# know what really causes homosexuality....



## midcan5

"You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"

"This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"

"The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."

"Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."

"Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."

"If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"

"Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?

Hate is not reasonable.

"Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.

"The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.

"Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.

"And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."

www.scottowen.org


----------



## Toro

Usually, those who are most anti-homosexual wind up being a little light in the loafers, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Diuretic

How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Diuretic said:


> How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.



I'd say about the same number choose their sexuality as choose their religion.  As Guru Bob would say, "Think about it...."


----------



## 007

How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Pale Rider said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.






> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me,



Not to mention how the former mans ass feels about his fickle master cheating on him!  

Watch it, Pole Rider. Your Ponce Of Peace, Chewsarse, knows tool means cock and ass is Chrischun code for the Anglo-Saxon *arse* 

I was walkin' down the street
Concentratin' on truckin' right
I heard a dark voice beside of me
And I looked round in a state of fright
I saw four faces one mad
A brother from the gutter
They looked me up and down a bit
And turned to each other

I say
I don't like cricket oh no
I love it
I don't like cricket oh no
I love it
Don't you walk thru my words
You got to show some respect
Don't you walk thru my words
'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

Well he looked down at my silver chain
He said I'll give you one dollar
I said you've got to be jokin' man
It was a present from me Mother
He said I like it I want it
I'll take it off your hands
And you'll be sorry you crossed me
You'd better understand that you're alone
A long way from home

And I say
I don't like reggae no no
I love it
I don't like reggae oh no
I love it
Don't you cramp me style
Don't you queer on me pitch
Don't you walk thru my words
'Cause you ain't heard me out yet

I hurried back to the swimming pool
Sinkin' pina coladas
I heard a dark voice beside me say
Would you like something harder
She said I've got it you want it
My harvest is the best
And if you try it you'll like it
And wallow in a Dreadlock Holiday

And I say
Don't like Jamaica oh no
I love her
Don't like Jamaica oh no
I love her oh yea
Don't you walk thru her words
You got to show some respect
Don't you walk thru her words
'Cause you ain't heard her out yet

I don't like cricket
I love it (Dreadlock Holiday)
I don't like reggae
I love it (Dreadlock Holiday)
Don't like Jamaica
I love her (Dreadlock Holiday)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Pale Rider said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.



If you believe in God and Jesus then "telling them" anything of the sort is wrong. It is fine if asked to inform someone of your personal belief about whether homosexuality is acceptable to YOU. But that whole "Judge not, least you be Judged" thing gets in the way of denouncing anyone publicly.

Do feel free to VOTE and inform your representatives and other of your desire not to promote nor condone Homosexuality. That is a different kettle of fish. I do agree though that practicing homosexuals are sinning. I also believe as a society we should not encourage the life style. I do not agree we should make it illegal or punish anyone for their PRIVATE sexual conduct as long as all parties involved are of legal age and are consenting. Gay people have and SHOULD have all the rights and protections EVERYONE else have. NOTE I said PRIVATE, as a society we can and should enforce laws to prevent PUBLIC displays the majority find offensive, including nakedness and sexual conduct ( no I do not mean kissing or hugging or holding hands).


----------



## Diuretic

And we know how 10CC chose their name Chips (unless it be an urban myth)


----------



## Toro

I know when I was 11 or 12, I thought long and hard about my sexuality.  I read many books, talked to many people, even wrote a report about it in grade 6, then "decided" I liked girls best and wanted to be a heterosexual.  

Life's been good ever since.


----------



## Diuretic

Females are just so..............lovely.


----------



## midcan5

As the author writes above, hate is not reasonable so why do we reason with the hateful.

My brother is gay, often the second child is gay pointing towards biology.

I knew from very young he was different, it is obvious that homosexuality is an inherited trait. 

My wife who has taught over 25 years says you can tell very young.

Is their sex stranger than ours, anyone who thinks that has had little experience, and or no libido.

If no libido maybe they should switch.

I always recommend for those who think it is a choice or taught, try switch hitting.

No need to go all the away in above, just check out his ass rather than hers or vice versa.

Oh, yea, let us know how you do, and if you are a good learner.


----------



## Gunny

Diuretic said:


> How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.



Only of you choose to put forth an argument based solely on conscious choice fo the purpose of blindly defending an aberrant behavior.


----------



## Diuretic

GunnyL said:


> Only of you choose to put forth an argument based solely on conscious choice fo the purpose of blindly defending an aberrant behavior.



Did you choose your sexuality?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> Did you choose your sexuality?



Yes one chooses who they have sex with. And since admitted GAY people have been married and had children then the claim they have no choice is simply not supported by the facts.

I suspect that some gay people are attracted to the same sex because of "biological" wiring. But even then they have choices.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes one chooses who they have sex with. And since admitted GAY people have been married and had children then the claim they have no choice is simply not supported by the facts.
> 
> I suspect that some gay people are attracted to the same sex because of "biological" wiring. But even then they have choices.



I wasn't being specific, I can tell you that I might choose to have sex with someone and get told pretty bloody quickly it ain't gonna happen  

The fact though that some outwardly heterosexual people marry someone of the opposite sex and have children with them isn't proof of anything other than the fact that human sexuality is complex.  That's the only conclusion to be drawn there.  Humans are capable of being heterosexual, bisexual, asexual and so on.  

I don't know what makes people heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual.  But I don't think it's choice.  I mean, if it were about choice why the hell would anyone choose a form of sexual expression that saw them villified?


----------



## Gunny

Diuretic said:


> Did you choose your sexuality?



Intellectually dishonest.  One does not have to choose default normal.  This question, as was your last, is based on your presumption that all choices are premeditated and conscious.


----------



## midcan5

I don't mean to offend you guys but you must live in a cave or your range of acquaintances is very limited. Ask any gay person how powerful social forces are and then ask why would they choose the hardest way possible. Everyone of you have gays in your family unless you are related to that character in Iran. It is presumptuous to assume you understand another's feeling so deeply, but again try switch hitting. No guts, or are you so insecure in your psyche that this scares you. The real sissies in this world are those so insecure, so limited in their life experiences that they can hate another with no understanding. Pale rider is one of those cowards.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

midcan5 said:


> I don't mean to offend you guys but you must live in a cave or your range of acquaintances is very limited. Ask any gay person how powerful social forces are and then ask why would they choose the hardest way possible. Everyone of you have gays in your family unless you are related to that character in Iran. It is presumptuous to assume you understand another's feeling so deeply, but again try switch hitting. No guts, or are you so insecure in your psyche that this scares you. The real sissies in this world are those so insecure, so limited in their life experiences that they can hate another with no understanding. Pale rider is one of those cowards.



Sorry I made my sexual choice LONG ago and it aint about to change.


----------



## midcan5

you did? please tell us all about it, was it tough, did you wonder for years if you made the right choice, do you still wonder? please share that as I completely forget that choice. lol


----------



## RetiredGySgt

midcan5 said:


> you did? please tell us all about it, was it tough, did you wonder for years if you made the right choice, do you still wonder? please share that as I completely forget that choice. lol



Nope, the prospect of "man" love is just not where I wanted to go. I am not Bi either. I prefer women and will never willingly have sex with a man. I made my choice when I was a teen, around 7th grade. Had a friend that would have been quite willing to have sex with me, I liked him a lot and we remained friends, just never lovers. He wasn't gay either, just Bi I suspect, since he liked girls too.


----------



## Gunny

midcan5 said:


> I don't mean to offend you guys but you must live in a cave or your range of acquaintances is very limited. Ask any gay person how powerful social forces are and then ask why would they choose the hardest way possible. Everyone of you have gays in your family unless you are related to that character in Iran. It is presumptuous to assume you understand another's feeling so deeply, but again try switch hitting. No guts, or are you so insecure in your psyche that this scares you. The real sissies in this world are those so insecure, so limited in their life experiences that they can hate another with no understanding. Pale rider is one of those cowards.



Another ridiculous appeal to emotion.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes one chooses who they have sex with. And since admitted GAY people have been married and had children then the claim they have no choice is simply not supported by the facts.
> 
> I suspect that some gay people are attracted to the same sex because of "biological" wiring. But even then they have choices.



Sexuality is not defined solely as who you choose to have sex with.   And really...its retarded to suggest that they should have sex with people they aren't attracted too, so you don't get squeamish.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Intellectually dishonest.  One does not have to choose default normal.



Umm, if its a choice, yes actually you do.



> This question, as was your last, is based on your presumption that all choices are premeditated and conscious.



Premeditation has nothing to do with it.   And if its an unconscious choice than the whole debate is moot...since by saying its a choice the implication is that they can control it, and generally we can't control our unconscious choices.   Or at least its significantly more difficult.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Another ridiculous appeal to emotion.



Its not an appeal to emotion at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Sexuality is not defined solely as who you choose to have sex with.   And really...its retarded to suggest that they should have sex with people they aren't attracted too, so you don't get squeamish.



Once again, I do not CARE if consenting adults have sex with other consenting adults, as long as it is not in my face.


----------



## Diuretic

GunnyL said:


> Intellectually dishonest.  One does not have to choose default normal.  This question, as was your last, is based on your presumption that all choices are premeditated and conscious.



It was just a question.  You could have answered it "yes" or "no".


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again, I do not CARE if consenting adults have sex with other consenting adults, as long as it is not in my face.



The sex itself is never in your face unless you choose it to be.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Umm, if its a choice, yes actually you do.
> 
> Wrong.  You don't choose to follow natural order.  You choose to go against it.
> 
> 
> Premeditation has nothing to do with it.   And if its an unconscious choice than the whole debate is moot...since by saying its a choice the implication is that they can control it, and generally we can't control our unconscious choices.   Or at least its significantly more difficult.



I expect a little better out of you, but then, I have only to look at the topic to understand.  Do note that I have made no absolute statements because I at least am honest enough to say no one, to include myself, knows what causes homosexuality.  Yet all I see are absolute arguments on the topic.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again, I do not CARE if consenting adults have sex with other consenting adults, as long as it is not in my face.



But your tolerance isn't the issue.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> The sex itself is never in your face unless you choose it to be.



Not true, homsexual men routinely have sex in public places. They leave the evidence behind, in some places it is so bad the Police have special units JUST to catch them.

And then there are the GAY day parades. Fortunately for me I do not live in a city that has those things. But I have to see the results or read about them when they happen even if only for a moment, because the press and our networks show that crap.

I wonder if we had a Heterosexual day parade if the press would even attend? And I can assure you if one were held and the participants did the things gays do in those parades they would be arrested for lewd behavior and having sex in public.


----------



## Gunny

Diuretic said:


> It was just a question.  You could have answered it "yes" or "no".



Don't get all butthurt, dude.  My point is this: playing on emotion doesn't answer the question, not solve any problems.  I'm merely pointing out the the defenders of homosexuality are as guilty of distorting the facts/appealing to emotion as those they point fingers at.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> I expect a little better out of you, but then, I have only to look at the topic to understand.  Do note that I have made no absolute statements because I at least am honest enough to say no one, to include myself, knows what causes homosexuality.  Yet all I see are absolute arguments on the topic.



Do note that I have also made no absolute statements.   At least about choice.   Whether its a choice is irrelevant.   



> Wrong. You don't choose to follow natural order. You choose to go against it.



"Natural order"?   More bullshit terms that mean nothing in the context of this discussion.   Like "Aberrant" and "Deviant".


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Do note that I have also made no absolute statements.   At least about choice.   Whether its a choice is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> "Natural order"?   More bullshit terms that mean nothing in the context of this discussion.   Like "Aberrant" and "Deviant".



Wrong.  Biology/science defines natural order quite nicely.  You choose to ignore the blatantly obvious for the sake of your argument.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Do note that I have also made no absolute statements.   At least about choice.   Whether its a choice is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> "Natural order"?   More bullshit terms that mean nothing in the context of this discussion.   Like "Aberrant" and "Deviant".



How about abnormal? And Deviant is acceptable also in a strict sense of the word. You are all about word meanings and all.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Not true, homsexual men routinely have sex in public places. They leave the evidence behind, in some places it is so bad the Police have special units JUST to catch them.



Err, you do know that straights have sex in public as well, right?   And I have lived in several very gay friendly cities and I used to go to gay clubs all the time...I have never seen public gay sex.   I've seen public straight sex...never public gay sex.



> And then there are the GAY day parades. Fortunately for me I do not live in a city that has those things.



Which people don't have gay sex at.   You just find out *gasp* that there are gay people out there.   Oh noes!



> But I have to see the results or read about them when they happen even if only for a moment, because the press and our networks show that crap.



The results?   And pray tell what are the results?



> I wonder if we had a Heterosexual day parade if the press would even attend? And I can assure you if one were held and the participants did the things gays do in those parades they would be arrested for lewd behavior and having sex in public.



Umm, no.  They don't have sex at those parades.   Sexuality is flaunted, but there is no sex there.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ohh look aberrant applies as well.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aberrant


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Wrong.  Biology/science defines natural order quite nicely.  You choose to ignore the blatantly obvious for the sake of your argument.



So please define "natural order" for me.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> How about abnormal? And Deviant is acceptable also in a strict sense of the word. You are all about word meanings and all.



And which definitions of abnormal and deviant would you like to use?   Please...post the exact definition here.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh look aberrant applies as well.
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aberrant



Again...there are several definitions there.   Pick one you want to apply to homosexuals and please tell me why that makes them "wrong".


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Again...there are several definitions there.   Pick one you want to apply to homosexuals and please tell me why that makes them "wrong".



I did not use the word wrong. Now did I?

What? You don't like when someone else plays your game with words? All 3 words have a clear meaning that fits Homosexuals.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> So please define "natural order" for me.



Again?  How many times must I do this before you get the idea that science backs my argument, not yours?  All you want to do is play with the words and try to come off with some dshonest, distorted so-called "victory."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> Again?  How many times must I do this before you get the idea that science backs my argument, not yours?  All you want to do is play with the words and try to come off with some dshonest, distorted so-called "victory."



He can not even do that, the words HE choice to say do not apply, clearly do. Of course NOW he is trying to change the context, as usual.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> I did not use the word wrong. Now did I?
> 
> What? You don't like when someone else plays your game with words? All 3 words have a clear meaning that fits Homosexuals.



The problem is that you use the definition of "not the majority" the say they are deviant, and then say that they are wrong because they are deviant.   This is mixing up two definitions of the same word and using them interchangably.   Its really quite dishonest and pretty fucking annoying.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Again?  How many times must I do this before you get the idea that science backs my argument, not yours?  All you want to do is play with the words and try to come off with some dshonest, distorted so-called "victory."



Science does NOT back your argument that they are wrong.   Sorry, but that is just a retarded argument.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> He can not even do that, the words HE choice to say do not apply, clearly do. Of course NOW he is trying to change the context, as usual.



They apply it only ONE way, but yet you are applying them in multiple ways.   Unless you really think that those things that aren't commonplace are therefore wrong?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> The problem is that you use the definition of "not the majority" the say they are deviant, and then say that they are wrong because they are deviant.   This is mixing up two definitions of the same word and using them interchangably.   Its really quite dishonest and pretty fucking annoying.



How is it mixing definitions?  They are wrong because they are deviant is quite logical.  Justifying one with the other does not = mixing definitions.


----------



## Larkinn

PS...under the definitions you are usingRepublicans are also deviant, and aberrant.  So are US troops.   Fun game, huh?


----------



## Diuretic

GunnyL said:


> Don't get all butthurt, dude.  My point is this: playing on emotion doesn't answer the question, not solve any problems.  I'm merely pointing out the the defenders of homosexuality are as guilty of distorting the facts/appealing to emotion as those they point fingers at.



Butthurt?  

All I did was ask for a response to simple question.  It got all complex


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> How is it mixing definitions?  They are wrong because they are deviant is quite logical.  Justifying one with the other does not = mixing definitions.



Please tell me...which definition of deviant are you using?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> The problem is that you use the definition of "not the majority" the say they are deviant, and then say that they are wrong because they are deviant.   This is mixing up two definitions of the same word and using them interchangably.   Its really quite dishonest and pretty fucking annoying.



Once again, show me where I said they are wrong. I said they are commiting a sin. That is because I believe that from a religious point of view. BUT note carefully from a legal standpoint I have made no such claim. In fact I have stated more than once in more than one thread that Homosexuals must be protected the same as everyone else and that sex between consenting adults in private is no ones business but theirs. I have even supported "civil unions" to include removing marriage from the Government all together and leaving that as a religious ceremony.

Each of the three words can and apply to Homosexuals. Now come on, it is ok to admit your wrong. I promise I won't even make a point of reminding you if you do.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> PS...under the definitions you are usingRepublicans are also deviant, and aberrant.  So are US troops.   Fun game, huh?



Gee, did I call this or what?  Word games.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Please tell me...which definition of deviant are you using?



Here try this link...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deviant


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again, show me where I said they are wrong. I said they are commiting a sin. That is because I believe that from a religious point of view. BUT note carefully from a legal standpoint I have made no such claim. In fact I have stated more than once in more than one thread that Homosexuals must be protected the same as everyone else and that sex between consenting adults in private is no ones business but theirs. I have even supported "civil unions" to include removing marriage from the Government all together and leaving that as a religious ceremony.
> 
> Each of the three words can and apply to Homosexuals. Now come on, it is ok to admit your wrong. I promise I won't even make a point of reminding you if you do.



Well then kudos on you, if you don't believe its wrong.   But if you don't believe it, why do you apply those terms to them which have obvious negative connotations which, if you don't think its wrong, don't apply?


----------



## Gunny

Diuretic said:


> Butthurt?
> 
> All I did was ask for a response to simple question.  It got all complex



It's the Wild Turkey.  Will do it to you every time.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Gee, did I call this or what?  Word games.



Come now Gunny...please tell me what definition of deviant you want to use.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Here try this link...
> 
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deviant



There are two different definitions there.   This is the whole problem.   Pick ONE.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> Gee, did I call this or what?  Word games.



Republicans make up at least 30 percent of the population as do Democrats. BEING a Republican or a Democrat is not abnormal nor is deviant, nor aberrant. But hey if you want to claim they are then so are democrats. I can live with that.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Please tell me...which definition of deviant are you using?



For the purposes of this argument, deviant is "other than normal."


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> There are two different definitions there.   This is the whole problem.   Pick ONE.



Both of the first two completely apply. Your the Mensa candidate, are you saying you can not see it?


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> For the purposes of this argument, deviant is "other than normal."



Lmfao...of course you choose to use another loaded term.   What a surprise...now please define "normal".


----------



## Diuretic

GunnyL said:


> It's the Wild Turkey.  Will do it to you every time.



 

If I'm going to drink spirits I can't see through I prefer a good Irish whiskey (pref Jameson's).


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Republicans make up at least 30 percent of the population as do Democrats. BEING a Republican or a Democrat is not abnormal nor is deviant, nor aberrant. But hey if you want to claim they are then so are democrats. I can live with that.



Actually, under your definitions, its all three of those things.   But, as you point out, so is being a Democrat.   I am merely illustrating how useless, stupid, and dishonest using those terms are merely to associate gays with the negative connotations that follow along with them.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Lmfao...of course you choose to use another loaded term.   What a surprise...now please define "normal".



The term isn't loaded.  You're doing as I predicted.  Playing word games instead of debating content on merit.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Lmfao...of course you choose to use another loaded term.   What a surprise...now please define "normal".



You can not be serious. Heterosexuals are the NORM. Even assuming the greatest claim of 10 to 12 percent of the population being homosexual, that makes them NOT the norm.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> The term isn't loaded.  You're doing as I predicted.  Playing word games instead of debating content on merit.



Come now Gunny...all I am asking is for a simple definition.   I'm sure even you are capable of doing that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Actually, under your definitions, its all three of those things.   But, as you point out, so is being a Democrat.   I am merely illustrating how useless, stupid, and dishonest using those terms are merely to associate gays with the negative connotations that follow along with them.



You play the games, do not bitch and moan when your own rules are used against you.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. Heterosexuals are the NORM. Even assuming the greatest claim of 10 to 12 percent of the population being homosexual, that makes them NOT the norm.



Here Gunny...RGS just defined normal for you, sort of.   Are you comfortable with the definition of normal which means, not the majority?


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> You play the games, do not bitch and moan when your own rules are used against you.



What rules?  What the hell are you talking about?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Here Gunny...RGS just defined normal for you, sort of.   Are you comfortable with the definition of normal which means, not the majority?



LOL, Heterosexuals ARE the majority.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL, Heterosexuals ARE the majority.



No shit sherlock.   I am not arguing otherwise.


----------



## Gunny

> deviant:
> 
> 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
> noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
> 
> normal:
> 
> 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
> 2. serving to establish a standard.
> 
> www.dictionary.com


Do we need to look up every word used to satisfy your games of semantics, or what?


----------



## doniston

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can not be serious. Heterosexuals are the NORM. Even assuming the greatest claim of 10 to 12 percent of the population being homosexual, that makes them NOT the norm.


  There is a great deal of difference between being normal, which Gays are, regardless of percentages, and of the norm, which is the percentage (or the majority.)  I am much older than the norm, but none-the-less normal in that reguard


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Here Gunny...RGS just defined normal for you, sort of.   Are you comfortable with the definition of normal which means, not the majority?



Got a prewritten argument based on semantics rather than content, do you?


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Do we need to look up every word used to satisfy your games of semantics, or what?



Jesus Christ...pick ONE definition.   Are you comfortable with using the definition of normal as "conforming to the standard of common type"?


----------



## Gunny

doniston said:


> There is a great deal of difference between being normal, which Gays are, regardless of percentages, and of the norm, which is the percentage (or the majority.)



Well, thanks for your absolute "opinion."


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Got a prewritten argument based on semantics rather than content, do you?



You have no content which is why you have to use loaded terminology with diverging definitions.   I have to do this shit because you aren't honest enough to pick one definition and stick with it.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Jesus Christ...pick ONE definition.   Are you comfortable with using the definition of normal as "conforming to the standard of common type"?



Are you going to quit playing this gradechool game of semantics and get on with it, or what?


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Are you going to quit playing this gradechool game of semantics and get on with it, or what?



Are you going to stop dodging and pick a definition so that we can actually define who is normal and who isn't based on objective criteria?


----------



## doniston

GunnyL said:


> Well, thanks for your absolute "opinion."


  You are quite welcome.


----------



## Gunny

natural:

nat·u·ral       (n&#257;ch'&#601;r-&#601;l, n&#257;ch'r&#601;l)  Pronunciation Key  
adj.   
1.  Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. 
2.  Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment. 
3.  *Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature*: a natural death. 

www.dictionary.com

While I'm choosing, I'll take #3 for the purposes of this discussion.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Are you going to stop dodging and pick a definition so that we can actually define who is normal and who isn't based on objective criteria?



Dodging?  I think I posted the damned definitions right out of the dictionary, right?  Quit playing your little games and get on with it.  Geez ...


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> natural:
> 
> nat·u·ral       (n&#257;ch'&#601;r-&#601;l, n&#257;ch'r&#601;l)  Pronunciation Key
> adj.
> 1.  Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
> 2.  Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
> 3.  *Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature*: a natural death.
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> While I'm choosing, I'll take #3 for the purposes of this discussion.



We were looking for normal...but not natural.   I take it then you think that normal means natural and natural means conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

GunnyL said:


> Dodging?  I think I posted the damned definitions right out of the dictionary, right?  Quit playing your little games and get on with it.  Geez ...



Hoisted on his own Petard. But do not expect him to admit it.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Dodging?  I think I posted the damned definitions right out of the dictionary, right?  Quit playing your little games and get on with it.  Geez ...



tsk tsk...such impatience.   Why such dislike over defining ones terms?   I thought you were so convinced of how science favored you and such?...I would think you would relish this opportunity to prove to me once and for all how science is on your side?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> We were looking for normal...but not natural.   I take it then you think that normal means natural and natural means conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature?



I have provided dictionary definitions for both words.  Feel free to use them where they fit best.  While close in definition, they obviously are not identical terms.  

Natural would be decided by nature itself; while, "normal" can be dictated by the majority accepting something unnatural as "normal."


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> natural:
> 
> nat·u·ral       (n&#257;ch'&#601;r-&#601;l, n&#257;ch'r&#601;l)  Pronunciation Key
> adj.
> 1.  Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
> 2.  Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
> 3.  *Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature*: a natural death.
> 
> www.dictionary.com
> 
> While I'm choosing, I'll take #3 for the purposes of this discussion.



Actually, homosexuality occurs with some frequency in the ordinary course of nature. We had a very cute gay penguin couple at the zoo here, actually. And, I know that among other zoo animals, particularly primates, it isn't as unusual as you might think.

So, I don't think that really supports your theory. Perhaps you mean "average" or "mean" behavior, which would certainly be true, but doesn't discount the fact that there is a percentage occurring naturally which doesn't conform to the mean.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> tsk tsk...such impatience.   Why such dislike over defining ones terms?   I thought you were so convinced of how science favored you and such?...I would think you would relish this opportunity to prove to me once and for all how science is on your side?



More like bored with playing semantics, dude.  And please don't believe that I am delusional enough to think I can prove anything to you, regardless the facts that support my argument.


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Actually, homosexuality occurs with some frequency in the ordinary course of nature. We had a very cute gay penguin couple at the zoo here, actually. And, I know that among other zoo animals, particularly primates, it isn't as unusual as you might think.
> 
> So, I don't think that really supports your theory. Perhaps you mean "average" or "mean" behavior, which would certainly be true, but doesn't discount the fact that there is a percentage occurring naturally which doesn't conform to the mean.



That it ocurs does not place it within the parameters of the definition.  Thus, the word "deviant."  So, it supports my theory just fine.


----------



## Gunny

And while y'all sit here and play little baby word games, real life to the tune of a shovel and wheelbarrow beckons ....


----------



## Larkinn

*sigh* the reason I am trying to pin you down on this, and the reason you are squirming so much I am sure, is to show you how stupid your reasoning is.   I am pretty sure you've realized this by now which is why you refuse to pin down any definitions.   

You've said that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant...deviant is departing from the norm...norm is essentially natural which is "the usual course of nature...so essentially you've said that something is wrong because it deviates from "the usual course of nature"...the example given in the dictionary is of "a natural death"...so by your reasoning killing OBL (not a natural death) is immoral.   

Its telling that you keep trying to use as vague terms as possible.   I have the feeling you know how specious your own logic is.   

As for RGS...I was setting him up.   Its amusing that you had no idea it was happening...Gunny did, but you just kept saying really stupid shit.   I would have loved to use your definition of normal...then Gunny would have essentially been saying that anything that is not the majority is wrong...so any acts of bravery/heroism/etc would be immoral...because its not in the majority.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> *sigh* the reason I am trying to pin you down on this, and the reason you are squirming so much I am sure, is to show you how stupid your reasoning is.   I am pretty sure you've realized this by now which is why you refuse to pin down any definitions.
> 
> You've said that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant...deviant is departing from the norm...norm is essentially natural which is "the usual course of nature...so essentially you've said that something is wrong because it deviates from "the usual course of nature"...the example given in the dictionary is of "a natural death"...so by your reasoning killing OBL (not a natural death) is immoral.
> 
> Its telling that you keep trying to use as vague terms as possible.   I have the feeling you know how specious your own logic is.
> 
> As for RGS...I was setting him up.   Its amusing that you had no idea it was happening...Gunny did, but you just kept saying really stupid shit.   I would have loved to use your definition of normal...then Gunny would have essentially been saying that anything that is not the majority is wrong...so any acts of bravery/heroism/etc would be immoral...because its not in the majority.



Your wrong. But then being a Mensa candidate you are just to "smart" for your own good.

I was rather particular on what I meant. You were not. We are discussing sexual behavior. GAY behavior is abnormal, since normal is Heterosexual. Gay behavior is still deviant, because the normal behavior is Heterosexual. Gay Behavior is aberrant, again because the norm in sexual behavior is Heterosexual. 

Your claim the three words do not apply is simply incorrect.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your wrong. But then being a Mensa candidate you are just to "smart" for your own good.



Your bitterness amuses me.  Yes you are a moron.   The sooner you accept that and get used to it, the more pleasant things will be.



> I was rather particular on what I meant. You were not. We are discussing sexual behavior.



We are discussing sexual behavior?   Whoah.   



> GAY behavior is abnormal, since normal is Heterosexual. Gay behavior is still deviant, because the normal behavior is Heterosexual. Gay Behavior is aberrant, again because the norm in sexual behavior is Heterosexual.
> 
> Your claim the three words do not apply is simply incorrect.



I'm sorry...when did I claim that the three words do not apply?   

You do know that the norm in the US is NOT to be a US soldier...so are you ok with me saying that being a US soldier is abnormal, deviant, and aberrant?


----------



## Larkinn

PS...tell me exactly where I went wrong RGS.   Did I use a wrong definition somewhere?   Miss a link up somewhere?...please tell me in my proof of Gunny thinking that killing OBL is wrong, where exactly I messed up?


----------



## jillian

Actually, the word "deviant" implies a label imposed by "society". "Natural" applies to the frequency with which something occurs in nature.

For example, we would say that cannibalism is "deviant" because our society finds it unacceptable. It would not be considered deviant in cultures that are cannibalistic.

Homosexuality being "deviant" would imply that "society" judges it that way. That's simply untrue, though. Most people don't care one way or the other about the issue. Others have no problem with it. And still others are gay. 

I'd wager only a small percentage see it as "deviant", which would make it, by definition, NOT deviant behavior. ;o)


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Do note that I have also made no absolute statements.   At least about choice.   Whether its a choice is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> "Natural order"?   More bullshit terms that mean nothing in the context of this discussion.   Like "Aberrant" and "Deviant".



Well of course you didn't say this. Those words DO have context in THIS discussion. I already provided you the reason why.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well of course you didn't say this. Those words DO have context in THIS discussion. I already provided you the reason why.



No, they don't.   Technically, yes, they are definitionally correct, but I have already explained to you why they are dishonest.

Unless, of course, you also go around saying that US soldiers are aberrant and deviant.   And if not, why not?  Why are you comfortable saying one and not the other if the definiton is solely "not the majority"?   Because of the negative connotations that come along with it...that you mean, but can't figure out a way to honestly express...so you call them deviant and aberrant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> No, they don't.   Technically, yes, they are definitionally correct, but I have already explained to you why they are dishonest.
> 
> Unless, of course, you also go around saying that US soldiers are aberrant and deviant.   And if not, why not?  Why are you comfortable saying one and not the other if the definiton is solely "not the majority"?   Because of the negative connotations that come along with it...that you mean, but can't figure out a way to honestly express...so you call them deviant and aberrant.



Actually I did neither. I simply informed you the words apply. And why they apply. As I have stated previously gay people that practice their "sexual" preference are , from my religious standpoint, committing a sin. From a society stand point and the matter of laws and rights, they have every right to do as they please as long as it is legal.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually I did neither. I simply informed you the words apply. And why they apply. As I have stated previously gay people that practice their "sexual" preference are , from my religious standpoint, committing a sin. From a society stand point and the matter of laws and rights, they have every right to do as they please as long as it is legal.



Would you use any of those words to characterize homosexuality?...take it away from whether they technically fit the definition...I've already acknowledged they do...but would you use them?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Would you use any of those words to characterize homosexuality?...take it away from whether they technically fit the definition...I've already acknowledged they do...but would you use them?



Yes, though aberrant is a little harsh.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> *sigh* the reason I am trying to pin you down on this, and the reason you are squirming so much I am sure, is to show you how stupid your reasoning is.   I am pretty sure you've realized this by now which is why you refuse to pin down any definitions.
> 
> You've said that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant...deviant is departing from the norm...norm is essentially natural which is "the usual course of nature...so essentially you've said that something is wrong because it deviates from "the usual course of nature"...the example given in the dictionary is of "a natural death"...so by your reasoning killing OBL (not a natural death) is immoral.
> 
> Its telling that you keep trying to use as vague terms as possible.   I have the feeling you know how specious your own logic is.
> 
> As for RGS...I was setting him up.   Its amusing that you had no idea it was happening...Gunny did, but you just kept saying really stupid shit.   I would have loved to use your definition of normal...then Gunny would have essentially been saying that anything that is not the majority is wrong...so any acts of bravery/heroism/etc would be immoral...because its not in the majority.



You just can't help but be a smarmy dick, can you?  I'm most certainly not squirming.  I have no reason to.  Yours is the argument that relies on smoke and mirrors.  

There's nothing stupid about my reasoning.  It's quite sound.  You wish to play your little game of semantics and try to convince me a pile of shit is a bouquet of roses.

For a self-proclaimed genius, you sure acquit yourself poorly.  I did not render moral judgement.  I said homosexuality is deviant, period.  It goes against what the majority accepts as "normal," and goes against nature.

Please explain how by providing you with dictionary definitions I am trying to use vague terms?  What I'm NOT doing is giving you anything extra to prey upon with your word games; which, is what you are looking for.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> What's really amusing is that, in case you missed it the first time, I am not discussing the morality of the issue.  Why should I be looking for a setup over a factor not relevant to the conversation.
> 
> You aren't doing so well here, oh super-intelligent one.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> PS...tell me exactly where I went wrong RGS.   Did I use a wrong definition somewhere?   Miss a link up somewhere?...please tell me in my proof of Gunny thinking that killing OBL is wrong, where exactly I messed up?



Where you went wrong was my argument is not based on moral judgement.  Now WHO's trying to use words interchangeably?  Hell, you've superimposed your own definition on my argument.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> No, they don't.   Technically, yes, they are definitionally correct, but I have already explained to you why they are dishonest.
> 
> Unless, of course, you also go around saying that US soldiers are aberrant and deviant.   And if not, why not?  Why are you comfortable saying one and not the other if the definiton is solely "not the majority"?   Because of the negative connotations that come along with it...that you mean, but can't figure out a way to honestly express...so you call them deviant and aberrant.




YOUR argument is the dishonest one, and absurd.  The majority does not consider what US soldiers do as deviant.  That the soldiers themselves are not the majority is irrelvant, and attempting to say so is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> There's nothing stupid about my reasoning.  It's quite sound.  You wish to play your little game of semantics and try to convince me a pile of shit is a bouquet of roses.



Incorrect.   Your reasoning isn't sound at all.



> For a self-proclaimed genius, you sure acquit yourself poorly.  I did not render moral judgement.  I said homosexuality is deviant, period.  It goes against what the majority accepts as "normal," and goes against nature.



Please quote where I said I was a genius.   No?  Thought so.   

And I was assuming you thought homosexuality was wrong based on prior conversations.   Am I incorrect that you think that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant?   



> Please explain how by providing you with dictionary definitions I am trying to use vague terms?  What I'm NOT doing is giving you anything extra to prey upon with your word games; which, is what you are looking for.



You are trying to use vague terms by NOT using dictionary definitions...I was trying to pin down the terms so I can make you see exactly how stupid your reasoning is.  



> YOUR argument is the dishonest one, and absurd. The majority does not consider what US soldiers do as deviant. That the soldiers themselves are not the majority is irrelvant, and attempting to say so is intellectually dishonest.



From your definition of deviancy:



> 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
> &#8211;noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.



Care to point out exactly where it says the majority decides what is deviant and whats not?      The definition of deviant is NOT "whatever the majoritity thinks is deviant".    That makes it a useless self-referencing definition which would have no meaning whatsoever.   

Part of why I made you pin down your terms before you tried to pull this kind of bullshit.


----------



## Cynic-American

GunnyL said:


> For a self-proclaimed genius, you sure acquit yourself poorly.  I did not render moral judgement.  I said homosexuality is deviant, period.  It goes against what the majority accepts as "normal," and goes against nature.



BINGO! Larkinn will try to justify his position on the topic but will continue to fail because he refuses to use logic.


----------



## jillian

Cynic-American said:


> BINGO! Larkinn will try to justify his position on the topic but will continue to fail because he refuses to use logic.



Please tell me that you're not questioning his logic. You can disagree with his opinions; disagree with his basic premises; but his logic?


----------



## Cynic-American

jillian said:


> Please tell me that you're not questioning his logic. You can disagree with his opinions; disagree with his basic premises; but his logic?



so far Larkinn has not shown any evidence of his logic.
Frankly, I dont wish to argue with him on anything because when he find himself losing, he resorts to name calling.


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> Where you went wrong was my argument is not based on moral judgement.  Now WHO's trying to use words interchangeably?  Hell, you've superimposed your own definition on my argument.



Actually, the terms deviant or abberant DO refer to societal judgments, as I pointed out earlier. So that's not quite correct.


----------



## Cynic-American

what is wrong with the country is that we are no longer allowed to judge anyone.Well, this will be the downfall of America.
Am i prejudice? You bet, against those who shove their agenda onto mainstream America and see nothing wrong with their irresponsible behavior.
Oh no, cant say a word about their lifestyle, everyone is entitled to be sick and spread their sickness to those not involved in their twisted pursuits.

I miss the days when Americans knew right from wrong.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RetiredGySgt said:


> If you believe in God and Jesus then "telling them" anything of the sort is wrong. It is fine if asked to inform someone of your personal belief about whether homosexuality is acceptable to YOU. But that whole "Judge not, least you be Judged" thing gets in the way of denouncing anyone publicly.
> 
> Do feel free to VOTE and inform your representatives and other of your desire not to promote nor condone Homosexuality. That is a different kettle of fish. I do agree though that practicing homosexuals are sinning. I also believe as a society we should not encourage the life style. I do not agree we should make it illegal or punish anyone for their PRIVATE sexual conduct as long as all parties involved are of legal age and are consenting. Gay people have and SHOULD have all the rights and protections EVERYONE else have. NOTE I said PRIVATE, as a society we can and should enforce laws to prevent PUBLIC displays the majority find offensive, including nakedness and sexual conduct ( no I do not mean kissing or hugging or holding hands).





> I do agree though that practicing homosexuals are sinning



*SINNING:*  any activity autocratic Chrischuns affectedly find offensive and consequently have got God,  an authoritarian alter-ego they have fabricated to keep _terrifyingly anarchistic_ free-thinking atheists in line  to prohibit sinners from doing, lest it offend the sacred synthetic sensibilities of the aforesaid psalm-singing control freaks.

A prime example of sin is homersexerality. Specifically, a man getting other mans shit down the shaft of his Oneeyed Trouser Snake. 

Somewhat hypocritically though, Chrischuns enjoy playing chocolate-coated Kielbasa with their cringing connubial sperm containers, called wives, immensely.  

This most definitely isnt a sin. In fact its a sacrament!

In yet another act of magical Cafflick Transubstantiation, in this instance God has turned the filth found up a Chrischun womans cloaca into completely antiseptic and delightfully aromatic intestinal truffles.

Needless to say, playing rumpy-pumpy with an unsaved slut, especially out of holy WASP wedlock, is an abumination in the Lords eyes.


----------



## Larkinn

Cynic-American said:


> so far Larkinn has not shown any evidence of his logic.
> Frankly, I dont wish to argue with him on anything because when he find himself losing, he resorts to name calling.



~B--->A
~A
---------------
B

There...some evidence of logic.
Now your turn!  

~A--->B
~A V C
~C
---------------

Whats the conclusion?   Since you are such an expert at spotting logic <3.


----------



## Cynic-American

so has Larkinn provided evidence of what causes homosexuality yet?


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Diuretic said:


> And we know how 10CC chose their name Chips (unless it be an urban myth)




They were inspired by the "The Loving Spoonful"?


----------



## Larkinn

Cynic-American said:


> so has Larkinn provided evidence of what causes homosexuality yet?



Poor baby...didn't understand the logic?


----------



## Cynic-American

I have proof that Larkinn is homosexual, he follows me into every thread I post in.

Dude, I have a gf, you never had a chance.


----------



## Larkinn

Cynic-American said:


> I have proof that Larkinn is homosexual, he follows me into every thread I post in.
> 
> Dude, I have a gf, you never had a chance.



You wish I was.  But I don't sleep with people as stupid as you.  Oh, and just for forms sake, I posted first in the thread...you followed me here.


----------



## Diuretic

Chips Rafferty said:


> They were inspired by the "The Loving Spoonful"?



   

"Spoonful" - Willie Dixon


----------



## Cynic-American

has Larkinn said anything intelligent in this thread yet?

Perhaps thats like waiting for Elvis and Buddy Holly to do a tour together.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Diuretic said:


> "Spoonful" - Willie Dixon



I could never quite comprehend the concept of a "Loving Spoonful."

When I had finshed with them, (after about 2 minutes  ) they thought a camel had sneezed in their crutch!


----------



## Diuretic

Chips Rafferty said:


> I could never quite comprehend the concept of a "Loving Spoonful."
> 
> When I had finshed with them, (after about 2 minutes  ) they thought a camel had sneezed in their crutch!


----------



## mattskramer

Cynic-American said:


> what is wrong with the country is that we are no longer allowed to judge anyone.Well, this will be the downfall of America.
> Am i prejudice? You bet, against those who shove their agenda onto mainstream America and see nothing wrong with their irresponsible behavior.
> Oh no, cant say a word about their lifestyle, everyone is entitled to be sick and spread their sickness to those not involved in their twisted pursuits.
> 
> I miss the days when Americans knew right from wrong.



Are you talking about cigarette smokers?


----------



## Cynic-American

mattskramer said:


> Are you talking about cigarette smokers?



homosexuality.
In the days before making excuses for peoples behavior, a certain book said that it goes against nature.

Which is true. How will we propagate as a species if some choose not to do what is inherently natural?


----------



## doniston

Cynic-American said:


> homosexuality.
> In the days before making excuses for peoples behavior, a certain book said that it goes against nature.
> 
> Which is true. How will we propagate as a species if some choose not to do what is inherently natural?



 That is a VERY good question.,  How will we ever succeed in propagating a species if we go arround killing each other----OH!  that wasn't what you meant, was it??


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Larkinn said:


> Your bitterness amuses me.  Yes you are a moron.   The sooner you accept that and get used to it, the more pleasant things will be.
> 
> 
> 
> We are discussing sexual behavior?   Whoah.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry...when did I claim that the three words do not apply?
> 
> You do know that the norm in the US is NOT to be a US soldier...so are you ok with me saying that being a US soldier is abnormal, deviant, and aberrant?



*FER FUCK SAKE! THIS IS WHAT IVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!*

Christinsanity, especially American Christinsanity, is not of the majority and therefore must be deviant behaviour! 

Fact is - according to the religiously convenient logic of our moral majority submissive, uber macho Marines here - the majority Cafflik faith is the sole definition of normal Chrischun behaviour. 

Therefore, if faggots should face a fundie stoning squad, as prescribed by the Bible, so should repulsively perverted Protestants and all their fellow fascist travellers!

It is irrefutable, fundiemental logic that ALL non-Cafflik Christians are heretical faggots who should face a shameful auto de fe and subsequent incineration at the stake.


----------



## Cynic-American

doniston said:


> That is a VERY good question.,  How will we ever succeed in propagating a species if we go arround killing each other----OH!  that wasn't what you meant, was it??



you may as well have just said "I know you are but what am I?"


----------



## doniston

Cynic-American said:


> you may as well have just said "I know you are but what am I?"


  But I didn't, did I??


----------



## Cynic-American

doniston said:


> But I didn't, did I??



most would interpret what you said that way so....yes


----------



## Larkinn

Cynic-American said:


> most would interpret what you said that way so....yes



So how was your amazing night posting all ni....I mean painting the town red?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

GunnyL said:
			
		

> Are you going to quit playing this gradechool game of semantics and get on with it, or what?



Well said and to the point.  Nothing but semantics and word games. 
Here's my own little "scientific" version:

How Lefties Argue:

Society draws a line.  Then the challenging leftist nitpickers come along using their doublespeak and word games which works kinda like this:

The nitpickers see the line but of course claim there is no "real" line. They say if one looks at the drawn line of chalk (aka talk) it is full of molecules which are, relatively speaking, thousands of miles apart so one can't really see the line.  
(So you fill in the spaces with molecules (arguments) to make the line whole again)

Then the nitpickers claim again there is no "real" line.  They say if one looks at the line of molecules it is full of atoms which are, relatively speaking, millions of miles apart so one can't really see the line. 
(So you fill in the spaces with atoms (arguments) to make the line whole once again)

Then the nitpickers claim AGAIN there is no "real" line.  They say if one looks at the line of atoms it is full of protons, neutrons, and electrons which are, relatively speaking, billions of miles apart so one can't really see the line. 
(So you work again to fill in the spaces with protons, neutrons, and electrons (arguments) to make the line whole yet again)

Then the nitpickers STILL claim there is no "real" line.  They say if one looks at the line full of protons, neutrons, and electrons&#8230;..well you get the idea&#8230;.at this sub level is where you will find the quarks and the larks&#8230;


----------



## Larkinn

Except that society hasn't drawn a line.   But you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your little theories.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Except that society hasn't drawn a line.   But you know, don't let the facts get in the way of your little theories.



Wrong, the left has spent the last 50 years tearing down society, destroying the family, the government and adding increasing numbers of people to the Government dole. The left has spent that time convincing anyone that would listen that no one is responsible for their actions, someone else or the government are to blame for any thing that happens, destroying morals, murdering children and claiming it is a right. There are hard lines that your side has spent the last 50 years trying to erase or blur into non existance, doesn't mean the lines are NOT there.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, the left has spent the last 50 years tearing down society,



Inflammatory meaningless rhetoric.   They've changed what YOU think society should be like.   That does not equate to "tearing down society".



> destroying the family,



Ah, because its only leftists that get divorced, right?



> the government



Destroying the government?   Thats the first time I've heard anyone make that claim.   



> and adding increasing numbers of people to the Government dole.



pssst...thats one of the affects of an increasing population...



> The left has spent that time convincing anyone that would listen that no one is responsible for their actions,



Incorrect.   This is not a leftist belief, rather it is an incompetent and childish caricature of liberalism.



> someone else or the government are to blame for any thing that happens,



See above.



> destroying morals,



Changing morals.   I like morals nowadays a lot better than they used to be.  A lot less of the whole lynching blacks, subjugating women, and homophobia nowadays.   I know...terrible destruction of morality that those things aren't as present in our society as they once were.



> murdering children and claiming it is a right.



yay for taking a disputed fact and claiming it is an actual truth.



> There are hard lines that your side has spent the last 50 years trying to erase or blur into non existance, doesn't mean the lines are NOT there.



By the way we were talking about homosexuality before you decided to expound on how the left is the creator of all evil, how we all kill babies every day, cheat on our spouses, burn bibles, and other fun things.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Destroying families is not just about divorce, but then you know that and are doing what you claim I did. But hey don't let facts get in the way Mr. Mensa boy.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Destroying families is not just about divorce, but then you know that and are doing what you claim I did. But hey don't let facts get in the way Mr. Mensa boy.



So thats the one rejoinder you have?   Your entire argument is a piece of shit which I tore apart successfully, and so you come back with "well destroying families is not just about divorce"?   

Ok, sure.   Ignore all my other points.   And ignoring the fact that I did not claim that it was only about divorce...please what else is it about?  Oh and do not forget to include why leftists are solely responsible for the problems as well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> So thats the one rejoinder you have?   Your entire argument is a piece of shit which I tore apart successfully, and so you come back with "well destroying families is not just about divorce"?
> 
> Ok, sure.   Ignore all my other points.   And ignoring the fact that I did not claim that it was only about divorce...please what else is it about?  Oh and do not forget to include why leftists are solely responsible for the problems as well.



Wrong, your whole argument is relativistic garbage spouted by a liberal Intelligensa. But do pretend you have won, you can go make a mark on your refrigerator for another "internet" win.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong, your whole argument is relativistic garbage spouted by a liberal Intelligensa. But do pretend you have won, you can go make a mark on your refrigerator for another "internet" win.



Educate yourself about Relitivism.   Then maybe you can understand why nothing I said was relativistic.   

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/


----------



## 007

RetiredGySgt said:


> Destroying families is not just about divorce, but then you know that and are doing what you claim I did. But hey don't let facts get in the way Mr. Mensa boy.



If that sons a bitch has enough IQ to join MENSA, then I'm the richest man in the world.

I believe he's in MENSA about as much as I believe Ahmadinejad will take over the world.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> If that sons a bitch has enough IQ to join MENSA, then I'm the richest man in the world.
> 
> I believe he's in MENSA about as much as I believe Ahmadinejad will take over the world.



Would you care to bet some money on that certainty?   Starting at $100 and going as high as you would like?


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Would you care to bet some money on that certainty?   Starting at $100 and going as high as you would like?



I live in Nevada... of course. Go as high as you want. Just prove it, to my satisfaction... and I'll run for President and get elected...


----------



## ScreamingEagle

"Tolerance" has its birthplace in moral Relitivism:



> Sometimes &#8216;moral relativism&#8217; is connected with a normative position about how we ought to think about or act towards those with whom we morally disagree, most commonly that we should tolerate them.
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/


----------



## mattskramer

ScreamingEagle said:


> "Tolerance" has its birthplace in moral Relitivism:



Practically everything is relative.  There are few, if any, absolutes outside of the physical and math sciences.  There are general rules but for every alleged absolute, one can usually come up with an exception that would break that absolute.   It just comes down to where a large enough portion of the overall population would draw the line  but even then just because something is popular or disliked does not make it right or wrong.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> I live in Nevada... of course. Go as high as you want. Just prove it, to my satisfaction... and I'll run for President and get elected...



Sure...how about $1000?  We can have Gunny officiate, be the middleman and hold the cash until I prove my qualifications...completely serious.   You willing to put your money where your mouth is PR?



> Tolerance" has its birthplace in moral Relitivism:



No, tolerance has roots that are much older than moral relativism.   The US government allows you to live despite the fact that you are obviously a complete and utter moron...thats tolerance which has nothing to do with moral relativism.


----------



## midcan5

A few comments on some of the above replies.

My favorite is the choice comments. It is hard to take that answer serious as sex for children is distinct from sex for adults. Assuming most grow up to adulthood. But I love how some decided they were hetero so young. If you had a wayback machine and could return you would probably find the future righty as naive then as now. LOL

Then it gets into words and their meanings. Nietzsche once said don't look too closely at experience or it will cease to have force, what really is normal and natural? Can anyone tell me why a women's ass is so attractive? Is there any word that made me think that, or is it something inside that is more instinctual. And if it is then why not the other. 

Nature: Homosexuality exists in all advanced species of animal, just not the conservative American Right and Iran. 

And the bible says lots of things no one listens to, why this? You want the really crazy start in Deuteronomy.

The right has spent the last 40 years spreading BS about liberalism that some here obviously believe, but consider it took Reagan and W a very short time to create a society whose infrastructure is falling apart due to a lack of civic conscience.

Tolerance is essential to a civil society, lots of things offend us, it's just some people face life knowing only humans occupy it and others think they are god.

Everything in life is not relative, but even the sciences constantly question their theories. 
Hitler's acts were evil: excludes an argument for relativity.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Larkinn said:


> No, tolerance has roots that are much older than moral relativism.   The US government allows you to live despite the fact that you are obviously a complete and utter moron...thats tolerance which has nothing to do with moral relativism.



Sorry to say mensa moron but my view is valid...as well as yours... 



> The most popular definitions of relativism assume it to mean that all points of view are equally valid, as opposed to an absolutism that insists that there is but one true and correct view.


----------



## Larkinn

ScreamingEagle said:


> Sorry to say mensa moron but my view is valid...as well as yours...



We are talking about a reality based fact.   Moral Relativism, if you didn't catch it from the name, applies to morals.   Don't feel so clever any more, do you?


----------



## doniston

Cynic-American said:


> most would interpret what you said that way so....yes


  No, I am sure yoiu would, but I doubt if more than one other would.  and that/s because he thinks everything I say is wrong.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Larkinn said:


> We are talking about a reality based fact.   Moral Relativism, if you didn't catch it from the name, applies to morals.   Don't feel so clever any more, do you?



Oh, a "fact" you say...didn't think you believed in facts....on what "reality" do you base that "belief" of yours?


----------



## Larkinn

ScreamingEagle said:


> Oh, a "fact" you say...didn't think you believed in facts....on what "reality" do you base that "belief" of yours?



*sigh*...why make me school you like this?

1)  I never said I subscribed to moral relativism.  Nor have I been arguing in favor of such a view...rather RGS asserted that my thinking was relativistic, incorrectly, and me arguing that he is wrong that my arguments are not relativistic somehow seems to have made you think that I ascribe to the theory.  

2)  Moral relativism applies to morals..nothing else.   What came first tolerance or moral relativism is history, not morals.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Incorrect.   Your reasoning isn't sound at all.
> 
> It's quite sound.  You are incorrect.
> 
> 
> Please quote where I said I was a genius.   No?  Thought so.
> 
> The usual literalism game.  You have said on more than one occasion you think you're smarter than people on this board.  You don't like my taking liberal license to it, sue me.
> 
> 
> And I was assuming you thought homosexuality was wrong based on prior conversations.   Am I incorrect that you think that homosexuality is wrong because its deviant?
> 
> I figured you would try to drag your prior assumptions into the fray.  You are incorrect that I think homosexuality is wrong because it is deviant.  Whether or not I think it is wrong is irrelevant to this conversation.
> 
> You are trying to use vague terms by NOT using dictionary definitions...I was trying to pin down the terms so I can make you see exactly how stupid your reasoning is.
> 
> I'm the one that provided the dictionary definitions, so try again.  I surely would not have was I trying to use some ploy you have invented for me.
> 
> As far as stupid reasoning goes, I suggest that the person trying to sell the aforementioned pile of shit as bouquet of roses would be the stipid one, and that is exactly what you are trying to do via your usual games of semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> From your definition of deviancy:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to point out exactly where it says the majority decides what is deviant and whats not?      The definition of deviant is NOT "whatever the majoritity thinks is deviant".    That makes it a useless self-referencing definition which would have no meaning whatsoever.
> 
> LMAO.  You just never quit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deviant:
> 
> 1. deviating or departing from the norm; characterized by deviation: deviant social behavior.
> noun 2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm.
> 
> normal:
> 
> 1. conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
> 2. serving to establish a standard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These definitions most certainly DO place the decision of what is normal and deviant on conforming to a standard.  I suppose you are going to tell me Captain Kangaroo and not society dictates what is and is not normal?
> 
> Bullshit, plain and simple.
> 
> Part of why I made you pin down your terms before you tried to pull this kind of bullshit.
Click to expand...


The one trying to pull bullshit here is you, and it's blatantly obvious.  Your argument holds NO water, and it's rather obvious.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> The usual literalism game. You have said on more than one occasion you think you're smarter than people on this board. You don't like my taking liberal license to it, sue me.



Actually I've only said I am smarter than SOME people on this board.   I have specifically said that I am NOT a genius previously...so you taking "liberal license" is actually you lying.  And really...being smarter than RGS and Bern doesn't exactly make me a genius.   To beat that fabulous duo I merely need to be barely competent.



> I figured you would try to drag your prior assumptions into the fray. You are incorrect that I think homosexuality is wrong because it is deviant. Whether or not I think it is wrong is irrelevant to this conversation.



Ahh, you just bring up that its deviant for fun all the time?   Peh...see this is why I was trying to pin you down on definitions.   I missed a spot for you to squirm out of, I see.



> I'm the one that provided the dictionary definitions, so try again. I surely would not have was I trying to use some ploy you have invented for me.



After I asked numerous times.



> As far as stupid reasoning goes, I suggest that the person trying to sell the aforementioned pile of shit as bouquet of roses would be the stipid one, and that is exactly what you are trying to do via your usual games of semantics.



Your charges are as unoriginal and incorrect as ever.   Any complicated argument will have definitional problems...thats the nature of our language.   Your refusal to recognize that fact points to your intellectual dishonesty.



> LMAO. You just never quit.



Nice dodge.   But its ok...I'm getting used to it from you whenever we talk about this topic.   Its amusing, and a bit sad really, how terrible your logic gets whenever we talk about homosexuality.   Its like you have some block about it.



> These definitions most certainly DO place the decision of what is normal and deviant on conforming to a standard. I suppose you are going to tell me Captain Kangaroo and not society dictates what is and is not normal?



So Society dictates what is and is not normal?....if thats so then you have no case.   Unless you want to tell me where society told you homosexuality wasn't normal?...because I can point to broad swathes of society who think that it is normal.



> The one trying to pull bullshit here is you, and it's blatantly obvious. Your argument holds NO water, and it's rather obvious.



Get real.   Just admit it.   You find them gross and thats why you dislike it.   Equality for all...except those that Gunny finds gross...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.

I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.

In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.



But the same could be said about the blind population, or those who are left handed or any group that is a biological statistical minority. So the question is do you see homosexual as "not normal" in the same way that any mathematical minority is "not normal" is there something else about homosexuality that makes it "not normal" for you. This semantic game is important, but lets get at the REAL issue for you. And I'm not going to assume how you'll respond just going to pose the question. 

The fact of the matter is now matter how ANYONE "feels" about homosexuality. The facts are as follows:
1. Homosexuality is not chosen
2. Homosexuality exists in all mammal species and most non-mammal
3. Chosen sexual acts do not define homosexuality, same-sex desire defines homosexuality. It is possible to be an abstinent homosexual, but BEING homosexual is not a choice. 

Period.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

A practicing homosexual is sinning, choosing to sin. Which is of course their choice. And yes I do see Homosexuals differently then benign abnormalities in humans. BUT I strive to not let that make me act inappropriately within our society and my religion. It is like any other prejuidice, I can not make it go away, but I can work to control it.

However I will never change my opinion on the matter, nor will I ACCEPT homosexual behavior as normal in any sense of the word. I will not sit quietly while others strive to create a false impression that homosexual life styles are normal or should be given special status ( good or bad) nor do I support teaching young children that the life style is somehow normal and acceptable.

Is that CLEAR enough for you?


----------



## Doug

I think the word "normal" gets in the way of understanding this issue.

Wearing clothes is not "normal". No other animal species does it. And our ancestors, at some point back in the generational chain, did not do it either.

They had to invent the idea, along with things like fires and weapons, and choose to depart from the "normality" of their own ancestors.

For that matter, sparing a defeated male enemy, as opposed to killing him and then seizing his females to use as sex-slaves, is not "normal" (not to mention that it also defies a famous Biblical injunction.)

I think what people mean by not "normal" is several different things:

*(1)* It arouses a sense of revulsion in them (that is, in people who say, "That's not normal".) And male homosexuality, especially the idea of taking the female role, certainly arouses revulsion in most males in most societies, although the _expression_ of this revulsion is mediated via one's culture: only lower-class uneducated males will express it in a frank and unrestrained way in the US today, whereas only liberal ideologues will pretend to find nothing unusual in it. (It is interesting that the Greek upper classes at one period practiced a form of homo-eroticism, showing how variable culture can be.) 

*(2)* It doesn't play a role in the natural order of survival and reproduction. Of course, neither does celibacy, and yet many religions celebrate the celebate. Perhaps this is because the celibate are demonstrating more control over their natural animal desires than the rest of us, while homosexuals seem to demonstrate less. But this is probably more an after-the-fact rationalization than a primal impulse.

*(3)* If we leave aside the alcohol-fueled rantings of trailer-trash, most people of all social classes and educational levels will normally, in our post-Enlightenment societies, exhibit great tolerance for eccentric behavior, so long as it is confined to the margins of society. "Bachelors" with greatly developed aesthetic tastes, two women living together ... did not really excite the lynch mobs. 

I grew up in a conservative white workingclass suburb in Texas in the fifties. There was no worse insult that you could offer someone than to call them a "queer", but no one really believed that, in our school, there were any. As it turned out, we had a gay man living next door to us. Everyone knew about him, but no one said or did anything about it. No one made us "tolerate" him. We just did. On the other hand, he did not demand that the curriculum of our schools be altered to celebrate his "lifestyle".

However, things have changed. There is very definitely a militant homosexual movement that wants to force the rest of us, by force of law, to acknowledge that their sexual practices -- any sexual practices among consenting adults -- are "normal". Toleration is not enough for them. And they want to attack, via public displays, the very idea of sexual taboos and standards. 

This has provoked a reaction, which is at least in part driven, I believe, by the following: People have the sense that this represents one more little thread being pulled out of the fabric of the social order. Sex is a powerful Darwinian drive, and its partial taming by social customs and taboos is probably what has allowed us to move forward from the status of clever hairless chimpanzees.

So when people say homosexuality is not normal, perhaps what they really mean is: the current-day homosexual movement is attacking the normative order of society, demanding that we discard the certainties of centuries.

A society that has slowly, gradually improved  beyond measure the lives of everyone, is now seen as the enemy, its foundations to be undermined, its traditional culture trashed, its history and heroes debunked. The unspoken accommodations and quiet toleration that had been growing in the past are  to be rejected.

So there is a reaction to this. People are defending a society that has seemed to work pretty well, and which has exhibited like no other before it, the capacity for self-criticism and self-improvement. This is the kind of normality that most people want. And it is the kind that gay people should want also.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> However I will never change my opinion on the matter, nor will I ACCEPT homosexual behavior as normal in any sense of the word. I will not sit quietly while others strive to create a false impression that homosexual life styles are normal or should be given special status ( good or bad) nor do I support teaching young children that the life style is somehow normal and acceptable.



You seem to be a person who doesn't enjoy when conservatives are called unfortunate names like closed minded or bigoted, but the first sentence of this post clearly shows your lack of an open mind on the subject and the second suggests you are closer to the bigots than you may be comfortable.  

What efforts towards "normalcy" do you see as so threatening to society that you can not "sit quietly." Are you referring to the marriage issue? Because legal marriage and religious marriage are two entirely seperate entitities.  Every straight couple gets a legal marriage and then SOME choose to engage in a religious ceremony. They have to work with their congregation to decide which church they even will get married in. None of that is bound by law or citizenship.  Do Christians believe that churches who don't approve gay marriage would be forced by law to approve it? Do Christians believe that gays will increase the already sky rocketing heterosexual divorce rate? 

What exactly is wrong with teaching children that homosexuality is morally neutral? You seem to object to the school teaching things that dispute your understanding of biblical law. But that happens already in so many other ways. Unless you believe childrend's curriculum should be directed by scripture in all instances, it seems a bit predjudiced that you would demand it be guided by Christianity in THIS instance. Again, remember the facts "same-sex desire = homosexuality." Nothing that is taught in school can create or dissuade human sexual desire, be it hetero or homosexual. Sexual desire is a biological fact and exists in 99.9% of the population. Now why some people's sexual desire guides them toward same-sex attraction/relatioships who knows, but it is a fact.  Did anything that happened in your schooling make it more likely for you to be heterosexual? Like, how exactly can school curriculum increase or decrease the amount of homosexuality in the world? More, to the point, is your ideal world one in which the homosexual percentage of the population is abstinent and do you believe this was God's intention as well?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

isnt it caused by the same bug that gives you lyme disease  

im sorry i couldnt resist 



midcan5 said:


> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> www.scottowen.org


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Actually I've only said I am smarter than SOME people on this board.   I have specifically said that I am NOT a genius previously...so you taking "liberal license" is actually you lying.  And really...being smarter than RGS and Bern doesn't exactly make me a genius.   To beat that fabulous duo I merely need to be barely competent.
> 
> Oh horseshit.  You take your semantics WAY too far.  DO get over yourself.
> 
> 
> Ahh, you just bring up that its deviant for fun all the time?   Peh...see this is why I was trying to pin you down on definitions.   I missed a spot for you to squirm out of, I see.
> 
> Again, no squirming.  Just your wishful thinking.  Are we discussing the morality of homosexuality, or whether or not it is "normal"?
> 
> 
> After I asked numerous times.
> 
> Not me.  You will also note that you have done EXACTLY as I predicted you would.  We aren't arguing the merit of discussion ... we're arguing the definition of words.  SOS with you.
> 
> 
> Your charges are as unoriginal and incorrect as ever.   Any complicated argument will have definitional problems...thats the nature of our language.   Your refusal to recognize that fact points to your intellectual dishonesty.
> 
> The intellectually dishonest argument is yours, period.  It's as obvious as day.  Your "definitional problems" are mere contrivances to support a dishonest argument.
> 
> Nice dodge.   But its ok...I'm getting used to it from you whenever we talk about this topic.   Its amusing, and a bit sad really, how terrible your logic gets whenever we talk about homosexuality.   Its like you have some block about it.
> 
> Pure bullshit unworthy of comment.
> 
> 
> So Society dictates what is and is not normal?....if thats so then you have no case.   Unless you want to tell me where society told you homosexuality wasn't normal?...because I can point to broad swathes of society who think that it is normal.
> 
> Right.  More of your trying to sell that proverbial pile of shit as a bouquet.  Acceptable and normal are not intercahngeable words, Mr Semantics.  Try again.
> 
> Get real.   Just admit it.   You find them gross and thats why you dislike it.   Equality for all...except those that Gunny finds gross...



You get real, and quite trying to deflect to my personal opinion/moral judgement.  Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and none of your verbal gymnastics have proven otherwise.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CorpMediaSux said:


> You seem to be a person who doesn't enjoy when conservatives are called unfortunate names like closed minded or bigoted, but the first sentence of this post clearly shows your lack of an open mind on the subject and the second suggests you are closer to the bigots than you may be comfortable.
> 
> What efforts towards "normalcy" do you see as so threatening to society that you can not "sit quietly." Are you referring to the marriage issue? Because legal marriage and religious marriage are two entirely seperate entitities.  Every straight couple gets a legal marriage and then SOME choose to engage in a religious ceremony. They have to work with their congregation to decide which church they even will get married in. None of that is bound by law or citizenship.  Do Christians believe that churches who don't approve gay marriage would be forced by law to approve it? Do Christians believe that gays will increase the already sky rocketing heterosexual divorce rate?
> 
> What exactly is wrong with teaching children that homosexuality is morally neutral? You seem to object to the school teaching things that dispute your understanding of biblical law. But that happens already in so many other ways. Unless you believe childrend's curriculum should be directed by scripture in all instances, it seems a bit predjudiced that you would demand it be guided by Christianity in THIS instance. Again, remember the facts "same-sex desire = homosexuality." Nothing that is taught in school can create or dissuade human sexual desire, be it hetero or homosexual. Sexual desire is a biological fact and exists in 99.9% of the population. Now why some people's sexual desire guides them toward same-sex attraction/relatioships who knows, but it is a fact.  Did anything that happened in your schooling make it more likely for you to be heterosexual? Like, how exactly can school curriculum increase or decrease the amount of homosexuality in the world? More, to the point, is your ideal world one in which the homosexual percentage of the population is abstinent and do you believe this was God's intention as well?



How many times must I post this....

I support civil unions. I agree with the idea that the Government should get out of the marriage business. It will solve all kind of Constitutional problems we have now regarding the desire of the majority not to allow marriage and the fact some States do allow it.

I notice you completely ignored my first paragraph, I can see why, it wouldn't sit well with your assumptions made in  the post.

The reality is that books and teaching tools are created that introduce homosexual couples even in our lowest grades. That is not something I want or support. Here is an example for ya. Polygamy is just as "normal" as this deviant sexual practice, shall we begin introducing polygamist couples to young children? It is after all nothing more than the free choice of the people involved. Why aren't there demands that this sexual choice be allowed? Why is it STILL coded in law to be illegal? What happened to the demands that Government get out of people's bedrooms?

Sex should not come up at all in school until high school, in my opinion. It is a matter for families to talk about and discuss not class rooms.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.
> 
> I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.
> 
> In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.



Take it up with Gunny then...he has a different definition of normal.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Oh horseshit. You take your semantics WAY too far. DO get over yourself.



No I just try not to make assumptions from what people say.   As I said before, language is important...it is the only tool for communication we have online.   There is no facial movements, irony, tone, etc.   Even when there are those things people can be misunderstood quite easily.   But I've explained all this before...you just throw out the semantics card as a bullshit term that you know has no real meaning here.   



> Again, no squirming. Just your wishful thinking. Are we discussing the morality of homosexuality, or whether or not it is "normal"?



They are linked.   Because when we talk about the normality of something the implication is, generally, that things that are abnormal/deviant/etc are negative/bad/etc.   Of course none of your definitions of abnormal/deviant touch on those negative connotations, but thats why you use those dishonest terms...so you can imply that its bad without having to give reasons why its bad.   Yes they are uncommon...but to imply that makes them abnormal/deviant is dishonest because you wouldn't call other uncommon groups abnormal/deviant.   



> Not me. You will also note that you have done EXACTLY as I predicted you would. We aren't arguing the merit of discussion ... we're arguing the definition of words. SOS with you.



Well if you would have committed to the definitions instead of squirming around like a fucking worm, we wouldn't need too.



> The intellectually dishonest argument is yours, period. It's as obvious as day. Your "definitional problems" are mere contrivances to support a dishonest argument.



Umm, no.  Defining something more accurately makes it harder to have a bad argument, not easier.   



> Right. More of your trying to sell that proverbial pile of shit as a bouquet. Acceptable and normal are not intercahngeable words, Mr Semantics. Try again.



I didn't say they were...in fact I never said interchangable.   I was using your definition of normal.   After all you basically said that society "dictates what is normal".   Of course you said other incompatible things about the definition of normality before as well.   Squirm squirm squirm.  



> You get real, and quite trying to deflect to my personal opinion/moral judgement. Homosexuality is abnormal behavior, and none of your verbal gymnastics have proven otherwise.



Do you think being a genius is abnormal behavior?


----------



## doniston

RetiredGySgt said:


> Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.
> 
> I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.
> 
> In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.


   BS.  normal is normal whether you think it is acceptable or not.  I am 6'4" tall  a very small percentge of the population is that tall.  but I am in fact NORMAL.    Your opinion is garbage.  But like you imply in your sig.  YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO IT.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> I notice you completely ignored my first paragraph, I can see why, it wouldn't sit well with your assumptions made in the post.



The first paragraph of the post in question is your interpretation of Biblical law, which isn't so much relevant to me as I'm not a Christian.  I appreciate your efforts to not allow your religious teachings to impact how you see the legal rights issues props. 


> The reality is that books and teaching tools are created that introduce *homosexual couples* even in our lowest grades. That is not something I want or support.



I bolded and highlighted the following because it is accurate and doesn't quite work with what you say just below.  


> Sex should not come up at all in school until high school, in my opinion. It is a matter for families to talk about and discuss not class rooms.


I completely agree. However in the pre-school curriculum sex ISN'T part of the discussion, or should not be if we're dealing with responsible teachers. Frankly, while I know there are books about same-sex couples for pre-schoolers I'm not aware of any school district that has implemented their use. But more to the point, can you explain the harm of children knowing about the existence of same-sex couples at a young age?  No is suggesting they be bombarded with images of what lesbians and gay men do in their private bedroom.  In fact, no one should be bombarded with those images unless they'd like to see them. Same can't be said for homosexual adults, we are constantly bombared by heterosexual sex in movies, television, literature and sometimes on the train, get a room people. One final aside, if exposure to a certain kind of sexuality made you into that sexuality, there's no way anyone would be gay, heterosexual sex and attraction is all around us all the time.
As far as pre-schoolers can grasp adult romantic relationships, I don't see any harm in them knowing that some people are in same-sex relationships.  



> Polygamy is just as "normal" as this deviant sexual practice,


Wrong and it doesn't depend on your definition of moral. Those wishing to practice polygamous relationships are a greater statistical minority than homosexuals. MORE importantly, polygamy is a kind of romantic relationship that a person can prefer or choose. Homosexuality defines your sexuality, your desire, who you fancy, etc. etc. 


> It is after all nothing more than the free choice of the people involved. Why aren't there demands that this sexual choice be allowed?




Your attempt to link polygamy to homosexual suggests that at the root of this debate is the choice issue.  But homosexuality isn't a choice. Nor, might I add, really is homosexual sex or relationships. You have a child and can I assume you are or were married? Do you think social taboo or more could prevent you from loving your wife (sorry if I'm wrong in assuming you're a guy). If everyone in the world told you it was wrong to have the feelings you have for your wife, would that change them, would that dissuade you from being with her, having sex, producing a child being in a relationship? I seriously, highly doubt it.  You "choose" to be in love as much as I "choose" to be in love with my partner.  There's a certain point where love and attraction take over and human rationality goes a bit out the window (it's the reason so many movies and books and songs are inspired by people doing crazy, INSANE shit for love).  

Your problem is that you refuse to accept the biological fact that homosexual and heterosexual love and attraction have the same effect on gay and straight people, they are just directed in different ways. Why? Science is still figuring that out. But what science HAS discovered is that gay brains in love work the same way straight brains in love do, which means "choice" is such a non-issue.


----------



## Doug

*(1)* It should be obvious to anyone who has looked into the matter that, for some males at least -- and I would expect the same is true for females -- homosexual orientation is not a question of choice. Of course, sexual activity of any sort is, insofar as any activity save reflex actions is a matter of choice.

*(2)* And all evidence from the experience of men deprived of the company of women -- in prisons, for example -- shows that the power of the male sex drive will overcome any heterosexual inhibitions in most males. (Reference Winston Churchill's reply to an admiral who objected to a budget cut for the Royal Navy on the grounds that it would force them to go against some  naval tradition or other: "Naval tradition? The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash.")

*(3) * Almost certainly, male -- and perhaps female -- homosexuality has biological roots, perhaps genetic, perhaps some biochemical insult in the womb. Our rapid progress in understanding human biology will probably, within a few decades, allow us to tell whether or not a fetus will develop as a homosexual. And since very few -- if any -- parents want a homosexual child, whatever the pious hypocrisy uttered about homosexuality being a "gift from God",  we will see a lot of discreet pregnancy terminations, and thus a dramatic drop in the number of homosexuals. 

With one exception: those born to fundamentalist Christians, who of course oppose abortion under any circumstances. 

Another irony of history.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> *(3) * Almost certainly, male -- and perhaps female -- homosexuality has biological roots, perhaps genetic, perhaps some biochemical insult in the womb. Our rapid progress in understanding human biology will probably, within a few decades, allow us to tell whether or not a fetus will develop as a homosexual. And since very few -- if any -- parents want a homosexual child, whatever the pious hypocrisy uttered about homosexuality being a "gift from God",  we will see a lot of discreet pregnancy terminations, and thus a dramatic drop in the number of homosexuals.
> 
> With one exception: those born to fundamentalist Christians, who of course oppose abortion under any circumstances.
> 
> Another irony of history.



There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying fuck if their kid was gay or not.   Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying fuck if their kid was gay or not.   Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.



Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?


----------



## Shogun

uh, are gays with adopted kids equivilent to the loch ness monster in your world?


----------



## GHook93

Pale Rider said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.



Wait to you have a buddy that was in the closet and comes out. You would probably abandon him, but its eye opening. Funny thing is very little changes. 

I had a buddy in college that was jock (no pun intented). Women were all over him. The gay-radar would never have picked up this one. He was and still is a great guy. I considered him one of my bet friends. When he came out it was shocking, but honestly it didn't change anything.


----------



## Doug

Larkinn said:


> There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying fuck if their kid was gay or not.   Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.



Ha ha!!! And are these the same liberal progressives who don't care what color the people are among whom they live? The ones who live in gated communities?


----------



## Shogun

do you think all liberal progressives drive limos just because sean hannity coined a neat new phrase?


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> Originally Posted by *Pale Rider *View Post
> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me,


Your explicitly describing adult sexual activity in a public forum easily readible by kids but *other* people are not "normal" sure, OK. 



> and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is.


The huge majority of the world thinks alot of things that are sort of dumb. 



> We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior.


Biology, the study of the natural, is now "psycho-bable" in your world. Uh, OK. 



> You either know it's wrong, or you don't.


Yes, opinions exist, hurrah! 



> You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them.


Quite a few people don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, uh why do you? Is there something you want to tell all of us?



> One crowd is a very vocal little minority.


The people screaming about gay sex on message boards, well yeah I would say that's a pretty small minority.  Unfortunately, you are in it. 



> Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.


When you can actually define any of those terms, we'll talk.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Larkinn said:
			
		

> *sigh*...why make me school you like this?


Maybe it's time YOU went back to school so you actually had something of value to say instead of just nitpicking and biting at the heels of others.  Your "debates" get nowhere fast.



			
				Larkinn said:
			
		

> 1) I never said I subscribed to moral relativism. Nor have I been arguing in favor of such a view...rather RGS asserted that my thinking was relativistic, incorrectly, and me arguing that he is wrong that my arguments are not relativistic somehow seems to have made you think that I ascribe to the theory.


You're getting off track here.  I could have cared less if you subscribed to moral relativism or not.  



			
				Larkinn said:
			
		

> 2) Moral relativism applies to morals..nothing else. What came first tolerance or moral relativism is history, not morals.


Moral relativism can most certainly apply to "tolerance".  



> The principle of toleration is controversial. Liberal critics may see in it an inappropriate implication that the "tolerated" custom or behavior is an aberration or that authorities have a right to punish difference; such critics may instead emphasize notions such as civility or pluralism. Other critics, some sympathetic to traditional fundamentalism, condemn toleration as a form of moral relativism.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance



As to what came first in history, tolerance or moral relativism, this was an ignorant form of nitpicking on your part in response to my statement that "tolerance" (originally placed in quotes to signify a particular form) was birthed in moral relativism.  There are many forms of tolerance that have been "born" along the continuum of history.  However, there is no denying that the leftist moral relativism of today has had its influence in the creation of today's form of "tolerance" especially in light of various sexual practices and orientation.



> As a practical matter, governments have always had to consider the question of which groups and practices to tolerate and which to persecute. The expanding Roman Empire, for example faced the question of whether or to what extent they should permit or persecute the local beliefs and practices of groups inhabiting annexed territories.  Jewish or Christian practices or beliefs could be tolerated or vigorously persecuted.
> 
> Likewise, during the Middle Ages, the rulers of Christian Europe or the Muslim Middle East sometimes extended toleration to minority religious groups, and sometimes did not. Jews in particular suffered under anti-semitic persecutions during the medieval period.
> 
> A detailed and influential body of writing on the question of toleration however, was first produced in Britain in the Seventeenth Century, during and after the destructive English Civil Wars. These early theories of toleration were limited however, and did not extend toleration to Roman Catholics (who were perceived as disloyal to their country) or atheists (who were held to lack any moral basis for action).
> 
> Though developed to refer to the religious toleration of minority religious sects following the Protestant Reformation, the terms "toleration" and "tolerance" are increasingly used to refer to a wider range of tolerated practices and groups, such as the toleration of sexual practices and orientations, or of political parties or ideas widely considered objectionable. Changing applications and understandings of the term can sometimes make debate on the question difficult.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?



Yes, there are.   I personally know of/know around 20.   I have no reason to think that I just happen to know all of them in existence or any large proportion of them.

And no...I'm not talking about adoptions.   I'm talking about women who are in lesbian relationships having children.   I also know of some male couples who have adopted or have had surrogates have children for them.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> Ha ha!!! And are these the same liberal progressives who don't care what color the people are among whom they live? The ones who live in gated communities?



Gated communities don't allow non-whites in?   Please point me to a gated community which is based on race where liberal progressives live.


----------



## Larkinn

ScreamingEagle said:


> Maybe it's time YOU went back to school so you actually had something of value to say instead of just nitpicking and biting at the heels of others.  Your "debates" get nowhere fast.



Thats because people like you are too stupid to realize logic and reason.



> You're getting off track here.  I could have cared less if you subscribed to moral relativism or not.



Then don't imply that I do by making points which presuppose that assumption.



> Moral relativism can most certainly apply to "tolerance".



You were talking about views about tolerance and how old it is, not about morals.



> As to what came first in history, tolerance or moral relativism, this was an ignorant form of nitpicking on your part in response to my statement that "tolerance" (originally placed in quotes to signify a particular form) was birthed in moral relativism.  There are many forms of tolerance that have been "born" along the continuum of history.  However, there is no denying that the leftist moral relativism of today has had its influence in the creation of today's form of "tolerance" especially in light of various sexual practices and orientation.



Umm yes, actually there is denying it.   Moral relativism isn't a strong belief on the left.   Some believe it, some don't.   And I apologize for taking your arguments as you stated them.   Next time I'll infer some random half assed fact based on pre-judgements about conservatives.   After all thats the form of argument you seem to prefer.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> No I just try not to make assumptions from what people say.   As I said before, language is important...it is the only tool for communication we have online.   There is no facial movements, irony, tone, etc.   Even when there are those things people can be misunderstood quite easily.   But I've explained all this before...you just throw out the semantics card as a bullshit term that you know has no real meaning here.
> 
> 
> 
> They are linked.   Because when we talk about the normality of something the implication is, generally, that things that are abnormal/deviant/etc are negative/bad/etc.   Of course none of your definitions of abnormal/deviant touch on those negative connotations, but thats why you use those dishonest terms...so you can imply that its bad without having to give reasons why its bad.   Yes they are uncommon...but to imply that makes them abnormal/deviant is dishonest because you wouldn't call other uncommon groups abnormal/deviant.
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you would have committed to the definitions instead of squirming around like a fucking worm, we wouldn't need too.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, no.  Defining something more accurately makes it harder to have a bad argument, not easier.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say they were...in fact I never said interchangable.   I was using your definition of normal.   After all you basically said that society "dictates what is normal".   Of course you said other incompatible things about the definition of normality before as well.   Squirm squirm squirm.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think being a genius is abnormal behavior?



I see nothing new here.  Just you regurgitating the same stuff.  Argument's over, and you have supported neither your stance, nor your accusations against me with anything of substance.  I'm not going to continue this circle jerk into eternity because you can't admit you're wrong.


----------



## midcan5

Interesting debate - *but I have to ask has anyone reconsidered their position, even a little?*

Progress comes slowly if at all to some and it may be the person who says nothing here gains the most. And since this came up I personally know a few gay women who have had children through artificial insemination. Seems motherhood is a powerful force of nature.


----------



## Shogun

Who she was:
Gilbert is remembered as playing the Emmy-nominated supporting role of Darlene Conner on Roseanne. Darlene was a sarcastic tomboy who always dressed in black, and thus was love at first sight for many a teenage boy.

What youd think shes doing:
Wed guess something other than acting. Like how George Foreman stopped being a boxer and became a grill salesman, or how Al Pacino stopped acting and started making good money doing Al Pacino impersonations.

She had a "too-smart-for-acting" vibe, so well take a stab that she writes books or columns for various magazines.

What she's actually doing:
Other women, thus shattering the hearts of many a young male who spent hours on his Sara Gilbert fan site on Geocities back in the day. Gilbert has two children with Allison Adler, the first of which her partner carried while Gilbert gestated the second. 

She also supports a healthy dose of organizations like Meals on Wheels, Freedom of Speech and AIDS Project Los Angeles.

http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2420


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Larkinn said:


> Thats because people like you are too stupid to realize logic and reason.
> 
> Then don't imply that I do by making points which presuppose that assumption.
> 
> You were talking about views about tolerance and how old it is, not about morals.
> 
> Umm yes, actually there is denying it.   Moral relativism isn't a strong belief on the left.   Some believe it, some don't.   And I apologize for taking your arguments as you stated them.   Next time I'll infer some random half assed fact based on pre-judgements about conservatives.   After all thats the form of argument you seem to prefer.



Apart from your insults, personal opinions, and purposely mangled interpretations, it appears you have nothing to say.


----------



## doniston

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?


  Actually there are quite a few, tho they are usually lesbian.  Even so, each of the babies has two parents,  tho one or both of them living with the baby, are not biological parents.  SO???


----------



## doniston

GHook93 said:


> Wait to you have a buddy that was in the closet and comes out. You would probably abandon him, but its eye opening. Funny thing is very little changes.
> 
> I had a buddy in college that was jock (no pun intented). Women were all over him. The gay-radar would never have picked up this one. He was and still is a great guy. I considered him one of my bet friends. When he came out it was shocking, but honestly it didn't change anything.


 I have no Idea from whence you got that quote, but I do remember him say that, in the past.  What I don't understand is that  he thinks anal intercourse with a man is an abondomation.  it is perrfectly ok to do the same identical thing to a woman.  I have never felt the need or desire to do that with either male or female---(or animal)  To me that is not sex, ---just disgustingly gross.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

doniston said:


> I have no Idea from whence you got that quote, but I do remember him say that, in the past.  What I don't understand is that  he thinks anal intercourse with a man is an abondomation.  it is perrfectly ok to do the same identical thing to a woman.  I have never felt the need or desire to do that with either male or female---(or animal)  To me that is not sex, ---just disgustingly gross.



Do you think that if you grew up in a culture that regards rumpy-pumpy as a communally approved optional sextra, you might be perpetually pestering your spouse/sheila for a bit of super taut dung-funnel fun?

What about if your *wife/woman* grew up in a country that regards regular rectum incursion as an almost de rigueur part of "love making." (Chrischun code for you-know-what)

What would you do if your supposed shrinking-violet WASP spouse/sheila confessed she detested your white-bread WASP-on-top "sex" and has been hanging out for a bit of bum-splitting abumination all her married life.

Would you put a packet of condoms on your cock, purchase a box of air-sick bags, then don a one-holed body bag and buggerize her in a chemical hazard shower, for the sake of your "lurve" for her?

What is wifey offered to digitally stimulate you prostate gland when you are on the vinegar strokes, or, horror of horrors, offered to rose-leaf  you, would you refuse?


----------



## doniston

Chips Rafferty said:


> Do you think that if you grew up in a culture that regards rumpy-pumpy as a communally approved optional sextra, you might be perpetually pestering your spouse/sheila for a bit of super taut dung-funnel fun?
> 
> What about if your *wife/woman* grew up in a country that regards regular rectum incursion as an almost de rigueur part of "love making." (Chrischun code for you-know-what)
> 
> What would you do if your supposed shrinking-violet WASP spouse/sheila confessed she detested your white-bread WASP-on-top "sex" and has been hanging out for a bit of bum-splitting abumination all her married life.
> 
> Would you put a packet of condoms on your cock, purchase a box of air-sick bags, then don a one-holed body bag and buggerize her in a chemical hazard shower, for the sake of your "lurve" for her?
> 
> What is wifey offered to digitally stimulate you prostate gland when you are on the vinegar strokes, or, horror of horrors, offered to rose-leaf  you, would you refuse?


 I don't have the slightest Idea what some of what you are mouthing off about means or suggests, but if it has anything to do with Anal sex, Scatological issues, or serious bondage or torture,  you can bet your bottom dollar that I  would refuse such offers, and have nothing further to do with her.


----------



## midcan5

lol - Chips has read too much Henry Miller. 

"The traditional Christian doctrine was summarized in the 13th century by the theologian Thomas Aquinas who declared that *God allowed sexual intercourse only*

 for the right purpose (i.e., procreation),
 with the right person (i.e., the marriage partner), and
 in the right way (i.e., by means of coitus).
*Any sexual activity that did not meet this triple standard was "unnatural" and sinful.*

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/problematic_sexual_behavior.html

History knows of some human cultures which accepted nearly all forms of sexual behavior as divinely inspired and therefore natural. These cultures were not necessarily liberal or permissive in the modern sense, but they had room for many different erotic tastes. Individuals were usually left alone to pursue their personal sexual interests and were punished only when they violated the rights of others.

However, our own Judeo-Christian culture is built on quite another tradition. The ancient Israelites as well as the early and medieval Christians believed that the only natural purpose of sex was procreation, and therefore they were extremely intolerant of any nonprocreative sexual activity. For example, the Bible reports that in Israel male homosexual intercourse and sexual contact with animals were punished by death, a custom which survived for more than a thousand years in Christian Europe. Even today, many states in the United States continue to treat these harmless behaviors as crimes."


----------



## Doug

If you really really truly just cannot stand gays, then I have just the  country for you.


----------



## Diuretic

I wondered what Ahmadinejad was muttering about in an aside from the microphone, he must have said, ".....yet."


----------



## Chips Rafferty

doniston said:


> I don't have the slightest Idea what some of what you are mouthing off about means or suggests, but if it has anything to do with Anal sex, Scatological issues, or serious bondage or torture,  you can bet your bottom dollar that I  would refuse such offers, and have nothing further to do with her.





> .....or *serious* bondage or torture, you can bet your _bottom_ dollar D good one, Don!) that I would refuse such offers, and have nothing further to do with her.



So a bit of the ol' dress-up like Black Beard and sexually humiliate and "rape" the fair-maiden-tied-to-the-mainmast is quite acceptable to you, eh?  

What about Pastor Flagon tying *you* up at gunpoint and then brutallly raping wifey?

Them a women was sobbin', sobbin',
Sobbin' buckets of tears
On account o' old Dobbin,
Doniston' really rattled their rears.

Oh they acted angry and annoyed
But secretly they was overjoyed&#8230;

BTW, if you find something like this hidden in Hannah&#8217;s underwear drawer, don&#8217;t let her bullshit you that it is a woman&#8217;s &#8220;sanitary device.&#8221;


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Diuretic said:


> I wondered what Ahmadinejad was muttering about in an aside from the microphone, he must have said, ".....yet."



Did you hear about the sly grog (bootleg to you Bubbas) butcher?.....he was caught taking meat up the back passage


----------



## Chips Rafferty

midcan5 said:


> lol - Chips has read too much Henry Miller.
> 
> "The traditional Christian doctrine was summarized in the 13th century by the theologian Thomas Aquinas who declared that *God allowed sexual intercourse only*
> 
>  for the right purpose (i.e., procreation),
>  with the right person (i.e., the marriage partner), and
>  in the right way (i.e., by means of coitus).
> *Any sexual activity that did not meet this triple standard was "unnatural" and sinful.*
> 
> http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/problematic_sexual_behavior.html
> 
> History knows of some human cultures which accepted nearly all forms of sexual behavior as divinely inspired and therefore natural. These cultures were not necessarily liberal or permissive in the modern sense, but they had room for many different erotic tastes. Individuals were usually left alone to pursue their personal sexual interests and were punished only when they violated the rights of others.
> 
> However, our own Judeo-Christian culture is built on quite another tradition. The ancient Israelites as well as the early and medieval Christians believed that the only natural purpose of sex was procreation, and therefore they were extremely intolerant of any nonprocreative sexual activity. For example, the Bible reports that in Israel male homosexual intercourse and sexual contact with animals were punished by death, a custom which survived for more than a thousand years in Christian Europe. Even today, many states in the United States continue to treat these harmless behaviors as crimes."






>  in the right way (i.e., by means of coitus).


..as opposed to *quoit*us.

It's alright, Dee gets it!


----------



## Diuretic

Chips Rafferty said:


> Did you hear about the sly grog (bootleg to you Bubbas) butcher?.....he was caught taking meat up the back passage





Bring back WWII and all those meat restrictions


----------



## Diuretic

Chips Rafferty said:


> ..as opposed to *quoit*us.
> 
> It's alright, Dee gets it!



I do - rhymes with "deck coits".


----------



## RightWingSpirit

I have no objections to gays, I just don't like that retarded doniston character.


----------



## mattskramer

midcan5 said:


> lol - Chips has read too much Henry Miller.
> 
> "The traditional Christian doctrine was summarized in the 13th century by the theologian Thomas Aquinas who declared that *God allowed sexual intercourse only*
> 
>  for the right purpose (i.e., procreation),
>  with the right person (i.e., the marriage partner), and
>  in the right way (i.e., by means of coitus).
> *Any sexual activity that did not meet this triple standard was "unnatural" and sinful.*
> 
> http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/problematic_sexual_behavior.html
> 
> History knows of some human cultures which accepted nearly all forms of sexual behavior as divinely inspired and therefore natural. These cultures were not necessarily liberal or permissive in the modern sense, but they had room for many different erotic tastes. Individuals were usually left alone to pursue their personal sexual interests and were punished only when they violated the rights of others.
> 
> However, our own Judeo-Christian culture is built on quite another tradition. The ancient Israelites as well as the early and medieval Christians believed that the only natural purpose of sex was procreation, and therefore they were extremely intolerant of any nonprocreative sexual activity. For example, the Bible reports that in Israel male homosexual intercourse and sexual contact with animals were punished by death, a custom which survived for more than a thousand years in Christian Europe. Even today, many states in the United States continue to treat these harmless behaviors as crimes."



So let me get this straight.  Mutual masturbation is not allowed. Oral sex is not allowed.  I guess that there would only be a few days each month in which sex would be allowed (when a woman is ready).  Condoms are not allowed.  Am I correct so far?  Perhaps we show make these Biblical rules into US law.


----------



## doniston

Chips Rafferty said:


> So a bit of the ol' dress-up like Black Beard and sexually humiliate and "rape" the fair-maiden-tied-to-the-mainmast is quite acceptable to you, eh?
> 
> What about Pastor Flagon tying *you* up at gunpoint and then brutallly raping wifey?
> 
> Them a women was sobbin', sobbin',
> Sobbin' buckets of tears
> On account o' old Dobbin,
> Doniston' really rattled their rears.
> 
> Oh they acted angry and annoyed
> But secretly they was overjoyed
> 
> BTW, if you find something like this hidden in Hannahs underwear drawer, dont let her bullshit you that it is a womans sanitary device.


You are getting more stupid all the time.


----------



## doniston

RightWingSpirit said:


> I have no objections to gays, I just don't like that retarded doniston character.



HA HA.  ---whoever the hell you are.----doesn't make me no never-mind if you don't like me.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

mattskramer said:


> So let me get this straight.  Mutual masturbation is not allowed. Oral sex is not allowed.  I guess that there would only be a few days each month in which sex would be allowed (when a woman is ready).  Condoms are not allowed.  Am I correct so far?  Perhaps we show make these Biblical rules into US law.



You'd think God would have put a woman's pussy in a more salubrious, more antiseptic, more accessible neighbourhood, wouldn't you? Like in between her breasts or on her forehead.

I wonder why He didnt make our wedding tackle detachable, so we could watch them doing "*IT,*" cheer them on, and award performance points - like diving judges?

That way there wouldn't be any wet spots or snail trails on the sheets after the fu...er, "love-making" for MEN to sleep in. 

We could just throw them on the bedroom floor, *BOTH* roll over and go to sleep after the procreation process, and rinse them out in the morning!


----------



## RightWingSpirit

doniston said:


> HA HA.  ---whoever the hell you are.----doesn't make me no never-mind if you don't like me.



can someone translate that? sounds like doniston had a stroke while typing.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

doniston said:


> You are getting more stupid all the time.



I just got a pleading, absolutely pornographic post from an _Ethyl_ Doniston. Any relation?


----------



## doniston

Chips Rafferty said:


> I just got a pleading, absolutely pornographic post from a _Ethyl_ Doniston. Any relation?


  Since Doniston is a peusodium--- it isn't likely.


----------



## doniston

RightWingSpirit said:


> can someone translate that? sounds like doniston had a stroke while typing.


  an idiotic comment if I ever heard one.  try again dummy


----------



## RightWingSpirit

doniston said:


> an idiotic comment if I ever heard one.  try again dummy



go to bed old man, you're getting your wrinkled ass handed to you.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RightWingSpirit said:


> can someone translate that? sounds like doniston had a stroke while typing.



I think Donnie has many strokes while typing....


----------



## Chips Rafferty

doniston said:


> Since Doniston is a peusodium--- it isn't likely.



You mean shoedoh intalecshul, dont you, Donnie?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

Chips Rafferty said:


> I think Donnie has many strokes while typing....



yes, the kind that leaves one unable to speak or type coherently.


----------



## doniston

RightWingSpirit said:


> go to bed old man, you're getting your wrinkled ass handed to you.


Is that you Pale_rider???


----------



## doniston

RightWingSpirit said:


> go to bed old man, you're getting your wrinkled ass handed to you.


  You mean that you and Chips wants to beleive that.  no one else is likely to.


----------



## mattskramer

Okay RWS.  You are down by 1 punch.  In the next round I recommend a few right jabs.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> So let me get this straight.  Mutual masturbation is not allowed. Oral sex is not allowed.  I guess that there would only be a few days each month in which sex would be allowed (when a woman is ready).  Condoms are not allowed.  Am I correct so far?  Perhaps we show make these Biblical rules into US law.



They are not Biblical.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> They are not Biblical.



Here is some Biblical stuff:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=611433&postcount=150


----------



## RetiredGySgt

You are aware medically it is adviced not to have sex for a woman that gave birth for at LEAST 6 weeks?


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are aware medically it is adviced not to have sex for a woman that gave birth for at LEAST 6 weeks?



No, but should we make it a law?  My point is that the argument people throw up that homosexual behavior should not be allowed because God supposedly does not approve is easily knocked down.  First of all, there are many bizarre admonitions and instructions in the Bible.  Are those to be made into laws?  I doubt that even the most self-righteous Bible-believing Christian would tolerate such conditions.  Secondarily, there are atheists in America.  One does not have to believe in the existence  much less the Bible as being valid, to be an American.  That is my point.


----------



## mattskramer

mattskramer said:


> No, but should we make it a law?  My point is that the argument people throw up that homosexual behavior should not be allowed because God supposedly does not approve is easily knocked down.  First of all, there are many bizarre admonitions and instructions in the Bible.  Are those to be made into laws?  I doubt that even the most self-righteous Bible-believing Christian would tolerate such conditions.  Secondarily, there are atheists in America.  One does not have to believe in the existence  much less the Bible as being valid, to be an American.  That is my point.



Wow.  Check out:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter10.html

There is so much interesting stuff that it brings to light.  For example:

_A widow experiencing pleasure while shes still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the authors eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows arent worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15)._


----------



## Chips Rafferty

RightWingSpirit said:


> I have no objections to gays, I just don't like that retarded doniston character.




Did you hear about when Donnie and Ethyl were first courting and she came in season and begged him to "Give me the whole 7 inches and *HURT* me!".......so he "made loved" (is that Chrischunlly correct language?) her three times and blackened both her eyes!


----------



## RightWingSpirit

Chips Rafferty said:


> Did you hear about when Donnie and Ethyl were first courting and she came in season and begged him to "Give me the whole 7 inches and *HURT* me!".......so he "made loved" (is that Chrischunlly correct language?) her three times and blackened both her eyes!



no but I remember when June said "You were a little hard on the Beaver last night" to Ward.

*rimshot


----------



## midcan5

RightWingSpirit said:


> no but I remember when June said "You were a little hard on the Beaver last night" to Ward.



Leave it to the Beave, ah, the days, everyone dressed for dinner, polite civil language was the rule, no blacks or gays existed yet, and everyone smoked. lol


----------



## doniston

Chips Rafferty said:


> Did you hear about when Donnie and Ethyl were first courting and she came in season and begged him to "Give me the whole 7 inches and *HURT* me!".......so he "made loved" (is that Chrischunlly correct language?) her three times and blackened both her eyes!


  Sounds like RJS fronm another site, who's main schtick was to make up outlandous stories, and expect people to beleive them.  I finally just started responding to him with:

......................................  

I think I will do the same here.


----------



## AllieBaba

The so-called bizarre laws you are referring were laws given to Moses, primarily, when the Jews were nomads wandering around the desert. They had no law, they had been slaves for so long they had no structured society of their own. So God gave them some laws and hence you have the ten commandments and all the "laws" in Leviticus and Numbers.

But in the New Testament, Jesus FULFILLED the law, making the old laws obsolete. Jesus said the only law we needed to worry about anymore was to love one another, and the rest would follow.

So if you're going to bash the Bible and use it as the example of ridiculous law making, kindly take a little time to actually read and understand it so you can make the argument intelligently. 

Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.



Any evidence to back that up, or is that just a bizarre form of brainwashing?


----------



## mattskramer

AllieBaba said:


> The so-called bizarre laws you are referring were laws given to Moses, primarily, when the Jews were nomads wandering around the desert. They had no law, they had been slaves for so long they had no structured society of their own. So God gave them some laws and hence you have the ten commandments and all the "laws" in Leviticus and Numbers.
> 
> But in the New Testament, Jesus FULFILLED the law, making the old laws obsolete. Jesus said the only law we needed to worry about anymore was to love one another, and the rest would follow.
> 
> So if you're going to bash the Bible and use it as the example of ridiculous law making, kindly take a little time to actually read and understand it so you can make the argument intelligently.
> 
> Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.



Sigh.  Look at the web site again.  It provides many examples of bizarre admonitions and instructions in the New Testament too.  The book of Timothy (a passage tht I actually quoted here) is in the New Testament.


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, yes. The studies have been made, the point isn't even argued anymore in the scientific community. 
The Human Genome Progect, the Hamer study are just two studies which have shown there isn't such a thing as genetic sexual hardwiring. Read up.


----------



## AllieBaba

And Timothy is an example of direction being given to a group of people who are out of control.

Jesus told us to love each other and the rest would follow. That's the only law we need to take to heart.

I don't believe sodomy is an example of showing love for another person. Neither is cheating on your spouse, or stealing your neighbor's things. So you can see how that works.


----------



## mattskramer

AllieBaba said:


> And Timothy is an example of direction being given to a group of people who are out of control.
> 
> Jesus told us to love each other and the rest would follow. That's the only law we need to take to heart.
> 
> I don't believe sodomy is an example of showing love for another person. Neither is cheating on your spouse, or stealing your neighbor's things. So you can see how that works.



It depends on if the other person wants sodomy. 

Okay.  So you are not a literalist.  You pick and choose and interpret passages to suit yourself.  As I read it, the instructions were intended for everyone.


----------



## AllieBaba

If it's in the Bible, it's of the spirit. Yes, I am a literalist. I believe the laws found in the NT, if followed, make for a strong, safe, kind society.

That doesn't mean I don't understand the context of the books of the Bible, or the history.


----------



## AllieBaba

And clean society. Which can be the argument against sodomy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Any evidence to back that up, or is that just a bizarre form of brainwashing?



No, I do not think Homosexuals should practice their sex, BUT I am smart enough to know, TRUE homosexuals are probably scientifically genetically predisposed to be JUST that. This poster will not be able to provide any scientific evidence to back the claim.


----------



## mattskramer

AllieBaba said:


> If it's in the Bible, it's of the spirit. Yes, I am a literalist. I believe the laws found in the NT, if followed, make for a strong, safe, kind society.
> 
> That doesn't mean I don't understand the context of the books of the Bible, or the history.



Bottom line:  Do you advocate making each and every suggestion, admonition, and instruction within the New Testament the law of the land?  If not, then you can't sue the Bible as a reason to outlaw Homosexual behavior.  Try something else.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, yes. The studies have been made, the point isn't even argued anymore in the scientific community.



Err, what?   Actually there is still a lot of research being done and new research and theories have come out in the past few years about how a genetic version of homosexuality could be passed on.   



> The Human Genome Progect, the Hamer study are just two studies which have shown there isn't such a thing as genetic sexual hardwiring. Read up.



Err the Hamer study actually showed there was a link between homosexuality and genes.   The Human Genome Project was merely a mapping of the Human Genome....we know where the genes are, not exactly what each one does.


----------



## midcan5

AllieBaba said:


> Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.



My suggestion noted above somewhere in this long thread is the same, try switch hitting and let us know how you make out. Ask your friends too. Surely if it is a choice you can check it out for a day or so and still remain the macho stud I'm sure you are.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

midcan5 said:


> My suggestion noted above somewhere in this long thread is the same, try switch hitting and let us know how you make out. Ask your friends too. Surely if it is a choice you can check it out for a day or so and still remain the macho stud I'm sure you are.



Your a moron as well. Or are you claiming that if someone is forced or choses once to have sex with a person of the same sex that makes them gay?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Yes its a new pill called, being gay

side effects include

saying you go girl
being good an interior decision
watching queer eye for the straight guy
and lots of anal sex 

talk to your doctor today and see if being gay is right for you



midcan5 said:


> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> www.scottowen.org


----------



## midcan5

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your a moron as well.



As well as ? a great guy, wonderful father, great husband, hard worker, come on finish the line.

PS try it you'll like it.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your a moron as well. Or are you claiming that if someone is forced or choses once to have sex with a person of the same sex that makes them gay?



In prison culture, so I'm told, the initiator is regarded as still being a straight man whereas the passive partner is regarded as obviously being gay.  When the "straight" man leaves prison he is apparently rehabilitated in more ways than one, whereas the passive man who leaves prison has apparently turned the corner.


----------



## mattskramer

Diuretic said:


> In prison culture, so I'm told, the initiator is regarded as still being a straight man whereas the passive partner is regarded as obviously being gay.  When the "straight" man leaves prison he is apparently rehabilitated in more ways than one, whereas the passive man who leaves prison has apparently turned the corner.



I think that I disagree with you.  Years ago I was physically attracted to a young man.  I was passive.  It did not get far sexually.  We went as far as masturbating each other.  I think that I was curious more tan anything else, though he was very good looking.  Anyway, our relationship slowly drifted away.  Today Im a happily married heterosexual without any interest in having a homosexual encounter.


----------



## actsnoblemartin

Ive heard its normal for men and women to experiment and it doesnt neccesarily mean your gay.

Im not sure if that report was teen yearsm 20's or both. But i dont think anyone can decide for anyone else, who is gay and who isnt.



mattskramer said:


> I think that I disagree with you.  Years ago I was physically attracted to a young man.  I was passive.  It did not get far sexually.  We went as far as masturbating each other.  I think that I was curious more tan anything else, though he was very good looking.  Anyway, our relationship slowly drifted away.  Today Im a happily married heterosexual without any interest in having a homosexual encounter.


----------



## Diuretic

mattskramer said:


> I think that I disagree with you.  Years ago I was physically attracted to a young man.  I was passive.  It did not get far sexually.  We went as far as masturbating each other.  I think that I was curious more tan anything else, though he was very good looking.  Anyway, our relationship slowly drifted away.  Today Im a happily married heterosexual without any interest in having a homosexual encounter.



I think I was trying to explain what I've been told about prison culture rather than generalising to the whole population.  I haven't worked in a prison so I can't speak about the culture of prisons with any authority.  I have dealt with criminals though and in dealing with them you do find things out and this was a point made to me by a couple of crims who were explaining what prison is like.  Homosexual acts are rampant in prisons but, I suppose this is about ego protection, prisoners (I am told) tend to indulge in a bit of cognitive dissonance.  "I am having sex with another man.  However I am the aggressor.  Therefore I am not gay."  I think that's how it goes.  The conflict is a man who describes himself as heterosexual (and outside of prison wouldn't think of having sex with another man) but who, out of sexual frustration, has sex with another man can ameliorate his confusion and conflict by taking shelter in the knowledge that he is the active partner.  He says, "I can't be gay, I'm not passively receiving another man."

That all sounds a bit overly complex I know.  I've probably confused everyone know but I know what I mean!


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Diuretic said:


> I think I was trying to explain what I've been told about prison culture rather than generalising to the whole population.  I haven't worked in a prison so I can't speak about the culture of prisons with any authority.  I have dealt with criminals though and in dealing with them you do find things out and this was a point made to me by a couple of crims who were explaining what prison is like.  Homosexual acts are rampant in prisons but, I suppose this is about ego protection, prisoners (I am told) tend to indulge in a bit of cognitive dissonance.  "I am having sex with another man.  However I am the aggressor.  Therefore I am not gay."  I think that's how it goes.  The conflict is a man who describes himself as heterosexual (and outside of prison wouldn't think of having sex with another man) but who, out of sexual frustration, has sex with another man can ameliorate his confusion and conflict by taking shelter in the knowledge that he is the active partner.  He says, "I can't be gay, I'm not passively receiving another man."
> 
> 
> That all sounds a bit overly complex I know.  I've probably confused everyone know but I know what I mean!




Reading you five by five.

Little pretty blokes do boob time ten times as bad as bigger more aggressive males.

Their only hope of not getting continually raped is to "cop it sweet" from a really bad bastard who will chase off all the junior bulls.


----------



## Doug

The male sex drive is so powerful that if men are isolated from women they will turn to each other. Or many of them will.

And since the sex drive is intended to allow you to spread your genes, it is also accompanied with strong feelings of jealousy if you think you are being two-timed.

Which leads to fights and murder and general social disintegration.

Which is why societies that have survived have created the institution of marriage, to try to control that sex drive and prevent endless low-level wars over who is sleeping with whom.

And they have erected all kinds of taboos around sex. Society "knows" that you are playing with fire here. It's the wisdom of thousands of years of social practice -- not something dreamed up by a great thinker. 

The conservative unhappiness towards the gay movement is fueled not really by some abstract moral theory about what sex is acceptable, still less by this or that individual's personal hangups, but by the impression we get that the gay movement is relentlessly undermining one taboo and institution in this area after another. 

They are not content with being ignored, and allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. This right has been a _de facto_ reality for decades in civilized societies and is now about as firmly established in both practice and law as you could wish.

But the gay movement is not satisfied with this. They appear to have bigger ambitions. So they are pulling one prop after another out from the complex construction we call "society", and just at the same time that other social and economic factors are undermining marriage, disparaging patriotism, and questioning traditonal values.

And we fear the consequences. That's the _real_ "phobia" in our "homophobia".


----------



## Diuretic

But sexual jealousy might also be cultural - I think I remember reading where Eskimo/Innuit (what's the current acceptable phrase?) people would allow visiting men to have sex with their wives.  There was a reason for it, a social reason, but I can't remember what it was now.  I wonder if we have sexual jealously because we regarded women as chattels, historically speaking I mean.

As for the radical gays.  So, what is the "radical gay agenda" I keep reading about?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> But sexual jealousy might also be cultural - I think I remember reading where Eskimo/Innuit (what's the current acceptable phrase?) people would allow visiting men to have sex with their wives.  There was a reason for it, a social reason, but I can't remember what it was now.  I wonder if we have sexual jealously because we regarded women as chattels, historically speaking I mean.
> 
> As for the radical gays.  So, what is the "radical gay agenda" I keep reading about?



In your face homosexual displays, demands for special rights and protections, demands to change marriage, demands against religion, demands to prevent the gospel from being read because it may "offend" them. Claims that they are just like blacks( the prejudice thing ) and to be treated the same by law and special rights and protections in hiring, housing , schooling etc etc.


----------



## Diuretic

RetiredGySgt said:


> In your face homosexual displays, demands for special rights and protections, demands to change marriage, demands against religion, demands to prevent the gospel from being read because it may "offend" them. Claims that they are just like blacks( the prejudice thing ) and to be treated the same by law and special rights and protections in hiring, housing , schooling etc etc.



What's an "in your face homosexual display(s)"?  They're banging each other on Market Street????

Demands for "special rights and protections"?  What "special rights and protections"?

Demands against religion?  What are they telling people not to practise their religion?  Yes, I'd regard that as unacceptable.

Same for reading of the gospels.

Are they asking for equality or something?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Diuretic said:


> What's an "in your face homosexual display(s)"?  They're banging each other on Market Street????
> 
> Demands for "special rights and protections"?  What "special rights and protections"?
> 
> Demands against religion?  What are they telling people not to practise their religion?  Yes, I'd regard that as unacceptable.
> 
> Same for reading of the gospels.
> 
> Are they asking for equality or something?



Homosexuals are already protected by our laws. The vocal bunch want special laws that give them more rights then other citizens. They want special treatment on par with the Civil Rights act for Blacks, affirmative action, etc etc. They want to be able to sue people and have the laws written so that the burden doesn't fall on them to prove the case.

They want religion forced to accept them, they want to be able to sue or have arrested any religion that ever says anything against homosexuals. They want special specific laws that use the term homosexual as the cause of the law. In other words, take the hate crime laws, they want a specific law that STATES homosexual in it, even though they are already protected.

They want special protections and preference for hiring and to sue if fired. Even though that is already covered in law.

They want to force everyone to call their unions marriages. They are OPPOSED to Civil Unions.

You would have to see their displays to understand them. They want to force anywhere anytime, every place they chose to allow Gay parades that are lewd to say the least.

They are opposed to laws that punish gays caught having sex in public places, they are against police actions to clean up public haunts where gays have sex and leave the evidence behind, some places it is so bad it is really a health risk. Usually parks and bathrooms.


----------



## Doug

Diuretic said:


> But sexual jealousy might also be cultural - I think I remember reading where Eskimo/Innuit (what's the current acceptable phrase?) people would allow visiting men to have sex with their wives.  There was a reason for it, a social reason, but I can't remember what it was now.  I wonder if we have sexual jealously because we regarded women as chattels, historically speaking I mean.
> 
> As for the radical gays.  So, what is the "radical gay agenda" I keep reading about?


I have always wondered about this custom among the Eskimos, which wouldn't be without precedent, but does seem to run counter to what we know about male sexual jealousy.

A Google search did not reveal anything definitive: claims that it was a myth, claims that their society was matrilineal and this is how a woman got a visiting man she fancied (unlikely, I think), and so on.

I did find   this  which seems more likely to me.


----------



## Diuretic

Blimey, it reminds me of the origins of the "best man" at a wedding in Anglo culture


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> Homosexuality is a choice, by the way. It has nothing to do with genetics. Right or wrong, people choose to be homosexual at some point in their lives. To then try to blame it on science or genetics is a cop out and actually enrages many homosexuals.


  I quite disagree.  to act in an homosexual manner is a choice.  to be philisophically homosexual is not.  that is somehow ingrained.  (they have yet to find out how)


----------



## doniston

Doug said:


> The male sex drive is so powerful that if men are isolated from women they will turn to each other. Or many of them will.
> 
> And since the sex drive is intended to allow you to spread your genes, it is also accompanied with strong feelings of jealousy if you think you are being two-timed.
> 
> Which leads to fights and murder and general social disintegration.
> 
> Which is why societies that have survived have created the institution of marriage, to try to control that sex drive and prevent endless low-level wars over who is sleeping with whom.
> 
> And they have erected all kinds of taboos around sex. Society "knows" that you are playing with fire here. It's the wisdom of thousands of years of social practice -- not something dreamed up by a great thinker.
> 
> The conservative unhappiness towards the gay movement is fueled not really by some abstract moral theory about what sex is acceptable, still less by this or that individual's personal hangups, but by the impression we get that the gay movement is relentlessly undermining one taboo and institution in this area after another.
> 
> They are not content with being ignored, and allowed to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. This right has been a _de facto_ reality for decades in civilized societies and is now about as firmly established in both practice and law as you could wish.
> 
> But the gay movement is not satisfied with this. They appear to have bigger ambitions. So they are pulling one prop after another out from the complex construction we call "society", and just at the same time that other social and economic factors are undermining marriage, disparaging patriotism, and questioning traditonal values.
> 
> And we fear the consequences. That's the _real_ "phobia" in our "homophobia".


  You didn't say this specifically, but you seem to inply that women don't turn to women, as well.   WHY???


----------



## doniston

Diuretic said:


> What's an "in your face homosexual display(s)"?  They're banging each other on Market Street????
> 
> Demands for "special rights and protections"?  What "special rights and protections"?
> 
> Demands against religion?  What are they telling people not to practise their religion?  Yes, I'd regard that as unacceptable.
> 
> Same for reading of the gospels.
> 
> Are they asking for equality or something?


  I'm confused too, and have the same questions

The only thing in his listing that seems accurate and relevant are the Gay Pride thingys.  which I am also against just as I would be   were they KKK, nazies, or????


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> Originally Posted by mattskramer View Post
> I think that I disagree with you. Years ago I was physically attracted to a young man. I was passive. It did not get far sexually. We went as far as masturbating each other. I think that I was curious more tan anything else, though he was very good looking. Anyway, our relationship slowly drifted away. Today Im a happily married heterosexual without any interest in having a homosexual encounte



Irrelevant. If you find men hot are physically attracted to men and you're a guy, then you're not heterosexual. Period. End of story. Whether you ever touch another man in a sexual way is irrelevant. 

I don't know why this is so hard but let me try again. 

1. BEING GAY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO. HOMOSEXUALITY DEFINES YOUR DESIRES, NOT YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN BE MARRIED, HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN ALL YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SAME SEX DESIRE YOU ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL. 


Christ, it's actually not very hard for people, especially if you are a guy. Your body tells you all the info you need to know. Do guys give you a woody, do girls give you a woody or do both of them.  No woody, no attraction. Can I make it any easier for you? Oy.


----------



## Doug

doniston said:


> You didn't say this specifically, but you seem to inply that women don't turn to women, as well.   WHY???


Well, since I think th nature of female sexual desire is somewhat different from male, I didn't want to get into a longer discussion about it. But, yes, some heterosexual women enclosed together without men will turn to other women, although here I think it is more for the companionship, rather than pure lust. There are some obvious Darwinian reasons for the differences, as probably everyone posting here knows.


----------



## doniston

CorpMediaSux said:


> Irrelevant. If you find men hot are physically attracted to men and you're a guy, then you're not heterosexual. Period. End of story. Whether you ever touch another man in a sexual way is irrelevant.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard but let me try again.
> 
> 1. BEING GAY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO. HOMOSEXUALITY DEFINES YOUR DESIRES, NOT YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN BE MARRIED, HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN ALL YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SAME SEX DESIRE YOU ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL.
> 
> 
> Christ, it's actually not very hard for people, especially if you are a guy. Your body tells you all the info you need to know. Do guys give you a woody, do girls give you a woody or do both of them.  No woody, no attraction. Can I make it any easier for you? Oy.


  You are getting closer.  In the first case the man is Bisexual, not homosexual.  in the second, you agreed with me.

 and in all, the fact is that you are describing Bisexual people, and most people are, to some degree.  I know I am.  Some act on it, others don't.  but the tendency is present in most.  that also goes for women.


----------



## AllieBaba

I think you're splitting hairs.

The different nuances of gayness is irrelevant, and there's no such thing as "philosophical homosexuality". That's just a made-up term to describe something because somebody doesn't like the common phrase.

It's excuse making, really.


----------



## AllieBaba

Most people are not. 

You seem to like to make these grand sweeping statements, but then don't provide any facts to back them up.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> The different nuances of gayness is irrelevant, and there's no such thing as "philosophical homosexuality". That's just a made-up term to describe something because somebody doesn't like the common phrase.



There are no nuances to sexuality it's actually very straight forward. Humans have used religion, culture and their own uncomfortability with sexuality to complicate things. However our sexuality is biological, the drive to have sex is biological and homosexual is a part of all mammal species. It makes complete evolutionary sense as well as it eliminates the number of intra-species fights over potential female mates.  In humans, homosexuality has existed as long as humanity as existed, so to suggest it's a product of modern culture or "choices" people make in our immoral world is insane. How can their be anti-homosexuality clauses in the Bible if homosexuality is a modern phenomenon. It's a part of humanity, exists in all cultures and will never not be a part of it. Please, sort it out and deal with it.


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> I think you're splitting hairs.
> 
> The different nuances of gayness is irrelevant, and there's no such thing as "philosophical homosexuality". That's just a made-up term to describe something because somebody doesn't like the common phrase.
> 
> It's excuse making, really.


Well what word would you like to nuse to describe someone who is prone to homosexuality  (whether or not you agree that a person is born that way)


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> Most people are not.
> 
> You seem to like to make these grand sweeping statements, but then don't provide any facts to back them up.


  Who are you referring to with this post?  we are not mind readers.


----------



## midcan5

I personally do not believe bisexuality exists. Sex is a very strong evolutionary force and most wo/men have probably had thoughts or experiences with same sex but fundamentally that continuum all behavior runs along would seem to tilt one way? How confusing would it be to see everyone as a sexual partner? 

CorpMediaSux, I like your tag and your replies are smart.


----------



## Diuretic

midcan5 said:


> I personally do not believe bisexuality exists. Sex is a very strong evolutionary force and most wo/men have probably had thoughts or experiences with same sex but fundamentally that continuum all behavior runs along would seem to tilt one way? How confusing would it be to see everyone as a sexual partner?
> 
> CorpMediaSux, I like your tag and your replies are smart.



I think it was Woody Allen who said something along the lines of being bisexual doubles your chances of a date for Saturday night


----------



## midcan5

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty two admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." Lynne Lavner


----------



## 007

doniston said:


> Is that you Pale_rider???



No... but I see you put that same old picture of you that looks like a filthy old drunken bum back up.

Maybe you should put the one of you wearing the tinfoil hat back.

Oh well... either way... you look like an idiot, and sound like an even bigger one.


----------



## mattskramer

CorpMediaSux said:


> Irrelevant. If you find men hot are physically attracted to men and you're a guy, then you're not heterosexual. Period. End of story. Whether you ever touch another man in a sexual way is irrelevant.
> 
> I don't know why this is so hard but let me try again.
> 
> 1. BEING GAY IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU DO. HOMOSEXUALITY DEFINES YOUR DESIRES, NOT YOUR ACTIONS. YOU CAN BE MARRIED, HAVE SEX WITH WOMEN ALL YOU WANT, BUT IF YOU HAVE SAME SEX DESIRE YOU ARE NOT HETEROSEXUAL.
> 
> 
> Christ, it's actually not very hard for people, especially if you are a guy. Your body tells you all the info you need to know. Do guys give you a woody, do girls give you a woody or do both of them.  No woody, no attraction. Can I make it any easier for you? Oy.



Cant interests change with time and experience?  I used to like vanilla ice cream.  Now I prefer chocolate.  I used to play video and pinball games at the local arcade.  It cost me 25 cents per game.  How, I dont care for them.  In fact, I have not played a video game in over 5 years.  Also, cant someone be bisexual?  I do enjoy being sexually intimate with my wife.  I disagree with you.  Time and states change.


----------



## midcan5

I don't think vanilla ice cream is a key part of our core evolutionary being, but sex may be another story, you think

thought these funny

http://aintchristian.blogspot.com/2007/02/10-best-reasons-gay-marriage-is-wrong.html

10 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:
1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


----------



## doniston

Pale Rider said:


> No... but I see you put that same old picture of you that looks like a filthy old drunken bum back up.
> 
> Maybe you should put the one of you wearing the tinfoil hat back.
> 
> Oh well... either way... you look like an idiot, and sound like an even bigger one.


Nice of you to say so,  It just adds more credence to your hold on you own personal form of Jackassicity.

 If you don't have something reasonable and relevant to say about an issue. You just post an insult.  For you, that is par for the course.


----------



## AllieBaba

There is no proof that homosexuality is a natural (i.e., "okay") phenomena. There is no proof that people are genetically disposed to be homosexual, and "philosophical homosexuality" is gobbledygook which has no basis in fact, science, nature or anything else.

I presume what you're doing is taking the fact that many people fantasize about homosexuality without actually choosing to act on the fantasy. I haven't yet heard that ordinary hetero behavior (to a point) referred to as "philosophical homosexuality". That term is simply one coined to conn other people in thinking everybody is, to some extent, homosexual..which makes it okay!

That's sort of like calling everybody who has ever fantasized about killing somebody (probably all of us) a "philosophical murderer", and using that to make the point that murder is a natural, and therefore, "okay" thing to do.


----------



## Shogun

There is no proof of plate tectonics either.

Care to consider the EVIDENCE?


How many historic societies do you want to read about?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> There is no proof of plate tectonics either.
> 
> Care to consider the EVIDENCE?
> 
> 
> How many historic societies do you want to read about?



There IS NO PROOF of hardwired homosexuality. There is some evidence it MAY be true, but nothing conclusive at all.


----------



## midcan5

AllieBaba said:


> There is no proof that homosexuality is a natural (i.e., "okay") phenomena. There is no proof that people are genetically disposed to be homosexual, and "philosophical homosexuality" is gobbledygook which has no basis in fact, science, nature or anything else.



How would you explain homosexuality in the higher primates? Is that not 'nature' or do you suppose they are only philosophical primates.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

midcan5 said:


> How would you explain homosexuality in the higher primates? Is that not 'nature' or do you suppose they are only philosophical primates.



I do not need to explain it at all, but in higher primates intelligence and thought occur, there is some evidence that sex DRIVE causes some of them to have sex with weaker members of the same sex.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> There IS NO PROOF of hardwired homosexuality. There is some evidence it MAY be true, but nothing conclusive at all.




what proof is there that heterosexuality is WIRED then?  Are you going to say, "because men and women have been fucking for years"?  I'd have to retort that the same can be said about homosexual having sex.  If we are both observing patterns of behaviour that are BOTH prevelent in many cultures accross history then what proof do you have the makes hetero any more "natural" than homo?


procreation is NOT a factor here.  It's not a requirement or a prerequisite for love, sex or any type of relationship.

Tradition is not a factor either.  Tradition is a man made construct that certainly isn't uniform throughout history and different cultures.


So, I'll ask:  What is your *proof* that humans are hardwired for either orientation?  


Hell, if anything it seems that sexual definitions are a product of SOCIAL realities rather than PHYSICAL.  I've yet to ehar of a Hetero portion of the brain or a Strait Organ....


----------



## midcan5

Aging and Gay, and Facing Prejudice in Twilight

"Even now, at 81 and with her memory beginning to fade, Gloria Donadello recalls her painful brush with bigotry at an assisted-living center in Santa Fe, N.M. Sitting with those she considered friends, people were laughing and making certain kinds of comments, and I told them, Please dont do that, because Im gay.

The result of her outspokenness, Ms. Donadello said, was swift and merciless. Everyone looked horrified, she said. No longer included in conversation or welcome at meals, she plunged into depression. Medication did not help. With her emotional health deteriorating, Ms. Donadello moved into an adult community nearby that caters to gay men and lesbians."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/09aged.html?em&ex=1192075200&en=6d2df560107f9f83&ei=5087


----------



## AllieBaba

No, heterosexuality is not hardwired either.
And I explain homosexuality in apes the same as in humans. It's aberrant behavior, just like murder. Humans and apes have a lot of the same vices, it doesn't "explain" anything except that we're equally depraved.


----------



## Shogun

So if you admit that hetero is not hardwired like homo is not hard wired then what, besides an opinion, are you basing the word "aberrant" on?  Last I saw the DSM-4 doesn't list homosexuality as abnormal behaviour.  Comparing the behaviour of homosexuality with the behaviour of murder is quite a stretch.


----------



## RightWingSpirit

midcan5 said:


> 10 Best reasons Gay Marriage is wrong:
> 1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
> 2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
> 3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
> *4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.*
> 5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
> 6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
> 7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
> *8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.*
> *9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.*
> 10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


I disagree with those in bold.

Since when are women property? blacks still can't marry whites? divorce is illegal? Nonsense. 
We do not have one religion in this country. 
We do not forbid single parent households.
 Are we talking about America because from what I have seen, those statements are just propaganda from the far left.


----------



## Shogun

SOMEONE is not so quick on catching the sarcasm today...


Damn.. and here I thought I was in the presence of an INTELLECTUAL GIANT...





Can anyone post the dumbed down version so he can see why his INTELLECTUAL GIANT card is being revoked?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

Shogun, leave here or I'll bury you , either verbally or physically.

I am tired of your shit and so is everyone else.


----------



## doniston

Pale Rider said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.


  And yet you seem to think anal sex with a woman is perfectly OK.  In your mind does that become "NORMAL"?


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> So if you admit that hetero is not hardwired like homo is not hard wired then what, besides an opinion, are you basing the word "aberrant" on?  Last I saw the DSM-4 doesn't list homosexuality as abnormal behaviour.  Comparing the behaviour of homosexuality with the behaviour of murder is quite a stretch.



Er...aberrant means outside of the norm, genius. The norm is what is norm for the majority of a population. The majority of chimps aren't homosexual, nor are the majority murderers.

Murder and homosexuality are aberrant behaviors, because they're outside the norm in both human and chimp populations.


----------



## Shogun

RightWingSpirit said:


> Shogun, leave here or I'll bury you , either verbally or physically.
> 
> I am tired of your shit and so is everyone else.



nice!

a THREAT....

Im sure that will go over well.


By all means.. bring on the heartache, bubba...  I'm sure your prowess in street fighter 2 helps pwning all the threads, ya E-thug..   

Im glad you speak for everyone else, too.. Say, did you come to that consensus while totally missing the subtle sarcasm of the above top ten list?  That's not very INTELLECTUAL GIANT'ISH of you... 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


So, are you going to block me or was that just some hot steam escaping your pussy?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

shogun, You have been reported.

Not to the mod, someone else.


----------



## doniston

RightWingSpirit said:


> Shogun, leave here or I'll bury you , either verbally or physically.
> 
> I am tired of your shit and so is everyone else.


  Speak for yourself Bitch.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Er...aberrant means outside of the norm, genius. The norm is what is norm for the majority of a population. The majority of chimps aren't homosexual, nor are the majority murderers.
> 
> Murder and homosexuality are aberrant behaviors, because they're outside the norm in both human and chimp populations.



But you are judging that based on your own cultural norms.  I can give you examples of other cultures in history where the current norms are not anything close to ours.  Again, the DSM-4 doesn't list homosexuality as abnormal behaviour anymore.  Are you trying to suggest that any behaviour that falls outside of a generic range of commonality should be seen as less valid as those shared by a majority of the population?


----------



## Shogun

RightWingSpirit said:


> shogun, You have been reported.
> 
> Not to the mod, someone else.



ohhhh.. is your big brother going to show up at my doorstep tonight?


RUHROH, SHAGGY!  Ima SCERRED now!


I hope it was law enforcement so that I can show them the threat of violence you posted...  I hear thats more of an issue than being made fun of...  I kinda figured an INTELLECTUAL GIANT would have seen that coming a mile away...


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> But you are judging that based on your own cultural norms.  I can give you examples of other cultures in history where the current norms are not anything close to ours.  Again, the DSM-4 doesn't list homosexuality as abnormal behaviour anymore.  Are you trying to suggest that any behaviour that falls outside of a generic range of commonality should be seen as less valid as those shared by a majority of the population?




No, I'm basing that on world-wide norms. There are pockets of humanity where what is considered aberrant by the rest of the world is considered the norm to ppl raised in that aberrant culture. 
That doesn't mean the culture isn't aberrant, given the world-wide norm.

I'm not saying that because it's not of my culture it's "bad". I'm just saying that it's aberrant behavior for most of the cultures of the world, and most of the world population. It's a statement of fact, not opinion.


----------



## RightWingSpirit

Shogun said:


> I hope it was law enforcement so that I can show them the threat of violence you posted...  I hear thats more of an issue than being made fun of...  I kinda figured an INTELLECTUAL GIANT would have seen that coming a mile away...


was not a threat, more of a warning.
I already have your street address based on your IP.


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh, and I'm not one who subscribes to the holy grail(s) of psychological testing tools. 

Although I will say, they have been developed and are geared towards exposing as much about crazy people as possible. So they aren't really used on a "normal" population.

And what is considered normal to an abnormal population doesn't apply. Again.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> No, I'm basing that on world-wide norms. There are pockets of humanity where what is considered aberrant by the rest of the world is considered the norm to ppl raised in that aberrant culture.
> That doesn't mean the culture isn't aberrant, given the world-wide norm.
> 
> I'm not saying that because it's not of my culture it's "bad". I'm just saying that it's aberrant behavior for most of the cultures of the world, and most of the world population. It's a statement of fact, not opinion.




But you are still using the word Abberent filtered by your own ethnocentrism.  Would not a culture that YOU think is abnormal say the same about your culture?  For instance, IN america it would be abnormal to take a mid day ciesta... but in mexico it is abnormal that we dont.  Thus, how is your judgement any more relevant than someone from an ancient culture, say feudal japan or greece, whose would judge your behaviours according to their ethnocentrism?

Again.. the DSM-4 is still the standard for the APA.

But, I'm glad you clarified that you were not making a judgement on whether the bahaviour is good or bad.  I appriciate an open mind even on a subject we may disagree on.


----------



## RightWingSpirit

AllieBaba said:


> And what is considered normal to an abnormal population doesn't apply. Again.



the far left tries to force people to accept their way as being the norm.
I refuse to accept that homosexuality is the norm and will not allow my kids to be taught that being hetero equates to being "homophobic".


----------



## Shogun

RightWingSpirit said:


> was not a threat, more of a warning.
> I already have your street address based on your IP.



gimme a break, dummy.  My street address based on my IP?  Then I guess this coffee shop needs to be on the lookout for known E-thugs, right?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

First day playing with the intertubes?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

This message is hidden because Shogun is on your ignore list.

It is disheartening to do that but when someone does not change their idiotic ways, there is not much choice.


----------



## AllieBaba

You really have no idea if the information is being filtered through my ethnocentricity or not. Nor does it matter, because the facts are the facts. And the fact is, it's aberrant behavior.

And I have about as much faith in the APA as I do in their little tools. Whatever the current stance the APA is on any topic, I just don't care because I don't think they're credible.


----------



## Shogun

I'm so, SOOOOOOOOO pained that RWS won't be reading my posts anymore..


i-i-i-i just might have to get some rope and HANG myself!


th-th-PAIN!  ANGUISH!  


Hey, when your Block Ops land their black helicopter in my back yard would you please ask them not to land in the pool?  You see, I'm just not sure my home owners insurance will cover Vigilante Retribution and the kids really like to swim in the summer...

K, thnks!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> You really have no idea if the information is being filtered through my ethnocentricity or not. Nor does it matter, because the facts are the facts. And the fact is, it's aberrant behavior.
> 
> And I have about as much faith in the APA as I do in their little tools. Whatever the current stance the APA is on any topic, I just don't care because I don't think they're credible.



Oh it matters, sir.  Indeed, it matters.  

Hey, some people didn't have faith in that new fangled thing they called penicillin back in the day too.  But, I guess nothing makes a good standard like an opinion and disregarding logical fallacies.

In ancient Greece your norms would have been deviant... Does that invalidate your belief system?


But, let me ask again:  Are you suggesting that any behaviours that are not shared by the common majority be similarly criticised or is it just the homosexuality?  I wonder what percentage of Americans play chess these days...   hmmm..


----------



## AllieBaba

Pennicillin is a medicine, and came about because of science. There is actual scientific proof that pennicillin does, indeed, curb infection.

Something the APA can lay absolutely no claim to. Other than the science of searching for new and more confusing drugs. Look in a drug book. Most of the drugs they use, under the "how it works" section list "Unknown".


----------



## AllieBaba

And the population of ancient Greece represents a tiny, miniscule portion of world population.

They were considered aberrant by the rest of the world, too.


----------



## Shogun

At one time the use of pennicilin was considered witchcraft while the norm of the society was that the human body held four humours.  You may disagree with the APA but it is still our highest authority on mental disorders and deviant behaviour.  

Indeed, there is also social evidence that homoseuxality has been a constant, even if in a minority population, in cultures for a long, long time.


What other behaviours, practiced by a mere minority, should rally against?


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> And the population of ancient Greece represents a tiny, miniscule portion of world population.
> 
> They were considered aberrant by the rest of the world, too.



uh, greece was a significant player in the history of the west, dude.  Are we talking about land area now or the actual social population that eventually led to ours?  

Were Japanese samurai also considered aberrant?

this is a trick question.


----------



## AllieBaba

You digress.

I'll stick to my point. Regardless of what you think of the Greeks, their overall population does not allow them to dictate the norm. It doesn't matter what they contributed to world culture. The fact is, even if every single ancient Greek was a homosexual, that still would not establish homosexual behavior as anything but aberrant, given the world-wide norm.

And I'm not stating that all behaviors not of the norm are suspect. I'm simply arguing against the stance that homosexuality is "normal" or "hardwired". It isn't.

That's the only point I'm making. The whole "But Greeks were homos and look what they've contributed to the world" thing has nothing to do with what I'm saying.


----------



## Diuretic

This reference to "the norm" is a bit confusing.  Rather than look at it in statistical terms, which is essentially how it's being portrayed, it's probably more useful to think of a behaviour as being within accepted social limits.  Now social definitions of acceptable behaviour arise from the cultures of societies so it's not that helpful to talk about worldwide "norms" or "norms" through history.  We define what's normal by defining what's abnormal or deviant.  Those terms are now loaded but I'm using them dispassionately.  We decide what's deviant socially and usually it's those in positions of power who decide it for us.  Religion is a powerful means of defining deviant behaviour and has been throughout history and across cultures.  Look at the efforts by some groups in various societies to push Sharia as the legal code of their country.  They want to remove secular law and replace it with religious law.  That would radically re-define deviant and non-deviant behaviour and it wouldn't just be about sexual matters.

Shogun has pointed out that homosexuality isn't seen as a mental illness any longer by the medical community, those gatekeepers of medical knowledge.  Now being as that's a clinical decision I would think that the APA have done a lot of work on that.  I don't know this but I wouldn't be surprised if the APA decided more harm befell people when homosexuality was considered to be an illness than when it was taken out of the DSM.  

AB mentioned chimps.  Murderous little bastards they are.  They hunt in packs and tear monkeys apart and eat them.  That's normal behaviour for a chimp.  Bonobos, no, they're not as aggressive as chimps.  Chimps hunt in packs and kill monkeys - is that "wrong"?  No, it's not "wrong", it's perfectly natural behaviour for chimps.  It surprises us because most of us have only seen chimps making funny faces to their keepers in the zoo.  We, who get out meat from shops which in turn get their meat from slaughterhouses where animals are slaughtered, turn our noses up and accuse chimps - as I did - of being "murderous".  It's ridiculous to do so, it's "nature red in tooth and claw."  


http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

Some societies accept homosexuality more easily than others.  There are social reasons for that (not that I know what they are).  Some even accept situational homosexuality.  

http://www.colorq.org/Articles/article.aspx?d=QHistory&x=parallels

Obviously I don't know why homosexuals are oriented towards their own gender.  However I do know about sexual orientation and impulse, being a human being makes me an expert in that.  Growing up I knew that homosexuality was defined in my culture at that time as abnormal and in fact criminal when acted upon even between consenting adults.  If homosexuality is chosen as some assert, why would you choose a sexuality that could see you imprisoned for indulging in it with another adult?  Why would you choose to become part of a despised minority?  It seems to me that sexuality is a lot like race, you don't get a choice.


----------



## 007

Diuretic said:


> Growing up I knew that homosexuality was defined in my culture at that time as abnormal and in fact criminal when acted upon even between consenting adults.  If homosexuality is chosen as some assert, why would you choose a sexuality that could see you imprisoned for indulging in it with another adult?  Why would you choose to become part of a despised minority?  It seems to me that sexuality is a lot like race, you don't get a choice.



There's always a choice Diuretic. Queers know in their mind that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong, but they "choose" to act it out anyway. They COULD choose NOT to. They KNOW it's wrong. They just let the impulse over-ride their right from wrong decision making process.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

Pale Rider said:


> There's always a choice Diuretic. Queers know in their mind that sex between two people of the same sex is wrong, but they "choose" to act it out anyway. They COULD choose NOT to. They KNOW it's wrong. They just let the impulse over-ride their right from wrong decision making process.



To paraphrase Ali Bubba above,

*



			There is no proof that religiosity is a natural (i.e., "okay") phenomena. There is no proof that people are genetically disposed to be religious, and "philosophical religiosity" is gobbledygook which has no basis in fact, science, nature or anything else.
		
Click to expand...

*
Therefore your hate/fear-of-the-unknown - which is religiously inculcated - MUST be manifestly obvious, even to an inbred Bubba such as you, as being nothing but the passed on bigoted sub-conscious self-loathing of perverted priests, who adore dolling themselves up in mummy's dresses and diddling cherubic altar boy's bums.

Subsequently - going by your bigoted unscientific philosophy - I also feel entirely justifed, just as you do with poofters, in wanting to see *you* castrated with a rusty gap-toothed hacksaw blade and then _slowly_ stoned to death by the *normally* indecent folk from my home town.


----------



## midcan5

This thread continues...I have to admit I sometimes laugh out loud at the replies and the shenanigans. Shogun and RWS were too funny. The one thing that seems consistent is the conservative response. It follows closely a Berkeley study noted below.


"Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

    * Fear and aggression
    * Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
    * Uncertainty avoidance
    * Need for cognitive closure
    * Terror management

"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin."

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/07/22_politics.shtml


----------



## Shogun

Thank you, thank you.. I'm here all week!


----------



## Diuretic

How's the veal? 

(Not that I eat it)


----------



## AllieBaba

Chips Rafferty said:


> To paraphrase Ali Bubba above,
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore your hate/fear-of-the-unknown - which is religiously inculcated - MUST be manifestly obvious, even to an inbred Bubba such as you, as being nothing but the passed on bigoted sub-conscious self-loathing of perverted priests, who adore dolling themselves up in mummy's dresses and diddling cherubic altar boy's bums.
> 
> Subsequently - going by your bigoted unscientific philosophy - I also feel entirely justifed, just as you do with poofters, in wanting to see *you* castrated with a rusty gap-toothed hacksaw blade and then _slowly_ stoned to death by the *normally* indecent folk from my home town.




I don't recall bringing religion into the mix. That I leave to those who hate. I simply contradicted the incorrect assumption that gayness is hard wired. It isn't, according to the myriad studies performed so far.

Nor am I bigoted. That's your own assumption based upon your own hatred of those who have different views than your own (also known as, hey, bigotry). I've not proposed any punishment for gays. And you can't castrate me, because I'm a woman. Darn. You'll have to think up some other hideous torture for me, while you're sitting around thinking elevated, scientific and un-bigoted thoughts.

I maintain that if you look at this "scientifically", as I have been, the facts tell you that homosexuality is outside of the world-wide norm. I'm racking my brain even trying to think of small pockets of population where it's "norm" and outside of ancient Greece and current day San Fran, I can't think of a single population where it's universally accepted and condoned. Or even practiced by a large sector of the population.

But I'm sure you feel better after spewing.


----------



## Shogun

Shud&#333;
A Shud&#333;-type encounter between younger and older samurai. From "Tale of Shud&#333;" (&#34886;&#36947;&#29289;&#35486 1661.
A Shud&#333;-type encounter between younger and older samurai. From "Tale of Shud&#333;" (&#34886;&#36947;&#29289;&#35486 1661.

Shud&#333; (&#34886;&#36947, the tradition of love bonds between a seasoned and a novice samurai was held to be "the flower of the samurai spirit" and formed the real basis of the samurai aesthetic. It was analogous to the educational Greek pederasty and an honored and important practice in samurai society. It was one of the main ways in which the ethos and the skills of the samurai tradition were passed down from one generation to another.[citation needed]

Another name for the bonds was bid&#333; (&#32654;&#36947; "the beautiful way"). The devotion that two samurai would have for each other would be almost as great as that which they had for their daimyo. Indeed, according to contemporary accounts, the choice between his lover and his master could become a philosophical problem for samurai. Hagakure and other samurai manuals gave specific instructions in the way that this tradition was to be carried out and respected. After the Meiji Restoration and the introduction of a more westernised lifestyle, the practice died out.







*A Shud&#333;-type encounter between younger and older samurai. From "Tale of Shud&#333;" (&#34886;&#36947;&#29289;&#35486 1661.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samurai


Here's another for your bonnet.


----------



## Shogun

Tokugawa Japan ranks with ancient Athens as a society that not only tolerated, but celebrated, male homosexual behavior. Few scholars have seriously studied the subject, and until now none have satisfactorily explained the origins of the tradition or elucidated how its conventions reflected class structure and gender roles. Gary P. Leupp fills the gap with a dynamic examination of the origins and nature of the tradition. Based on a wealth of literary and historical documentation, this study places Tokugawa homosexuality in a global context, exploring its implications for contemporary debates on the historical construction of sexual desire.

Combing through popular fiction, law codes, religious works, medical treatises, biographical material, and artistic treatments, Leupp traces the origins of pre-Tokugawa homosexual traditions among monks and samurai, then describes the emergence of homosexual practices among commoners in Tokugawa cities. He argues that it was "nurture" rather than "nature" that accounted for such conspicuous male/male sexuality and that bisexuality was more prevalent than homosexuality. Detailed, thorough, and very readable, this study is the first in English or Japanese to address so comprehensively one of the most complex and intriguing aspects of Japanese history.






http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6442.html


----------



## Shogun

The Beautiful Way

By James Hadfield
The ever-so-slightly hidden history of Japan's gay samurai
Nighttime. We see a yukata-clad figure slip into a dark room, its floor covered with sleeping bodies. Picking his way over the futons, he heads for one already occupied and, without hesitating, slides under the covers. But as he starts to get comfortable, his quarry turns suddenly and holds a dagger to his throat, asking: "Cry out? Or shall I do it for you?"
"I don't want to die without making love to you," he replies.

Nothing unusual so far, save for the fact that the object of his affections isn't a woman, but an androgynous young man.

The scene is from Nagisa Oshima's 1999 film Gohatto, known overseas by the title Taboo. A staid, marginally engaging samurai drama, it is however notable for focusing on a subject left quietly untouched by other such movies: the samurai tradition of male love.

Set in the dying days of the Tokugawa era, Gohatto tells of a dazzlingly pretty but cold-hearted young man whose induction into a samurai clan causes no end of problems. No sooner has he arrived than his comrades are fighting to court his affections, spouting overripe romanticisms like I'd give my life to wake to the nightingale's song after holding you in my arms all night long, or teasing each other about whether they have that leaning.

On this evidence, you'd assume that the whole samurai world was gay  a notion that Oshima himself isn't quick to dismiss. In the past, no one dared touch the subject of homosexuality, whether it was latent or overt, he said at the time of the film's release. [But] in my opinion, one cannot understand the world of the samurai without showing the fundamental homosexual aspect."

This isn't historical revisionism. Though modern portraits of the era may try to ignore the fact, homosexuality was in fact widespread amongst the samurai class. Much as the knights of yore had their ladies, the valiant warriors of medieval Japan were apt to take other men as lovers. Such relationships generally developed between adolescents and grown males, often progressing from the sexual to the platonic as the younger man came of age.

Oda Nobunaga, Tokugawa Ieyasu and Musashi Miyamoto are just a few of the famous figures known to have had male partners, Nobunaga even dying with his lover at his side. In his seminal book Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan, meanwhile, Gary P. Leupp cites evidence that at least seven of the 15 Tokugawa shoguns... had well-documented, sometimes very conspicuous, homosexual involvements.

The Japanese have traditionally had many words for male-male love. It is nanshoku (&#30007;&#33394, literally male colors; we hear of bido (&#32654;&#36947, the beautiful way; or wakashudo (&#33509;&#34886;&#36947, the way of the youth (often shortened to just shudo). Importantly, these words are used to describe behaviors rather than identities  which explains why some modern academics are uneasy translating them as more loaded terms such as homosexuality and gay.

The origins of nanshoku are often traced back to Kukai (aka Kobo Daishi), founder of the Shingon school of Buddhism. Legend has it that, on returning from his travels in Tang China during the early 9th century, Kukai imported not only the Buddhist faith and Chinese script, but also the way of the youth. Besides the fact that China enjoys a very long tradition of homosexuality, there's precious little evidence to support this view; all the same, Mount Koya, the headquarters of the Shingon sect, would go on to become synonymous with shudo during the coming centuries.
It wouldn't be alone in that respect: there are numerous references in medieval literature to homosexuality within Buddhist monasteries. Though documents indicate that Kukai himself was unswerving in his vow of chastity, many monks interpreted their own pledges as applying only to heterosexual activity. By all accounts, the isolated, sex-segregated communities became havens of homoeroticism, centering around the young acolytes (chigo) and pages. These boys would be fawned over, dressed in all kinds of finery and placed at center stage in elaborate monastic ceremonies. Sometimes, they would enter into relationships with the older monks  although the emphasis was said to be as much on education and companionship as it was on sex.
When Jesuit missionaries pitched up in the late 16th century, they were appalled, not just at what the monks were getting up to, but also how blithely the general population accepted it. Father Francis Cabral wrote in a letter in 1596 that such abominations of the flesh... [are] regarded in Japan as quite honorable; men of standing entrust their sons to the bonzes to be instructed in such things, and at the same time to serve their lust.

By this point, though, the practice of shudo had been adopted by an altogether different group: the samurai. Following the monks' example, many samurai became involved in pederastic relationships, a mature warrior taking an attractive adolescent male as his lover. The relationship would start at an early age, usually finishing with the youth's coming-of-age ceremony, which occurred when he was eighteen or nineteen.

If you read that and think pedophilia, you wouldn't be the first. Yet what seems shocking to a modern, Western audience was idealized and even encouraged in medieval Japan. Not only did the warrior class have little contact with women: the flourishing of homosexuality went hand-in-hand with rampant misogyny. The fairer sex were treated as anything but  popular wisdom held that women were for breeding, not pleasure, and men who spent too long in their company risked becoming soft and effeminate. By contrast, same-sex relationships were seen as purer, even more desirable. The closest analogy would be Ancient Greece, whose culture of pederasty was underpinned by similar beliefs.

The importance of shudo extended beyond satisfying carnal urges, too: for the youth, it was seen as an important stepping stone to adulthood  and a successful career. As academic Paul Schalow writes: They were not primarily sexual relationships but included education, social backing and emotional support. Together [the partners] vowed to uphold samurai ideals. Samurai status was thus strengthened by a well-chosen match. Though sexual activity may cease when the youth came of age, the relationships would often persist, developing into lifelong companionship. However, taking a male partner did not prevent a samurai from subsequently marrying  as mentioned before, homosexuality was seen as a behavior, not an identity.

Tsunetomo Yamamoto's Hagakure (literally hidden behind the leaves), an 18th century manual viewed by many as the apotheosis of samurai philosophy, contains a number of references to shudo. Samurais have to bear the following in mind, it says; a good 'wife' never meets a second 'husband.' The object of your love is one for life. Otherwise, you are the same as a prostitute. Too shameful for a samurai.

Indeed, shudo was only seen as objectionable insofar as it could lead to conflicts or public disgrace. There were few attempts to regulate homosexual behavior, but those that did focused on the potential for violence or public disorder, rather than any perceived degeneracy.

The Hagakure highlights another problem, this one of a more philosophical nature: the potential conflict of interest between serving one's lord and one's lover. It recounts a conversation between Ryotetsu Hoshino, the pioneer of the homosexual relationship in our country, and his student Edayoshi. When asked what he thinks of shudo, Edayoshi replies  much to the pleasure of his teacher  that it is something to like and yet not to like. Later, he expounds on this: The secret of this art is to throw away your life for your partner; otherwise your relationship will be shameful. But if you do throw away your life for your partner, then there is no life anymore to devote to your Lord himself. That's why I answered in such a manner.

During the Tokugawa era (1603-1867), the joys of homosexuality filtered into popular culture, finding an enthusiastic promoter in Ihara Saikaku, a popular 17th century poet and writer. In collections like The Great Mirror of Male Love, Saikaku extolled the virtues of male love, telling of trysts between beautiful youths and brave warriors, often culminating in the inevitable (and oh-so-romantic) seppuku. Though undoubtedly homoerotic, these tales downplayed the sexual side of the relationships, emphasizing instead the dedication and purity of those involved.
In one story, 'They Loved Each Other even to Extreme Age', Ihara sums up the prevalent thoughts of the time in a slightly tongue-in-cheek aside: Male love is essentially different from the ordinary love of a man and a woman; and that is why a Prince, even when he has married a Princess, cannot forget his pages. Woman is a creature of absolutely no importance; but sincere pederastic love is true love.

All good things come to an end, of course, and the same was true of shudo. The Tokugawa era brought with it a long period of peace  leading to the decline of the warrior class, and with them the ideals that they valued so highly. The merchant class warmed to the ways of male love, but they did things differently, vying for the attentions of popular kabuki actors or, failing that, prostitutes. The lofty ideals of the samurai version of shudo were abandoned in favor of straight-up sex. As Gary Leupp writes: For the merchants and artisans of Tokugawa cities, male-male sex became largely a commercial transaction devoid of the commitments required by earlier traditions of male homosexuality.

When the Meiji restoration brought with it a tide of Westernization, this was but the death knell of an already dying tradition. Homophobia came bundled with the more enlightened strands of Western thought entering the country and, in an effort to appear more civilized to the outside world, authorities drove homosexuality underground, even briefly criminalizing it from 1873 to 1881. Though attitudes would thaw again, the heyday of shudo would never return  well, how could it? Times change, and in today's Japan pederasty feels about as likely to make a comeback as the samurai themselves.

Still, the history of the gay samurai lingers on, a salutary reminder that what passes for conventional these days wasn't always considered so. And if nothing else, it's a great one to slip into conversation the next time you hear someone singing the praises of Japan's legendary warriors. Yes, but did you know...?


http://www.seekjapan.jp/article-1/812/The+Beautiful+Way


----------



## AllieBaba

A choice, still. However happily made.


----------



## Shogun

Just relaying facts, nancy.. 


You know.. like how you were given the "don't ask, don't tell" brochure when trying to enlist...


Besides, how else do you think I saw through your hag protection?  Wife and kids?  HA!  like you'd be the first gay man to pull THAT one off!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> A choice, still. However happily made.



you mean like how you chose to be attracted to men instead of women?

What age did that happen for you, by the way?  early or did you wait until after dipping your finger in the range of options?


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> you mean like how you chose to be attracted to men instead of women?
> 
> What age did that happen for you, by the way?  early or did you wait until after dipping your finger in the range of options?



Now you're getting it! I said all along that neither heterosexuality OR homosexuality if hardwired.

That's all. It's a choice, whichever way you cut it. And those who live gay lifestyles who go around whining that they had no choice are LYING. You always have a choice.


----------



## AllieBaba

Being a wanker is a choice.

As is viewing others as a wanker based upon your own wankishness.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Being a wanker is a choice.
> 
> As is viewing others as a wanker based upon your own wankishness.




Did you read that in a book somewhere or is that piece of wisdom strait from a fortune cookie?


----------



## roomy

AllieBaba said:


> Being a wanker is a choice.
> 
> As is viewing others as a wanker based upon your own wankishness.



I don't think he has much choice in the matter, he was born a wanker and his attitude towards others negates any other sexual experience, what he claims to know about any subject other than wanking he finds in wikipedia.


----------



## Shogun

roomy said:


> I don't think he has much choice in the matter, he was born a wanker and his attitude towards others negates any other sexual experience, what he claims to know about any subject other than wanking he finds in wikipedia.



WOW.  insulting sexual experience now?


indeed, you sure do know how to REALLY HURT someones feelings!

HAHAHAHAHA!


good grief..  what, am I a BOOGERHEAD too?


Don't hate me just because you envy what I add to threads.. Jealousy isn't sexy and you DO hope to find some bear of a man to fall in love with someday, right?


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> Being a wanker is a choice.
> 
> As is viewing others as a wanker based upon your own wankishness.


  I don't know,  can you BE a female wanker?  HEH HEH.  (See below.)

wank·er /&#712;wæ&#331;k&#601;r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wang-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
noun Chiefly British and Australian Slang: Vulgar. 1. a contemptible person; jerk.  
2. a male masturbator.


----------



## midcan5

AllieBaba said:


> A choice, still. However happily made.



hmm... then take my test, switch hit. Go to Google images and type beautiful woman and drool. Are you drooling yet? tell us. Near a big city? Find a gay bar, visit and please report back. And not gay guys either.  I hear gay women have the best sex there is possible, seems logical to me, we poor men need that visual, preliminary, enough....


----------



## AllieBaba

Why on earth would I do that???


----------



## Shogun

because girls just wanna have fu-uuhhnnn?










Laugh, allie.. It's a joke.


----------



## AllieBaba

Don't worry, I'm laughing.


----------



## roomy

AllieBaba said:


> Don't worry, I'm laughing.




You're laughing, shoguns wanking


----------



## midcan5

AllieBaba said:


> Why on earth would I do that???



Because you insist it is a choice, as such you could choose to be gay for a bit just to see if it really is a choice. Again look at the girls and tell me you really lust for them now that you are gay or really not gay but made a choice to be gay today. For me who knows it is not a choice, looking at guys just ain't moving me even though I think some are handsome. ps Not sure if you read this entire thread - one of the longest i have seen - but I have a gay brother. Growing up together with many other brothers/sisters is a lesson in life not opinion. 

Remember, open Google Images, type 'beautiful woman' I'll let you go from there.


----------



## Diuretic

doniston said:


> I don't know,  can you BE a female wanker?  HEH HEH.  (See below.)
> 
> wank·er /&#712;wæ&#331;k&#601;r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[wang-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> noun Chiefly British and Australian Slang: Vulgar. 1. a contemptible person; jerk.
> 2. a male masturbator.



I prefer the more refined "owner-operator"


----------



## doniston

Pale Rider said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.


  Actually, you are one of the very sick.  there are three choices here. not just two. 

1.   There are those emphtically opposed, and many of them IMHO including you who fight toot and nail against something that should be of no particular interest to you. 

2. then there ar those who are gay, or homowsexual.  who want their place in the sun, 

3. then there are the rest who, to varying degrees, are willing to live and let live 

     Those that are gay are no skin off my nose.  That is their thing, and more and more it appears that it is also YOUR "closeted" Thing.


----------



## doniston

GunnyL said:


> Only of you choose to put forth an argument based solely on conscious choice fo the purpose of blindly defending an aberrant behavior.


That doesn't make sense----try again.


----------



## midcan5

Does this guys deserve tenure? Or is he just a middle east wingnut.

The Columbia Professor Who Also Doesn't Think Gay People Exist in the Middle East

Queer Theory by James Kirchick   

"Massad's thesis rests largely on Queer Theory, a voguish academic theory from the 1990s that stipulates that homosexuality is merely a "social construction" and not an inherent state of being. Massad writes that, "The categories gay and lesbian are not universal at all and can only be universalized by the epistemic, ethical, and political violence unleashed on the rest of the world by the very international human rights advocates whose aim is to defend the very people their intervention is creating (emphasis mine)." Thus, not only are gay rights activists unleashing "epistemic... violence" on Arabs and Muslims who have same-sex relations by claiming them to be homosexual, they are responsible for the "political violence" of the regimes that oppress them. As one illustration of his thesis, Massad chooses the "Queen Boat" incident of May 11, 2001, when a horde of truncheon-wielding Egyptian police officers boarded a Nile River cruise known as the Queen Boat, a floating disco for gay men. Fifty-two men were arrested, and many of them were tortured and sexually humiliated in prison. In a sensational, months-long ordeal, they were paraded in public, and images of them shielding their faces were blared on state television and printed in government newspapers. Most of the men were eventually acquitted, but 23 received convictions for either the "habitual debauchery," "contempt for religion" or both."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w071008&s=kirchick101207


----------



## Doug

There is a fair amount of institutionalized nuttiness in the American Academy. "Queer theory" is one example but far from the only one. In my opinion, a lot of it is the produce of a Disappointed Left -- the 60's  New Left generation who got tenure and began to move up the promotion ladder, but saw their dreams of Third World -- and someday, US -- revolutionary socialism go down the toilet.

The Old Left had a vision: the workingclass, spanning all races and nations and both sexes, would unite under the leadership of the Vanguard Party, overthrow capitalism, and end not only  war and economic misery, but also various sorts of non-economic social oppression, such as national and sexual chauvinism.

By the 1970s this was looking pretty unlikely in the United States. The radicalization of the 60s had passed the traditional working class by, even in Europe where the workers were traditionally socialist.

So the impressionistic New Left looked to other "agencies" for the Revolution: American lumpen Blacks, women, youth, "the Third World", gays. And so developed "identity politics". No longer would the Left fight for a unified working class led by a single Vanguard Party, but rather each category of the oppressed was to organize itself.

But a problem then arose: often, they had competing claims. Who, for example, was the most oppressed? Women, or Blacks? Or gays? Should the rally after a march on a Black issue, have a homosexual speaker?

Some wonderfully comic scenes resulted from this: Black male militants were often not really clued up on the Woman Question, and could drive militant white feminists into a fury by their public remarks("The position of women in our organization is ... prone!"), a fury only tempered by their white liberal guilt.

Nowadays, this is all pretty much tempests in academic teapots. "Spokespersons" for militant Islam who are working the "anti-imperialist" con-game attack those feminists and gay liberationists who dare to mention the oppression of women and gays under Islam, for having a "colonialist mentality". Generally, for the Amercan Left, white guilt is stronger than anything else, and these attacks are pretty effective.

Conservatives, and sensible liberals, can just sit back and laugh at these silly people. (God knows, with the way the world is today, we can use some humor.)


----------



## Diuretic

Too right Doug.  Karl Marx would have been horrified.  After all he did identify the _lumpenproletariat _.  I think he would, today, have identified the _ponceyproletariat_. 

Or at least I hope he would have.  Engels too.

I llike to think they wouldn't have tolerated that sort of stupidity.


----------



## Shogun

hehehehe..


ok, Gunny.


----------



## Gunny

Shogun said:


> If, by wanking, you mean giving you a reason not to kiss your mother on the lips tonight......
> 
> 
> :0



I split y'all's posts and put them in the taunting arena.  Also replied to ban comments.  Let's leave this thread for those that want to debate homosexuality.


----------



## roomy

GunnyL said:


> I split y'all's posts and put them in the taunting arena.  Also replied to ban comments.  Let's leave this thread for those that want to debate homosexuality.


Does that include you lovey?


----------



## actsnoblemartin

hahaha



roomy said:


> You're laughing, shoguns wanking


----------



## midcan5

Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.


----------



## Diuretic

midcan5 said:


> Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.



Depending on the numbers you might want to make it Republican Coming Out Week, but at least after it was all over the boil would have been lanced


----------



## 007

doniston said:


> Actually, you are one of the very sick.  there are three choices here. not just two.
> 
> 1.   There are those emphtically opposed, and many of them IMHO including you who fight toot and nail against something that should be of no particular interest to you.
> 
> 2. then there ar those who are gay, or homowsexual.  who want their place in the sun,
> 
> 3. then there are the rest who, to varying degrees, are willing to live and let live
> 
> Those that are gay are no skin off my nose.  That is their thing, and more and more it appears that it is also YOUR "closeted" Thing.



What a fucking moron... *sits shaking head*.... first of all... you fucking imbecile, PLEASE LEARN TO SPELL, or DON'T POST WHEN YOU'RE DRUNK!!!

Second, DON'T POST UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY WORTH READING!!!

I swear, I'm going to have to write to that Gospel Rescue Mission you stay in at night and tell them not to give you computer privileges after a day of picking up cans and drinking cheap wine.


----------



## Chips Rafferty

midcan5 said:


> Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.



What I wouldnt give to be there when this God-bothering bigot tries to justify his get-up to Jesus! 

Ya see I had this terrible case of diarrhoea, so I..no? Well would you believe I was demonstrating filthy Librul secshull practices to to my Republican flock ....."


----------



## Quantum Windbag

midcan5 said:


> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> www.scottowen.org



This is a perfect example of how stupid midcan is. He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.


----------



## toxicmedia

Quantum Windbag said:


> This is a perfect example of how stupid midcan is. He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.


What's stupid is spending time meddling in the lives of people who aren't breaking any laws, simply because you're a prudish puritanical dillweed who acts just like the bad guy in "Footloose".

If you were healthy mentally, you wouldn't care if a gay couple had a marriage license collecting dust in the skinny middle drawer of the desk in the study upstairs. Especially because they'll conitnue to love each other like everybody else no matter how fragile your sensabilities are.

I can't wait for old conservatives who hate gays to die of old age, and I can't wait for gay haters who are young to get old and die too


----------



## Arthur

Quantum Windbag said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because &#8220;something went wrong,&#8221; should be just as interesting as the question, &#8220;What causes heterosexuality?&#8221; Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or it&#8217;s genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is &#8216;learned&#8217; as subtely as one&#8217;s mother tongue, or perhaps it&#8217;s a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these &#8216;causes&#8217; would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. It&#8217;s a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Don&#8217;t pander to those who hate by trying to prove you &#8216;couldn&#8217;t help it&#8217;, or &#8216;given the choice, you&#8217;d be heterosexual&#8217;. Beware of the &#8216;good little boy&#8217; syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to &#8216;overlook&#8217; your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. There&#8217;s no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. You&#8217;re just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know you&#8217;re not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only &#8216;reasonable&#8217; answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> www.scottowen.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a perfect example of *how stupid midcan is. *He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


And how "smart" is it to re-open a thread that's over five years old just to claim someone else is "stupid"?


----------



## Moonglow

Diuretic said:


> How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.


social Darwinist...


----------



## Delta4Embassy

midcan5 said:


> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> Scott Owen



Sexual orientation (who you're attracted to) may be genetic. 

Sexual acts though are always the result of choice. 

Plus, sexual orientation itself may not actually exist. Who we have sex with, always being the result of having made the choice to have sex, can vary and change instantly from instance to instance.

Get drunk enough or high enough and you, a straight-identifying person may have same-sex sex. Does this mean you're not straight though? Are you then gay? What if your next sexual encounter is opposite-sex sex? Are you back to being straight, or bisexual? Or are these terms meaningless to begin with?


----------



## mudwhistle

Diuretic said:


> How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.


If you're one sex and you choose to be another...that's called a choice.


----------



## mudwhistle

Some Gays have told me the primary reason they explored homosexuality is because of a bad marriage. I think the thing that effects it the most is what turns you on the most. Homosexuality is basically a taboo that some can't resist. Just like some can't resist being attracted to children. Do you on the left think being a Pedophile is genetic?


----------



## Delta4Embassy

mudwhistle said:


> Some Gays have told me the primary reason they explored homosexuality is because of a bad marriage. I think the thing that effects it the most is what turns you on the most. Homosexuality is basically a taboo that some can't resist. Just like some can't resist being attracted to children. Do you on the left think being a Pedophile is genetic?



Think there's a growing body of evidence clinical pedophiles (as distinct from child sexual abusers who may be opportunistic,) have neurologic conditions affecting their judgement. In effect, are retarded and unable to demonstrate sound judgement. Genetic? I dunno. Not really my area of expertise. But I hope not. Think we do the genetic card too much. A genetic cause might help create a desire or inclination, but ultimately we're not golems or automotons and know what's legal or not. Right and wrong are more subjective, but legal/illegal is clear enough. If you break those laws you should be punished. Severely. That you had some genetic thing or even brain damage shouldn't matter. If you're a 'mad dog' who can't control themself, then we should do what we'd do with literal mad dogs and put you down.


----------



## Political Junky

007 said:


> How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.


Ever wonder how many of your "straight" friends practice anal sex?


----------



## midcan5

Bump


----------



## GHook93

midcan5 said:


> "You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"
> 
> "This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because something went wrong, should be just as interesting as the question, What causes heterosexuality? Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"
> 
> "The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or its genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is learned as subtely as ones mother tongue, or perhaps its a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."
> 
> "Which of these causes would justify discrimination?"
> Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. Its a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."
> 
> "Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."
> 
> "If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
> Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"
> 
> "Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?
> 
> Hate is not reasonable.
> 
> "Hate is not a reasoned argument. Dont pander to those who hate by trying to prove you couldnt help it, or given the choice, youd be heterosexual. Beware of the good little boy syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to overlook your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.
> 
> "The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. Theres no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. Youre just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.
> 
> "Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know youre not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.
> 
> "And quite frankly, the only reasonable answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."
> 
> www.scottowen.org



People don't ask what causes someone to be hetro, because that is the natural order of things. Only a small minority are gay. If we were all fags the species would become extinct.

I personally think there is a gay gene. A genetic defect if you will. However I do think some gays are gay due to their circumstances. Sexual abuse at a young age for example.


----------

