# The TRUTH Behind Homosexuality and Mental Illness



## 007

*The American Psychiatric Association Coup*

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with sodomites.

What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist sodomite groups.

Preparing the Ground:

 In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality. 

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered." 

In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several sodomite groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals. 

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

In other words, the sodomites packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.

The APA Caves In:

The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically  bisexual.

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote. 

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The Essential Point:

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.

Behind the Scenes:

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder." 

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation. 

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirds of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight. 




http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm


----------



## Nienna

This is such a sad thing. Such deception hurts both homosexual and heterosexual, as well as society in general. Heterosexuals are seen as "intolerant" and "oppressive," society must endure more strife between opposing viewpoints, and most of all, homosexuals who could be treated remain living in this destructive lifestyle. Surely it is a more loving thing to confront someone with his problem rather than sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. That was a sad day for us all.


----------



## 007

mom4 said:
			
		

> This is such a sad thing. Such deception hurts both homosexual and heterosexual, as well as society in general. Heterosexuals are seen as "intolerant" and "oppressive," society must endure more strife between opposing viewpoints, and most of all, homosexuals who could be treated remain living in this destructive lifestyle. Surely it is a more loving thing to confront someone with his problem rather than sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist. That was a sad day for us all.



I agree with you 110% mom4, and beyond that, so does most of the population on earth. Unfortunately they tend not to voice their opinion, so as to not draw the ire of the queers and their militant and threatening tactics. But fortunately people are finding their voice, and the voice of others who think homosexuality is a sickness here on the internet.


----------



## MyName

This is me NOT arguing with Pale....not agreeing....but not arguing :cof:


----------



## dilloduck

MyName said:
			
		

> This is me NOT arguing with Pale....not agreeing....but not arguing :cof:



I'm so proud of you !!!


----------



## 007

MyName said:
			
		

> This is me NOT arguing with Pale....not agreeing....but not arguing


----------



## Trigg

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *The American Psychiatric Association Coup*
> 
> Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."
> 
> The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically  bisexual.
> 
> This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.
> 
> Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."
> 
> [/url]



First off most people are not bisexual.    

I don't find homosexuality normal, but I also don't think homosexuals have a mental problem. 

I tend to think they're just born that way.


----------



## OCA

Trigg said:
			
		

> First off most people are not bisexual.
> 
> I don't find homosexuality normal, but I also don't think homosexuals have a mental problem.
> 
> I tend to think they're just born that way.



Many decades and untold millions of dollars poured into research to find a genetic link towards homosexual predisposition, nothing ever is found. It is not there, it is a choice and a sick one at that.


----------



## dmp

Trigg said:
			
		

> I tend to think they're just born that way.



The biggest example of why that can't be true is the case of twins...Genetics are identical, yet one is 'gay', the other is not.


----------



## Nienna

If you read anything by Dr. Joseph Nicolosi on the subject of homosexuality, you'll find a true but loving approach. Darin is right; the studies done on identical twins (in which one is homosexual and one is not) pretty much kill the "born that way" argument. They have the same genetic material, yet one is homo, one is hetero. But I respectfully disagree with OCA. It isn't a "choice," in the sense of a conscious choice, at least for the true homosexual. I wrote somewhere else that gender identity is formed between the ages of 18 mo-3yrs of age. It's during this time frame in the homosexual's life that they identify more with the same gender or the opposite. In many, many, many cases, there is abuse, neglect, or a very disfunctional relationship with one or both parents. So (in the case of a male), he grows up to identify himself as a female (vice versa for females). 
     Now, in this culture, more and more people, especially younger people "experiment" with gender identity. They are curious, they want to fit in with a peer group or use gender ambiguity as a distinguishing characteristic to avoid being "just one of the crowd." For this group, it _is_ a choice.
    In either scenario, homosexuality is treatable and reversable. One _can_ simply stop the behavior. The feelings can even go away with treatment, as testified by thousands who have left the homosexual lifestyle. Just ask those who have been through Love Won Out or Exodus, International.


----------



## Nienna

Oh, and as for Kinsey, he *was* a sick individual. He studied too much Freud, another sick man!


----------



## Hobbit

mom4 said:
			
		

> Oh, and as for Kinsey, he *was* a sick individual. He studied too much Freud, another sick man!



Freud wasn't as sick as he gets credit for.  It's just that he lived in Victorian Europe, where most psychological problems did stem from sexual tension.


----------



## OCA

The choice is made young because somebody does or did not put a foot in the ass of the individual making the ruinous lifestyle choice. It seems to be the easy way out to say "oh he(in the case of males) demostrates some feminine or gay characteristics so lets not fight these things, lets encourage it as to not screw him up.....bullshit, get this kid some counseling and a girlfriend.


----------



## Nienna

OCA said:
			
		

> The choice is made young because somebody does or did not put a foot in the ass of the individual making the ruinous lifestyle choice. It seems to be the easy way out to say "oh he(in the case of males) demostrates some feminine or gay characteristics so lets not fight these things, lets encourage it as to not screw him up.....bullshit, get this kid some counseling and a girlfriend.



This is true. Trinity worked at a day care center where this little boy came in with pink girls' undies on all the time. His parents encouraged this bc they "accepted him for who he was." But the kid was too little to understand that he was being pushed into this lifestyle. It wasn't his choice.

There are plenty of sensitive, creative, emotional men who _never_ desire to have sex with a partner of the same gender. It's possible to encourage your son in an "unmanly" career or interest while still affirming his manhood.


----------



## dmp

mom4 said:
			
		

> There are plenty of sensitive, creative, emotional men who _never_ *-=d=-*esire to have sex with a partner of the same gen*-=d=-*er. It's possible to encourage your son in an "unmanly" career or interest while still affirming his  manhoo*-=d=-*.




Fixed that for ya


----------



## GotZoom

I knew a girl who thought her ex-boyfriend had been a metro-sexual his entire life.

I didn't have the heart to tell her.


----------



## KarlMarx

mom4 said:
			
		

> Oh, and as for Kinsey, he *was* a sick individual. He studied too much Freud, another sick man!



Dr. Sigmund Fraud.... a coke head and a pervert (historical note: "THe interpretation of dreams" ---- his book on psychoanalysis of dreams.... the Ancient Egyptians were doing it almost 4000 years ago. They had books of dreams and their interpretation, too)

Kinsey .... just a plain ol' pervert

Hey.... look.... everyone has the ability to do wrong..... look at what happened at Auschwitz.... people were herding men, women and children into gas chambers, then putting them into ovens, then burying their burnt corpses and many of them thought "Gee.... I'm doing a GOOD thing!"..... the point I'm trying to make? Simple! You can get used to anything .... and after a while even enjoy it, no matter how odious and vile.....

So.... what's to stop someone from getting used to, enjoying and eventually preferring nothing else but having sex with another member of one's own sex?


----------



## MyName

Pale Rider said:
			
		

>


pffffttttt


----------



## SmarterThanYou

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The biggest example of why that can't be true is the case of twins...Genetics are identical, yet one is 'gay', the other is not.


I have to disagree with this, only because all too often with 'identical' twins, there is such a huge personality difference. The basic genetics may be 'identical', but its all about the fringe dna that defines who they are.


----------



## Nienna

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Fixed that for ya



You actually crossed my mind as I typed that!  But I know other guys like this, too. You are not alone!


----------



## Nienna

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with this, only because all too often with 'identical' twins, there is such a huge personality difference. The basic genetics may be 'identical', but its all about the fringe dna that defines who they are.



I'm not sure what you mean by "fringe DNA." Do you mean junk DNA?

DNA is DNA. It is a strip of genetic code carried in every cell in our bodies. In identical twins, the DNA is identical. Personalities come from a variety of factors. One is genetic predisposition, of which scientists have never found a gene shown to cause homosexual behavior. The other factors are environmental factors-- The parenting, the treatment or acceptance by peers, the reaction to the sibling/other twin, the choices one makes, etc. which are built up as one lives life.


----------



## dmp

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> I have to disagree with this, only because all too often with 'identical' twins, there is such a huge personality difference. The basic genetics may be 'identical', but its all about the fringe dna that defines who they are.




People are either 'homosexual' by genetics, or they are not.  Either-Or.


----------



## GotZoom

mom4 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "fringe DNA." Do you mean junk DNA?
> 
> DNA is DNA. It is a strip of genetic code carried in every cell in our bodies. In identical twins, the DNA is identical. Personalities come from a variety of factors. One is genetic predisposition, of which scientists have never found a gene shown to cause homosexual behavior. The other factors are environmental factors-- The parenting, the treatment or acceptance by peers, the reaction to the sibling/other twin, the choices one makes, etc. which are built up as one lives life.



Yes, please explain.  I did a "Google" on "fringe DNA" and really didn't find anything.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

mom4 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what you mean by "fringe DNA." Do you mean junk DNA?
> 
> DNA is DNA. It is a strip of genetic code carried in every cell in our bodies. In identical twins, the DNA is identical. Personalities come from a variety of factors. One is genetic predisposition, of which scientists have never found a gene shown to cause homosexual behavior. The other factors are environmental factors-- The parenting, the treatment or acceptance by peers, the reaction to the sibling/other twin, the choices one makes, etc. which are built up as one lives life.


Although identical twins have the same *genotype*, or DNA, they have different *phenotypes*, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. 

Traits determined by phenotype, such as fingerprints and physical appearance, are the result of "the interaction of the individual's genes and the developmental environment in the uterus." Thus, a DNA test can't determine the difference between identical twins, while a simple fingerprint can.

this explains how twins can have seperate emotional and mental identities as well as some minor physical characteristics. 

my apologies for not having the proper words initially. fringe dna would mean the 'phenotypes'.


----------



## 007

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality and lesbianism is a sickness, and it would still be classified as such if not for the orginized relentless militant pressure applied by the queers.

They're sick. They need help. People should quit this insane romantisizing of it and help these people get help. That's what they need. Not to be told their perverse and disgusting behavior is legitimate.


----------



## 007

No matter how you slice it, homosexuality and lesbianism is a sickness, and it would still be classified as such if not for the orginized relentless militant pressure applied by the queers on the American Psychiatric Association .

They're sick. They need help. People should quit this insane romantisizing of it and help these people get help. That's what they need. Not to be told their perverse and disgusting behavior is legitimate.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> No matter how you slice it, homosexuality and lesbianism is a sickness, and it would still be classified as such if not for the orginized relentless militant pressure applied by the queers.


Is it a sickness? or is it just an abnormal behavior or mentality brought about by different circumstances, both physically and/or psychologically, throughout the development process?



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> They're sick. They need help. People should quit this insane romantisizing of it and help these people get help. That's what they need. Not to be told their perverse and disgusting behavior is legitimate.


Something that maybe you could help me understand here. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile, right? Now, most pedophiles are considered to be sick in the head, but it technically comes down to an abnormal brain/mental process issue. Would you agree or not?

Most 'deranged' criminals are what we would consider 'beyond rehabilitation', right? There is no amount of education, training, or behavior modification short of a lobotomy thats going to correct the thought processes of a rapist, pedophile, or sadistic killer. Would you agree or not?

If homosexuality is the result of an abnormality of brain processes and the affected person cannot perceive that what he/she does is wrong, how do you plan to get them 'help'?


----------



## archangel

mom4 said:
			
		

> This is true. Trinity worked at a day care center where this little boy came in with pink girls' undies on all the time. His parents encouraged this bc they "accepted him for who he was." But the kid was too little to understand that he was being pushed into this lifestyle. It wasn't his choice.
> 
> There are plenty of sensitive, creative, emotional men who _never_ desire to have sex with a partner of the same gender. It's possible to encourage your son in an "unmanly" career or interest while still affirming his manhood.





Now this is a prime example why homosexuals should not be able to adopt or be the custodial parents if a normal breakup occurs....also as for homosexuality " being a choice" vs "Born that way"...BS it is no different than any other fetish such as panties,golden showers,feet etc etc etc...I'm really tired of all this political correctness defending this fetish...so there...said it and meant it! :cof:


----------



## SmarterThanYou

archangel said:
			
		

> Now this is a prime example why homosexuals should not be able to adopt or be the custodial parents if a normal breakup occurs....also as for homosexuality " being a choice" vs "Born that way"...BS it is no different than any other fetish such as panties,golden showers,feet etc etc etc...I'm really tired of all this political correctness defending this fetish...so there...said it and meant it! :cof:


so you lump in ALL homosexuals because one idiot out of a few thought it was 'cute' to dress up a little boy in pink? It was wrong for them to even THINK of encouraging it but it doesn't embody the thought process of all gays/lesbians.


----------



## GotZoom

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> ....... it but it doesn't embody the thought process of all gays/lesbians.



Are you sure?


----------



## SmarterThanYou

GotZoom said:
			
		

> Are you sure?


yeah. pretty sure. I know of at least one gay man that encouraged his boy to play any sport he wanted to and did NOT encourage him to wear little girly stuff growing up.


----------



## 007

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> Is it a sickness? or is it just an abnormal behavior or mentality brought about by different circumstances, both physically and/or psychologically, throughout the development process?



Well You, it's a sickness in my opinion, and that of most others, including the majority of psychiatrist, as stated in the above article. Did you miss that? There's an old saying You, "if everythings allright UPSTAIRS, then everythings allright DOWNSTAIRS".




			
				SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> Something that maybe you could help me understand here. Once a pedophile, always a pedophile, right? Now, most pedophiles are considered to be sick in the head, but it technically comes down to an abnormal brain/mental process issue. Would you agree or not?
> 
> Most 'deranged' criminals are what we would consider 'beyond rehabilitation', right? There is no amount of education, training, or behavior modification short of a lobotomy thats going to correct the thought processes of a rapist, pedophile, or sadistic killer. Would you agree or not?
> 
> If homosexuality is the result of an abnormality of brain processes and the affected person cannot perceive that what he/she does is wrong, how do you plan to get them 'help'?



There's lots of diseases that there is no cure for, that none the less makes them a disease.

(Your race car avatar is cool.)


----------



## archangel

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> yeah. pretty sure. I know of at least one gay man that encouraged his boy to play any sport he wanted to and did NOT encourage him to wear little girly stuff growing up.





Children are the reflection of the parent...they tend to mimmick the actions of the parents if this behavoir is noticed on a daily basis...If the parents exhibit a fetish like lifestyle...well for all intents and purposes so will the children...taking into consideration exceptions to the rule...most will follow the parents lifestyle....end of story......


----------



## SmarterThanYou

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well You, it's a sickness in my opinion, and that of most others, including the majority of psychiatrist, as stated in the above article. Did you miss that? There's an old saying You, "if everythings allright UPSTAIRS, then everythings allright DOWNSTAIRS".


No, I didn't miss that. I speculate as I do because both sides of this argument are still basing their points on speculation.






			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> There's lots of diseases that there is no cure for, that none the less makes them a disease.


there is indeed. there are also mental conditions which are not diseases....downs syndrome for one. just food for thought.



			
				Pale Rider said:
			
		

> (Your race car avatar is cool.)


----------



## manu1959

archangel said:
			
		

> Children are the reflection of the parent...they tend to mimmick the actions of the parents if this behavoir is noticed on a daily basis...If the parents exhibit a fetish like lifestyle...well for all intents and purposes so will the children...taking into consideration exceptions to the rule...most will follow the parents lifestyle....end of story......




not true..... they recently completed a study of 100 households (program shown on nova) of children now adults which were raised in single gender / gay households....the children showed no more or less tendency to be gay than the control group of children raised in straight households....the only consistent difference is the kids in the gay households had seen first hand what discrimination is like.....

my own experiences in the bay area support this ....  all my gay friends are products of straight family households....and my friends that came frome gay home are all straight....same goes for all my kids friends


----------



## dmp

manu1959 said:
			
		

> not true..... they recently completed a study of 100 households (program shown on nova) of children now adults which were raised in single gender / gay households....the children showed no more or less tendency to be gay than the control group of children raised in straight households....




I don't buy it.


----------



## Markainion

You know I have no clue why people are gay.  But, I do know it isnt possible for gays to have evolved through natural selection.   After all that requires both parents to be gay, which is not possible for gays.

Some people in the media tend to treat gays like a separate species or gender.  There not, their people like the rest of use, why they like members of the same sex?
  :scratch:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Gayness is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.    It's not a choice.  Bring it on, haters.


----------



## Markainion

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Gayness is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.    It's not a choice.  Bring it on, haters.




Excepting for now that your statement is true.   Should strait parents have the right to develop medicines to counter these fetal hormone effects?


----------



## manu1959

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I don't buy it.



anything is possible


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Markainion said:
			
		

> Excepting for now that your statement is true.   Should strait parents have the right to develop medicines to counter these fetal hormone effects?



hmmm.  That's a good one.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Gayness is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.    It's not a choice.  Bring it on, haters.




I sure as hell feel more gay for having read this last reply by you.

Being a child molester is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.  It's not a choice.  

See how easy it is to make shit up w/o showing any evidence?


----------



## manu1959

Markainion said:
			
		

> Excepting for now that your statement is true.   Should strait parents have the right to develop medicines to counter these fetal hormone effects?



yes


----------



## SmarterThanYou

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I sure as hell feel more gay for having read this last reply by you.
> 
> Being a child molester is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.  It's not a choice.
> 
> See how easy it is to make shit up w/o showing any evidence?


off topic, but what causes someone to be a child molester?....besides the obvious.


----------



## manu1959

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I sure as hell feel more gay for having read this last reply by you.
> 
> Being a child molester is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.  It's not a choice.
> 
> See how easy it is to make shit up w/o showing any evidence?



always knew you would turn.......  ya big mo


----------



## dmp

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> off topic, but what causes someone to be a child molester?....besides the obvious.




Lack of self-control? No idea.  Problems with their mind...I'm advocating child molesters, obese people, homosexuals, all suffer from similiar problems. 

Control. Desire. Impulse.  things along those lines.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I sure as hell feel more gay for having read this last reply by you.
> 
> Being a child molester is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.  It's not a choice.
> 
> See how easy it is to make shit up w/o showing any evidence?



"Underlying each of these astounding statements is fairly common knowledge that hormones secreted by the ovaries and testes play a crucial role in shaping male and female patterns of physical appearance and development. But only recently has a revolutionary idea begun to gain credence within the scientific community: that these same hormones mold the very architecture of male and female brains along significantly different lines. And these structural differences - laid down from fetal life to adolescence - are maintained and modified by sex hormones throughout life.

This explosive new area of brain research is generally called the study of the brain's sexual "dimorphism," meaning two distinct shapes or structures male and female. At the center of this controversial field is Roger Gorski, professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, and director of the Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology of the Brain Research Institute. "Today," says Gorski, "there is a definite list of areas in the brain showing male female structural differences. In trying to understand neurobiology, you're much better off assuming a part of the brain is sexually dimorphic until you've proven it isn't."

http://www.susans.org/reference/gorskiin.html

The internet is full of this research.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Lack of self-control? No idea.  Problems with their mind...I'm advocating child molesters, obese people, homosexuals, all suffer from similiar problems.
> 
> Control. Desire. Impulse.  things along those lines.


problems with their mind.......i'd go with that.   

 :halo:


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> "Underlying each of these astounding statements is fairly common knowledge that hormones secreted by the ovaries and testes play a crucial role in shaping male and female patterns of physical appearance and development. But only recently has a revolutionary idea begun to gain credence within the scientific community: that these same hormones mold the very architecture of male and female brains along significantly different lines. And these structural differences - laid down from fetal life to adolescence - are maintained and modified by sex hormones throughout life.
> 
> This explosive new area of brain research is generally called the study of the brain's sexual "dimorphism," meaning two distinct shapes or structures male and female. At the center of this controversial field is Roger Gorski, professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, and director of the Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology of the Brain Research Institute. "Today," says Gorski, "there is a definite list of areas in the brain showing male female structural differences. In trying to understand neurobiology, you're much better off assuming a part of the brain is sexually dimorphic until you've proven it isn't."
> 
> http://www.susans.org/reference/gorskiin.html
> 
> The internet is full of this research.




Likewise full of data showing this research to be flawed beyond the belief of a 'reasonable' adult.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Likewise full of data showing this research to be flawed beyond the belief of a 'reasonable' adult.



Post one of them.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> "Underlying each of these astounding statements is fairly common knowledge that hormones secreted by the ovaries and testes play a crucial role in shaping male and female patterns of physical appearance and development. But only recently has a revolutionary idea begun to gain credence within the scientific community: that these same hormones mold the very architecture of male and female brains along significantly different lines. And these structural differences - laid down from fetal life to adolescence - are maintained and modified by sex hormones throughout life.
> 
> This explosive new area of brain research is generally called the study of the brain's sexual "dimorphism," meaning two distinct shapes or structures male and female. At the center of this controversial field is Roger Gorski, professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, and director of the Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology of the Brain Research Institute. "Today," says Gorski, "there is a definite list of areas in the brain showing male female structural differences. In trying to understand neurobiology, you're much better off assuming a part of the brain is sexually dimorphic until you've proven it isn't."
> 
> http://www.susans.org/reference/gorskiin.html
> 
> The internet is full of this research.


which kind of goes along with what I said HERE 



> Although identical twins have the same genotype, or DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways.
> 
> Traits determined by phenotype, such as fingerprints and physical appearance, are the result of "the interaction of the individual's genes and the developmental environment in the uterus." Thus, a DNA test can't determine the difference between identical twins, while a simple fingerprint can.
> 
> this explains how twins can have seperate emotional and mental identities as well as some minor physical characteristics.


----------



## manu1959

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> problems with their mind.......i'd go with that.
> 
> :halo:



maybe they are all normal and being hetero is wrong


----------



## SmarterThanYou

manu1959 said:
			
		

> maybe they are all normal and being hetero is wrong


with such a small percentage of the population being gay......no.


----------



## manu1959

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> with such a small percentage of the population being gay......no.



damn there goes that theory


----------



## manu1959

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> with such a small percentage of the population being gay......no.



wait a minute....what if we all start out gay and because of societal influence and preasure we turn hetero and supress our natural gay feelings and only those that are strong continue to be gay....thus gays are the true master race?


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Post one of them.




Look for it yourself.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Look for it yourself.



First Class Pussout!


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> First Class Pussout!




The problem is you.  Here's your problem, or, why you 'are' the problem.


You don't want to know the truth about homosexuality. You want confirmation of the truth YOU have created...you want to read things which back up the point of view you already hold.  If you wanted 'the truth', you'd absolutely spend effort in reading ALL sides of an issue, rather than latching on to the first piece of (Junk) science which comes your way.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The problem is you.  Here's your problem, or, why you 'are' the problem.
> 
> 
> You don't want to know the truth about homosexuality. You want confirmation of the truth YOU have created...you want to read things which back up the point of view you already hold.  If you wanted 'the truth', you'd absolutely spend effort in reading ALL sides of an issue, rather than latching on to the first piece of (Junk) science which comes your way.



The problem is your steadfast abject ignorance on this topic.  I would think if the research is so plentiful that it's a choice you could at least post one article.  Just so you don't look like a pusscake.


----------



## Nienna

Gender identity is formed between the ages of 18 mo-3yrs of age. It's during this time frame in the homosexual's life that they identify more with the same gender or the opposite. In many, many, many cases, there is abuse, neglect, or a very disfunctional relationship with one or both parents. So (in the case of a male), he grows up to identify himself as a female (vice versa for females). 
Now, in this culture, more and more people, especially younger people "experiment" with gender identity. They are curious, they want to fit in with a peer group or use gender ambiguity as a distinguishing characteristic to avoid being "just one of the crowd." For this group, it is a choice.
In either scenario, homosexuality is treatable and reversable. One can simply stop the behavior. The feelings can even go away with treatment, as testified by thousands who have left the homosexual lifestyle. Just ask those who have been through Love Won Out or Exodus, International.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The problem is your steadfast abject ignorance on this topic.  I would think if the research is so plentiful that it's a choice you could at least post one article.  Just so you don't look like a pusscake.



You now result to 'false alternatives' in order to make me do your work? You can't argue against one single point I made, because it may force you to generate creative thought; therefor losing the ability to cut-and-paste somebody else's opinion.


You're a winner!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> You now result to 'false alternatives' in order to make me do your work? You can't argue against one single point I made, because it may force you to generate creative thought; therefor losing the ability to cut-and-paste somebody else's opinion.
> 
> 
> You're a winner!



False alternatives?  What are you talking about?  You're blithering again, Eugene.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> False alternatives?  What are you talking about?  You're blithering again, Eugene.




"If you cant search google for me, you are a puss"

"If you don't post up a link, what you claim does not exist"


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> "If you cant search google for me, you are a puss"
> 
> "If you don't post up a link, what you claim does not exist"



You're a good summarizerer.


----------



## archangel

manu1959 said:
			
		

> not true..... they recently completed a study of 100 households (program shown on nova) of children now adults which were raised in single gender / gay households....the children showed no more or less tendency to be gay than the control group of children raised in straight households....the only consistent difference is the kids in the gay households had seen first hand what discrimination is like.....
> 
> my own experiences in the bay area support this ....  all my gay friends are products of straight family households....and my friends that came frome gay home are all straight....same goes for all my kids friends





Do you realize how silly this backward analogy sounds! Good Lord you had better move out of the "Bay area"...must be something in the water!


----------



## JayW

I know what you mean.
_Edit:_
*Stop posting that kinda crap...really.  Be civil - The Management*


----------



## 007

JayW said:
			
		

> I know what you mean.



jayw... I did not post that, and you portraying me doing as such is against the rules. 

If you have a beef with what I believe or something I've said, respond to me in a manner allowed.

I've been nice this time.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> "Underlying each of these astounding statements is fairly common knowledge that hormones secreted by the ovaries and testes play a crucial role in shaping male and female patterns of physical appearance and development. But only recently has a revolutionary idea begun to gain credence within the scientific community: that these same hormones mold the very architecture of male and female brains along significantly different lines. And these structural differences - laid down from fetal life to adolescence - are maintained and modified by sex hormones throughout life.
> 
> This explosive new area of brain research is generally called the study of the brain's sexual "dimorphism," meaning two distinct shapes or structures male and female. At the center of this controversial field is Roger Gorski, professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Medicine, and director of the Laboratory of Neuroendocrinology of the Brain Research Institute. "Today," says Gorski, "there is a definite list of areas in the brain showing male female structural differences. In trying to understand neurobiology, you're much better off assuming a part of the brain is sexually dimorphic until you've proven it isn't."
> 
> http://www.susans.org/reference/gorskiin.html
> 
> The internet is full of this research.



If you really want to use this backyard report about homosexuality, then it affirms my contention that homosexuality is a birth defect.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> If you really want to use this backyard report about homosexuality, then it affirms my contention that homosexuality is a birth defect.




And is a birth defect a choice?


----------



## JayW

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> If you really want to use this backyard report about homosexuality, then it affirms my contention that homosexuality is a birth defect.



spoken like a true birth defect


----------



## 007

JayW said:
			
		

> spoken like a true birth defect



I'm going to just ignore you asswipe, and let the mods take care of you.


----------



## MyName

JayW said:
			
		

> spoken like a true birth defect


dude.  tried to tell ya.  you remind me of my kids and husband - you dont listen.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> And is a birth defect a choice?



And that's why that report is bunk rwa. They speak of how a person can be predisposed in the womb to be either straight or queer, but yet doesn't "prove" it. It's just another attempt at scientifically legitimizing a perverted choice of behavior that falls flat when asked for proof.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Gayness is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.    It's not a choice.  Bring it on, haters.




I'm familiar with some of the studies you cite. Proponents of the "genetic predisposition toward homosexuality" theory point out that the hypothalumus glands in the brains of homosexuals are markedly different. This, they claim, proves that sexual identity is determined in the womb.

It does no such thing. What they fail to discuss is that these studies were done on autopsied adult homosexuals. There is, therefore, no proof that the behavior itself does not cause neurological alteration. The studies are incomplete, disingenuous, and agenda-driven.

P.S. - I don't hate anybody...


----------



## Shattered

_**sneaks in**_

Where's the scientific proof that it's a perverted choice?  There are countless studies supporting each of your theories...

_**sneaks out**_


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> I'm familiar with some of the studies you cite. Proponents of the "genetic predisposition toward homosexuality" theory point out that the hypothalumus glands in the brains of homosexuals are markedly different. This, they claim, proves that sexual identity is determined in the womb.
> 
> It does no such thing. What they fail to discuss is that these studies were done on autopsied adult homosexuals. There is, therefore, no proof that the behavior itself does not cause neurological alteration. The studies are incomplete, disingenuous, and agenda-driven.
> 
> P.S. - I don't hate anybody...



Is there proof that the behavior DOES cause neurological alteration.

It's not as much genetic as it is developmental.  Hormonal fluctuations, possibly unrelated to genetics in any way, cause the brain to develop in either a masculine or feminine way.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

MyName said:
			
		

> dude.  tried to tell ya.  you remind me of my kids and husband - you dont listen.


----------



## musicman

Shattered said:
			
		

> _**sneaks in**_
> 
> Where's the scientific proof that it's a perverted choice?  There are countless studies supporting each of your theories...
> 
> _**sneaks out**_




They roll around in feces. Their self-centeredness guaranteed the spread of AIDS. Although they comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations.

How scientific do we have to be?


----------



## 007

Shattered said:
			
		

> _**sneaks in**_
> 
> Where's the scientific proof that it's a *perverted choice*?  There are countless studies supporting each of your theories...
> 
> _**sneaks out**_



Simple deduction Shattered.

1). A person can "choose" whether or not to participate in homosexual behavior. No one is holding a gun to their head.

2). A man sticking his penis up another mans bung hole is an unnatural and perverted behavior.

*"Perverted choice".*


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> And that's why that report is bunk rwa. They speak of how a person can be predisposed in the womb to be either straight or queer, but yet doesn't "prove" it. It's just another attempt at scientifically legitimizing a perverted choice of behavior that falls flat when asked for proof.



Not at all.  

When did any of you straight people decide to be straight?


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> 
> When did any of you straight people decide to be straight?



I'm having a hard time believing your serious asking such a foolish question.

"Straight" is "normal". Are you imply to be straight there's something wrong with us?


----------



## dmp

Shattered said:
			
		

> _**sneaks in**_
> 
> Where's the scientific proof that it's a perverted choice?  There are countless studies supporting each of your theories...
> 
> _**sneaks out**_




Fortunately, it's up to 'them' to prove they are biologically disabled...not the rest of us to prove they are not.  The simple fact there exists NO physical evidence of their 'condition' other than their behaviour does a pretty good job, imo.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I'm having a hard time believing your serious asking such a foolish question.
> 
> "Straight" is "normal". Are you imply to be straight there's something wrong with us?



It's a reasonable question.

I'm implying, no, stating bluntly, that no one chooses their brain configuration.  True, some people go through phases in college where they experiment with being lesbians for political purposes,  but these people eventually drop the facade and admit they're really straight.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's a reasonable question.
> 
> I'm implying, no, stating bluntly, that no one chooses their brain configuration.  True, some people go through phases in college where they experiment with being lesbians for political purposes,  but these people eventually drop the facade and admit they're really straight.



Brain configuration? That's a new one.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Fortunately, it's up to 'them' to prove they are biologically disabled...not the rest of us to prove they are not.  The simple fact there exists NO physical evidence of their 'condition' other than their behaviour does a pretty good job, imo.



Have you read any research on this whatsoever?  The brain is sexually dimorphic.  Sometimes a feminized brain develops in an otherwise male body.  Or vice versa.  It's really simple.

This kind of abject ignorance is what gives republicans a bad name.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Brain configuration? That's a new one.



Call it what you want.  Brain structure.  Is that better  Mr.  "I become nitpicky when I'm losing"?


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Is there proof that the behavior DOES cause neurological alteration.




Is that really the issue, though? It is LeVar and his ilk who have made this bald assertion, and tried to back it up with thin, agenda-driven science. They have failed to meet the burden of proof; it is not society's obligation tp prove a negative.




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's not as much genetic as it is developmental.  Hormonal fluctuations, possibly unrelated to genetics in any way, cause the brain to develop in either a masculine or feminine way.




There's not a shred of proof for this, nor any way - short of an autopsy - of finding out. And that would be the autopsy of an adult, I might add - otherwise, how do we even know the sexual "identity"? So, we're right back where we started.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Have you read any research on this whatsoever?  The brain is sexually dimorphic.  Sometimes a feminized brain develops in an otherwise male body.  Or vice versa.  It's really simple.
> 
> This kind of abject ignorance is what gives republicans a bad name.



So now simply believing that being straight is normal, and being queer is abnormal, gives Republicans a bad name.

Maaaaaaan... now I've heard everything.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Call it what you want.  Brain structure.  Is that better  Mr.  "I become nitpicky when I'm losing"?



And you... do we get to start "calling names now"?


----------



## Trinity

Man guys take a  :chillpill  :funnyface


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Is that really the issue, though? It is LeVar and his ilk who have made this bald assertion, and tried to back it up with thin, agenda-driven science. They have failed to meet the burden of proof; it is not society's obligation tp prove a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a shred of proof for this, nor any way - short of an autopsy - of finding out. And that would be the autopsy of an adult, I might add - otherwise, how do we even know the sexual "identity"? So, we're right back where we started.



The science isn't that thin or agenda driven.  Gay people shouldn't be saddled with the burden of proving their sexual orientation isn't a choice when we all know that's absurd.

When did you choose to be straight, mm, seriously?


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Is there proof that the behavior DOES cause neurological alteration.
> 
> It's not as much genetic as it is developmental.  Hormonal fluctuations, possibly unrelated to genetics in any way, cause the brain to develop in either a masculine or feminine way.




Or defense mechanisms developed to repell members of the opposite sex, for whatever reason? Sort of like the butchy women or "fairy".


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> So now simply believing that being straight is normal, and being queer is abnormal, gives Republicans a bad name.
> 
> Maaaaaaan... now I've heard everything.



We're not talking about normal and abnormal.  That's just a statistic.  We're discussing causation.  Get with the program, Mini Me.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> And you... do we get to start "calling names now"?



Quit being dramatic, ya big sissy.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The science isn't that thin or agenda driven.




So it's a matter of DEGREES now?




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Gay people shouldn't be saddled with the burden of proving their sexual orientation isn't a choice




Why in the world not? They're the ones making the assertion.




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> when we all know that's absurd.




Tonto and the Lone Ranger find themselves surrounded by 10,000 Sioux braves on the warpath. Lone Ranger says, "What are we going to do now?" Tonto replies "What you mean WE, Paleface?"




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> When did you choose to be straight, mm, seriously?




When I was in second grade, we sat at tables, facing one another. One day, a cute little girl I liked decided to drape her skirt over the table top. My pencil fell to the floor; it was an accident - I SWEAR!


----------



## Trinity

musicman said:
			
		

> When I was in second grade, we sat at tables, facing one another. One day, a cute little girl I liked decided to drape her skirt over the table top. My pencil fell to the floor; it was an accident - I SWEAR!





Sure it was! You planned it and you know it come on fess up. You made that pencil roll off the table!


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Have you read any research on this whatsoever?  The brain is sexually dimorphic.  Sometimes a feminized brain develops in an otherwise male body.  Or vice versa.  It's really simple.
> 
> This kind of abject ignorance is what gives republicans a bad name.



Of course I've read research - why are you asking this again?

The research is agenda-driven, or otherwise flawed.  (shrug). It doesn't take a rocket scientist, just somebody who isn't clouded by 'Tolerance'.


----------



## musicman

Trinity said:
			
		

> Sure it was! You planned it and you know it come on fess up. You made that pencil roll off the table!




LOL - I WILLED it off the table!

'Course, that little swipe of the arm didn't hurt matters, either!


----------



## Trinity

musicman said:
			
		

> LOL - I WILLED it off the table!
> 
> 'Course, that little swipe of the arm didn't hurt matters, either!




 I thought so!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Of course I've read research - why are you asking this again?
> 
> The research is agenda-driven, or otherwise flawed.  (shrug). It doesn't take a rocket scientist, just somebody who isn't clouded by 'Tolerance'.



You seemed not to retain the basic facts.    My mistake.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

> When I was in second grade, we sat at tables, facing one another. One day, a cute little girl I liked decided to drape her skirt over the table top. My pencil fell to the floor; it was an accident - I SWEAR!



So you naturally were drawn to girls?  Or did you consciously decide to like girls based on research and polling data?


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> You seemed not to retain the basic facts.    My mistake.




And you seem to type while your head is up your ass.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So you naturally were drawn to girls?  Or did you consciously decide to like girls based on research and polling data?




I was possesessed of a devilish curiosity, as is good and natural. One way = propogation of the species; the other, behaviors that would make a sane person puke, epidemic disease, and rampant child molestation.

Again - how scientific do we have to be?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Fortunately, it's up to 'them' to prove they are biologically disabled...not the rest of us to prove they are not.  The simple fact there exists NO physical evidence of their 'condition' other than their behaviour does a pretty good job, imo.



d,  This is the passage which compelled me to believe you hadn't retained the information.  Sexual dimorphism in the brain is basically not contested by anybody.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

musicman said:
			
		

> I was possesessed of a devilish curiosity, as is good and natural. One way = propogation of the species; the other, behaviors that would make a sane person puke, epidemic disease, and rampant child molestation.
> 
> Again - how scientific do we have to be?


so anyone that doesn't automatically vomit at the thought of homosexuality isn't sane?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> I was possesessed of a devilish curiosity, as is good and natural. One way = propogation of the species; the other, behaviors that would make a sane person puke, epidemic disease, and rampant child molestation.
> 
> Again - how scientific do we have to be?



I'm curious now.  Were you ever enamored and rendered pencil free by a crotch view of one of your little BOY classmates?


----------



## Shattered

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm curious now.  Were you ever enamored and rendered pencil free by a crotch view of one of your little BOY classmates?



:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Sorry...


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm curious now.  Were you ever enamored and rendered pencil free by a crotch view of one of your little BOY classmates?




That is crossing the line.  Please stop.


----------



## musicman

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> so anyone that doesn't automatically vomit at the thought of homosexuality isn't sane?




Fair enough - maybe "puke" is too strong a word. How about, "recognize such as a dangerous, nasty perversion that is being passed off as a normal, harmless lifestyle choice by a special-interest group which is the enemy of his children - to be stopped by ANY MEANS NECESSARY"?

A little nicer?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> That is crossing the line.  Please stop.



I think you'll find it's a legitimate question in the context of the thread.  Please get a grip.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I'm curious now.  Were you ever enamored and rendered pencil free by a crotch view of one of your little BOY classmates?




Not on your nelly!


----------



## SmarterThanYou

musicman said:
			
		

> Fair enough - maybe "puke" is too strong a word. How about, "recognize such as a dangerous, nasty perversion that is being passed off as a normal, harmless lifestyle choice by a special-interest group which is the enemy of his children - to be stopped by ANY MEANS NECESSARY"?
> 
> A little nicer?


not nicer, but at least a tad more accurate than your first statement.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Not on your nelly!



So would you say you were naturally and innately drawn to females?


----------



## musicman

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> not nicer, but at least a tad more accurate than your first statement.




Fair enough.


----------



## MyName

This issue is sort of like the TS issue.  No one is going to change the other's mind and no amount of debating (fair or unfair) is going to make one iota of difference.  Its simply an inflammatory issue at best and we already know what it is at worst.  Really, there can be no outcome from debating this issue.

It would be my advice to you (and anyone else who cares to read this and possibly take the high road) to stick to debating issues that actually can BE debated with a possibility of outcome.

My 2 cents.  Like it or lump it - take it down the road and dump it.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

MyName said:
			
		

> This issue is sort of like the TS issue.  No one is going to change the other's mind and no amount of debating (fair or unfair) is going to make one iota of difference.  Its simply an inflammatory issue at best and we already know what it is at worst.  Really, there can be no outcome from debating this issue.
> 
> It would be my advice to you (and anyone else who cares to read this and possibly take the high road) to stick to debating issues that actually can BE debated with a possibility of outcome.
> 
> My 2 cents.  Like it or lump it - take it down the road and dump it.


yep. i have to agree with this 110%


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So would you say you were naturally and innately drawn to females?




Yes - miraculously enough. I loathed my little sisters; we hurled curses, imprecations, and body blows at one another from dusk till dawn. But, yes - I was naturally and innately drawn to females, as is - an HONEST look at society will bear out - proper, good, and conducive to health and happiness.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Yes - miraculously enough. I loathed my little sisters; we hurled curses, imprecations, and body blows at one another from dusk till dawn. But, yes - I was naturally and innately drawn to females, as is - an HONEST look at society will bear out - proper, good, and conducive to health and happiness.



So your sexual orientation was not a conscious choice.  Do you believe gays choose THEIR orientation?


----------



## MyName

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> yep. i have to agree with this 110%



Good 
Glad to see we agree upon something for once


----------



## SmarterThanYou

MyName said:
			
		

> Good
> Glad to see we agree upon something for once


hmm, I had all kinds of things I wanted to put down, but i'll save them for later.  :halo:


----------



## MyName

musicman said:
			
		

> Yes - miraculously enough. I loathed my little sisters; we hurled curses, imprecations, and body blows at one another from dusk till dawn. But, yes - I was naturally and innately drawn to females, as is - an HONEST look at society will bear out - proper, good, and conducive to health and happiness.



Wow - not to hijack the thread (even though Id love to do just that lol), but this brings about something that Ive found disturbingly fascinating for a while now.  Being an only child, I never had siblings to love or loathe.  I notice my nearly 16 year old daughter and 14 year old son wanting to KILL each other (thank god that they dont feel that way about their new sister....yet...hopefully never?) Ive always wondered if this is normal.  Sometimes I think they'll kill each other without intervention.


----------



## MyName

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> hmm, I had all kinds of things I wanted to put down, but i'll save them for later.  :halo:



eh. Its a mind over matter thing, honey.
I dont mind
you dont matter

Youre now dismissed.

pppffffttttttt (said in CLASSIC KL style)
:cof:


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So your sexual orientation was not a conscious choice.  Do you believe gays choose THEIR orientation?




If they're thinking sexually about someone of their own gender, something has gone wrong. It is not a good and natural thing, to be encouraged, as any honest look at society will prove. It is a problem to be addressed.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I think you'll find it's a legitimate question in the context of the thread.  Please get a grip.



Talking about childhood sexual attraction crosses the line.  It's 'my' call...as is the case.  Therefore - please don't write replies akin to the one in question.   That reply is vulgar, imo.  Sucks if you don't agree...doesn't change the fact I'm asking you to refrain.


----------



## Shattered

musicman said:
			
		

> If they're thinking sexually about someone of their own gender, something has gone wrong. It is not a good and natural thing, to be encouraged, as any honest look at society will prove. It is a problem to be addressed.



I think if I honestly allowed society to dictate my outlook on everything in life, I'd be completely miserable.  I think you would, too.  Just because you're not naturally attracted to the same sex, that doesn't mean you get to dictate it as "sick and abnormal" for the rest of society.  After all, it could be any one of your children that turns out "sick and abnormal", any of your grandchildren, etc..  I assume then, that you'd completely write them off?

That'd be pretty sad, and selfish, I think.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> If they're thinking sexually about someone of their own gender, something has gone wrong. It is not a good and natural thing, to be encouraged, as any honest look at society will prove. It is a problem to be addressed.



Right.  Their brain is more feminized than the average male.

You guys all know I have severe problems with gay activists and socialists trying to destroy and marginalize the traditional family and shove gayness down our throats, so to speak, but ignoring science to this degree just looks stupid.

i love all you guys, but not in a gay way.


----------



## musicman

MyName said:
			
		

> Wow - not to hijack the thread (even though Id love to do just that lol), but this brings about something that Ive found disturbingly fascinating for a while now.  Being an only child, I never had siblings to love or loathe.  I notice my nearly 16 year old daughter and 14 year old son wanting to KILL each other (thank god that they dont feel that way about their new sister....yet...hopefully never?) Ive always wondered if this is normal.  Sometimes I think they'll kill each other without intervention.




LOL! I wouldn't worry too much, MyName. Sibling rivalry can get pretty intense; I often think of those nature shows, where pups or kittens or joeys or whatever wing each other all over the jungle until feeding time. It's just practice for adult life. My sisters and I are very close now.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> So your sexual orientation was not a conscious choice.  Do you believe gays choose THEIR orientation?




Written by a gay man:



> However, the problem with the "no choice" position on homosexuality is that in order to be effective it requires us to forget about the important distinction between desire and behavior. The position implies that a desire one can't help feeling is a desire one is *entitled* to satisfy: thus because homosexuals can't help feeling same-sex attractions, they should therefore be allowed to act on those attractions. However, the logic of this argument cannot hold up to much scrutiny. While we may have no choice about our feelings and desires, we routinely and continually *do* exercise control over our actions. As the right-wing opponents of gay rights point out, just because you have a desire does not necessarily mean that you should act on it.
> 
> More...here


----------



## MyName

musicman said:
			
		

> LOL! I wouldn't worry too much, MyName. Sibling rivalry can get pretty intense; I often think of those nature shows, where pups or kittens or joeys or whatever wing each other all over the jungle until feeding time. It's just practice for adult life. My sisters and I are very close now.



maybe they will be close in later life....that is, if they dont kill each other before then


----------



## SmarterThanYou

MyName said:
			
		

> maybe they will be close in later life....that is, if they dont kill each other before then


I hope so too, you see how my sibling relationship is currently.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Written by a gay man:



It seems you have accepted the premise that gayness is a natural inborn inclination.  I'm not saying normal.  I'm saying natural.  True, one can choose to fight their inborn inclinations.  How difficult is it?


----------



## musicman

Shattered said:
			
		

> I think if I honestly allowed society to dictate my outlook on everything in life, I'd be completely miserable.  I think you would, too.




Yeah, but - if you're honest - society dictates your outlook somewhat, right?




			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> Just because you're not naturally attracted to the same sex, that doesn't mean you get to dictate it as "sick and abnormal" for the rest of society.




But it's not me "dictating" anything! As a human being - as a father and a grandfather - I have a responsibility to make decisions based on what I see. I see a concerted effort by a special interest group to promote a behavior that is demonstrably harmful and dangerous. I will protect me and mine.




			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> After all, it could be any one of your children that turns out "sick and abnormal", any of your grandchildren, etc..




And that would suit the activists just fine. They don't love my children; they love themselves, their perversion, and the idea of societal justification for same. I will protect me and mine.




			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> I assume then, that you'd completely write them off?
> 
> That'd be pretty sad, and selfish, I think.




You probably shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know.


----------



## dmp

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It seems you have accepted the premise that gayness is a natural inborn inclination.  I'm not saying normal.  I'm saying natural.  True, one can choose to fight their inborn inclinations.  How difficult is it?




No - if you read the link, you'll see not even all gay people believe it's anything but a choice.  Some guys love sex with guys. For whatever reason. That like for sex acts with a man is purely one's preference - one's choice.  It's not born into somebody, but developed in somebody thru environment and experiments I'd guess.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> ... ignoring science to this degree just looks stupid.




Haven't seen much "science" from the proponents, RWA. Lots of agenda-driven wishful thinking, though. I guess that counts for something...  




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> i love all you guys, but not in a gay way.


----------



## Shattered

musicman said:
			
		

> Yeah, but - if you're honest - society dictates your outlook somewhat, right?



I suppose so..  Society dictates that I probably shouldn't stand on my porch while completely nude.







> But it's not me "dictating" anything! As a human being - as a father and a grandfather - I have a responsibility to make decisions based on what I see. I see a concerted effort by a special interest group to promote a behavior that is demonstrably harmful and dangerous. I will protect me and mine.



How would you "protect" yours from such a behavior, if that's the way they "choose" to go?







> You probably shouldn't make assumptions about people you don't know.



Yes, I stated it was an assumption - feel free to correct me if it's incorrect.  Or, I could pose the same thing in the form of a question: Would you accept them, or would you completely write them off?  There's no middle ground...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> No - if you read the link, you'll see not even all gay people believe it's anything but a choice.  Some guys love sex with guys. For whatever reason. That like for sex acts with a man is purely one's preference - one's choice.  It's not born into somebody, but developed in somebody thru environment and experiments I'd guess.



If it's not born into somebody, what is the gay man in your previous post struggling to overcome?  His previous choices?  It seems your at odds with yourself on this one.


----------



## Shattered

Back after work..  **waves**


----------



## musicman

Shattered said:
			
		

> I suppose so..  Society dictates that I probably shouldn't stand on my porch while completely nude.


 

Those BASTARDS!




			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> How would you "protect" yours from such a behavior, if that's the way they "choose" to go?




With good, consistent information, coming - not from some sleazebag who's trying to sell them a CD or a movie ticket - but from someone who knows something of life, and would die in fire for them without a second thought.




			
				Shattered said:
			
		

> Yes, I stated it was an assumption - feel free to correct me if it's incorrect.  Or, I could pose the same thing in the form of a question: Would you accept them, or would you completely write them off?  There's no middle ground...




Sure there is. True love is stubborn; it doesn't turn its back because of mistakes.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

-=d=- said:
			
		

> Talking about childhood sexual attraction crosses the line.  It's 'my' call...as is the case.  Therefore - please don't write replies akin to the one in question.   That reply is vulgar, imo.  Sucks if you don't agree...doesn't change the fact I'm asking you to refrain.



It doesn't cross the line.  It's totally in context.  I'll write what I want.  Quit being a nazi.  Got it, ace?


----------



## musicman

For my part, I didn't take offense at anything that's been said. We're all friends!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> For my part, I didn't take offense at anything that's been said. We're all friends!



Thanks bro!


----------



## Said1

I said:



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by rtwngAvngr
> Is there proof that the behavior DOES cause neurological alteration.
> 
> It's not as much genetic as it is developmental. Hormonal fluctuations, possibly unrelated to genetics in any way, cause the brain to develop in either a masculine or feminine way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or defense mechanisms developed to repell members of the opposite sex, for whatever reason? Sort of like the butchy women or "fairy".


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Said1 said:
			
		

> I said:



I had that for a while, when I was about 8 and thought girls had cooties!


----------



## Said1

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I had that for a while, when I was about 8 and thought girls had cooties!



I'm talking about adults. You were a fairly when you were little?


----------



## OCA

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Gayness is due to the effect of fetal hormones on brain development.    It's not a choice.  Bring it on, haters.



Insanity is the repeating of the same discredited crap.


----------



## OCA

JayW said:
			
		

> spoken like a true birth defect



Jay watch your ass in here!


----------



## JayW

OCA said:
			
		

> Jay watch your ass in here!



Why, do you fancy me? I think I'm safe from a distance.


----------



## OCA

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> 
> When did any of you straight people decide to be straight?



Lame argument #2, you're rolling man!


----------



## OCA

JayW said:
			
		

> Why, do you fancy me? I think I'm safe from a distance.



You wanna be a smartass here or argue logically, the choice is yours. Try me if you think i'm joking.


----------



## musicman

Jay:

A helpful hint: OCA is a moderator at USMB.


----------



## dilloduck

sorry but i wanna backtrack a little---some say homosexuality is a choice ---I assume that is to justify hating them for making a bad,unnatural,sinful choice?
If it it were to be proven to be a trait that the person was born with, what kind of action would be called for ?


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:
			
		

> sorry but i wanna backtrack a little---some say homosexuality is a choice ---I assume that is to justify hating them for making a bad,unnatural,sinful choice?
> If it it were to be proven to be a trait that the person was born with, what kind of action would be called for ?



I DO NOT HATE HLCP. I hate their politicized movement to legitimize their perversion. If it is ever found to be genetic or otherwise(highly unlikely) my position will not change.


----------



## 5stringJeff

dilloduck said:
			
		

> sorry but i wanna backtrack a little---some say homosexuality is a choice ---I assume that is to justify hating them for making a bad,unnatural,sinful choice?



It's not a justification to hate them.  It's to show that the behavior, not the person, is the issue.



> If it it were to be proven to be a trait that the person was born with, what kind of action would be called for ?



The trait of being sympathetic to homosexual tendencies may be proven at some point, but that doesn't excuse homosexual behavior - any more than having tendencies towards heterosexual sex would excuse adultery/fornication.


----------



## JayW

OCA said:
			
		

> You wanna be a smartass here or argue logically, the choice is yours. Try me if you think i'm joking.



Seems like a little bit of both goes on in here. Regarding my comment to Pale, I got a warning via PM and I am heeding it. Thanks.


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> sorry but i wanna backtrack a little---some say homosexuality is a choice ---I assume that is to justify hating them for making a bad,unnatural,sinful choice?
> If it it were to be proven to be a trait that the person was born with, what kind of action would be called for ?




Well, for one thing, every Christian in the world would have to accept that either A) the Bible is wrong, or B), God is a cruel being who condemns people for things they can't help.

And, I don't hate anybody.


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:
			
		

> I DO NOT HATE HLCP. I hate their politicized movement to legitimize their perversion. If it is ever found to be genetic or otherwise(highly unlikely) my position will not change.



So if they just keep it to themselves, you don't care what they do and why they are the way they are?


----------



## OCA

JayW said:
			
		

> Seems like a little bit of both goes on in here. Regarding my comment to Pale, I got a warning via PM and I am heeding it. Thanks.



Lets see Jay, you just joined this month so here's a little hint....until you put in some time and debate sanely and logically without flaming you'll be on a short leash, its not just you but all newbies. Consider it putting in your time, as time goes by you'll lose the leash.


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:
			
		

> So if they just keep it to themselves, you don't care what they do and why they are the way they are?



Absolutely. If you wanna bang your buddy in the can in your own home go right ahead, but you must know its a perversion just like people who like to piss on each other. Keep your perversion out of the public square. A perversion should not be rewarded with special rights!


----------



## JayW

OCA said:
			
		

> Absolutely. If you wanna bang your buddy in the can in your own home go right ahead, but you must know its a perversion just like people who like to piss on each other. Keep your perversion out of the public square. A perversion should not be rewarded with special rights!



Should it be punished by less rights?


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:
			
		

> Absolutely. If you wanna bang your buddy in the can in your own home go right ahead, but you must know its a perversion just like people who like to piss on each other. Keep your perversion out of the public square. A perversion should not be rewarded with special rights!



So when people say that homosexuals might be born that way, you fear that it may give them some sort of birthright that permits thier behavior?


----------



## 5stringJeff

Jay, don't worry.  We get a lot of people on here who register and do nothing but flame and troll, so we are a little suspect of all new posters for a little while.  Make sure, if you haven't done so already, to check out the "Rules" thread at the top of the forums.  Otherwise, discuss away!


----------



## dilloduck

dilloduck said:
			
		

> So when people say that homosexuals might be born that way, you fear that it may give them some sort of birthright that permits thier behavior?


 OR---if it IS a choice that by organizing they will convince OTHERS to choose to be gay?


----------



## OCA

JayW said:
			
		

> Should it be punished by less rights?



Less rights is a fallacy, they are born with every inalienable right you and I are, under the law and the bounds of decency they will not be granted the right to marry someone of the same sex. Its as simple as that.


----------



## 5stringJeff

dilloduck said:
			
		

> OR---if it IS a choice that by organizing they will convince OTHERS to choose to be gay?



That, frankly, is a legitimate worry, especially when there are books out there like "King and King" and "Heather Has Two Mommies" which seek to exploit innocent children by doing that very thing - convincing them that homosexual behavior is OK.


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:
			
		

> Less rights is a fallacy, they are born with every inalienable right you and I are, under the law and the bounds of decency they will not be granted the right to marry someone of the same sex. Its as simple as that.



How about the legal right to form a partnership?


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:
			
		

> So when people say that homosexuals might be born that way, you fear that it may give them some sort of birthright that permits thier behavior?



No. I'm born with the urge to maim and kill idiots on a daily basis, don't do it because I know its wrong. Same exact thing with homosexuality.


----------



## 5stringJeff

dilloduck said:
			
		

> How about the legal right to form a partnership?



Anyone can form a partnership.  Any two people can form a partnership that defines power of attorney, rights to estates, life insurance benefits, etc. etc.  That right already exists for anyone in America.


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:
			
		

> How about the legal right to form a partnership?



A business partnership yes, a marital partnership or a civil union, no.


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> How about the legal right to form a partnership?




Based solely on the fact that they engage in a demonstrably harmful and dangerous sexual perversion? I can't condone it.


----------



## OCA

musicman said:
			
		

> Based solely on the fact that they engage in a demonstrably harmful and dangerous sexual perversion? I can't condone it.



And it all comes back to this, can't get around what Music said.


----------



## dilloduck

musicman said:
			
		

> Based solely on the fact that they engage in a demonstrably harmful and dangerous sexual perversion? I can't condone it.


 Then why is other harmful and dangerous behavior sanctioned by society and government---those OK with you too?


----------



## OCA

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Then why is other harmful and dangerous behavior sanctioned by society and government---those OK with you too?



Which would these be Dillo?


----------



## dilloduck

OCA said:
			
		

> Which would these be Dillo?


 start with smoking and drinking


----------



## JayW

OCA said:
			
		

> No. I'm born with the urge to maim and kill idiots on a daily basis, don't do it because I know its wrong. Same exact thing with homosexuality.



apples and oranges
two people being intimate with eachother vs. two people killing eachother?
legal vs. illegal?
etc...


----------



## dmp

JayW said:
			
		

> apples and oranges
> two people being intimate with eachother vs. two people killing eachother?
> legal vs. illegal?
> etc...




The argument could be made two men being intimate, sexually, ARE killing eachother.


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> start with smoking and drinking




I do both. If it weren't for Joz, I'd probably consume a suicidal diet, as well. But, I do not ask society to legitimize my behaviors, nor do I seek special rights solely because of them.


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> So when people say that homosexuals might be born that way, you fear that it may give them some sort of birthright that permits thier behavior?



That's kind of what the queers would like people to believe, they were born that way and can't help it. That's the point where normal people have asked, "prove you were born that way", and thus far, there's nothing to indicate anyone is born gay.

This whole issue is agenda driven. The queers want their butt banging to be accepted as "normal" just as heterosexual sex is. Thing is, it isn't, and the vast majority of people on earth arent' going to say it is anytime soon.


----------



## manu1959

musicman said:
			
		

> Based solely on the fact that they engage in a demonstrably harmful and dangerous sexual perversion? I can't condone it.



not saying i agree or disagree just asking....how is it harmful and dangerous to you?


----------



## manu1959

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The argument could be made two men being intimate, sexually, ARE killing eachother.



ok i'll bite...how exactly are they killing each other?


----------



## dmp

musicman said:
			
		

> I do both. If it weren't for Joz, I'd probably consume a suicidal diet, as well. But, I do not ask society to legitimize my behaviors, nor do I seek special rights solely because of them.



wha? Taking accountability for your actions??? You NEED special rights, Bro...
..b-b-b-because you were BORN with the urge to smoke, right?

I mean - the urge is there, therefore it MUST be a biological issue.  After-all, who would CHOOSE to smoke, what with the hardships smokers face...I mean, yeah -


----------



## dmp

manu1959 said:
			
		

> ok i'll bite...how exactly are they killing each other?




Shorter lifespan, increase chance of injury or death from a domestic issue...tons of ways.  Not to mention the damage they are doing to their emotional health..eek...


----------



## dilloduck

musicman said:
			
		

> I do both. If it weren't for Joz, I'd probably consume a suicidal diet, as well. But, I do not ask society to legitimize my behaviors, nor do I seek special rights solely because of them.



I think there actually is a constitutional amendment that condones your behavior


----------



## musicman

manu1959 said:
			
		

> not saying i agree or disagree just asking....how is it harmful and dangerous to you?




Homosexuals, acting as a group, guaranteed the spread of AIDS with their refusal to accept the sensible suggestion that the 4000 or so early sufferers submit to quarantine. That would have made homosexuals LOOK bad, you see. They have demonstrated that they are more concerned with the public's perception of THEM than they are the public's safety. Had common sense prevailed in the '80s, "What is AIDS" would be a question on "Jeopardy" today. It is not. It's something I have to think about, and worry about.

Moreover, I am a father and a grandfather. Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations. You'd better BELIEVE that's something I think about!


----------



## musicman

-=d=- said:
			
		

> wha? Taking accountability for your actions??? You NEED special rights, Bro...
> ..b-b-b-because you were BORN with the urge to smoke, right?
> 
> I mean - the urge is there, therefore it MUST be a biological issue.  After-all, who would CHOOSE to smoke, what with the hardships smokers face...I mean, yeah -




    :clap1:     :rotflmao:


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> I think there actually is a constitutional amendment that condones your behavior




OK - I'm game...


----------



## OCA

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The argument could be made two men being intimate, sexually, ARE killing eachother.



That argument is made everyday.


----------



## dilloduck

musicman said:
			
		

> OK - I'm game...


 repealed prohibition?


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> repealed prohibition?




That's a bit of a reach, ain't it, bro?


----------



## dilloduck

-=d=- said:
			
		

> wha? Taking accountability for your actions??? You NEED special rights, Bro...
> ..b-b-b-because you were BORN with the urge to smoke, right?
> 
> I mean - the urge is there, therefore it MUST be a biological issue.  After-all, who would CHOOSE to smoke, what with the hardships smokers face...I mean, yeah -



check your science--genetic predisposition to addictive behavior has been proven.


----------



## dilloduck

musicman said:
			
		

> That's a bit of a reach, ain't it, bro?


 not hardly----a constitutional amendment PROTECTS your right to do things that harm yourself and others !!!!!-----WHY?  cause govt is addicted to addicts money!


----------



## dmp

dilloduck said:
			
		

> check your science--genetic predisposition to addictive behavior has been proven.



That's not the point - what I'm saying is nobody who's daddy was an alcoholic is 'predestined' to become such.  Nobody's genes controll how much they over-eat, over-drink, or yeah, even over-sex.


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> not hardly----a constitutional amendment PROTECTS your right to do things that harm yourself and others !!!!!-----WHY?  cause govt is addicted to addicts money!




I was not granted a constitutional right to drink; a piece of bad law was repealed, that's all.


----------



## dilloduck

-=d=- said:
			
		

> That's not the point - what I'm saying is nobody who's daddy was an alcoholic is 'predestined' to become such.  Nobody's genes controll how much they over-eat, over-drink, or yeah, even over-sex.


 they most certainly determine how much effort you will have to exert to avoid damaging yourself with destructive behavior.


----------



## JayW

-=d=- said:
			
		

> The argument could be made two men being intimate, sexually, ARE killing eachother.



how?


----------



## dilloduck

musicman said:
			
		

> I was not granted a constitutional right to drink; a piece of bad law was repealed, that's all.



so the constitution forbids anyone from taking away you right to drink


----------



## dmp

dilloduck said:
			
		

> they most certainly determine how much effort you will have to exert to avoid damaging yourself with destructive behavior.




I wouldn't argue against that statement.  It's easier for my wife to avoid over-eating, than it is for me.


----------



## musicman

dilloduck said:
			
		

> so the constitution forbids anyone from taking away you right to drink




The Constitution is restored to its pre-Volstead Act condition; it's none of the Federal Government's business one way or the other.


----------



## dilloduck

-=d=- said:
			
		

> I wouldn't argue against that statement.  It's easier for my wife to avoid over-eating, than it is for me.


 
Some alcoholics choose to use the disease model of alcoholism to stay drunk-- some fat people use the genetics model to continue over eating--may be some gays use the "born that way" model to continue to be gay.


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Some alcoholics choose to use the disease model of alcoholism to stay drunk-- some fat people use the genetics model to continue over eating--may be some gays use the "born that way" model to continue to be gay.



I'd say "granted" dillo, because science has proven alcoholics have little to no control over how much they drink. There's scientific proof. And if I'm not mistaken, there's some proof that the some people metabolize and store the food they eat differently, so as some people can eat anything and not get fat, when another eats a peanut and gains three pounds.

Thing with queers though is, there just isn't any PROOF they were born that way. For all intents and purposes, at this point in time, all being queer boils down is, two men that "choose" to engage in sex with one another, simple because "they wanted to".


----------



## dmp

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Some alcoholics choose to use the disease model of alcoholism to stay drunk-- some fat people use the genetics model to continue over eating--may be some gays use the "born that way" model to continue to be gay.



That I don't agree with - I think homosexual urges aren't passed-on; I'm just saying people have different levels of resistance to their urges.


----------



## Markainion

Lets face it.

Why do some gays have an accent?

Why do some gays act stereotypically more feminine than women do?

Many in my opinion also act very childish for an adult their age.

This simply cant be explained by genetics and biological disorders there is something of a social choice going on here as well.


----------



## dilloduck

-=d=- said:
			
		

> That I don't agree with - I think homosexual urges aren't passed-on; I'm just saying people have different levels of resistance to their urges.



however drinking and eating are sanctioned--gambling too. If the govt could make a buck out of gays IT would be sanctioned too!


----------



## dilloduck

Markainion said:
			
		

> Lets face it.
> 
> Why do some gays have an accent?
> 
> Why do some gays act stereotypically more feminine than women do?
> 
> Many in my opinion also act very childish for an adult their age.
> 
> This simply can&#8217;t be explained by genetics and biological disorders there is something of a social choice going on here as well.




maybe its both---what difference does it make?


----------



## 007

Main Entry: 1 gay 
Pronunciation: 'gA
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gai
1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color

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

There's NOTHING "gay" about being queer.


----------



## Markainion

dilloduck said:
			
		

> maybe its both---what difference does it make?




I don't know if it does, but it might help their case if gays confess to the fact that some of their behaviors are deliberate.  Not born that way.


----------



## dilloduck

dilloduck said:
			
		

> however drinking and eating are sanctioned--gambling too. If the govt could make a buck out of gays IT would be sanctioned too!



Easy enough question----why does society sanction some harmful and sinful behavior yet condemn others??


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Easy enough question----why does society sanction some harmful and sinful behavior yet condemn others??



Boy, let me know if you get an answer to that question, and who answered it. 

Maybe we could get them to tell us why we society is letting this illegal immigration problem continue as well?


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> Easy enough question----why does society sanction some harmful and sinful behavior yet condemn others??



But to be specific, as this thread is about the truth behind the queer agenda, society will never completely "sanction" perverted behavior, because the majority will never condone men screwing other men in the brown eye as "normal". That's simple enough.


----------



## SmarterThanYou

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Boy, let me know if you get an answer to that question, and who answered it.
> 
> Maybe we could get them to tell us why we society is letting this illegal immigration problem continue as well?


because we won't vote in someone with the balls to tackle it?


----------



## 007

SmarterThanYou said:
			
		

> because we won't vote in someone with the balls to tackle it?



Can't argue with ya when you're right DK.


----------



## nakedemperor

Markainion said:
			
		

> Lets face it.
> 
> Why do some gays have an accent?
> 
> Why do some gays act stereotypically more feminine than women do?
> 
> Many in my opinion also act very childish for an adult their age.
> 
> This simply cant be explained by genetics and biological disorders there is something of a social choice going on here as well.



Indeed. Genetic or not, psychological or not, homosexuality as a positive or negative thing must be examined vis-a-vis its social manifestations and repercussions. The "TRUTH" about homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it; as long as a homosexual practices safe sex (just like aaaany other person), homosexual sex is kosher. I'm not saying anal sex is for me, in fact it weirds me out, but far be it from me to tell someone what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home. The other "truth" is that homosexuality is a sin for Christian conservatives. Can't really argue with "the word of a god". But let's stop treating homosexuality as a problem (it can be psychologically manifested but not be a disease), and start treating STDs as they appear in the homosexual community as a public health problem, not a "gay" problem. 

Also, we cannot universally equate homosexuality or bisexuality with anal sex.


----------



## dmp

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> The "TRUTH" about homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it; as long as a homosexual practices safe sex (just like aaaany other person), homosexual sex is kosher.



I would argue by it's nature, homosexual sex is dangerous both physically and mentally, to the participants.  Unless said participants are two hot chicks.

:

Nice to see you around.


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> The "TRUTH" about homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it; as long as a homosexual practices safe sex (just like aaaany other person), homosexual sex is kosher.



I'm always amazed naked how you can drop in here and spout that malarky about a perversion that's about as abnormal as swallowing molten lead as if it were factual. It makes me laugh though, and I have to give you credit for looking silly and not minding.


----------



## KarlMarx

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Indeed. Genetic or not, psychological or not, homosexuality as a positive or negative thing must be examined vis-a-vis its social manifestations and repercussions. The "TRUTH" about homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it; as long as a homosexual practices safe sex (just like aaaany other person), homosexual sex is kosher. I'm not saying anal sex is for me, in fact it weirds me out, but far be it from me to tell someone what they can or cannot do in the privacy of their own home. The other "truth" is that homosexuality is a sin for Christian conservatives. Can't really argue with "the word of a god". But let's stop treating homosexuality as a problem (it can be psychologically manifested but not be a disease), and start treating STDs as they appear in the homosexual community as a public health problem, not a "gay" problem.
> 
> Also, we cannot universally equate homosexuality or bisexuality with anal sex.



So says you. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness, until the APA (American Psychiatry Association) voted that it wasn't. Not before or since has the APA ever voted out a mental condition. And the voting was done purely on political merit, not sober scientific study.

And, yes, homosexuals do suffer from more STDs, abuse drugs and alcohol, etc than straights. Even before AIDS it was a well known fact that homosexuals got Hepatitis more often than straights.

And while we're at it, yes, let's treat STDs like STDs and let's start with AIDS. No more privacy protection for HIV and AIDS sufferers. If you have the disease, you should be put in a database, you should be required to name ALL of your sex partners, so that they can be tested and treated.... and more than likely, quarantined. Also, if you are and AIDS victim and are caught having sex, it should be considered first degree felony assault or attempted murder. That's how we combat other diseases, let's not treat AIDS any differently just because (as we all know) it's a disease whose primary victims are gay/bisexual men and IV drug abusers.


----------



## nakedemperor

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> So says you. Homosexuality used to be considered a mental illness, until the APA (American Psychiatry Association) voted that it wasn't. Not before or since has the APA ever voted out a mental condition. And the voting was done purely on political merit, not sober scientific study.



For a long time it was 'legitimate science' that african americans were mentally inferior than caucasians. Similarly, homosexuality was considered a mental illness because of social pressure and historical bias (no sober science). Ergo, a phenomenon with no reason to be labeled an 'illness' was removed from that list due to the lack of evidence.


----------



## Trinity

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Main Entry: 1 gay
> Pronunciation: 'gA
> Function: adjective
> Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French gai
> 1 a : happily excited : MERRY b : keenly alive and exuberant : having or inducing high spirits
> 2 a : BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows> b : brilliant in color
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There's NOTHING "gay" about being queer.




Have to agree with pale on this one, I had said something the other day about someone being gay and my 9 year old corrected me  :scratch:  he said uh mom, gay means happy, I think the word you are looking for is queer! :shocked: but he is correct!


----------



## nakedemperor

Etymology shifts according to public use and definition of a word, not the other way around. Hence, gay means homosexual in this day and age.

A good example of this phenomenon is the word "queer"; its original definition had nothing to do with sexuality but now it does. 

Why accept one shift and not the other? When was the last time you heard someone come off a rollercoaster, cotton candy in hand, yelling, 'Oh, I'm so GAY today!' ?


----------



## Trinity

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Etymology shifts according to public use and definition of a word, not the other way around. Hence, gay means homosexual in this day and age.
> 
> A good example of this phenomenon is the word "queer"; its original definition had nothing to do with sexuality but now it does.
> 
> Why accept one shift and not the other? When was the last time you heard someone come off a rollercoaster, cotton candy in hand, yelling, 'Oh, I'm so GAY today!' ?





queer  (kwîr)
adj. queer·er, queer·est 
1. Deviating from the expected or normal; strange: a queer situation.
2. Odd or unconventional, as in behavior; eccentric. See Synonyms at strange.
3. Of a questionable nature or character; suspicious.
4. Slang Fake; counterfeit.
5. Feeling slightly ill; queasy.
6. Offensive Slang Homosexual.
7. Usage Problem Of or relating to lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, or transgendered people.
n.
1. Offensive Slang Used as a disparaging term for a homosexual person.
2. Usage Problem A lesbian, gay male, bisexual, or transgendered person.
tr.v. queered, queer·ing, queers Slang 
1. To ruin or thwart: "might try to queer the Games with anything from troop movements . . . to a bomb attack" Newsweek.
2. To put (someone) in a bad position.


Hmm seems to me 1. pretty much sums it up!


----------



## dilloduck

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I'd say "granted" dillo, because science has proven alcoholics have little to no control over how much they drink. There's scientific proof. And if I'm not mistaken, there's some proof that the some people metabolize and store the food they eat differently, so as some people can eat anything and not get fat, when another eats a peanut and gains three pounds.
> 
> Thing with queers though is, there just isn't any PROOF they were born that way. For all intents and purposes, at this point in time, all being queer boils down is, two men that "choose" to engage in sex with one another, simple because "they wanted to".


 I guess the real truth is that no one knows for sure because there is also no PROOF that they weren't born that way.It may even be that some chose it and some were born with a pre-disposition towards homosexuality. It is also true that society and our government will turn a blind eye towards some "sinful, harmful and unnatural" behavior while at the same time condemn others. Do I smell moral relativism again?


----------



## 007

While we're at it...

Faggot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Faggot derivies through the French language fagot from the Latin facus, meaning a bundle (see fascies), the English language word being attested from the 13th century in the meaning of a bundle of sticks or branches, usually bound together. It is most commonly used in reference to wood intended for use as firewood.

What fool hath added water to the sea,

Or brought a faggot to bright-burning Troy?

(William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Act II, scene III) 
In metallurgy, faggot refers to a bundle of iron pieces destined to be worked into bars by hammering or rolling at a high enough temperature to fuse them together. 
A faggot is a type of food eaten mainly in the United Kingdom. 
Faggot is a slang term used (usually pejoratively) to refer to gay men. 
A faggot is an archaic unit of measurement. 
See also fag. Not to be confused with fagotto.


----------



## Trinity

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> While we're at it...
> 
> Faggot
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
> Faggot derivies through the French language fagot from the Latin facus, meaning a bundle (see fascies), the English language word being attested from the 13th century in the meaning of a bundle of sticks or branches, usually bound together. It is most commonly used in reference to wood intended for use as firewood.
> 
> What fool hath added water to the sea,
> 
> Or brought a faggot to bright-burning Troy?
> 
> (William Shakespeare, Titus Andronicus, Act II, scene III)
> In metallurgy, faggot refers to a bundle of iron pieces destined to be worked into bars by hammering or rolling at a high enough temperature to fuse them together.
> A faggot is a type of food eaten mainly in the United Kingdom.
> Faggot is a slang term used (usually pejoratively) to refer to gay men.
> A faggot is an archaic unit of measurement.
> See also fag. Not to be confused with fagotto.





  Did we forget any or did we cover them all?


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> It is also true that society and our government will turn a blind eye towards some "sinful, harmful and unnatural" behavior while at the same time condemn others.



I can't argue that dillo. I think you're probably right. But, that isn't what we we're hashing here. I only was on point of my article, the truth of the homosexual agenda.

For all the pages of dispute here, the truth of my article remains untouched, as the truth so often does.


----------



## 007

Trinity said:
			
		

> Did we forget any or did we cover them all?



 :happy2:  :rotflmao:  :happy2:


----------



## dilloduck

Trinity said:
			
		

> Did we forget any or did we cover them all?




oh hell---Im sure you missed some. There are so many perjorative words to denegrate anyoneone that we will never run out of em. New ones are coined almost daily don't ya think?


----------



## Trinity

dilloduck said:
			
		

> oh hell---Im sure you missed some. There are so many perjorative words to denegrate anyoneone that we will never run out of em. New ones are coined almost daily don't ya think?





Ok your probably right, I'll see what else I can dig up!


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Etymology shifts according to public use and definition of a word, not the other way around. Hence, gay means homosexual in this day and age.



Nomenclature doesn't. Gay still means happy. Queers hijacked the word in some attempt to make their sick perversions sound... *fun* and *happy*, when nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## dilloduck

Trinity said:
			
		

> Ok your probably right, I'll see what else I can dig up!


You gonna stick with homosexuals or start looking for the euphemisms and misnomers that are used to describe all types of unusual behavior?


----------



## Trinity

dilloduck said:
			
		

> You gonna stick with homosexuals or start looking for the euphemisms and misnomers that are used to describe all types of unusual behavior?




I think I'll stick with homosexuals, for now it is getting late!


----------



## Trinity

Oh my god this is the first thing I came across I am getting silly lack of sleep!!




AC-DC (ACDC - AC/DC)
(alphabetical code used in gay ads, books, and in Internet chat)
1. Bisexual, sexually interested in both men and women.  

2. A homosexual who likes both to f#*k and to be f*&ked. 


 :happy2:


----------



## Trinity

:rotflmao:  :rotflmao:  :rotflmao: 


ADAM'S PAJAMAS
(n.) 
A state of full nudity.


----------



## 007

Trinity said:
			
		

> Oh my god this is the first thing I came across I am getting silly lack of sleep!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AC-DC (ACDC - AC/DC)
> (alphabetical code used in gay ads, books, and in Internet chat)
> 1. Bisexual, sexually interested in both men and women.
> 
> 2. A homosexual who likes both to f#*k and to be f*&ked.
> 
> 
> :happy2:



OK... don't get me started...  it's almost my bedtime...


----------



## dilloduck

Trinity said:
			
		

> I think I'll stick with homosexuals, for now it is getting late!


It MUST be getting late---you forgot to insult them that time.


----------



## Trinity

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> OK... don't get me started...  it's almost my bedtime...





Oh my god there is a whole dictionary full of this shit!!!!! :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:


----------



## Trinity

They have their own dictionary!!!



 :rotflmao:  :rotflmao: 

http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/a.html


----------



## 007

Trinity said:
			
		

> They have their own dictionary!!!
> 
> 
> 
> :rotflmao:  :rotflmao:
> 
> http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/a.html



Hey, there's more than one...

http://www.insultmonger.com/slang/insulting_slang_f.htm


----------



## Trinity

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Hey, there's more than one...
> 
> http://www.insultmonger.com/slang/insulting_slang_f.htm





Stop............. my stomach hurts from laughing so hard!!! :rotflmao:


----------



## 007

Ten o'clock. Time for this _heterosexual_ to go to bed... and dream of _pussy_...


----------



## Trinity

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Ten o'clock. Time for this _heterosexual_ to go to bed... and dream of _pussy_...




Night!


----------



## dilloduck

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Ten o'clock. Time for this _heterosexual_ to go to bed... and dream of _pussy_...




awww just when I was gonna come up witth some good ones about brain dead motorcycle riders.


----------



## KarlMarx

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> For a long time it was 'legitimate science' that african americans were mentally inferior than caucasians. Similarly, homosexuality was considered a mental illness because of social pressure and historical bias (no sober science). Ergo, a phenomenon with no reason to be labeled an 'illness' was removed from that list due to the lack of evidence.


So ..... someday we'll be enlightened enough to emulate the ancient Greeks and remove pedophilia from our list of mental illnesses, too. After all, it suffers from the same factors you cite, social pressure and historical bias


----------



## dilloduck

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> So ..... someday we'll be enlightened enough to emulate the ancient Greeks and remove pedophilia from our list of mental illnesses, too. After all, it suffers from the same factors you cite, social pressure and historical bias


 and make all addictions a criminal offense----oh wait--China already tried to
solve the adiction problem that way---they killed em all.


----------



## 007

dilloduck said:
			
		

> awww just when I was gonna come up witth some good ones about brain dead motorcycle riders.



Well it's morning and I'm back, so go for it. And while you're at it, I'll think of some for toothless, inbred, southern, backwoods freaks.


----------



## dilloduck

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Well it's morning and I'm back, so go for it. And while you're at it, I'll think of some for toothless, inbred, southern, backwoods freaks.



You bet----denegrating people is such a lovely thing--anytime--day or night!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Anyhoo!


Yeah.  it's due to hormones and stuff! :funnyface


----------



## rtwngAvngr

However, I fully believe there is a concerted effort to undermine the family as families compete with the government as a transfer mechanism of ideology.  Libs hate that.


----------



## nakedemperor

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> Nomenclature doesn't. Gay still means happy. Queers hijacked the word in some attempt to make their sick perversions sound... *fun* and *happy*, when nothing could be further from the truth.



no·men·cla·ture     P   Pronunciation Key  (nmn-klchr, n-mnkl-)
n.
1.A system of names used in an art or science: the nomenclature of mineralogy.
2.The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification: the rules of nomenclature in botany.




If you're going to use big words, be sure of what they mean-- the changing use (and hence, diversified definition) of the word "gay" has nothing to do with "nomenclature"; regardless of who "hijcaked" what, there are tens of millions of straight people that use the word "gay" to mean homosexual. Stop whining about the nature of etymology.


----------



## nakedemperor

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> So ..... someday we'll be enlightened enough to emulate the ancient Greeks and remove pedophilia from our list of mental illnesses, too. After all, it suffers from the same factors you cite, social pressure and historical bias



Pedophilia harms children, and since pedophilia is a) abnormal and (more importantly) b) harmful, it is considered a mental illness. There are legitimate social pressures and historical bias against pedophilia, whereas homosexuality has has a historical stigma attached due to organized religions and the common perception of humanity that "abnormal" is also "wrong" or "bad".


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> no·men·cla·ture     P   Pronunciation Key  (nmn-klchr, n-mnkl-)
> n.
> 1.A system of names used in an art or science: the nomenclature of mineralogy.
> 2.The procedure of assigning names to the kinds and groups of organisms listed in a taxonomic classification: the rules of nomenclature in botany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're going to use big words, be sure of what they mean-- the changing use (and hence, diversified definition) of the word "gay" has nothing to do with "nomenclature"; regardless of who "hijcaked" what, there are tens of millions of straight people that use the word "gay" to mean homosexual. Stop whining about the nature of etymology.



I was sure skippy...

Main Entry: *no·men·cla·ture * 
Pronunciation: 'nO-m&n-"klA-ch&r also nO-'men-kl&-"chur, -'me[ng]-, -ch&r, -"tyur, -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin nomenclatura assigning of names, from nomen + calatus, past participle of calare
1 : NAME, DESIGNATION
2 : the act or process or an instance of naming
3 a : a system or set of terms or symbols especially in a particular science, discipline, or art b : an international system of standardized New Latin names used in biology for kinds and groups of kinds of animals and plants
- no·men·cla·tur·al  /"nO-m&n-'klAch-r&l, -'klA-ch&-/ adjective 

The condition of being "happy" or "joyfull" was "named" *gay*. Nomenclature. If your education hasn't risen to that level yet, keep at it. Maybe someday you'll be as smart as I am. Until then, don't bother trying to tell me anything. Your information is stale and subdeveloped compared to me.

The only people that say *gay* are the ones who have caved in to the militant fags attacks on them as they cry homophobic, their favorite attack name, and queers who are trying to soften their image by assigning their filthy, perverted behavior some warm and fuzzy name.

Now go tell your mama she wants you, and get your hands off that other boys penis.


----------



## KarlMarx

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> Pedophilia harms children, and since pedophilia is a) abnormal and (more importantly) b) harmful, it is considered a mental illness. There are legitimate social pressures and historical bias against pedophilia, whereas homosexuality has has a historical stigma attached due to organized religions and the common perception of humanity that "abnormal" is also "wrong" or "bad".


But homosexuality does not hurt the people who practice it. Tell me, did homophobia cause the hepatitis, rectal gonnohea and HIV of homosexuals? No, the homosexual acts which provide a easy way for such diseases to be transmitted are what causes those illnesses. In addition, homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide, abuse drugs, and suffer from mental illnesses than the general population even in social environments that are supportive and tolerant of homosexuality. Homosexuality, then, is an illness, because it hurts the people that practice it.

By the way, the Greeks had institutionalized pedophilia, as did the Romans. The organized religions that you are referring to are Judaism and Christianity, isn't it? But it was also those two religions that banned the institutionalized pedophilia of the Greeks and Romans at the same time!


----------



## nakedemperor

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> But homosexuality does not hurt the people who practice it. Tell me, did homophobia cause the hepatitis, rectal gonnohea and HIV of homosexuals? No, the homosexual acts which provide a easy way for such diseases to be transmitted are what causes those illnesses.



No, unprotected anal sex is more likely to *transmit* STDs, not *cause* them. Ergo, unprotected sex hurts the practicioner, not homosexuality (the sexual and romantic desire of a person of the same sex). This is the case in any sort of sexual activity, and is a *health* problem, not a *homosexual* problem. 




			
				KarlMarx said:
			
		

> In addition, homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide, abuse drugs, and suffer from mental illnesses than the general population even in social environments that are supportive and tolerant of homosexuality. Homosexuality, then, is an illness, because it hurts the people that practice it.



I'd like to see a case study of homosexuals being more likely to commit suicide in "environments supportive or tolerant of homosexuality". That said, I disagree that any such "environment", that is, an environment in which no homonegative ideas are expressed, exists in this country. Homosexuals are more likely to commit suicide and abuse drugs expressly because of general intolerance. Same re: mental illnesses. These manifestations are symptomatic of intolerance, not of homosexuality.


----------



## nakedemperor

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> I was sure skippy...
> 
> Main Entry: *no·men·cla·ture *
> Pronunciation: 'nO-m&n-"klA-ch&r also nO-'men-kl&-"chur, -'me[ng]-, -ch&r, -"tyur, -"tur
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Latin nomenclatura assigning of names, from nomen + calatus, past participle of calare
> 1 : NAME, DESIGNATION
> 2 : the act or process or an instance of naming
> 3 a : a system or set of terms or symbols especially in a particular science, discipline, or art b : an international system of standardized New Latin names used in biology for kinds and groups of kinds of animals and plants
> - no·men·cla·tur·al  /"nO-m&n-'klAch-r&l, -'klA-ch&-/ adjective
> 
> The condition of being "happy" or "joyfull" was "named" *gay*. Nomenclature. If your education hasn't risen to that level yet, keep at it. Maybe someday you'll be as smart as I am. Until then, don't bother trying to tell me anything. Your information is stale and subdeveloped compared to me.
> 
> The only people that say *gay* are the ones who have caved in to the militant fags attacks on them as they cry homophobic, their favorite attack name, and queers who are trying to soften their image by assigning their filthy, perverted behavior some warm and fuzzy name.
> 
> Now go tell your mama she wants you, and get your hands off that other boys penis.



If you read the OP of this discussion...

"Nomenclature doesn't [shift]. Gay still means happy. Queers hijacked the word in some attempt to make their sick perversions sound... *fun* and *happy*, when nothing could be further from the truth."

...you'll see that your *use* of the world is what's wrong. To extend your sentence to its logical conclusion: 

"The nomenclature of the word "gay" doesn't shift."

The word you were searching for was "definition", or "meaning". The "nomenclature" of the word "gay", to apply the logic you used, is "gay". The "definition" of "gay", as you so aptly put, is "happy". As it is, the sentence "the nomenclature of the word gay doesn't shift" is grammatically incorrect. 

But man, I look forward to being as smart as you some day (I find it sort of amusing that in ridiculing my intelligence you said my information was 'subdeveloped', which is not in fact a word.. maybe you were flailing for the word 'underdeveloped'?). 

And to the moderators, I've seen (and been) banned for much less than using the word "fag" in discussion. Free speech is essential, but I was under the impression that ad hominem attacks and nasty name-calling were against the rules, so to speak. Why does this fellow have such a long leash?


----------



## musicman

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> I find it sort of amusing that in ridiculing my intelligence you said my information was 'subdeveloped', which is not in fact a word..




This, from the man who brought us "homonegative".

You're such a cunninglinguist, NE!


----------



## KarlMarx

Well, one thing's for sure, if hatred caused all of the mental and physical problems that homosexuals experience then the Jews should have died off from AIDS, Hepatitis, suicide and drug abuse centuries ago.


----------



## dilloduck

KarlMarx said:
			
		

> Well, one thing's for sure, if hatred caused all of the mental and physical problems that homosexuals experience then the Jews should have died off from AIDS, Hepatitis, suicide and drug abuse centuries ago.



Can't agree with ya on this one---the jews have been told by God to accept hatred  as thier lot in life (punishment if you will). If they weren't "oppressed" they would think they  are doing something  wrong. It's part who they are. Hatred has a different effect on different people.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> *The American Psychiatric Association Coup*
> 
> Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the 'medical community' and, more specifically, psychiatrists agree with them that homosexuality is a "normal human sexual response."
> 
> It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with sodomites.
> 
> What the homosexuals do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist sodomite groups.
> 
> Preparing the Ground:
> 
> In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.
> 
> These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as "mentally disordered."
> 
> In the three years during which the APA's Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with several sodomite groups, including the Gay Activist's Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals.
> 
> Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."
> 
> During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.
> 
> In other words, the sodomites packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionist and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the "correct" viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.
> 
> But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Task Force ws preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder (anywhere in the country) was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.
> 
> The APA Caves In:
> 
> The years of hard work put in by the sodomites began to pay off in 1972. The "National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report" parroted Alfred Kinsey's proclamation that "exclusive heterosexuality" and exclusive homosexuality" were "sexual extremes," and that most people were basically  bisexual.
> 
> This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA's Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatritst. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared "normal." It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to "vote" that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.
> 
> This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force. One of the letter's signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the "kiss of death" for a pro homosexual vote.
> 
> Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual."
> 
> APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken cut to the heart of the APA's motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above mentioned NIMH report entitled "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:" "It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, "Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon." I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."
> 
> The Essential Point:
> 
> The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.
> 
> At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group 'ever' addressed a mental health question in this manner.
> 
> Behind the Scenes:
> 
> It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists 'really' think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.
> 
> Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA's Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that "....exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder."
> 
> It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.
> 
> The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.
> 
> A later series of private surveys which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation showed that two-thirds of APA members psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization's switch
> 
> More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."
> 
> This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the letter was subject to all of the "volunteer bias" that self selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.inoohr.org/americanpsychiatricassociation.htm




New studies have show there to be differences in the neurological structures and responses between gay and stragiht men. These differences could only be the result of congenital factors...nothing to do with choice. Also, no demonstrable harm has been shown to result from same-gender relationships, either to the parties involved or to society at large. In the abscence of demonstrable harm any and all arguments for the prohibition of smae-gender relationships...marriages...civil-unions...etc, are simply without merit 

As far as your link, It's just another right wing-nut website. But my question to you is, when are you going to join other gay-bashing republican closet-queens like, Spokane, Washington Mayor - James West...Or anti-abortion fanatic Neil Horsley...Or Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert, right wing pundit , ace reporter(former) for Talon News, and gay prostitute? Oh and gosh, there was Ed Schrock (R-VA) and right-wing reactionary who ended his campaign after he was found to be trolling  gay chat rooms for sex. There's more, but I'm pressed for time and I'm sure you get the point...Just get over it or come out of the closet. Either will work.


----------



## 007

nakedemperor said:
			
		

> And to the moderators, I've seen (and been) banned for much less than using the word "fag" in discussion. Free speech is essential, but I was under the impression that ad hominem attacks and nasty name-calling were against the rules, so to speak. Why does this fellow have such a long leash?



Because I was using the "fag", which is another term for faggot, which is another term for queer, in the "third sense". I wasn't calling anyone here that directly. But it the shoe fits...

That and the fact that the "owner" of this board is just as disgusted by queers as I am. He's reasonable, and we both agree homosexuality is a perverse, disgusting and vile condition that weak men engage in.


----------



## 007

pullit said:
			
		

> New studies have show there to be differences in the neurological structures and responses between gay and stragiht men.  These differences could only be the result of congenital factors...nothing to do with choice.



New studies? Where's the "link" to these new studies pullit?




			
				pullit said:
			
		

> Also, no demonstrable harm has been shown to result from same-gender relationships, either to the parties involved or to society at large. In the abscence of demonstrable harm any and all arguments for the prohibition of smae-gender relationships...marriages...civil-unions...etc, are simply without merit.




Wrong shit for brains. There's VOLUMES of proof, much of which has been posted here on this board. You just like to pretend you've never read any of it.




			
				pullit said:
			
		

> As far as your link, It's just another right wing-nut website. But my question to you is, when are you going to join other gay-bashing republican closet-queens like, Spokane, Washington Mayor - James West...Or anti-abortion fanatic Neil Horsley...Or Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert, right wing pundit , ace reporter(former) for Talon News, and gay prostitute? Oh and gosh, there was Ed Schrock (R-VA) and right-wing reactionary who ended his campaign after he was found to be trolling  gay chat rooms for sex. There's more, but I'm pressed for time and I'm sure you get the point...Just get over it or come out of the closet. Either will work.




I don't think anyone on this board has accused other people of being queer more than *YOU* pullit. That very much makes me tend to believe *YOU* are the one that has the latent queer tendencies. See how you're stupidity can turn on you asswipe?


----------



## KarlMarx

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> New studies have show there to be differences in the neurological structures and responses between gay and stragiht men. These differences could only be the result of congenital factors...nothing to do with choice. Also, no demonstrable harm has been shown to result from same-gender relationships, either to the parties involved or to society at large. In the abscence of demonstrable harm any and all arguments for the prohibition of smae-gender relationships...marriages...civil-unions...etc, are simply without merit
> 
> As far as your link, It's just another right wing-nut website. But my question to you is, when are you going to join other gay-bashing republican closet-queens like, Spokane, Washington Mayor - James West...Or anti-abortion fanatic Neil Horsley...Or Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert, right wing pundit , ace reporter(former) for Talon News, and gay prostitute? Oh and gosh, there was Ed Schrock (R-VA) and right-wing reactionary who ended his campaign after he was found to be trolling  gay chat rooms for sex. There's more, but I'm pressed for time and I'm sure you get the point...Just get over it or come out of the closet. Either will work.



Yes, and while we're going off on tangents, remember that the founder of Planned Parenthood ... what's her name ..... Sanger.... was a racist and founded Planned Parenthood to help control the population of blacks, Jews and other "undesireable people" that might crowd out white folks.

And let's not forget that Ernest Roehm, the founder of Hitler's SS (which was part of the "final solution on the Jewish question") was a homosexual as were many of the first Nazis


----------



## dmp

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> New studies have show there to be differences in the neurological structures and responses between gay and stragiht men. These differences could only be the result of congenital factors...nothing to do with choice. Also, no demonstrable harm has been shown to result from same-gender relationships, either to the parties involved or to society at large. In the abscence of demonstrable harm any and all arguments for the prohibition of smae-gender relationships...marriages...civil-unions...etc, are simply without merit
> 
> As far as your link, It's just another right wing-nut website. But my question to you is, when are you going to join other gay-bashing republican closet-queens like, Spokane, Washington Mayor - James West...Or anti-abortion fanatic Neil Horsley...Or Jeff/James Gannon/Guckert, right wing pundit , ace reporter(former) for Talon News, and gay prostitute? Oh and gosh, there was Ed Schrock (R-VA) and right-wing reactionary who ended his campaign after he was found to be trolling  gay chat rooms for sex. There's more, but I'm pressed for time and I'm sure you get the point...Just get over it or come out of the closet. Either will work.




puff-puff-give, Bully...


----------



## musicman

Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> New studies have show there to be differences in the neurological structures and responses between gay and stragiht men.




Dealt with and disposed of many, many times on this board.




			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> These differences could only be the result of congenital factors...nothing to do with choice.




The "homosexuality is determined genetically" crowd cite differences in the size of the hypothalumus glands in homosexuals. However, since the specimens examined were - necessarily - taken from autopsied adult homosexuals, there is no proof that the behavior itself doesn't cause neurological changes (maybe their brains really ARE in their asses). As to the predictable response that nor does this prove the reverse - remember, it is homosexuals who are attempting to advance this assertion. It is not society's obligation to prove a negative.




			
				Bullypulpit said:
			
		

> Also, no demonstrable harm has been shown to result from same-gender relationships, either to the parties involved or to society at large. In the abscence of demonstrable harm any and all arguments for the prohibition of smae-gender relationships...marriages...civil-unions...etc, are simply without merit




The self-absorbed, sociopathic behavior of the homosexual community - in refusing the sensible proposal that the 4000 or so early cases of AIDS be quarantined - guaranteed the spread of a killer. The potentially damaging public perception of homosexuals was more important, you see, than the public's safety. Thanks a lot, guys!

Although homosexuals comprise only 1-3% of the population, they commit 20-40% of child molestations. That statistic won't go away, Bully - no matter how many nasty names you call the researchers; no matter how you try to mangle definition. This is a dangerous, destructive lifestyle.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Dealt with and disposed of many, many times on this board.



Where?  Post one link.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Has any serious scientific study been performed which even mildly suggests that homosexual acts cause the brain to change.  You cannot  dispose of actual research based on wild whimsy.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Where?  Post one link.




Hell, RWA - how many times have you and I discussed LeVar's studies on this board in the last year+? They are proof of nothing; wishful thinking. You yourself abandoned the neurological end of the argument not three days ago. Are you really gonna make me search?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

******* Researchers first suspected that homosexuality might also be gene-related when they studied the occurrence of gayness in siblings. Franz J. Kallmans and W. W. Schlegels experiments in the 1950s and 1960s showed that identical twins had a 100 percent concordance rate for homosexual orientation, where concordance is defined as the level of similarity existing for different characteristics (Wertz 1). Although the results seemed overwhelmingly high, they laid the base for further studies. In 1991, J. Michael Bailey and Richard C. Pillard conducted a similar experiment comparing identical twins, fraternal twins, and nongenetically related adopted brothers. By placing advertisements in gay newspapers, they were able to be relatively certain that the twin responding to the ad was homosexual; by sending the other twin a questionnaire, they were able to determine the other twins sexual orientation. If homosexuality is genetically linked, the probability of both identical twins being gay should be higher than that of fraternal twins, which should be still higher than that of nongenetically-related brothers. Indeed, Bailey and Pillard found that both siblings were gay in fifty-two percent of identical twins, in twenty-two percent of fraternal twins, and in only five percent of nonrelated brothers (Burr, Separate 35; Hamer 28; LeVay 112; Wertz 1). In 1994, Frederick Whitham of Arizona State University conducted a similar study and determined that if one twin was gay, there was a sixty-six percent chance that his/her twin would also be gay (Matthews). Granted, if homosexuality was solely gene dependent, Bailey and Pillard would have found 100 percent gayness in identical twins. Though their results did not reveal such a relationship, the numbers were significant enough that they could conclude that homosexuality is gene related. 

*********** Yet perhaps the most compelling evidence that sexual orientation has a biological basis came in 1993. Dean Hamer, examining the family trees of gay men, noticed a pattern of inheritance through the maternal side; as a result, he hypothesized that homosexuality may be an X-linked trait since men inherit their X chromosome from their mother. To test this theory, Hamer collected a group of forty gay brothers and drew blood samples to examine their DNA. For thirty-three of the forty brothers, he discovered a remarkable concordance for five markers on a section of the X chromosome called Xq28, where concordance is defined to be the similarity between the markers. Statistical analysis showed that the probability of this concordance happening by sheer chance was less than one in 100,000 (138). Hamer also found that no other region of the X chromosome is linked to sexual orientation, for none of the sixteen markers outside Xq28 showed any statistically significant concordance (139). Upon repeating the study again, he obtained the same results. Thus, it makes sense that Hamer found gay men to have more maternal relatives who were gay than paternal relatives because homosexuality is X-linked. Admittedly, Hamer has not isolated a gay gene, but rather a region of over five million base pairs in which such a gene may exist. Critics wonder why the researchers did not do the obvious control experiment of checking for the presence of these markers among heterosexual brothers of the gay men they studied (qtd. in Hamer, 141). Yet the answer is obvious: Hamer was not trying to prove that Xq28 alone determines a persons sexual orientation, but rather that there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. Combined with the results of other genetic studies, Hamers findings only strengthen the argument that homosexuality has genetic links. 

http://www.geocities.com/southbeach/boardwalk/7151/biobasis.html


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> research based on wild whimsy.




!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Hell, RWA - how many times have you and I discussed LeVar's studies on this board in the last year+? They are proof of nothing; wishful thinking. You yourself abandoned the neurological end of the argument not three days ago. Are you really gonna make me search?



Im not making you do anything.  The competing theory that gay behavior causes structural changes in the brain has even less support.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets.  Who would choose that?


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Im not making you do anything.  The competing theory that gay behavior causes structural changes in the brain has even less support.




Nor has it asked for any, for it is not a "competing theory" at all; rather, it is the obvious flip-side of a bald, baseless assertion made by homosexual activists. It is not society's obligation to prove a negative here.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets.




Propogation of the species is illogical????!!!! You're slipping, my man!




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Who would choose that?




Immaterial. I'm not a mindreader, nor do I have a societal obligation to be one.


----------



## 5stringJeff

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> The assertion that sexual preference is inborn in heteros but a choice for homos is as illogical as it gets.  Who would choose that?



Heterosexuality is natural for *all* people.  It's only those who *choose* to participate in homosexual behavior who have the *choice*.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Nor has it asked for any, for it is not a "competing theory" at all; rather, it is the obvious flip-side of a bald, baseless assertion made by homosexual activists. It is not society's obligation to prove a negative here.




No.  It's a wild unsubstantiated grasp at straws.  Maybe in the horse and buggy scenarios the buggy is actually pushing the horse.  Yeah.  That sounds right.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Heterosexuality is natural for *all* people.  It's only those who *choose* to participate in homosexual behavior who have the *choice*.



It's obviously not for people naturally drawn to those of the same gender.


----------



## 5stringJeff

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's obviously not for people naturally drawn to those of the same gender.



Again, participating in homosexual behavior is a *choice*.  Unless your cellmate is a 350 pound guy named Bubba, you *choose* to participate in homosexual acts.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Propogation of the species is illogical????!!!! You're slipping, my man!



I also read somewhere that the homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism.  this paper said that stress hormones in the mother, possibly indicating a lack of resources to support the propagation of the species, cause homosexuality and thus limit the population.


----------



## 5stringJeff

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I also read somewhere that the homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism.  this paper said that stress hormones in the mother, possibly indicating a lack of resources to support the propagation of the species, cause homosexuality and thus limit the population.



Why would there be a natural population control mechanism, if God's command was to be fruitful and multiply?


----------



## rtwngAvngr

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Why would there be a natural population control mechanism, if God's command was to be fruitful and multiply?



We cannot multiply when the resources for life aren't there.  Thus, we must have the resources in place so our ladies aren't stressed out when pregnant.


----------



## musicman

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> if God's command was to be fruitful




I'm not going NEAR that!!!


----------



## 5stringJeff

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> We cannot multiply when the resources for life aren't there.  Thus, we must have the resources in place so our ladies aren't stressed out when pregnant.



Resources for life have never run out.


----------



## 5stringJeff

musicman said:
			
		

> I'm not going NEAR that!!!



Fruit_ful_, not fruit_y_!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Resources for life have never run out.



For the planet, no.  But there have been temporally and spacially limited shortages from time to time and place to place throughout history.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> I'm not going NEAR that!!!



LOL!


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No.  It's a wild unsubstantiated grasp at straws.




Not at all. Rather, it is the logical flip side of  the legitimization crowd's wild, unsubstantiated grasp at straws. No junk science salesman ever burst onto the scene with the breathtaking new discovery that homosexuality alters the physical structure of the brain. But that explanation is at least as plausible as the speculation homosexual activists are trying to pass off as indisputable scientific fact.


----------



## Trinity

gop_jeff said:
			
		

> Fruit_ful_, not fruit_y_!


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Not at all. Rather, it is the logical flip side of  the legitimization crowd's wild, unsubstantiated grasp at straws. No junk science salesman ever burst onto the scene with the breathtaking new discovery that homosexuality alters the physical structure of the brain. But that explanation is at least as plausible as the speculation homosexual activists are trying to pass off as indisputable scientific fact.



No it's not.

Just like the buggy may actually be pushing the horse.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

However, I fully believe there is a concerted effort to undermine the family as families compete with the government as a transfer mechanism of ideology. Libs hate that.


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> No it's not.




Why not?


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> However, I fully believe there is a concerted effort to undermine the family as families compete with the government as a transfer mechanism of ideology. Libs hate that.




  :clap1:


----------



## rtwngAvngr

musicman said:
			
		

> Why not?



It's just not a logical flipside.  It's a reversal of causation.  Getting the cart before the horse, so to speak.


----------



## Markainion

Genetic tendencies or not, gayness cant simple be justified by lack of social choices.  Its inherited in all mankind (including women) to make social and healthy choices in the way they live.   If not for this in society, only the alpha males would get the women, the rest of the men would simply by their time hoping to become alpha males, or compensate somehow for their unfortunate situation.

To prove to me that you guys/gals know something about mental differences, how familiar are you with document mental conditions such as Dyslexia, ADD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, and any other well-documented mental conditions Im forgetting.  

Just to see how smart you really are on this subject of human genetic psychology.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Markainion said:
			
		

> Genetic tendencies or not, gayness cant simple be justified by lack of social choices.  Its inherited in all mankind (including women) to make social and healthy choices in the way they live.   If not for this in society, only the alpha males would get the women, the rest of the men would simply by their time hoping to become alpha males, or compensate somehow for their unfortunate situation.
> 
> To prove to me that you guys/gals know something about mental differences, how familiar are you with document mental conditions such as Dyslexia, ADD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, and any other well-documented mental conditions Im forgetting.
> 
> Just to see how smart you really are on this subject of human genetic psychology.



I don't believe anyone has justified gayness with a lack of social choices.  That statement makes no sense, actually.

If not for health choices only alpha males would get the women?  That doesn't make sense either.

DO OVER


----------



## musicman

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> It's just not a logical flipside.  It's a reversal of causation.




Right - hence the term "logical flipside".

Regardless, neurological abberations in autopsied male homosexuals fall far short of proving a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?




			
				rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> Getting the cart before the horse, so to speak.




Well, now we're descending into another area of sexual behavior entirely! :tng:


----------



## Markainion

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I don't believe anyone has justified gayness with a lack of social choices.  That statement makes no sense, actually.
> 
> If not for health choices only alpha males would get the women?  That doesn't make sense either.
> 
> DO OVER



I read an article once about why men and women cheat, and the article related it to Alpha Male Apes (the Silverbacks).  It's an interesting article about basic human sexual drives.   If I can find it on the Internet, then I will post it.  

All I meant to say was that humans are more than our genetics.  We have a choice to make ourselves better than what God created (not saying that God didn't give us the ability to improve ourselves, because he did).  That is why I asked about mental challenges like Dyslexia, to remind people that there are mental conditions that people can overcome.  

Homosexuals may be naturally more attracted to the opposite sex than a normal person, I dont know.  That doesnt mean that Gays didnt choice to override their natural attraction to the same sex, in an effort to fit into the Gay Community.  This is just my opinion, I dont know what it is like to be attracted to the same sex.  

I had a martial arts instructor once tell me try to make the unnatural, natural.  He was referring to reflexes, but the concept still holds, you can change your natural behaviors, if you give it a try.  You can say it is impossible all you want, but I wont believe you, but I know I may still be wrong.


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Markainion said:
			
		

> I read an article once about why men and women cheat, and the article related it to Alpha Male Apes (the Silverbacks).  It's an interesting article about basic human sexual drives.   If I can find it on the Internet, then I will post it.
> 
> All I meant to say was that humans are more than our genetics.  We have a choice to make ourselves better than what God created (not saying that God didn't give us the ability to improve ourselves, because he did).  That is why I asked about mental challenges like Dyslexia, to remind people that there are mental conditions that people can overcome.
> 
> Homosexuals may be naturally more attracted to the opposite sex than a normal person, I dont know.  That doesnt mean that Gays didnt choice to override their natural attraction to the same sex, in an effort to fit into the Gay Community.  This is just my opinion, I dont know what it is like to be attracted to the same sex.
> 
> I had a martial arts instructor once tell me try to make the unnatural, natural.  He was referring to reflexes, but the concept still holds, you can change your natural behaviors, if you give it a try.  You can say it is impossible all you want, but I wont believe you, but I know I may still be wrong.



That does sound like an interesting article.  And of course, people can try to overcome natural inclinations.  

Take overeating, for instance.  Our bodies WANT to put on layers of fat, for tough times when food may run out.  In our modern society of plentiful calories unattractive and dangerous obesity is the result without learning to modify our natural inclinations.


----------



## 007

rtwngAvngr said:
			
		

> I also read somewhere that the homosexuality is a natural population control mechanism.  this paper said that stress hormones in the mother, possibly indicating a lack of resources to support the propagation of the species, cause homosexuality and thus limit the population.



This is the biggest stretch I've read on what makes a person queer to date. Maaaaaan...


----------



## rtwngAvngr

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> This is the biggest stretch I've read on what makes a person queer to date. Maaaaaan...



Good one.


----------



## Bullypulpit

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> New studies? Where's the "link" to these new studies pullit?
> 
> Wrong shit for brains. There's VOLUMES of proof, much of which has been posted here on this board. You just like to pretend you've never read any of it.
> 
> I don't think anyone on this board has accused other people of being queer more than *YOU* pullit. That very much makes me tend to believe *YOU* are the one that has the latent queer tendencies. See how you're stupidity can turn on you asswipe?



Here's the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1606173,00.html

The "proof" you cite is drawn from the demented ravings of far right fringe sights which base their opinion on faith rather than fact.

I didn't accuse you of being "queer", I was merely making an observation based upon your rantings. So, as I said before, get over it or come out of the closet...Either will do.


----------



## 007

pullit said:
			
		

> Here's the link:
> 
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1606173,00.html




CHEEEEE ZUZ pullit... now you're going to try and tell us that somebody's queer because the smell of somebody else's armpit? Fuck. I always knew you were of questionable state of mind, and swallowed a lot liberal bunk from your heros like mickey moore and slick willie, but this is a new limit. If I told you that you can tell how much a person weighs by how big their turds were, I suppose you'd believe that too.




			
				pullit said:
			
		

> The "proof" you cite is drawn from the demented ravings of far right fringe sights which base their opinion on faith rather than fact.




The "proof" I cite is drawn form reputable sources, of which you can not dispute, so you resort to an age old liberal tactic, discrediting the source, instead of disputing the facts. You're all too predictable pullit. Please try harder to sound legitimate in the future.




			
				pullit said:
			
		

> I didn't accuse you of being "queer", I was merely making an observation based upon your rantings. So, as I said before, get over it or come out of the closet...Either will do.




You were being sarcastic, which is your nature. If it weren't for your smartass incinuations and comments towards people, I'd think you had a dribble of promise. But, as it is, you don't. You're just another pathetic, sassy loud mouthed, two bit liberal that really doesn't have much of value to add to anything.

Get over yourself, and then get a life.


----------



## Said1

Pale Rider said:
			
		

> CHEEEEE ZUZ pullit... now you're going to try and tell us that somebody's queer because the smell of somebody else's armpit?




That would give creedence to the "gaydar" theroy.


----------

