FTFY

#320 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-19 04:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

This would be true as you say, Pro-choice fails to fight for the rights of the inevitable child (person)and fights for the rights of "other" people as you state.

Good point Bob

Man, this thread is something.

I see this in a simple manner (perhaps too simple).

I don't remember choosing to be straight and I'm sure all of us don't remember choosing.

too simple?

The other people are not harmed, only the inevitable person. Other people remain unharmed.

Whether you remember that you made a choice or not does not take away that you made a choice. A choice was still made.

I chose?

when?

I just can't cast pearls before swine anymore!

You (the 2 E's) don't really want to ask questions because you have already made up your minds.

You want to demonize, suppress, criminalize, punish, insult...and hate.

You just want a reason, a rationalization, a justification for your hate.

hateful=full of hate, cancerous, growing black and filthy, churning in your guts till it spews out of your mouth
"GOD HATES FAGS!" "GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!"

All together now

Do we all feel politically correct now? We've proved we're tolerent and lack the moral back bone to stand against what nature itself teaches is not sustainable? Evolution, survival of the fittest, and all that rot, right? Or does that not apply when we're talking about homos because we have to be two-faced..I mean tolerant and PC?

Does anyone here know a homo personally?
Does anyone here know someone who was a homo and is now back straight?

I know both actually.
The one who is homo now says they were born that way.
The one who is now straight again says it was a choice, although choice isn't the right word more like addiction...as in snorting crack. Basically they were introduced at a young age.

So, what percentage of homos are introduced personally as a child to that type of lifestyle?

And for the record, we don't entrust those under 21 to understand the consequences of drinking or smoking. How could they possible make a coherent decision about youth's most uncontrollable urge, sexual orientation?!

You don't have to like my position any more than I have to accept your perversion.

As for the many prominent men who became gay, it just adds fuel to the flame that homosexuality is the ultimate form of self-abosorbtion. As is commonly said "a man can't please a woman like a woman can". Probably because they've been pleasing themselves for so long. Ultimate selfishness, but we can tolerate that can't we? Look out for #1!

I don't think that God hates "fags". I actually don't think it is very respectful to call someone of the homosexual persuasion a "fag" as you label them. I think that is pretty insensitive.

This is a friendly discussion here buddy. I don't know why you have to come and flip out all emotional like.

We are talking about different scenario's, whether true or not.

Get that in your head. Discussion. As you know, science can one day find that it is a choice that they make on some level. What will you do then? Hate the scientists?

Just have a discussion about possibilities since science is no certain thing.

Calm down.

We are asking questions, we would like honest, well thought out, rational, non emotional answers.

Exp,

what else have I "chosen" that I am not aware of?

hateful=full of hate, cancerous, growing black and filthy, churning in your guts till it spews out of your mouth

can I borrow that?

This is a friendly discussion here buddy. I don't know why you have to come and flip out all emotional like.

hell, he accused me of being a "traitor to this nation" because I thought the healthcare bill sucked.

The other people are not harmed, only the inevitable person. Other people remain unharmed.

#323 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 04:36 PM | Reply | Flag

Inevitable---I do not think this word means what you think it means.

Did you drive with your seat belt off today? If you did, you chose to do that even though you probably were not aware of it.

You chose to like the foods that you like, even though sometimes it seems like you just happened to like them. Taste is something subjective. You can get used to things, or like things automatically.

You chose to be alive today, even though you didn't actively say "I am going to stay alive today" you chose not to die, or kill yourself. Sometimes choices become so automatic we think that they are, however we have still made a choice.

#330 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-19 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well that is a little concerning.

#331 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-02-19 05:02 PM | Reply | Flag

If you don't like that, then we will say highly probably. The point is the child would often form in the cases of abortion if the "other" people didn't step in.

Whether you remember that you made a choice or not does not take away that you made a choice. A choice was still made.

#324 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag Bisexual

If you made the choice then, you could make the choice now.

Did you drive with your seat belt off today? If you did, you chose to do that even though you probably were not aware of it.

You chose to like the foods that you like, even though sometimes it seems like you just happened to like them. Taste is something subjective. You can get used to things, or like things automatically.

You chose to be alive today, even though you didn't actively say "I am going to stay alive today" you chose not to die, or kill yourself. Sometimes choices become so automatic we think that they are, however we have still made a choice.

now THOSE are choices.

But those analogies don't equate to being gay or not.

I don't like turnips. never have. Will I someday? okay, maybe (I doubt it).

But again, that has nothing to do with sexual orientation despite you attempt to link the 2.

people do make choices like you illustrated.

Being gay or straight isn't a choice.

#326 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 04:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

Calm yourself idiot - you are making a great case for the argument that this site is for slinging insults only.

I believe you are a homosexual and this topic hits you hard. So you are one to answer the question more honestly than most: how does your homosexuality benefit you? If you could chose to not be homosexual would you?

I am not saying it is a choice. I am not saying you should have to change - would you if you could? Would you change your child if it were possible before birth?

I just can't cast pearls before swine anymore!
You (the 2 E's) don't really want to ask questions because you have already made up your minds.
You want to demonize, suppress, criminalize, punish, insult...and hate.
You just want a reason, a rationalization, a justification for your hate.
hateful=full of hate, cancerous, growing black and filthy, churning in your guts till it spews out of your mouth
"GOD HATES FAGS!" "GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!""GOD HATES FAGS!"
All together now
#326 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-19 04:43 PM

They are questioning themselves and their society - it's only natural for resentment and apprehension after being programmed to fear sexuality, particularly homosexuality. Generations of social data and now physiological and psychological studies that basically state everything they have been raised to believe about homosexuality is in fact wrong. But if they were free-thinking, compassionate humans that would have been evident to them all along.

Fundamentalism has done nothing to benefit society and shedding it's fetters opens doors to the world they would otherwise blithely ignore.

Eventually one might expect wealth-oriented faiths such as Mormonism to be the last American stronghold of religious bigotry (not counting racist organizations). Are there many Black or Asian or Native American Mormons?

#337 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-19 11:15 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Well, I see that somebody took somebody elses out of context post out of context. Good job.

Also, for a great while you were not allowed to be Black and a Mormon I believe, although I may be wrong, that may have been the Jehova's witnesses.

Either way. I dont think that if homosexuality is a choice, they can claim that they are being treated unequally as they chose their scenerio with the full capability of choosing the opposite.

#337 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-19 11:15 PM

Well, I see that somebody took somebody elses out of context post out of context. Good job.
Also, for a great while you were not allowed to be Black and a Mormon I believe, although I may be wrong, that may have been the Jehova's witnesses.
Either way. I dont think that if homosexuality is a choice, they can claim that they are being treated unequally as they chose their scenerio with the full capability of choosing the opposite.
#338 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-19 11:37 PM

And that is precisely why isn't not a choice - your example is disproved through the inequity throughout the entire Christian empire since it's organization. Where are the homosexual Christian leadership? In contention?! How "scenario-driven" of them.

In case you've forgotten homosexuals are brutalized solely because of religious intolerance. The only choice Christianity provides is:
1. You must be Christian to seek "forgiveness".
2. You cannot be a homosexual to be a Christian.

The Bible, Torah and Koran endorse slavery, child prostitution and murder not to mention the commonplace brutality. Not where I would expect any peace-loving culture to take it's cues. The history of these religions indicates much of what is already understood about them - they are invented for the absolute control over populations. Even atrocities such as genocide are entirely probable with a deeply religious programming that de-humanizes the "enemy".

I personally want the entirety of cults eliminated. None of you can ever be authentically "re-born" through any kind of ceremony - you are always the same creature you have always been, simply less capable of discerning the facts about your tiny world and more apt to blame others for those inadequacies. I expect better, but that's my personal failing.

Hey if you want to rail on religion, feel free, this is not the thread for it.

Secondly, no one says someone cannot be a "homosexual" and a "christian."

I don't think you understand that very well from the scripture.

The word "homosexual" is not used very often if ever in the scripture.

This is simply a discussion as to the ramifications of it being an occurance outside of their control, or a choice that they have made.

If you don't wish to interact with the topic at hand that is fine, but try to stay somewhat related to it.

I know you like to bash "religion" but I think you have plenty of time and space to bash it somewhere else.

You have a giant personal failure to see the perspective from which I really view this situation. I already stated earlier upthread that these are not my personal perspectives, but rather perspectives taken for the sake of an interesting discussion.

If you read it usually helps.

Hey if you want to rail on religion, feel free, this is not the thread for it.
Secondly, no one says someone cannot be a "homosexual" and a "christian."
I don't think you understand that very well from the scripture.
The word "homosexual" is not used very often if ever in the scripture.
This is simply a discussion as to the ramifications of it being an occurance outside of their control, or a choice that they have made.
If you don't wish to interact with the topic at hand that is fine, but try to stay somewhat related to it.
I know you like to bash "religion" but I think you have plenty of time and space to bash it somewhere else.
You have a giant personal failure to see the perspective from which I really view this situation. I already stated earlier upthread that these are not my personal perspectives, but rather perspectives taken for the sake of an interesting discussion.
If you read it usually helps.
#340 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-20 12:11 AM

What you posted is equivocating sexuality to choice. Partners might be your choice, but your sexuality is entirely inborn.

I always presume I'm able to rail against religion - it's a big as a barn and twice as many doors. And yet, strangely I missed the part where Christians are now accepting homosexuals as equals.

To clarify my snark: if you actually understood where the fear of homosexuality stems you might understand the religious "connection".

Btw - "And that is precisely why isn't not a choice" should read "it is not".

So like any other human trait, if it is isolated and determined to provide no benefit to society, why not look for a "cure" or "correction"? So far, none of the great thinkers on this website have found a good reason to not attempt to remove or correct the gene from being transmitted to a baby during pregnancy yet.
#311 | Posted by ELCIDCE90
==================
So like any other human trait, if it is isolated...

brown eyes vs. blue eyes...
black hair vs blond hair...
tall vs short...
skin colour vs skin color...

EC...which one do you cure?

Whether you remember that you made a choice or not does not take away that you made a choice. A choice was still made.
#324 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
===============
choice-an act or instance of choosing

this whole thread you have put forth the argument of choice, being homosexual vs privilage gained/lost by your false premiss that born g/l make the choice vs being hetero.

those born homosexual did not make a choice as you did not make a choice of being born heterosexual or whatever physical traits you were born with...

As you know, science can one day find that it is a choice that they make on some level. What will you do then? Hate the scientists?
Just have a discussion about possibilities since science is no certain thing.
Calm down.
We are asking questions, we would like honest, well thought out, rational, non emotional answers.
#328 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
======================
EP...science has found morphologicalructual difference in the brains of homosexuals compared to heterosexuals...

"discovered that within the hypothalamus..."
"homosexual and heterosexual men differ in the central neuronal mechanisms that control sexual behavior", and like Allen and Swaab, agreed that this difference in anatomy was no product of upbringing or environment, but rather prenatal cerebral development and structural differentiation."

your premiss of choice does not apply unless it's for sake of argument .

sorry lost the link

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women EXCHANGED NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones. In the same way men also ABANDONED NATURAL relations WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust for one another" Rom 1:26-27

Natural relations...men with women, women with men. Natural is what we were born with.

Therefore, It's a choice. No matter when or what had caused the decision...it's a decision.

Science has NEVER errored?? Never been wrong huh??

LOL

Have a great day!

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
==============
Lisa...not to play dueling scriptures, but do you know your place?

When all else fails try to use the bible to justify your hate!

Here is the deal, you don't get to pick some parts of the bible to use when it benefits you and ignore the context.

Romans 2
2:1 1 Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, 4 when you judge someone else. 5 For on whatever grounds 6 you judge another, you condemn yourself, because you who judge practice the same things

In the simplest terms IT'S JUST NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS and the bible tells you so!

I could do this all day long!!

The bible is FULL of crazy, contradictory, and conflicting passages!

"When all else fails try to use the bible to justify your hate!

Here is the deal, you don't get to pick some parts of the bible to use when it benefits you and ignore the context"

LMBO

That's a hoot considering the context in which you made that statement!

I quoted Scripture that explains that homosexuality was a choice, not something one is born with.

That's all I did!

I didn't sit in judgement.

YET YOU, sat in judgement of ME claiming I hate and then proceed to quote something you were guilty of!

How sad that you choose to use Scripture to falsely accuse someone and you failed to see how it was actually YOU who should follow your own advice!

One last note, Tyger:

If you knew the Bible and the context in which each book, chapter and verse were written, you wouldn't have made the broad statement you did when you claimed things are not our business.

There are times we are to judge, there are times we are to follow the word instead of our government, etc.

I hope one day you understand.

We need to start our day, I hope you have a good one!

And Mike....I do know my place, just as my husband knows his.

Try reading Scripture.

lisa,

please READ and comprehend what you posted

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women EXCHANGED NATURAL relations for UNNATURAL ones. In the same way men also ABANDONED NATURAL relations WITH WOMEN and were inflamed with lust for one another" Rom 1:26-27

the first sentenance makes it clear god has control over "shameful lust" and "gave them over to" it, god did this to them, they did not have a choice!

I did not just jump around with my verse, I stayed in Romans the very next chapter, first verse.

Thank you for proving that most people who try to quote the bible really don't understand it!

Silver, I understand that you think it is not our business and all, but when it impacts people daily, it becomes our business, and when people who think it is not our business are always out in front decrying something happening to them they make it our business.

From what you say, this is what I get,

1)Homosexuals are not treated unequally because it is non of anyone's business whether they are homosexual, it is private business

2)Homosexuality is private business thefefore it is something that is a preference and should not be cared about by others of whom it is not their business.

3)Since Homosexuality is private business and not of concern to those who are not you or "them", a big stink should not be made of it, since it is "none of [our] business"

4)Since Homosexuality is none of our business, we should never find out about it,and therefore could never marry someone who was homosexual as once we found out it would become our business, therefore homosexuals should not be seeking marriage as they make it other peoples business.

Is this what you are proposing, or do you really mean to say that it is our business when you continue to tell us all about it and then decry "It is none of your business..."?

And Mike....I do know my place, just as my husband knows his.
Try reading Scripture.

#353 | Posted by Lisa
=================
Lisa...I'm not telling you scripture is...
If that's what you believe I have no problems with that.
I just posted a quote like you did follow it or not makes no difference me.

#354 | Posted by tygersilver at 2010-02-20 10:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

To give over is cease from preventing, cease from stopping.

such as:
I had full control of the lift then I gave it over to Jim.

Jim then has full control of the lift. He decided what to do and it is in his control. the person who is "I" would then no longer be preventing Jim from operating the lift?

They were prevented before, and since they were presistent "God gave them over."

#356 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-20 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag

Mike, you just equivocated that she did not follow scripture with your post, then she proved that she does. Since that verse is speaking of husbands and wives after all.

I would guess you did not know that though.

Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-20 10:50 AM | Reply | Flag

You are obsessed!
All anti-gay, 24 hours a day!

It's ALL been explained to you, by many people in many ways. You can call it "discussion" but everybody knows what it really is, bashing, your subtext isn't even subtle, what looks like a question is really a statement, your logic points always curve right back around to the same conclusions...

so...it's been great but I gonna have to let you go! I mean it's me, not you.

SNOOFY...thanks for the the link "plays of the week month year and best plays of the (sport) were always great.

And Mike....I do know my place, just as my husband knows his.
Try reading Scripture.
#353 | Posted by Lisa
=====================

This is the first time and will be the last time I will quoted the bible or will engage in dueling verses...because everyone has their own belief systems and to argue what someone else should/should not believe in is beating a dead horse.

Lisa I posted that passage to point out that from my point of view the bible is very contradictory. Being contradictory and using it to make absolute statements, causes me some concern, one in my opinion should not over look the contradictions. This is not an attack on your beliefs just my opinion.

Again do you know your place ? is not my question...but the scriptures telling you your place. The "you" in my question was not directed/attack to you but a generic "you" for sake of discussion. I just expressed it poorly.
=======================

Mike, you just equivocated that she did not follow scripture with your post, then she proved that she does. Since that verse is speaking of husbands and wives after all.
I would guess you did not know that though.
#358 | Posted by ExpsRedemption
==============================
=======

ER...no I did not I just asked a question based on scripture. You are the one assuming what I meant.
Whether she answered or not was not the point of the question and doesn't matter to me, this seems to be lost to both of you.

"I would guess you did not know that though...."

And the scripture quoted is about the superiority of man and the inferiority of woman.
And please do not take this personal and do not respond but are "you" inferior and do "you" wear a head scarf in public?

That's what it's about.

So like any other human trait, if it is isolated...

brown eyes vs. blue eyes...
black hair vs blond hair...
tall vs short...
skin colour vs skin color...

EC...which one do you cure?

#341 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-20 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Which one causes the bearer hardship and suffering? Skin color? You "cure" that by breeding within your own race if you want a child of your color, or you cross breed for generations to eliminate any noticible differences in skin color.

Please, list one benefit homosexuality provides mankind that heterosexuality does not. And yes, people already are experimenting with changing eye color during pregnancy.

Silver, I understand that you think it is not our business and all, but when it impacts people daily, it becomes our business, and when people who think it is not our business are always out in front decrying something happening to them they make it our business.
From what you say, this is what I get,
1)Homosexuals are not treated unequally because it is non of anyone's business whether they are homosexual, it is private business

What is this "daily impact"? I'm uncertain where there is anyone who believes the creation and rearing of a gay child to be unlawful other than in fundamentalist communities. Is that the "daily impact" of greater consequence?

Where are the homosexual mobs? I can point to any number of religious mobs, police mobs, and other mobs based on any number of collective traits that attack homosexuals, but am strained to find the gay mob who do anything but beautify neighborhoods. As far as sex being a private affair it is certainly not according to bigots who equate homosexuality with criminal behavior. I have a feeling that is where you are coming from.

2)Homosexuality is private business thefefore it is something that is a preference and should not be cared about by others of whom it is not their business.

How does privacy equate to preference? That makes ZERO sense. Please explain yourself.

3)Since Homosexuality is private business and not of concern to those who are not you or "them", a big stink should not be made of it, since it is "none of [our] business"

Again, this is even close to logical argument. But I think that you are purposefully misinterpreting as per your other posts.

4)Since Homosexuality is none of our business, we should never find out about it,and therefore could never marry someone who was homosexual as once we found out it would become our business, therefore homosexuals should not be seeking marriage as they make it other peoples business.
Is this what you are proposing, or do you really mean to say that it is our business when you continue to tell us all about it and then decry "It is none of your business..."?
#353 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-20 10:50 AM

Human sexuality isn't simplified as a "business", and it certainly isn't the sole reason for procreation. Sexuality makes up a great deal of personal perspective, opinions formed and even friends made. Two words - Mona Lisa. It's been speculated that Leonardo used himself as the model - and that doesn't seem to impact Christians or bigots in the least (he wasn't, but the point is valid). Perhaps that is because picking and choosing whom are "good" based on their sex and sexuality is antiquated, unnecessary and displays incredible ignorance. But nobody got into an uproar over the idea that this famous work of art might have been blatant transvestism - that got over themselves without problem. The majority of the Christian communities still reject gays to this day - and that many "believe" the world is 6,000 years old should say something about the era from which their bigotry stems - a very dark, brutal and unjust time in human history.

Do you have any gay friends?

So like any other human trait, if it is isolated...
brown eyes vs. blue eyes...
black hair vs blond hair...
tall vs short...
skin colour vs skin color...
EC...which one do you cure?
#341 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-20 08:12 AM

Which one causes the bearer hardship and suffering? Skin color? You "cure" that by breeding within your own race if you want a child of your color, or you cross breed for generations to eliminate any noticible differences in skin color.

Please, list one benefit homosexuality provides mankind that heterosexuality does not. And yes, people already are experimenting with changing eye color during pregnancy.
#360 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-02-20 01:59 PM

You are wanting to remove sexuality from the process and promote extreme deviance from natural development.

To remove what you perceive as an unnatural barrier is Mengele-esque, and coldly logical. You are right - skin color has always played a part in determining survivability in certain climes - until religion determined that these differences need to be wiped out in favor of the "chosen" or "master" race. Thus Black slaves would have been much better off if they were White slaves, obviously.:]

Fortunately, that's not how the world works, and procreation will always generate a spectrum of sexuality which allows for the continued evolution of our species.

What has heterosexuality alone done for humanity? Created homosexuals?! Amazing coincidence.

So like any other human trait, if it is isolated...
brown eyes vs. blue eyes...
black hair vs blond hair...
tall vs short...
skin colour vs skin color...

EC...which one do you cure?
#341 | Posted by mmike at 2010-02-20 08:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Which one causes the bearer hardship and suffering? Skin color? You "cure" that by breeding within your own race if you want a child of your color, or you cross breed for generations to eliminate any noticible differences in skin color.
Please, list one benefit homosexuality provides mankind that heterosexuality does not. And yes, people already are experimenting with changing eye color during pregnancy.
#360 | Posted by ELCIDCE90
==============================
====

Apologies to Mona Lisa Vito but "That's a trick question." There is no difference between the benefits provided mankind as both heterosexual and homosexual contributions are indistinguishable. Even though you keep requesting them.

I have yet to see where mankind's positive or negative accomplishments are list by the sexual preference of that person.

Again homosexuals do procreate, lesbians get pregnant gay men fertilize women any suggestion to the contrary show in my opinion a lack of knowledge of the real word.

"Which one causes the bearer hardship and suffering?"
In my list everything has caused and may still cause hardship and suffering is that your criteria for the cure?

Do you equate homosexuality with hardship and suffering?

I've answered your question answer mine

brown eyes vs. blue eyes...
black hair vs blond hair...
tall vs short...
skin colour vs skin color...

EC...which one do you cure?

"Which one do you cure...."

I wouldn't spend any time attempting to cure homosexuality. Don't think it's a subject for medicine or public policy.

I also don't think it's completely genetics. I also know the available evidence suggests it couldn't be.

"Which one do you cure...."

I wouldn't spend any time attempting to cure homosexuality. Don't think it's a subject for medicine or public policy.
I also don't think it's completely genetics. I also know the available evidence suggests it couldn't be.
#364 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-20 03:10 PM

Which evidence doesn't conclude that sexuality is genetic? I've very curious how you can make such a determination, even with gay people telling you otherwise. How do you know more about being gay than we do?

"Which evidence doesn't conclude that sexuality is genetic...?

My, you stepped in it now. if you really want to know, answer this: When someone is sexually aroused by women's shoes, and only women's shoes, is that genetic?

"Even with gay people telling you otherwise..."

Not all of them HAVE told me otherwise.

ELCIDCE90 & ExpsRedemption

Both of you I believe have stated that homosexuality is a choice.

If not a choice would either one of you advocate for a prenatal cure?

"Would either one of you advocate for a pre-natal cure....?"

Getting pretty close to the nub now. If sexual behavior is entirely hard-wired, then you put at least some of it in a class with certain cancers.

I'm pretty sure gays would rise up against the idea they would be aborted for having the gay gene(s). The really interesting question is, however, what sexual identifications-if any-they WOULD abort.

"Which evidence doesn't conclude that sexuality is genetic...?

My, you stepped in it now. if you really want to know, answer this: When someone is sexually aroused by women's shoes, and only women's shoes, is that genetic?
#366 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-20 03:39 PM

Imo: Maybe I tread carelessly where you avoid, or perhaps you are purposefully disambiguating sexual preference from fetish. They do appear intrinsic to each other - preference is no less a participating factor than availability, which means that environment plays an enormous part in determining sexual experiences as well. Things that you have experienced, seen or imagined also contribute to that - and lo, they are all related to your perspective and brain wiring - ergo, inborn capability which is stimulated as a preference to a great extent.

So, it is possible to consider sexual dysfunction to be a proponent of genetics just as much as the conditions which stimulate their external influence. This might also be considered "co-conditioning" or reciprocal development, I dunno.

However, to claim that one persons fetish is everyone's isn't right either. The capacity exists and is recreated in a numerous individuals - in fact there are clubs, etiquette, etc, just with any other like-interested groupings. Imo, there is nothing wrong with the majority of fetish, sexual or otherwise, but to separate preference from fetish is merely splitting hairs on the bearded lady - they stem from similar places and do evolve together within every sexual being. One word happens to have negative connotations and thus ends debate for the other.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart in how we see things. Sexuality is complicated. I've seen more than one person choose homosexual behavior purely to spite some person of the opposite sex, or some imagined representative of the opposite sex.

It's not skin off my back, nor any of my business, if they then call themselves gays. But I've listened to the conscious chain of choice they used to get there. The strange notion they must have always been gay is just that-strange.

The strange notion they must have always been gay is just that-strange.

Posted by Zed at 2010-02-20 04:28 PM | Reply

How is it strange? I didn't choose to be straight, it's just what I'm attracted to, while same sex disgusts me.

Did YOU choose to be straight, zed?

#361 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-20 02:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

That is a nice rant on something not directed at you and trying to be understood from anothe poster who insists that ones homosexuality is "none of our business" yet at the same time continues to make it a all of our business.

There is a problem there.

Secondly, I have not concluded that it is or is not a choice.

I see plenty of people claim that they were born that way, and I see plenty of individuals say that they made a choice to be homosexual and that they would be able to love a heterosexual or a homosexual person if they chose to .

Really, when it comes down to it, love is a choice. You can love anyone you want, since love is effort put forth into the life of another person, to do what is best for them whether they like it or not. Attaction is attraction and lust. Love is something far greater than that, which renders someone attractive who is no longer attractive to you.

I think a great deal of homosexuality and heterosexuality deals with lust being confused as love.

To love someone is a choice, to lust after someone is directed by different means of attraction and want.

#372 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2010-02-20 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Just because you are attracted to someoene means nothing. You could choose to love someone of the other sex yes or no?

People often confuse love for lust like I just said.

If you say you love your wife, but then leave her just because she does something you don't like or you find someone more attractive, you never loved your wife.

Many people say that they love someone, and yet have done nothing sacrificial for that person to any degree, they only "love" them so far as the other persons do what is pleasing to themselves

The example, ALEX, was taken from other persons who-as adults, not children---Assembled evidence and made arguments as to why they are now gay.

The evidence and the arguments had everything to do with themselves and other adults in the present. There was nothing about always having certain feelings since as far back as they could remember.

In other words, by all appearances and by their own testimony, they chose.

I'm not sure we're all that far apart in how we see things. Sexuality is complicated. I've seen more than one person choose homosexual behavior purely to spite some person of the opposite sex, or some imagined representative of the opposite sex.
It's not skin off my back, nor any of my business, if they then call themselves gays. But I've listened to the conscious chain of choice they used to get there. The strange notion they must have always been gay is just that-strange.
#371 | Posted by Zed at 2010-02-20 04:28 PM

Look - you've once again mistyped - "gay" was a label attached to homosexuals. Later, we co-opted it due to a number of factors, the simplest being that the word itself isn't bad whatsoever. I usually don't hear it as a slur either from hetero or homosexual people. It appears to be a middle-ground invented to permit less clinical sexual reference.

What about phenotypes is that mysterious? I smell a person that I'm attracted to and involuntary biological actions commence. This happens with all males and females of all sexualities.

Choosing any sexual "behavior" isn't obscure either - healthy sexual activity is just that - healthy. Some people are more active than others, but no less capable of feeling hurt when told they are wrong for participation with a person of their same gender. It's out-dated social constraints that limit our experiences and influence our sexual development negatively.

The strange notion they must have always been gay is just that-strange.
Posted by Zed at 2010-02-20 04:28 PM

How is it strange? I didn't choose to be straight, it's just what I'm attracted to, while same sex disgusts me.
Did YOU choose to be straight, zed?
#372 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2010-02-20 04:40 PM

I will highly doubt that you are entirely disgusted. There is undoubtedly some manner which gay sex would be appealing. It is the "forbidden fruit", after all - so if you don't like papaya then enjoy pineapple! I encourage you to experiment with your sexual horizon and "gay it up" a bit. "Disgusted" is a word reserved for images like Bill Maher stuffing the Coultergeist.:]

#361 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-20 02:13 PM

That is a nice rant on something not directed at you and trying to be understood from anothe poster who insists that ones homosexuality is "none of our business" yet at the same time continues to make it a all of our business.
There is a problem there.
Secondly, I have not concluded that it is or is not a choice.
I see plenty of people claim that they were born that way, and I see plenty of individuals say that they made a choice to be homosexual and that they would be able to love a heterosexual or a homosexual person if they chose to .
Really, when it comes down to it, love is a choice. You can love anyone you want, since love is effort put forth into the life of another person, to do what is best for them whether they like it or not. Attaction is attraction and lust. Love is something far greater than that, which renders someone attractive who is no longer attractive to you.
I think a great deal of homosexuality and heterosexuality deals with lust being confused as love.
To love someone is a choice, to lust after someone is directed by different means of attraction and want.
#373 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-20 04:44 PM

I don't know what to say to you. "Love is a choice"?! "love is effort"?! Love is rarely a "choice", whereas relationships typically require some "sacrifice" - ie choices. Attraction is easy, again - relationships are effort. What insane percolation makes you conclude that gays cannot tell the difference between love and attraction? Am I also incapable of distinguishing between apples and bananas? How about whole milk versus 2%? What about right from wrong? But maybe this idea of yours has some basis in reality - what makes heterosexual relationships work as long-term family arrangements? What do heterosexual relationships possess that homosexual ones do not? The marriage license, nothing more.

If you can't appreciate the subtleties of this argument or why I responded to you then there is less and less that you are actually capable of comprehending. Sorry.

Homosexualty is genetic.

It's nature's way of preventing the gene pool from being contaminated.

Unfortunately, nature is being bypassed with the turkey baster.

Homosexualty is genetic.
It's nature's way of preventing the gene pool from being contaminated.
Unfortunately, nature is being bypassed with the turkey baster.
#378 | Posted by willowby at 2010-02-20 06:13 PM

I'm afraid that you are proof that the gene pool is already "contaminated". What makes you believe that you are superior to anyone?

While we are throwing underhand - it's a fact that heterosexuals have on average more sexually transmitted diseases - which has more to do with the popularity of indiscriminate sex and lack of hygiene than sexuality, but it's obviously an interesting comparison for someone so puritanically-minded who imagines that "nature" prefers to punish homosexuality. Also, it's proven that the vast majority of pedophiles are heterosexual, married and with kids. It's scary how many straight people shouldn't breed whatsoever, but as a genetic curse who am I to say?

Incidentally - "turkey baster" is in fact now referred to as "fertility clinic". You know, the place where you can have even more than eight viable fetus implanted - just so long as you are straight (and mentally handicapped).

You may fire when ready.

CPAC crowd boos Gay Basher Ryan Sorba - social reform is not only eminent, but occurring. It appears that CPAC already knows and accepts gay campaigners.

No one is not accepting homosexuals. And you seem to be missing the point of the love concept that I proposed.

Homosexuals have just as much capability to love a heterosexual person as a heterosexual person has the ability to love a homosexual person.

Love is something that you choose to enact, it is more of an action than it is a feeling. Attraction is a feeling, but often times people are attracted (sometimes attracted to even more so to) to people who they do not love.

What is your definition of love Redlight?

It would appear from the nature of people that Homosexuals have just as much capability to love someone of the opposite sex as they do to love someone of the same sex.
I would say that the same goes for heterosexuals. Each person has the capability to love, as it is a choice and an action. Based on that, each person has the propensity to be a homosexual or a heterosexual, as if you love someone of the same sex, you are homosexual, if you love someone of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual.

Even this is not very descript, because it is more based on the fact that if you have sex with either same sex or opposite sex, that determines if you are homosexual or heterosexual.

Honestly, homosexuality and heterosexuality seem to be determined based on who you choose to have sex with rather than who you are attracted to.

You can love anyone, you may be attracted to a lot of people, but that does not mean that you love them. A "homosexual" can love a person of the opposite sex and be in a sexual realationship with them, making them a heterosexual.

A "heterosexual" can love a person of the same sex and be in a sexual relationship with them, making them a homosexual.

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not decided by who you are attracted to, but rather who you choose to have a sexual relationship with and who you choose to love.

"but rather who you choose to have a sexual relationship with and who you choose to love."

Then you're a bisexual.

I could no more fall in love with a man than I could live on the sun.

"Homosexualty is genetic."

So which one is gay: Lynne Cheney, or Dick Cheney?

"If you say you love your wife, but then leave her just because she does something you don't like or you find someone more attractive, you never loved your wife."

Says the guy who's been married...what, three weeks?

#382 | Posted by Danforth at 2010-02-20 08:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

You cannot fall in love, just as you cannot fall out of love.

You can fall into lust, and fall out of lust once you get tired of the individual and find that you cannot stand some of their personal habits.

However if you love someone, much of their personal habits would be able to be coped with, and you would still treat them the same way, or atleast attempt to so far as it depended on you.

Danforth, how do you define love then?

You are only bi-sexual if you are having sexual relations with both sexes, as if you have sex with a person of the same sex you are homosexual, if you have sex with a person of the opposite sex you are heterosexual.

I would say someone doesn't determine anything until they have had sex with someone, whether from the opposite or same sex.

Up until that point they are non sexual.

How do you define love Danforth?

"You are only bi-sexual if you are having sexual relations with both sexes"

No, dude, you're bisexual if you're attracted to both genders, which, according to your protestations, you are.

"You cannot fall in love"
"However if you love someone"

Too rich. You can't even go one post without tripping all over yourself.

"How do you define love Danforth?"

The same way my mother defined it when I asked her lo those many years ago: wanting even better for the other person than you want for yourself.

"choice or reality"?

Not a very good title for a thread.

A choice IS reality.

You know...it really doesn't matter why people are gay or how they become gay.

What matters is how those people are treated.

I think this thread is supposed to be a question of whether or not a person chooses to be gay.

I think if a person does choose their sexual orientation, they probably do it at such a young age they wouldn't know when it happened.

As an adult you can choose whether or not to act on your urges. That's about it, really.

I'll say this.

I think it is important that young men be mentored.

As I've said before, I think there is a certain percentage of men who enter the gay lifestyle who were deprived of a strong male identity, but may have been straight at one point. They learned to have sex with men although they are still quite capable of being aroused with a woman.

At some time in their life, they may have suspected they were gay and unfortunately the gay culture might be inclined to encourage it if they reached out for help with the matter.

Lacking a strong male identity is not the same as being gay, but a young man might confuse the two.

Overcoming this deficiency can take a life time.

If a person does choose the gay lifestyle, that would be their right. Some people are unquestionably and absolutely homosexual.

A person may or may not choose their sexual orientation, but they do choose their sexual lifestyle.

BillJohnson-
re: "Overcoming this deficiency can take a life time."

We wish you the best of luck, as you obviously speak from experience. Thank you for your very moving post, and don't give up!

No one is not accepting homosexuals. And you seem to be missing the point of the love concept that I proposed.

WHAT?! Did I pass through some magical portal into a world of acceptance?! YIPP... oh, you are full of it.

Homosexuals have just as much capability to love a heterosexual person as a heterosexual person has the ability to love a homosexual person.
Love is something that you choose to enact, it is more of an action than it is a feeling. Attraction is a feeling, but often times people are attracted (sometimes attracted to even more so to) to people who they do not love.
What is your definition of love Redlight?

My what? I'm still feeling shysted from that tolerant world crap you pulled. If you are looking for love I've heard someone exclaim it's "the one without a gag reflex". Dunno.

It would appear from the nature of people that Homosexuals have just as much capability to love someone of the opposite sex as they do to love someone of the same sex.
I would say that the same goes for heterosexuals. Each person has the capability to love, as it is a choice and an action. Based on that, each person has the propensity to be a homosexual or a heterosexual, as if you love someone of the same sex, you are homosexual, if you love someone of the opposite sex, you are heterosexual.
Even this is not very descript, because it is more based on the fact that if you have sex with either same sex or opposite sex, that determines if you are homosexual or heterosexual.
Honestly, homosexuality and heterosexuality seem to be determined based on who you choose to have sex with rather than who you are attracted to.

Can HELP determine - gender and sexual identity are often more complicated that "he slept/she slept". I wholly agree that social programming is what often turns people into self-loathing, bitchy bastards who really need to get out more often.

You can love anyone, you may be attracted to a lot of people, but that does not mean that you love them. A "homosexual" can love a person of the opposite sex and be in a sexual realationship with them, making them a heterosexual.

It might make them bi-curious or bi-sexual (which I believe is common to 90% of humans), but invariably if this is a homosexual person she/he may yearn for a same-sex partner. This ingrained behavior to seek a suitable mate is relevant to all sexual beings. For most cultures starting your own family is an important rite of adulthood.

A "heterosexual" can love a person of the same sex and be in a sexual relationship with them, making them a homosexual.

Again, this is bi-sexual territory. Nearly all straight men that I know are bi-curious and are heterosexually-identifying in every other way. Nearly all women than I know are curious about homosexual men sexually. This was supposed to be a win/win, if it weren't for religious intolerance.. [grr]

Homosexuality and Heterosexuality are not decided by who you are attracted to, but rather who you choose to have a sexual relationship with and who you choose to love.
#381 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-20 07:55 PM

Two two choices are not mutually exclusive because we all generally understand there is to be some experimentation, but in our society sexual identity holds a powerful stigma. Sex, love and attraction - I would be shocked if "altering" one genetic trait doesn't have repercussions for those others intrinsic to sexuality.

If you want to eliminate "gay" you will need to understand the underlying cause. To be in possession of that knowledge would enable the complete and utter cessation of all human reproduction, should it be used incorrectly. Homosexuality is evolutionarily causality - we promote better breeding pairs as well as help the chances of our average-looking straight friends who happen to enjoy the attention girls give us gays. We are your two drink minimum, your Jedi mind trick, your master bait.. er.. :]

Seriously though - love is painful, sickening and uncertain - it's sometimes triumphant but ultimately inspired and enduring. Love doesn't require risk or reward - itself being neither and both. It is also an impression of who and what you are, want to be and ultimately the expression of those qualities. That said, Moulin Rouge dedicated an entire song to every love song, but it's too much sugar for one teaspoon.

That is love - too much sugar for one teaspoon.

Danforth, I do not see how I am tripping over myself, as

1) Love is a real concept in life
2) The fact that you cant fall in love does not mean that you cannot love someone.
3) Love is an intentional, logical and reasoned decision, not some rash, impulsive feeling. Thus you cannot "fall in love" but you can still love someone, as loving is a continuous process and a continuous act. You cannot fall into and out of a continuous act of that nature, as its duration dictates it's definition. If you do not endure, you did not love, you simply had a rash, impulsive feeling, reacted on it, and eventually it wore off and you got tired of it.

4)Do you tend to haphazardly and unintentionally fall into well thought out and intentional decisions? If you don't (and I hope you don't because it wouldn't make any sense) then you would not be able to fall in love, rather you would intentionally love someone.

#389 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-21 12:21 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

When talking about the acceptance or non acceptance of homosexuals as persons, I was referring to this thread and not the world in general. I do not think that people are not accepting of homosexuals on this particular thread. You may percieve it that way, but if you asked them I think they would probably tell you otherwise.

"Are people born homophobic or is it a choice?"

answers.yahoo.com

#389 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2010-02-21 12:21 AM

When talking about the acceptance or non acceptance of homosexuals as persons, I was referring to this thread and not the world in general. I do not think that people are not accepting of homosexuals on this particular thread. You may percieve it that way, but if you asked them I think they would probably tell you otherwise.
#392 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-21 12:47 AM

I apologize for making unintentional generalizations, particularly regarding our blogmates, but it seemed to fit the overview regarding sexual identity. Try and be more specific next time I'll try and keep with it.

My personal views is that religious and fundamentalist notions of puritanical sexuality are entirely fictional, fascistic and harmful. Whom you love isn't determined by logic - I can't say it would be logical to be hurt in a relationship, but it is a logical outcome to a bad one.

What makes you believe in logic over love? That you can see the logic of an argument from beginning to end, backwards and forwards - it has an outcome that can be predetermined based on any number of data sets? Love operates under the premise of day to day, moment by excruciating moments desire to illogically spend as much time as possible with someone. To love someone to distraction is rarely logical, but no less reality.

"The fact that you cant fall in love does not mean that you cannot love someone."

It's your conceit people can't fall in love. You're redefining the concept to fit your argument's need.

You're obviously young. Maybe with age will come wisdom.

I described what love is, you cannot fall into it by accident.

If you refuse to believe that it would seem that you have fallen out of the ability to think logically.

I described what love is, you cannot fall into it by accident.
If you refuse to believe that it would seem that you have fallen out of the ability to think logically.
#396 | Posted by ExpsRedemption at 2010-02-21 06:03 PM

Are you being literal when you state "fall into"?

I'm confused about how you interpret the statement "fall in love with" - it's metaphoric by my notions.. I might be mistaken.

"I described what love is, you cannot fall into it by accident."

No, YOU cannot fall into by accident. There's a difference.

I do not see how you can "fall" into an intentional action. You can "fall" into lust, however I do not see how you can "fall" into love.

Explain to me what "falling into love" means in your mind.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable