# Are all gays born that way?



## healthmyths

Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?

I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.


----------



## hortysir

healthmyths said:


> *Are all gays born that way?*




No.

Just you.


----------



## healthmyths

hortysir said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are all gays born that way?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Just you.
Click to expand...


HATE CRIME!!!  HOMOPHOBE!  for shame!


----------



## auditor0007

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.

I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.


----------



## healthmyths

auditor0007 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
Click to expand...


Stupid?  So how do gays reproduce?  
It takes a male and a female unless you know something different which obviously if you did you wouldn't be on this board!

Again.. has there EVER been any human being born to two people of the same sex?
I know that sounds "Stupid" (to you) because YOU evidently know something different!!


----------



## hjmick

I can't imagine a person choosing to be the object of ridicule for so many narrow minded people...


----------



## healthmyths

hjmick said:


> I can't imagine a person choosing to be the object of ridicule for so many narrow minded people...



You OBVIOUSLY haven't been around horny men!  Or men who couldn't have sex with a woman unless they raped them.

Where are gays an " object of ridicule"?
So you think ALL straight people think "gays are objects of ridicule"?


----------



## sfcalifornia

auditor0007 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
Click to expand...


And animals showing same-sex behavior must have learned it from their overbearing mothers.

Those animals will rot in hell!


----------



## koshergrl

Sheesh about half of the most harrowing experiences of my childhood had to do with a homosexual friend ridiculing me....


----------



## Mr.Nick

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



No....

An individual that has been molested by the same sex is more often going to be a homosexual.

Homosexuality can be brainwashed into an individual to boot...

You think the Romans were all born bi-sexual or were they trained to be bi-sexual or even homosexual??

Homosexuality violates every aspect of evolution, yet it's those who strongly promote evolution who accept homosexuality as "rational behavior."

Please anyone explain how survival of a species includes homosexuality??


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> So how do gays reproduce?


The same way everyone else does. 

That one is homosexual doesnt mean he or she cant have children. 

And homosexual children are born of heterosexual parents.  



> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Fortunately none of this is legally relevant.  

Given the hate and ignorance expressed in the OP, other subscribers to this thread, and other similar threads, its clear homosexuals remain very much in need of the protection of the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, and the Constitutions case law.


----------



## koshergrl

And there we have it again...

How is it inidicative of hate OR ignorance to state the facts that it takes a male and female to make a child, that there is no *gay* gene, and to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior?

Where is the hate? I don't see it.

This is what extremists do...they portray any information that conflicts with the falsehoods they want, for whatever reasons, to propagate, as "hate" "stupid" "dangerous" and "illegal"....


----------



## Mr.Nick

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So how do gays reproduce?
> 
> 
> 
> The same way everyone else does.
> 
> That one is homosexual doesnt mean he or she cant have children.
> 
> And homosexual children are born of heterosexual parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fortunately none of this is legally relevant.
> 
> Given the hate and ignorance expressed in the OP, other subscribers to this thread, and other similar threads, its clear homosexuals remain very much in need of the protection of the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, and the Constitutions case law.
Click to expand...


So pretty much deviants use individuals to reproduce for them??

You don't see anything wrong with that? or at least unnatural??


----------



## healthmyths

YOU MISSED the POINT!
Reproduction means as of today a male (donor) and female (host)  You agree?
So a gay guy MUST take sperm and implant into a female host... BUT that means if "gayness" is genetic, at some point, the "gay" gene will become dominant and therefore NOT reproductive!
FACTs of Genetics at work.. no bias just the facts!
Just in case.. this means the "gay" gene becomes dominant and therefore not reproduced!


----------



## BDBoop

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BDBoop

healthmyths said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a person choosing to be the object of ridicule for so many narrow minded people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You OBVIOUSLY haven't been around horny men!  Or men who couldn't have sex with a woman unless they raped them.
> 
> Where are gays an " object of ridicule"?
> So you think ALL straight people think "gays are objects of ridicule"?
Click to expand...


No, just the homophobes.


----------



## Lakhota

> Are all gays born that way?



Try asking a few.


----------



## Mr.Nick

koshergrl said:


> And there we have it again...
> 
> How is it inidicative of hate OR ignorance to state the facts that it takes a male and female to make a child, that there is no *gay* gene, and to say that homosexuality is a learned behavior?
> 
> Where is the hate? I don't see it.
> 
> This is what extremists do...they portray any information that conflicts with the falsehoods they want, for whatever reasons, to propagate, as "hate" "stupid" "dangerous" and "illegal"....



Facts are alien to those who wish to make babies in a test tube.......

Remember the same idiots that promote this test tube baby bullshit are the same ones who promote evolution and "global warming."

Odd and ironic isn't it??


----------



## koshergrl

Progressives view humans as nothing more than animals...and they have no problem with manipulating their breeding. It's one of their hallmarks.

They see nothing wrong with growing and killing embryos, with abortion, with euthanasia, and destroying those who cannot defend themselves and who, in the eyes of progressive ideologues, have no value. They have no problem with lying to people, hiding information from them, and restricting their freedom. They see no problem with restricting freedom, criminalizing religion and free speech,  eliminating liberty, and farming humans essentially the way some ants farm aphids. This is who they are.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Progressives may as well say there is no such thing as Male or Female next...


----------



## koshergrl

healthmyths said:


> YOU MISSED the POINT!
> Reproduction means as of today a male (donor) and female (host)  You agree?
> So a gay guy MUST take sperm and implant into a female host... BUT that means if "gayness" is genetic, at some point, the "gay" gene will become dominant and therefore NOT reproductive!
> FACTs of Genetics at work.. no bias just the facts!
> Just in case.. this means the "gay" gene becomes dominant and therefore not reproduced!



Hate speech! Off to jail! Quick somebody, sew his mouth closed! It's none of his business!


----------



## koshergrl

Mr.Nick said:


> Progressives may as well say there is no such thing as Male or Female next...



Bingo. 

They will "redefine" sexual identity as they have "redefined" life, humanity, and marriage.

And if you object, you will be silenced, because it's "hate speech" to disagree. See above...


----------



## NYcarbineer

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Who cares?

Your lack of understanding of genetics btw is quite a spectacle to witness.


----------



## BDBoop

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Your lack of understanding of genetics btw is quite a spectacle to witness.
Click to expand...


Yeah, his question pretty much ranked right up there with "Do you walk to work, or carry your lunch."


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Your lack of understanding of genetics btw is quite a spectacle to witness.
Click to expand...


So there's a gay gene?

You need to alert the APA and the Human Genome Project folks. They'll be thrilled.


----------



## The T

koshergrl said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives may as well say there is no such thing as Male or Female next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> 
> They will "redefine" sexual identity as they have "redefined" life, humanity, and marriage.
> 
> And if you object, you will be silenced, because it's "hate speech" to disagree. See above...
Click to expand...

 
It's easy. Leftists define _deviancy DOWN to justify thier stance which is no stance at all. It lacks principle._


----------



## sfcalifornia

Lakhota said:


> Are all gays born that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try asking a few.
Click to expand...


Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.


----------



## Mr.Nick

koshergrl said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives may as well say there is no such thing as Male or Female next...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bingo.
> 
> They will "redefine" sexual identity as they have "redefined" life, humanity, and marriage.
> 
> And if you object, you will be silenced, because it's "hate speech" to disagree. See above...
Click to expand...


I believe that is some of the progressives goal - to erase total identity...


----------



## koshergrl

sfcalifornia said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are all gays born that way?
> 
> 
> 
> Try asking a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.
Click to expand...


Link?

Join Toro on the couch. You people who think your imaginary head monkeys hold any water in adult conversation need to stick together.


----------



## Mr.Nick

sfcalifornia said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are all gays born that way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try asking a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.
Click to expand...


In what universe do I have to know gays to have an opinion on IVF??


----------



## NYcarbineer

healthmyths said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid?  So how do gays reproduce?
> It takes a male and a female unless you know something different which obviously if you did you wouldn't be on this board!
> 
> Again.. has there EVER been any human being born to two people of the same sex?
> I know that sounds "Stupid" (to you) because YOU evidently know something different!!
Click to expand...


Perhaps, and I hope this doesn't go too far over your head,

perhaps, the gay gene, or set of genes, is/are recessive, and thus only express themselves when they are transmitted from both parents.  YOU, for example, could be carrying gay genes that you got from one parent, but your other parent gave you hetero genes, which would be dominant...

...that's assuming you're not gay.  Then, if, perhaps, you married a woman carrying gay genes as well,

you might have a gay kid.


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try asking a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In what universe do I have to know gays to have an opinion on IVF??
Click to expand...

 
Or to understand that GAYS are freaks of nature? Confused humans?


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who cares?
> 
> Your lack of understanding of genetics btw is quite a spectacle to witness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So there's a gay gene?
> 
> You need to alert the APA and the Human Genome Project folks. They'll be thrilled.
Click to expand...


Obviously the ability to read is a learned behaviour.


----------



## koshergrl

Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.

At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Hell there is a nutty bitch in the UK that (believes shes a man) however when her and her "partner" decided they wanted a kid the bitch all of a sudden had a womb...

So obviously it's ALL A CHOICE...........

People aren't born gay and they certainly aren't born in the "wrong bodies."

Both are psychological disorders...


----------



## NYcarbineer

Mules can't reproduce, but they're not extinct.  How's that possible?


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> Hell there is a nutty bitch in the UK that (believes shes a man) however when her and her "partner" decided they wanted a kid the bitch all of a sudden had a womb...
> 
> So obviously it's ALL A CHOICE...........
> 
> People aren't born gay and they certainly aren't born in the "wrong bodies."
> 
> Both are psychological disorders...


They're SICK individuals.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.
> 
> At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.



Is Christianity a learned behaviour?


----------



## Lakhota

Progressives want a future of perfected hermaphrodites, where each person can self-impregnate and give birth.


----------



## BDBoop

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.
> 
> At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Christianity a learned behaviour?
Click to expand...


No, hers is some twisted bitch thing resulting from too much bile and vitriol, wrapped up in really pretty "Jesus SAVES!" paper.


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.
> 
> At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Christianity a learned behaviour?
Click to expand...


Trolling, trolling, over the bright blue sea...

Bigot.


----------



## Lakhota

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.
> 
> At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Christianity a learned behaviour?
Click to expand...


Yes, it is.


----------



## Mr.Nick

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell there is a nutty bitch in the UK that (believes shes a man) however when her and her "partner" decided they wanted a kid the bitch all of a sudden had a womb...
> 
> So obviously it's ALL A CHOICE...........
> 
> People aren't born gay and they certainly aren't born in the "wrong bodies."
> 
> Both are psychological disorders...
> 
> 
> 
> They're SICK individuals.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they belong in mental institutions.....

If I insisted I was black they would throw me in the loony bin, however if I insisted I was a woman the progressive retards would give me sympathy...

Of course if I insisted I was a black woman they may get confused.... They would have to consult their PC handbook...


----------



## Mr.Nick

If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??


 
Awesome quote.

And then why not anything else that makes one _human?_


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??



When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Who fucking cares? This is a non issue unless you make it one.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting you have nothing to add to the conversation.
> 
> At least nothing that will enhance it in any way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Christianity a learned behaviour?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trolling, trolling, over the bright blue sea...
> 
> Bigot.
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase the question for you.  

Are you born a Christian, or do you learn to be a Christian?


----------



## Mr.Nick

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome quote.
> 
> And then why not anything else that makes one _human?_
Click to expand...


I had no idea an individual said what I said previously - if so the point still stands.

Sure -- If I feel like I'm a peg-legged-Jewish-African-female-midget then I must be..

How is a male "feeling" like a woman any different? what ,makes the circumstances any different?


----------



## Mr.Nick

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?
Click to expand...


You are pretty slow aren't you??


----------



## The T

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?
Click to expand...

 
You really ARE an idiot, aren't you?


----------



## sfcalifornia

koshergrl said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try asking a few.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Join Toro on the couch. You people who think your imaginary head monkeys hold any water in adult conversation need to stick together.
Click to expand...


Link to what?  Your stupidity?

Alright dipshit, how many gay people do you know and how many of them told you they became homosexuals because they were brainwashed?


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Christianity a learned behaviour?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling, trolling, over the bright blue sea...
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase the question for you.
> 
> Are you born a Christian, or do you learn to be a Christian?
Click to expand...


You can rephrase it a hundred times. If you make a separate thread for it, I'll answer. Otherwise, I'm just going to dismiss it as a trolls attempt to derail the conversation when he doesn't like the direction the convo is taking, but he's incapable of speaking to the topic in any meaningful way.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Are heterosexuals born that way?  Is there a heterosexual gene, or are there heterosexual genes?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Why the Fuck are some of you conservatives playing this diversion bullshit? 

The dumbest fucking threads get bumped over and over for what?


----------



## koshergrl

sfcalifornia said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting how some straight people seem to know so much about gay people and they don't even know any.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Join Toro on the couch. You people who think your imaginary head monkeys hold any water in adult conversation need to stick together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link to what?  Your stupidity?
> 
> Alright dipshit, how many gay people do you know and how many of them told you they became homosexuals because they were brainwashed?
Click to expand...


No link?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Maybe I'm Batman because I believe so??

Hahaha...

I love how progressives respect the batshit insane...


----------



## syrenn

healthmyths said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid?  So how do gays reproduce?
> It takes a male and a female unless you know something different which obviously if you did you wouldn't be on this board!
> 
> Again.. has there EVER been any human being born to two people of the same sex?
> I know that sounds "Stupid" (to you) because YOU evidently know something different!!
Click to expand...


Gay people don't need to reproduce .... they _are _produced by straight people.


----------



## The T

Grampa Murked U said:


> Why the Fuck are some of you conservatives playing this diversion bullshit?
> 
> The dumbest fucking threads get bumped over and over for what?


 Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trolling, trolling, over the bright blue sea...
> 
> Bigot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me rephrase the question for you.
> 
> Are you born a Christian, or do you learn to be a Christian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can rephrase it a hundred times. If you make a separate thread for it, I'll answer. Otherwise, I'm just going to dismiss it as a trolls attempt to derail the conversation when he doesn't like the direction the convo is taking, but he's incapable of speaking to the topic in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...


I directly responded to the OP's 'topic' earlier.  Go back and reply to that.

But in the sense that the subject of the thread is genetic traits vs. acquired traits,  then Christianity is a trait that can be discussed in  that context.

So, again, are Christians born  that way, or do they learn to be Christians?  And I'll add, is there a Christian gene?


----------



## Mr.Nick

Grampa Murked U said:


> *Why the Fuck are some of you conservatives playing this diversion bullshit? *
> 
> The dumbest fucking threads get bumped over and over for what?



Why don't you ask the dudes who believe they're woman - now that is a fucking "diversion bullshit."


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> If its is sane to choose your gender than why not your race??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
Click to expand...


Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?


----------



## del

The T said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Fuck are some of you conservatives playing this diversion bullshit?
> 
> The dumbest fucking threads get bumped over and over for what?
> 
> 
> 
> Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?
Click to expand...


statists


----------



## NYcarbineer

If there can't be a gene for sexual orientation, then heterosexuality must be a learned behaviour.


----------



## BDBoop

NYcarbineer said:


> If there can't be a gene for sexual orientation, then heterosexuality must be a learned behaviour.



Exactly. Thank you.


----------



## koshergrl

NYcarbineer said:


> Are heterosexuals born that way?  Is there a heterosexual gene, or are there heterosexual genes?


If there's no gay gene, I think we can safely say there's no heterosexual gene.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Sigh....


----------



## NYcarbineer

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
Click to expand...


He chose to be ghey, if his posts are any indication.


----------



## koshergrl

It's like watching poorly educated bar flies discuss quantum physics...


----------



## BDBoop

NYcarbineer said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He chose to be ghey, if his posts are any indication.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I deliberately left it ambiguous.


----------



## The T

del said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why the Fuck are some of you conservatives playing this diversion bullshit?
> 
> The dumbest fucking threads get bumped over and over for what?
> 
> 
> 
> Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> statists
Click to expand...

 
Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.


----------



## g5000

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



The fear is strong in this one.


----------



## del

The T said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> statists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.
Click to expand...


as i said before, tommy, you're an idiot.


----------



## BDBoop

The T said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> statists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.
Click to expand...


How about you, FuckTard. When did you choose your sexual orientation?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

The T said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because SOME OF US wish to show Statists for what they are?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> statists
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.
Click to expand...


Dropping to their level of so called political discourse only emboldens them.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

BDBoop said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> statists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about you, FuckTard. When did you choose your sexual orientation?
Click to expand...


The first time i saw boobs? 

This shit is too funny.


----------



## BDBoop

Gramps, after spending the day watching idiots shit all over what could have resulted in thoughtful discourse, I'm pretty sure it's not SniperFire, T, Nick or really much of anybody over there that's setting a high standard.


----------



## NYcarbineer

koshergrl said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are heterosexuals born that way?  Is there a heterosexual gene, or are there heterosexual genes?
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no gay gene, I think we can safely say there's no heterosexual gene.
Click to expand...


So all sexual orientations are a choice?

Okay, then anyone who attempts to denigrate the status of homosexuals, i.e. as their sexuality relates to civil/individual rights, 

on the grounds they chose to be homosexual, is not establishing any distinction between them and heterosexuals.


----------



## del

most of the gay men i know are wealthy and give their boyfriends really expensive gifts, vacations, etc.







i still can't bring myself to fuck one. 


go figure


----------



## sfcalifornia

koshergrl said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Join Toro on the couch. You people who think your imaginary head monkeys hold any water in adult conversation need to stick together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link to what?  Your stupidity?
> 
> Alright dipshit, how many gay people do you know and how many of them told you they became homosexuals because they were brainwashed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No link?
Click to expand...


Sure dear, here you go:

www.koshergrlisreallystupid.com


----------



## BDBoop

Grampa Murked U said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep laughing DULL...they RULE your life and mine...time to extinguish them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about you, FuckTard. When did you choose your sexual orientation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first time i saw boobs?
> 
> This shit is too funny.
Click to expand...


Really? So - you never made a choice. Just like gays don't. They just are.


----------



## Mr.Nick

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did you allegedly choose to be straight, Mr. Dick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
Click to expand...


You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...

As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.


----------



## BDBoop

NYcarbineer said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are heterosexuals born that way?  Is there a heterosexual gene, or are there heterosexual genes?
> 
> 
> 
> If there's no gay gene, I think we can safely say there's no heterosexual gene.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all sexual orientations are a choice?
> 
> Okay, then anyone who attempts to denigrate the status of homosexuals, i.e. as their sexuality relates to civil/individual rights,
> 
> on the grounds they chose to be homosexual, is not establishing any distinction between them and heterosexuals.
Click to expand...


That's the logic. If gays chose to be gay, then when did these yahoos choose to be straight?


----------



## Mr.Nick

del said:


> most of the gay men i know are wealthy and give their boyfriends really expensive gifts, vacations, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i still can't bring myself to fuck one.
> 
> 
> go figure



Barney Frank???


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
Click to expand...


I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of the gay men i know are wealthy and give their boyfriends really expensive gifts, vacations, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i still can't bring myself to fuck one.
> 
> 
> go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank???
Click to expand...


I'm going to assume you're gay, Mr. Dick. You can't or won't answer the question, so you obviously have something to hide.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

BDBoop said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about you, FuckTard. When did you choose your sexual orientation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first time i saw boobs?
> 
> This shit is too funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? So - you never made a choice. Just like gays don't. They just are.
Click to expand...


Hey, don't look at me. I'm not a part of this ridiculous argument. It's pointless. Gay marriage....worthy of debate. This? A laugh. Seriously, who cares.


----------



## del

Mr.Nick said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of the gay men i know are wealthy and give their boyfriends really expensive gifts, vacations, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i still can't bring myself to fuck one.
> 
> 
> go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank???
Click to expand...


forgot your helmet again, huh?

see if tommy will loan you his.


----------



## BDBoop

Grampa Murked U said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first time i saw boobs?
> 
> This shit is too funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So - you never made a choice. Just like gays don't. They just are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, don't look at me. I'm not a part of this ridiculous argument. It's pointless. Gay marriage....worthy of debate. This? A laugh. Seriously, who cares.
Click to expand...


I find it odd that you answered when I said FuckTard. I was talking to statist boy.


----------



## BDBoop

del said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of the gay men i know are wealthy and give their boyfriends really expensive gifts, vacations, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i still can't bring myself to fuck one.
> 
> 
> go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barney Frank???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> forgot your helmet again, huh?
> 
> see if tommy will loan you his.
Click to expand...


They share a helmet.

They're having a bromance. The whole board knows about it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

BDBoop said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? So - you never made a choice. Just like gays don't. They just are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, don't look at me. I'm not a part of this ridiculous argument. It's pointless. Gay marriage....worthy of debate. This? A laugh. Seriously, who cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it odd that you answered when I said FuckTard. I was talking to statist boy.
Click to expand...


I just saw an opportunity to say boobs. 

Sorry I interfered.


----------



## Mr.Nick

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.
Click to expand...


Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.


----------



## del

Grampa Murked U said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, don't look at me. I'm not a part of this ridiculous argument. It's pointless. Gay marriage....worthy of debate. This? A laugh. Seriously, who cares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it odd that you answered when I said FuckTard. I was talking to statist boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw an opportunity to say boobs.
> 
> Sorry I interfered.
Click to expand...


boobs


----------



## Clementine

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.




They may never know.   I have nothing against gays.   I did know a guy in school and some of us knew before he did that he was gay.   Something tells me the real gays can't help it, though like with anything, others will try anything out of curiousity.   

I always wondered if liberals were born that way or taught to act like know alls. 

I am more worried about control freaks with power, on either side, because they can harm us big time.   Gays never did anything to me.


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
Click to expand...


Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.

When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
Click to expand...

 

She has a tendancy to do that when she knows she lost a topic.

She's EASY.


----------



## BDBoop

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She has a tendancy to do that when she knows she lost a topic.
> 
> She's EASY.
Click to expand...


Awww!! You two are such a cute couple! Have you set a date yet?


----------



## Lakhota

Mr. Dick is all-knowing.  He was born that way...


----------



## The T

BDBoop said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She has a tendancy to do that when she knows she lost a topic.
> 
> She's EASY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awww!! You two are such a cute couple! Have you set a date yet?
Click to expand...

 
You are just too easy...

Dolt.


----------



## koshergrl

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are pretty slow aren't you??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
Click to expand...


What a remarkable coincidence..I called pooper "slime" today as well, in pm...I wonder how many others have come to the same conclusion?


----------



## Lakhota

The T is just a parrot pretending to be a patriot.


----------



## BDBoop

I've noticed that whenever you are losing, you start repeating yourself. But that's okay. Mr. Dick will make it all better.


----------



## BDBoop

Lakhota said:


> The T is just a parrot pretending to be a patriot.



True. And Nick is mentally eight y/o, pretending to be an adult. They're a perfect couple.


----------



## Mr.Nick

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a living, Skippy. But you just keep going for those personal attacks while you pretend you're taking the high moral ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.
> 
> When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?
Click to expand...


What are you twelve-teen???? 

Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?

As usual progressives are children.....

Pathetic...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time. 

You!

No you! 

I dare you to say that to my face! 

That's it, I'm telling my dad! 

So... My dad can beat up your dad!


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.
> 
> When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you twelve-teen????
> 
> Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?
> 
> As usual progressives are children.....
> 
> Pathetic...
Click to expand...

 
Good catch. What all leftist love to do when they know they have lost.


----------



## BDBoop

Mr.Nick said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you - I'm not going to allow your puck twat ass to change the topic because you're getting your shit handed to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.
> 
> When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you twelve-teen????
> 
> Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?
> 
> As usual progressives are children.....
> 
> Pathetic...
Click to expand...


Not at all.

Now why don't you tell me when you chose your sexual orientation. Really, I can't wait to hear.


----------



## The T

Grampa Murked U said:


> Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time.
> 
> You!
> 
> No you!
> 
> I dare you to say that to my face!
> 
> That's it, I'm telling my dad!
> 
> So... My dad can beat up your dad!


----------



## The T

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.
> 
> When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you twelve-teen????
> 
> Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?
> 
> As usual progressives are children.....
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Now why don't you tell me when you chose your sexual orientation. Really, I can't wait to hear.
Click to expand...

 
YOU really are thick aren't you bitch?


----------



## Lakhota

Grampa Murked U said:


> Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time.
> 
> You!
> 
> No you!
> 
> I dare you to say that to my face!
> 
> That's it, I'm telling my dad!
> 
> So... My dad can beat up your dad!



Yeah, it's sorta like most of your threads.


----------



## BDBoop

The T said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you twelve-teen????
> 
> Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?
> 
> As usual progressives are children.....
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Now why don't you tell me when you chose your sexual orientation. Really, I can't wait to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU really are thick aren't you bitch?
Click to expand...


You too, FuckTard. When did you choose - I don't know. Whichever path you've chosen. 

What is it with you two, that you can't give an honest, straightforward answer to an honest, straightforward question?


----------



## Mr.Nick

koshergrl said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, no. If being gay is a choice - when did you decide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have obviously never read Darwin but without question have championed his ideas several times...
> 
> As a matter of fact you're the slime at the bottom considering your begging for money you didn't earn, however I suppose that is a different topic all together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a remarkable coincidence..I called pooper "slime" today as well, in pm...I wonder how many others have come to the same conclusion?
Click to expand...


Who knows - however I bet your avatar doesn't remind the progressive males here of anything.


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time.
> 
> You!
> 
> No you!
> 
> I dare you to say that to my face!
> 
> That's it, I'm telling my dad!
> 
> So... My dad can beat up your dad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's sorta like most of your threads.
Click to expand...

 

*WEAK* Boo-!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time.
> 
> You!
> 
> No you!
> 
> I dare you to say that to my face!
> 
> That's it, I'm telling my dad!
> 
> So... My dad can beat up your dad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's sorta like most of your threads.
Click to expand...


Your hook is empty.


----------



## The T

Grampa Murked U said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reading this thread is like finding middle school kids notes to each other and reading them for the first time.
> 
> You!
> 
> No you!
> 
> I dare you to say that to my face!
> 
> That's it, I'm telling my dad!
> 
> So... My dad can beat up your dad!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it's sorta like most of your threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your hook is empty.
Click to expand...

 
And always WILL be unless he has Government FORCE it...


----------



## gallantwarrior

sfcalifornia said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And animals showing same-sex behavior must have learned it from their overbearing mothers.
> 
> Those animals will rot in hell!
Click to expand...


If you understood more about animals, you would recognize their "gay" behavior as dominance behavior.  Are you telling us that gays have an issue with their "dominance"?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Flamezone or bust!


----------



## The T

Grampa Murked U said:


> Flamezone or bust!


----------



## The T

gallantwarrior said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait. You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay? I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And animals showing same-sex behavior must have learned it from their overbearing mothers.
> 
> Those animals will rot in hell!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you understood more about animals, you would recognize their "gay" behavior as dominance behavior. Are you telling us that gays have an issue with their "dominance"?
Click to expand...

 

For animals? sfcalifornia thinks he's at the top of the foodchain...when in actuality? He is a bottomfeeder.


----------



## Lakhota

Well, it's too bad this thread didn't extract any honest answers from the wingnuts.  Typical.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfAvQp-Uk5I&feature=youtube_gdata_player]I Was Born A Poor Black Child - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> Well, it's too bad this thread didn't extract any honest answers from the wingnuts. Typical.


 
And YOU gave any honest answers Gracie?

Such arrogance.


----------



## Lakhota

Oh, so now Grampa is going to spam the thread.  All because his lame thread didn't get any action, I suppose.


----------



## BDBoop

Yeah, I'm going to declare myself winner and still champion in the face thereof.

Niters!


----------



## koshergrl

Lakhota said:


> Oh, so now Grampa is going to spam the thread.  All because his lame thread didn't get any action, I suppose.


What, exactly, have you contributed?

To this, or any other, thread? Ever?


----------



## Lakhota

The T said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's too bad this thread didn't extract any honest answers from the wingnuts. Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU gave any honest answers Gracie?
> 
> Such arrogance.
Click to expand...


I'm hetero.  I learned it all on the farm.


----------



## The T

koshergrl said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now Grampa is going to spam the thread. All because his lame thread didn't get any action, I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> What, exactly, have you contributed?
> 
> To this, or any other, thread? Ever?
Click to expand...

 
You should have prefaced it with [Other than typed nonsensicle rhetoric]


----------



## The T

Lakhota said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it's too bad this thread didn't extract any honest answers from the wingnuts. Typical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU gave any honest answers Gracie?
> 
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm hetero. I learned it all on the farm.
Click to expand...

 
Then YOU are the cause of a pigs' squeal?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Lakhota said:


> Oh, so now Grampa is going to spam the thread.  All because his lame thread didn't get any action, I suppose.



Not at all. Despite the fact that my thread actually had something to do with politics. 

This thread is shit and as such it gets shit. Simple enough? This is how I treat all threads of rderps calibre.


----------



## Mr.Nick

BDBoop said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hehehehe - yeah. You just keep telling yourself, sunshine. See the quote function? YOU didn't answer the question. YOU changed the subject.
> 
> When did you make the choice to be gay, Mr. Dick?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you twelve-teen????
> 
> Do you really believe accusing me of being gay will somehow piss me off?
> 
> As usual progressives are children.....
> 
> Pathetic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not at all.
> 
> Now why don't you tell me when you chose your sexual orientation. Really, I can't wait to hear.
Click to expand...




Fuck this shit and fuck you - this topic is NOT being changed...

I could care less what you think.......

People like you don't matter - you do nothing and are generally annoying pieces of shit who actually believe their opinion matters. Guess what fluffer - you're too fucking dumb to have an opinion on sexuality... 

If you believe I'm gay then whatever, who fucking cares...

The funny part is I have been through this argument verbatim about 200 times with progressives when I state my feelings on gay marriage and transsexuals..

You progressives are all the same...


----------



## koshergrl

We all chose our sexual orientation. We do it when we first start experimenting. You either choose to experiment with same sex, or opposite sex. You choose to pursue the other sex, or you choose to pursue the same sex.


----------



## Mr.Nick

Today I feel like an angry black woman.

Where are all the progressives? I need your support...


----------



## Lakhota

You and Ed Spacer should team up.


----------



## Mr.Nick

koshergrl said:


> We all chose our sexual orientation. We do it when we first start experimenting. You either choose to experiment with same sex, or opposite sex. You choose to pursue the other sex, or you choose to pursue the same sex.



Of course, then progressives will promptly turn around and claim being a dick is a choice and accumulating wealth is a choice but a boy can really be born as a girl and a girl can really be born as a boy - that and homosexuals are born homosexuals..

I suppose choices are limited to progressivism..


----------



## Mr.Nick

Lakhota said:


> You and Ed Spacer should team up.



You should just shut your pie hole, or at least stick your fingers in a blender..


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Ed Spacer should team up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should just shut your pie hole, or at least stick your fingers in a blender..
Click to expand...

 
I'd PAY to see him do that on WEBCAM.


----------



## Mr.Nick

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and Ed Spacer should team up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should just shut your pie hole, or at least stick your fingers in a blender..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd PAY to see him do that on WEBCAM.
Click to expand...


PPV Masochism.....

Progressives call it "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" when they actually do something like that.

You know like whack off their dong because they believe they're the opposite sex..


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should just shut your pie hole, or at least stick your fingers in a blender..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd PAY to see him do that on WEBCAM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PPV Masochism.....
> 
> Progressives call it "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" when they actually do something like that.
> 
> You know like whack off their dong because they believe they're the opposite sex..
Click to expand...



Maybe ladorka will arrange a PPV event?


----------



## Mr.Nick

The T said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd PAY to see him do that on WEBCAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PPV Masochism.....
> 
> Progressives call it "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" when they actually do something like that.
> 
> You know like whack off their dong because they believe they're the opposite sex..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe ladorka will arrange a PPV event?
Click to expand...


There are some pretty nasty videos out there already, however a progressive sticking their hand in a blender.... Priceless....

I'd bet the farm he would do too.


----------



## The T

Mr.Nick said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> PPV Masochism.....
> 
> Progressives call it "Body Integrity Identity Disorder" when they actually do something like that.
> 
> You know like whack off their dong because they believe they're the opposite sex..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe ladorka will arrange a PPV event?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are some pretty nasty videos out there already, however a progressive sticking their hand in a blender.... Priceless....
Click to expand...

 

Especially LaDorka as a price for pennance for posting Yaksqueeze here.

Serves him right.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.


----------



## The T

theDoctorisIn said:


> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.


 

Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.


----------



## Mr.Nick

theDoctorisIn said:


> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.



Everything is a choice - no one makes another individual fuck an individual of their same sex. No one makes anyone screw anyone for that matter.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mr.Nick said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is a choice - no one makes another individual fuck an individual of their same sex.
Click to expand...


That doesn't even make sense.

Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The T said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
Click to expand...


Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## Mr.Nick

theDoctorisIn said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is a choice - no one makes another individual fuck an individual of their same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.
Click to expand...


Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...

Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..


----------



## The T

theDoctorisIn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Forget how to read?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Mr.Nick said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is a choice - no one makes another individual fuck an individual of their same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...
> 
> Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..
Click to expand...


That's entirely besides the point, though. We're not talking about _actions_.


----------



## koshergrl

Mr.Nick said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything is a choice - no one makes another individual fuck an individual of their same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...
> 
> Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..
Click to expand...


The progressives maintain we have no choice when it comes to fucking. We can't choose not to fuck. Women in particular are weak, incapable of resisting the urge.

The only choice we are capable of making is whether or not to kill the babies we create, or whether or not we should off granny when she gets too old to wipe her own ass.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The T said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Forget how to read?
Click to expand...


I can read just fine. 

Can't for the life of me figure out how your post was a relavent response to mine, though.


----------



## The T

koshergrl said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...
> 
> Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The progressives maintain we have no choice when it comes to fucking. We can't choose not to fuck. Women in particular are weak, incapable of resisting the urge.
> 
> The only choice we are capable of making is whether or not to kill the babies we create, or whether or not we should off granny when she gets too old to wipe her own ass.
Click to expand...

 
YOU can't be trusted to be responsible enough to FUCK...


----------



## The T

theDoctorisIn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> Forget how to read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I can read just fine.*
> 
> Can't for the life of me figure out how your post was a relavent response to mine, though.
Click to expand...

 
Then I suggest YOU do so.

Dumbass.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Here, let's go over your post, shall we



The T said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
Click to expand...


So, what does the fact that _"Scientists don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs"_ (which isn't true, by the way) have to do with "A lack of a _"gay gene" doesn't "prove" homosexuality is a choice"_?


----------



## The T

theDoctorisIn said:


> Here, let's go over your post, shall we
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what does the fact that _"Scientists don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs"_ (which isn't true, by the way) have to do with "A lack of a _"gay gene" doesn't "prove" homosexuality is a choice"_?
Click to expand...

 
Scientists STILL have yet to PROVE what happened to the BIG LIZARDS definitively...

Hows that?

Clear enough Moderator?


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, if there's no gene for sexual orientation, then there is no hardwiring for sexual orientation, as hardwiring means, specifically, innate, not learned...and the only behaviors we have that are "innate, not learned" are genetically dictated.

Eating, breathing, etc. We'll do those things even if we aren't taught, even if we are put in 100 percent isolation.

We are hardwired to have sex...but not with a particular gender. You put two females in complete isolation with no outside influences, they're going to engage in homosexual behavior. You put two men, they are as well. You put one of each, guess what....sexual orientation is about opportunity, learned behavior, environment and culture.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

The T said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's go over your post, shall we
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does the fact that _"Scientists don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs"_ (which isn't true, by the way) have to do with "A lack of a _"gay gene" doesn't "prove" homosexuality is a choice"_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientists STILL have yet to PROVE what happened to the BIG LIZARDS definitively...
> 
> Hows that?
> 
> Clear enough Moderator?
Click to expand...


I understand what you're saying.

I don't see any relevance to my post that you were responding to, though.


----------



## Lakhota

Damn, looks like someone should see a doctor.


----------



## koshergrl

No, thanks. I'm not interested in fake doctors.


----------



## Lakhota

koshergrl said:


> No, thanks. I'm not interested in fake doctors.



Well at least cover that thing up.


----------



## Steelplate

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.


Perhapps a better question is "what business of your is it what law abiding, tax paying g citizens do in their bedrooms?"

Furthermore...what right do you have to dictate who can legally express their love for one another via a legally binding ceremony?

I guess liberty and the constitution is only ok when it suits your agenda.


----------



## Artevelde

Steelplate said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhapps a better question is "what business of your is it what law abiding, tax paying g citizens do in their bedrooms?"
> 
> Furthermore...what right do you have to dictate who can legally express their love for one another via a legally binding ceremony?
> 
> I guess liberty and the constitution is only ok when it suits your agenda.
Click to expand...


You are making a big leap between your first point and your second.

That society and the state shouldn't interfere in private intercourse between two consenting adults is one thing.

To say society and the state have no role with regards to a "legally binding ceremony" is of course complete nonsense.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Where are all the smart nutters at?


----------



## jillian

hjmick said:


> I can't imagine a person choosing to be the object of ridicule for so many narrow minded people...



and isolated from their families... and abused by their churches... and discriminated against... 



anyone who thinks sexuality is a choice must have to get up every day saying "ok today i'll be straight" and that's just silly.


----------



## chanel

I agree. And talk to any pre-school or elementary teacher and they will tell you how many will grow up to be gay. They "choose" to play with the girls because they are "hardwired" to do so.

I am working with a 17 year old twin who is struggling with his brother's homosexuality. His twin told him "Do you think I CHOSE to be this way"?


----------



## koshergrl

Emotions dictate science.

These are the same people who tell us that science tells us that babies aren't human, remember.Apparently science is only useful if it's telling you something you want to hear.


----------



## Seawytch

If you don't believe the science, will you believe a first hand, eye witness account? I was born gay. I never made a "choice" except in whether or not to act upon my natural inclinations.


----------



## del

The T said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> And YOU gave any honest answers Gracie?
> 
> Such arrogance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm hetero. I learned it all on the farm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then YOU are the cause of a pigs' squeal?
Click to expand...


better to be the cause than the result, tommy.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> If you don't believe the science, will you believe a first hand, eye witness account? I was born gay. I never made a "choice" except in whether or not to act upon my natural inclinations.



That IS the choice. 

"I never made a choice except when I chose". Good grief.


----------



## American Horse

It is an acknowledged phenomenon that behavior can stimulate hormones that change glandular secretions and therefore change the size and prominence of glands, including some in the brain.  

Homosexuality can be a comfort seeking mechanism.  For those young males who are intimidated by contact with females for whatever reason, and who seek safety or confort with those they know or understand best - those of their own sex - it can be self reinforcing as an experiential phenomenon.  

If that is the case (and it's only my opinion that it is possible; I have no source to reference this concept) then it is possible that there could be societal causal events that increase or diminish the presence of homosexuality in populations.


----------



## AquaAthena

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.


 

I used to believe that being gay was the result of nuturing....a reaction to something severely objectionable in the early impressionable years of childhood. 

Now, I am inclined to think it is nature and gay people are born this way. I also haven't ruled out that it could be both.

It isn't something I question anymore and have long accepted without judgment. It's part of the human condition.


----------



## koshergrl

I feel the same way. 

I don't care if you're gay.

I do care if you want to change laws and definitions that are used to support/define traditional family values. I don't care if you're gay. Just don't try to make homosexuality the hallmark of "normal", or lie to my kids (or me) about the impossibility of controlling one's sexual urges.


----------



## BDBoop

theDoctorisIn said:


> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.



Bet they never own that. I'll even go out on a limb here and say they never chose. And they know it, so they won't answer because that would "let homos off the hook."

Then there's KG, who of COURSE is willing to say we all chose, because that's just how her mind works. "YES!! We all chose, and they chose to be depraved!!"


----------



## BDBoop

theDoctorisIn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Huh? What the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...


Well see. When I try to pin them down, I'm changing the subject. When T starts babbling about dinosaurs? He's making a point.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Homosexuality isn't the act of fucking someone of the same sex - it's a sexual preference for members of the same sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...
> 
> Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The progressives maintain we have no choice when it comes to fucking. We can't choose not to fuck. Women in particular are weak, incapable of resisting the urge.
> 
> The only choice we are capable of making is whether or not to kill the babies we create, or whether or not we should off granny when she gets too old to wipe her own ass.
Click to expand...


Two-three baby daddies say that you gave in to that urge at some point, ho.


----------



## BDBoop

Lakhota said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, thanks. I'm not interested in fake doctors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well at least cover that thing up.
Click to expand...


Just use AdBlock.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the science, will you believe a first hand, eye witness account? I was born gay. I never made a "choice" except in whether or not to act upon my natural inclinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That IS the choice.
> 
> "I never made a choice except when I chose". Good grief.
Click to expand...


She was born gay. My sister-in-law said she knew when she was six. Usual accounts state 5-6 years old. They knew. Now I know you'd rather have your ass drop-kicked off Lady Liberty before you'll own new knowledge but this is getting old. You can't just wander around declaring your world is the only real one.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Boobs


----------



## BDBoop

Grampa Murked U said:


> Boobs



Happy Wednesday.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i903v5UvcK4]Joe Walsh - I Like Big Tits (HD Video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't believe the science, will you believe a first hand, eye witness account? I was born gay. I never made a "choice" except in whether or not to act upon my natural inclinations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That IS the choice.
> 
> "I never made a choice except when I chose". Good grief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was born gay. My sister-in-law said she knew when she was six. Usual accounts state 5-6 years old. They knew. Now I know you'd rather have your ass drop-kicked off Lady Liberty before you'll own new knowledge but this is getting old. You can't just wander around declaring your world is the only real one.
Click to expand...


And it's just coincidence that you were both sexually molested.

Got it.


----------



## PredFan

On the subject of Gays and nature vs nurture, I believe that it is mostly nurture, although some are more susceptable by nature.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> That IS the choice.
> 
> "I never made a choice except when I chose". Good grief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was born gay. My sister-in-law said she knew when she was six. Usual accounts state 5-6 years old. They knew. Now I know you'd rather have your ass drop-kicked off Lady Liberty before you'll own new knowledge but this is getting old. You can't just wander around declaring your world is the only real one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it's just coincidence that you were both sexually molested.
> 
> Got it.
Click to expand...


I didn't mention my sister. I said my sister-in-law, and no. She was not. Nor was Seawytch.


----------



## koshergrl

That's great. 

Completely irrelevant, and highly questionable, considering the source...but wonderful all the same.


----------



## g5000

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Out of three siblings, two may hate the taste of spinach while the third loves the taste of spinach.

Where is the spinach gene?  Anyone?

If there is no spinach gene, then the spinach lover was clearly _taught_ to love the taste of spinach.  

She could not just be a born spinach lover.  That does not fit our world view.

Since spinach lovers are in the minority, it must be okay to say spinach lovers are _abnormal_, and it must be okay to discriminate against them and forbid them to marry other spinach lovers _just because we don't like spinach_!

The illogic of ignorance is SOOO much fun!


----------



## g5000

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?



No.

Go upstairs and ask your mother what a fallacy of the excluded middle is.

Next topic!


----------



## BDBoop

g5000 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of three siblings, two may hate the taste of spinach while the third loves the taste of spinach.
> 
> Where is the spinach gene?  Anyone?
> 
> If there is no spinach gene, then the spinach lover was clearly _taught_ to love the taste of spinach.
> 
> She could not just be a born spinach lover.  That does not fit our world view.
> 
> Since spinach lovers are in the minority, it must be okay to say spinach lovers are _abnormal_, and it must be okay to discriminate against them and forbid them to marry other spinach lovers _just because we don't like spinach_!
> 
> The illogic of ignorance is SOOO much fun!
Click to expand...


I <3 spinach!!!


----------



## koshergrl

It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired". 

The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true. They are perpetrating a myth that people are slaves to their sexual impulses...they use it to justify abortion, the sexualization of children, and a variety of other depraved behaviors. People CAN control their sexual urges, they CAN exert influence over their sexuality, they DON'T have to screw every time they feel the urge, it ISN'T written in stone.

If they would just be honest they'd find a lot more acceptance. The idea that to accept homosexuals, you have to also accept the depravity and lack of character of all humankind is repugnant, and untrue.


----------



## G.T.

oh my gosh


----------



## hortysir

g5000 said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Out of three siblings, two may hate the taste of spinach while the third loves the taste of spinach.
> 
> Where is the spinach gene?  Anyone?
> 
> If there is no spinach gene, then the spinach lover was clearly _taught_ to love the taste of spinach.
> 
> She could not just be a born spinach lover.  That does not fit our world view.
> 
> Since spinach lovers are in the minority, it must be okay to say spinach lovers are _abnormal_, and it must be okay to discriminate against them and forbid them to marry other spinach lovers _just because we don't like spinach_!
> 
> The illogic of ignorance is SOOO much fun!
Click to expand...


Spinach tastes nothing like pussy


----------



## Katzndogz

Homosexuality is a naturally occurring anomaly that has been present in approximately the same percentages for thousands of years.   Whether it's genetic or not really doesn't mean anything.  It is, it always has been and that is not going to change.


----------



## BlindBoo

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



No.  I think that 10% to 15% of the human population are wired that way at birth.

I don't think they will find a gay gene,  I think it has more to do with the balance of hormones in a persons system. since we all have both male and female hormones.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired".
> 
> The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true. They are perpetrating a myth that people are slaves to their sexual impulses...they use it to justify abortion, the sexualization of children, and a variety of other depraved behaviors. People CAN control their sexual urges, they CAN exert influence over their sexuality, they DON'T have to screw every time they feel the urge, it ISN'T written in stone.
> 
> If they would just be honest they'd find a lot more acceptance. The idea that to accept homosexuals, you have to also accept the depravity and lack of character of all humankind is repugnant, and untrue.



The fact that I cannot get a boner for MEN, but can for WOMEN, is not a myth, you twit. It is a fact that cannot be changed no matter how hard you really wish it true, and quite to the contrary I'd like for YOU to show ME evidence that people can force themselves to be turned on by something. Go ahead, you can do it.


----------



## BDBoop

And conversely;

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired".



Bigots live in a delusion that sexual orientation is a choice.  And yet they never answer the question of when they decided not to be gay.

Interesting, no?





koshergrl said:


> The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true.



There is zero evidence homosexuality is a choice.  As if people wake up one day and say to themselves, "I think I will be gay.  I want to spend my life being harrassed and punched around and discriminated against.  Yeeeeeeesss, being gay is the life for me!"


----------



## g5000

If you are bisexual, are you twice as likely to get a date for Saturday night?


----------



## bodecea

healthmyths said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Are all gays born that way?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Just you.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HATE CRIME!!!  HOMOPHOBE!  for shame!
Click to expand...


We don't want you.


----------



## BlindBoo

healthmyths said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't imagine a person choosing to be the object of ridicule for so many narrow minded people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You OBVIOUSLY haven't been around horny men!  Or men who couldn't have sex with a woman unless they raped them.
> 
> Where are gays an " object of ridicule"?
> *So you think ALL straight people think "gays are objects of ridicule*"?
Click to expand...


Just the intollerant assholes among us.  Alot of religionist are like that too.


----------



## G.T.

I find it to be depravity and lack of character to snarl at others the way you do, koshergrl, and I think you show an enormous lack of character in the way that you conversate with other human beings right on this message board. 

I can accept that you're "a person," but I dont have to accept your depravity and lack of character. You make me sick.


----------



## bodecea

healthmyths said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because they haven't found a gene yet, or something else that may actually cause them to be gay, it must be a learned trait.  You really are that stupid.
> 
> I'm just curious if you have ever seen a five or six year old boy and thought to yourself, that kid is going to be gay?  I guess such a kid must be a quick learner, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stupid?  So how do gays reproduce?
> It takes a male and a female unless you know something different which obviously if you did you wouldn't be on this board!
> 
> Again.. has there EVER been any human being born to two people of the same sex?
> I know that sounds "Stupid" (to you) because YOU evidently know something different!!
Click to expand...

So...everyone has to reproduce or else there is something "wrong" with them?   Sounds like that is your point.


----------



## g5000

BDBoop said:


> I <3 spinach!!!



You should be careful about outing yourself around this crowd.


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired".
> 
> The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true. They are perpetrating a myth that people are slaves to their sexual impulses...they use it to justify abortion, the sexualization of children, and a variety of other depraved behaviors. People CAN control their sexual urges, they CAN exert influence over their sexuality, they DON'T have to screw every time they feel the urge, it ISN'T written in stone.
> 
> If they would just be honest they'd find a lot more acceptance. The idea that to accept homosexuals, you have to also accept the depravity and lack of character of all humankind is repugnant, and untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I cannot get a boner for MEN, but can for WOMEN, is not a myth, you twit. It is a fact that cannot be changed no matter how hard you really wish it true, and quite to the contrary I'd like for YOU to show ME evidence that people can force themselves to be turned on by something. Go ahead, you can do it.
Click to expand...


Prison populations.

Incidentally, all the "hardwired" nonsense, and the "children are sexual from birth" crap was brought to us by Kinsey, who used a single study on a prison inmate population to support it....

And whose erstwhile research partner worked long and hard to make pedophilia universally accepted. 

Just so you know. 

You can control your sexual urges. That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges. 

The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.

It's a lie. They do have a choice, it's just not one they're willing to make.


----------



## bodecea

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was born gay. My sister-in-law said she knew when she was six. Usual accounts state 5-6 years old. They knew. Now I know you'd rather have your ass drop-kicked off Lady Liberty before you'll own new knowledge but this is getting old. You can't just wander around declaring your world is the only real one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it's just coincidence that you were both sexually molested.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't mention my sister. I said my sister-in-law, and no. She was not. Nor was Seawytch.
Click to expand...

Neither was I....nor my cousin who is also gay (male)....it seems to run in our family.  (BTW, he was raised 2500 miles away in Texas)


----------



## g5000

healthmyths said:


> So how do gays reproduce?



They don't.

Hope that helps.


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> I find it to be depravity and lack of character to snarl at others the way you do, koshergrl, and I think you show an enormous lack of character in the way that you conversate with other human beings right on this message board.
> 
> I can accept that you're "a person," but I dont have to accept your depravity and lack of character. You make me sick.



It's funny the way some people react to truths they don't like. There's nothing depraved about refusing to accept the lie that humans have no control over their sexual behavior.

And conversate isn't a word.


----------



## hortysir

bodecea said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it's just coincidence that you were both sexually molested.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't mention my sister. I said my sister-in-law, and no. She was not. Nor was Seawytch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither was I....nor my cousin who is also gay (male)....it seems to run in our family.  (BTW, *he was raised 2500 miles away in Texas*)
Click to expand...



Proving that is, in fact, NOT contagious!!


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired".
> 
> The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true. They are perpetrating a myth that people are slaves to their sexual impulses...they use it to justify abortion, the sexualization of children, and a variety of other depraved behaviors. People CAN control their sexual urges, they CAN exert influence over their sexuality, they DON'T have to screw every time they feel the urge, it ISN'T written in stone.
> 
> If they would just be honest they'd find a lot more acceptance. The idea that to accept homosexuals, you have to also accept the depravity and lack of character of all humankind is repugnant, and untrue.



When did you chose to be attracted to men only?


----------



## koshergrl

No clue. I suppose somewhere around my first crush, in first or second grade.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really doesn't matter...except that the pro-homosexual movement MAKES IT AN ISSUE by continually repeating the lie that homosexuality "can't be helped" and is "hardwired".
> 
> The implication is that people have no control over their sexuality, and there's ZERO evidence that is true. They are perpetrating a myth that people are slaves to their sexual impulses...they use it to justify abortion, the sexualization of children, and a variety of other depraved behaviors. People CAN control their sexual urges, they CAN exert influence over their sexuality, they DON'T have to screw every time they feel the urge, it ISN'T written in stone.
> 
> If they would just be honest they'd find a lot more acceptance. The idea that to accept homosexuals, you have to also accept the depravity and lack of character of all humankind is repugnant, and untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that I cannot get a boner for MEN, but can for WOMEN, is not a myth, you twit. It is a fact that cannot be changed no matter how hard you really wish it true, and quite to the contrary I'd like for YOU to show ME evidence that people can force themselves to be turned on by something. Go ahead, you can do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prison populations.
> 
> Incidentally, all the "hardwired" nonsense, and the "children are sexual from birth" crap was brought to us by Kinsey, who used a single study on a prison inmate population to support it....
> 
> And whose erstwhile research partner worked long and hard to make pedophilia universally accepted.
> 
> Just so you know.
> 
> You can control your sexual urges. That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges.
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> It's a lie. They do have a choice, it's just not one they're willing to make.
Click to expand...


they have a choice to act or not as everyone does, yea, but not a choice of who they're attracted to. They dont have to listen to your asinine judgement of their choice when they act, though. 

Why not?

You aint shit, simply put.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> You can control your sexual urges.



Yes.  If I see a hot chick in the grocery store, I don't jump her the way an animal in the wild would.  That is controlling my sexual urges.

If I see a handsome guy in the same grocery store, I don't feel any sexual urges toward him at all.  

I cannot control that I am attracted to women, but I can control how I act toward what I am attracted to.

Hope that helps.





koshergrl said:


> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> It's a lie. They do have a choice, it's just not one they're willing to make.



When did you decide not to be gay?  Can you tell us about that process, please?


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it to be depravity and lack of character to snarl at others the way you do, koshergrl, and I think you show an enormous lack of character in the way that you conversate with other human beings right on this message board.
> 
> I can accept that you're "a person," but I dont have to accept your depravity and lack of character. You make me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the way some people react to truths they don't like. There's nothing depraved about refusing to accept the lie that humans have no control over their sexual behavior.
> 
> And conversate isn't a word.
Click to expand...


There's nothing depraved about being gay. your judgement means absolute zero. It's an opinion that shines a very negative light on not Gays, but your own insecure, crude and small self.


----------



## koshergrl

the last two posts are nothing but logical fallacy.

Which is what I expect.


----------



## G.T.

And conversate is in merriam webster, who has more authority on the subject than board username "koshergrl," trust.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> the last two posts are nothing but logical fallacy.
> 
> Which is what I expect.



they don't fail in their logic, they fail to meet your small-minded bigoted world view.


----------



## BDBoop

g5000 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I <3 spinach!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should be careful about outing yourself around this crowd.
Click to expand...


/whispering

But spinach is really, really good!!


----------



## bodecea

American Horse said:


> It is an acknowledged phenomenon that behavior can stimulate hormones that change glandular secretions and therefore change the size and prominence of glands, including some in the brain.
> 
> Homosexuality can be a comfort seeking mechanism.  For those young *males who are intimidated by contact with females* for whatever reason, and who seek safety or confort with those they know or understand best - those of their own sex - it can be self reinforcing as an experiential phenomenon.
> 
> If that is the case (and it's only my opinion that it is possible; I have no source to reference this concept) then it is possible that there could be societal causal events that increase or diminish the presence of homosexuality in populations.



So....what I hear you saying is that all those males intimidated by me on this message board ARE gay.  OMIGOD!   There's MORE of them than I thought!!!!!


----------



## BDBoop

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can control your sexual urges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  If I see a hot chick in the grocery store, I don't jump her the way an animal in the wild would.  That is controlling my sexual urges.
> 
> If I see a handsome guy in the same grocery store, I don't feel any sexual urges toward him at all.
> 
> I cannot control that I am attracted to women, but I can control how I act toward what I am attracted to.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> It's a lie. They do have a choice, it's just not one they're willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you decide not to be gay?  Can you tell us about that process, please?
Click to expand...


And since it IS a choice - they might want to give the other side another go. Nothing is written in stone, right?


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> the last two posts are nothing but logical fallacy.
> 
> Which is what I expect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they don't fail in their logic, they fail to meet your small-minded bigoted world view.
Click to expand...


No, they fail in logic.

I got an A in critical thinking. I know logical fallacy when I see it.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can control your sexual urges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  If I see a hot chick in the grocery store, I don't jump her the way an animal in the wild would.  That is controlling my sexual urges.
> 
> If I see a handsome guy in the same grocery store, I don't feel any sexual urges toward him at all.
> 
> I cannot control that I am attracted to women, but I can control how I act toward what I am attracted to.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> It's a lie. They do have a choice, it's just not one they're willing to make.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did you decide not to be gay?  Can you tell us about that process, please?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And since it IS a choice - they might want to give the other side another go. Nothing is written in stone, right?
Click to expand...


I believe that is the first truth I've ever seen issue from you.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> the last two posts are nothing but logical fallacy.
> 
> Which is what I expect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they don't fail in their logic, they fail to meet your small-minded bigoted world view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they fail in logic.
> 
> I got an A in critical thinking. I know logical fallacy when I see it.
Click to expand...


Yet you cannot point it out.

Your entire internet personal is a glaring lie, a fallacy in and of itself. 

For instance, if you were able to think critically you'd realize the feebleness of your attempts to stand in judgement of others while being the poster child for smug, evil and dishonest bitch, yourself.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> You can control your sexual urges. *That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you*, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges.



This sounds to me like an acknowledgement that a person cannot help it if they are attracted to members of the same sex.  You admit that what arouses you is out of your control.





koshergrl said:


> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.



This sounds like you don't want gays to be gay.  That even though they are attracted to members of the same sex through no control of their own, as you have admitted, you want them to _force_ themselves to not be gay, just so you don't have to live in a world where there is gayness going on somewhere.

By not forcing themselves to not be gay to make you happy, you are saying gays are making a choice to be gay.

Wow.

So underneath all your rhetoric is a belief system which simply hates homosexuality.  Pure and simple.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> I feel the same way.
> 
> I don't care if you're gay.
> 
> I do care if you want to change laws and definitions that are used to support/define traditional family values. I don't care if you're gay. Just don't try to make homosexuality the hallmark of "normal", or lie to my kids (or me) about the impossibility of controlling one's sexual urges.



How hard have you been fighting to pass laws preventing divorce, Allie?


----------



## Gadawg73

I have yet to hear one story from a straight person on how and what made them choose to be straight.
Same with gay folks. 
No one sits down and asks "do I want cock or do I want pussy?"
It is born into you.


----------



## bodecea

The T said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Nick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does make sense considering fucking is a choice within itself...
> 
> Every act in your life is a choice... No one is holding a gun to your head saying you must fuck__________. NO you make that choice..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The progressives maintain we have no choice when it comes to fucking. We can't choose not to fuck. Women in particular are weak, incapable of resisting the urge.
> 
> The only choice we are capable of making is whether or not to kill the babies we create, or whether or not we should off granny when she gets too old to wipe her own ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU can't be trusted to be responsible enough to FUCK...
Click to expand...

Here we have it, folks....the TRUE statist who wants the State to control the decision as to who we have sex with because we are not to be trusted.   Everyone please note.


----------



## TrinityPower

I think something to keep in mind is that many people who oppose a gay lifestyle are not saying they dislike the person just that aspect of their personality.


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can control your sexual urges. *That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you*, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds to me like an acknowledgement that a person cannot help it if they are attracted to members of the same sex.  You admit that what arouses you is out of your control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like you don't want gays to be gay.  That even though they are attracted to members of the same sex through no control of their own, as you have admitted, you want them to _force_ themselves to not be gay.
> 
> And you want this just because you hate homosexuality.  You want them to force themselves to be the way YOU want them to be.
> 
> By not forcing themselves to not be gay to make you happy, you are saying gays are making a choice to be gay.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> So underneath all your rhetoric is a belief system which simply hates homosexuality.  Pure and simple.
Click to expand...


Uh, no. More logical fallacy..and then more..and more. Have you ever made a post that isn't logical fallacy? (aside from the outright lies, that is...)
But that's a nice stretch. Feel the burn...


----------



## Gadawg73

No one chooses who they are sexually attracted to.


----------



## koshergrl

And back to ignoring bod.


----------



## BDBoop

Gadawg73 said:


> No one chooses who they are sexually attracted to.



Exactly so.


----------



## bodecea

theDoctorisIn said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, let's go over your post, shall we
> 
> 
> 
> So, what does the fact that _"Scientists don't know what happened to the Dinosaurs"_ (which isn't true, by the way) have to do with "A lack of a _"gay gene" doesn't "prove" homosexuality is a choice"_?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientists STILL have yet to PROVE what happened to the BIG LIZARDS definitively...
> 
> Hows that?
> 
> Clear enough Moderator?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what you're saying.
> 
> I don't see any relevance to my post that you were responding to, though.
Click to expand...



If you drink as much as Tommy does, it makes perfect sense.   If you are sober....not so much.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> And back to ignoring bod.



You'll have to do the fake version. She's a mod now.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can control your sexual urges. *That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you*, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds to me like an acknowledgement that a person cannot help it if they are attracted to members of the same sex.  You admit that what arouses you is out of your control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like you don't want gays to be gay.  That even though they are attracted to members of the same sex through no control of their own, as you have admitted, you want them to _force_ themselves to not be gay.
> 
> And you want this just because you hate homosexuality.  You want them to force themselves to be the way YOU want them to be.
> 
> By not forcing themselves to not be gay to make you happy, you are saying gays are making a choice to be gay.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> So underneath all your rhetoric is a belief system which simply hates homosexuality.  Pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no. More logical fallacy..and then more..and more. Have you ever made a post that isn't logical fallacy? (aside from the outright lies, that is...)
> But that's a nice stretch. Feel the burn...
Click to expand...


Wrong, and you have not shown it to be.

Your posts are the equivalent of a 5 year old sticking their fingers in their ears. 

Strong work, Allie Baba, you are teh genius!


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> And back to ignoring bod.



Of course...those you cannot refute, you take the coward's way.   Not surprised by that at all.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And back to ignoring bod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to do the fake version. She's a mod now.
Click to expand...

Oh I've never had her on ignore. I just ignore her. She brings nothing of note to any conversation she participates in. Now she's here the rest of the trolls will roil the water, she chief amongst them.

You have more to add to the discussion than she does, and that's saying something.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And back to ignoring bod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to do the fake version. She's a mod now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I've never had her on ignore. I just ignore her. She brings nothing of note to any conversation she participates in. Now she's here the rest of the trolls will roil the water, she chief amongst them.
> 
> You have more to add to the discussion than she does, and that's saying something.
Click to expand...


Damn. I was just going to ask you to put me on ignore, too.


----------



## g5000

Vegan: I love spinach!

Critical Thinking A Student: Spinach is evil, don't eat it.

Vegan: I can't help it if I like spinach.

Critical Thinking A Student: Yes, but being a spinach _eater_ is a choice.  You can't help it if you like it, but you can help it if you eat it.

Vegan: So I should go without spinach just to make you happy?

Critical Thinking A Student: Yea.  Either go without vegetables or eat green beans like the rest of us.

Vegan: I hate green beans.

Critical Thinking A Student: Tough shit.


----------



## koshergrl

I'd miss all my tribute threads if I put all the trolls on ignore.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> I'd miss all my tribute threads if I put all the trolls on ignore.



Oh, would you look at that. Both my eyes just landed in the same socket from the rollage.


----------



## G.T.

g5000 said:


> Vegan: I love spinach!
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Spinach is evil, don't eat it.
> 
> Vegan: I can't help it if I like spinach.
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Yes, but being a spinach _eater_ is a choice.  You can't help it if you like it, but you can help it if you eat it.
> 
> Vegan: So I should go without spinach just to make you happy?
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Yea.  Either go without vegetables or eat green beans like the rest of us.
> 
> Vegan: I hate green beans.
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Tough shit.



+1 


critical thinking a student: logical fallacy!

posters posessing common sense: uh, no. How so?

critical thinking a student: Trolls!


----------



## TrinityPower

I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.


----------



## bodecea

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And back to ignoring bod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to do the fake version. She's a mod now.
Click to expand...


Forgot about that....lol


----------



## bodecea

G.T. said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vegan: I love spinach!
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Spinach is evil, don't eat it.
> 
> Vegan: I can't help it if I like spinach.
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Yes, but being a spinach _eater_ is a choice.  You can't help it if you like it, but you can help it if you eat it.
> 
> Vegan: So I should go without spinach just to make you happy?
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Yea.  Either go without vegetables or eat green beans like the rest of us.
> 
> Vegan: I hate green beans.
> 
> Critical Thinking A Student: Tough shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> critical thinking a student: logical fallacy!
> 
> posters posessing common sense: uh, no. How so?
> 
> critical thinking a student: Trolls!
Click to expand...


Tommy:   What about the Giant Lizards!!!?


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.



Who is anyone to judge what another deems their most prized personality trait?


----------



## BDBoop

TrinityPower said:


> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.



I've seen plenty of sexualized hets. Talked to both men and women who overshared - it's obvious they perceive themselves as sexual beings first and foremost.

And when you are at least 90% of the population, you surely don't need to say "I'm straight."


----------



## Katzndogz

Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.

WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a &#8217;sexual orientation&#8217;? | Marcia Segelstein

Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: &#8220;In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.&#8221;

The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.

Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another &#8220;sexual orientation&#8221; undermines that point.

Lemay&#8217;s reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And back to ignoring bod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to do the fake version. She's a mod now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh I've never had her on ignore. I just ignore her. She brings nothing of note to any conversation she participates in. Now she's here the rest of the trolls will roil the water, she chief amongst them.
> 
> You have more to add to the discussion than she does, and that's saying something.
Click to expand...


Translation:   Allie cannot refute my arguments.  She tried negging me daily but I just laughed at it...so she's frustrated and doesn't know what to do now.


----------



## G.T.

Katzndogz said:


> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality



This is a true logical fallacy. 

Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does. 

Glad I could clear that up for you.


----------



## koshergrl

You don't make arguments, you just troll.

Which is frustrating, which is why I ignore you now. And now I really will.


----------



## G.T.

Why is there no re-treading rule on a site that does, in fact, have a BAN policy?


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is anyone to judge what another deems their most prized personality trait?
Click to expand...


Most people are judgemental even if they only do so in their own thoughts. Often judgemental tag is given to simple observations. Opinions given are judgements to others....ask the supreme court. Their opions are judgements


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
Click to expand...


Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is anyone to judge what another deems their most prized personality trait?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most people are judgemental even if they only do so in their own thoughts. Often judgemental tag is given to simple observations. Opinions given are judgements to others....ask the supreme court. Their opions are judgements
Click to expand...


Yes, definitely. most people are judgemental. At the end of the day - their judgements are for the most part meaningless.


----------



## bodecea

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is anyone to judge what another deems their most prized personality trait?
Click to expand...


Some think the Majority get to make such decisions.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
Click to expand...


That means nothing - because a pedophile infringes on another's freedoms which is where the Law does and should draw the line. It's not even in the same ball-park as Gay. It's a "logical fallacy" as you like to overly and improperly use the term.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

Pedophilia doesn't pass the "No harm to others" test.....unless you are the Catholic Church, that is.


----------



## bodecea

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing - because a pedophile infringes on another's freedoms which is where the Law does and should draw the line. It's not even in the same ball-park as Gay. It's a "logical fallacy" as you like to overly and improperly use the term.
Click to expand...


Most pedophiles are family members, family friends known to the victim(s) and self-identified as straight.   More girls are molested than boys.   BUT let's not pay attention to all those girls molested by their family members, eh?


----------



## Gadawg73

Katzndogz said:


> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality



All heterosexuals are prone to child molestation because heterosexuals commit child molestation.
Makes as much or more sense as what you post.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.


You *Liberty U* kids are toooooooooooooooooooo obvious*!!!*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJoqIQ2HBl4]Liberty University Bans Democratic Party Club - YouTube[/ame]

You need to expand beyond that *ONE BOOK* you keep in your _library_.

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6zPh97qYd4]Youngest Brother Has the Highest Chance To Be Gay pt1 - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS6J_gg89ms]Biological Bases of Homosexuality (part 2) - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## Bigfoot

Wouldn't it be easier just to drown them?


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That means nothing - because a pedophile infringes on another's freedoms which is where the Law does and should draw the line. It's not even in the same ball-park as Gay. It's a "logical fallacy" as you like to overly and improperly use the term.
Click to expand...


Meh, it's just anecdotal. I wasn't making any point, I'm just saying, Kinsey, who tricked the APA (who gives continuing ed credit for attending seminars on how to mainstream pedophilia, btw) into stating a bunch of crap about homosexuality as FACT based on his skewed study about homosexuality using ONLY inmates...has a partner who worked on that study with him, who did his very best for many, many years to make pedophilia as accepted as homosexuality.


----------



## Gadawg73

bodecea said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That means nothing - because a pedophile infringes on another's freedoms which is where the Law does and should draw the line. It's not even in the same ball-park as Gay. It's a "logical fallacy" as you like to overly and improperly use the term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most pedophiles are family members, family friends known to the victim(s) and self-identified as straight.   More girls are molested than boys.   BUT let's not pay attention to all those girls molested by their family members, eh?
Click to expand...


Why pay attention to that when it is easier to sweep it under the rug and blame the gay boogeyman for it.
Don't you know? Gays and lesbians are the new *******.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Bigfoot said:


> Wouldn't it be easier just to drown them?


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is anyone to judge what another deems their most prized personality trait?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are judgemental even if they only do so in their own thoughts. Often judgemental tag is given to simple observations. Opinions given are judgements to others....ask the supreme court. Their opions are judgements
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, definitely. most people are judgemental. At the end of the day - their judgements are for the most part meaningless.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to respect of someone else. One may make their own opinion or judgement against another but treating them disrespectfully for difference of opinion than yourself is on you.


----------



## koshergrl

I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a sexual orientation? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another sexual orientation undermines that point.
> 
> Lemays reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
Click to expand...

....But, you _forgot_ where to find proof o' that, *right?*


----------



## G.T.

I really love this paradigm, that I have just been witnessing live the last few days in a Neighbor and have also seen quite a few times. I think that this is Beautiful when this happens, really touching:

Older-older folks who grew up in an era where black folks were looked down upon, and actually still in this day and age have expressed the same sentiments aloud here and there in casual conversation --> receiving Hospice or end of life care from Black persons, who are seemingly abundant in that field around here. 

I thoroughly enjoy watching this paradigm unfold. I'm pretty sure there's even movies about such a thing.

It's one of life's many great teaching moments when somebody whom you baselessly believe is depraved and somehow lacks character - has your care in their own hands. It's beautiful.


----------



## Mr. Shaman

koshergrl said:


> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.



....But, you _forgot_ where to find proof o' that, *right?*


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people are judgemental even if they only do so in their own thoughts. Often judgemental tag is given to simple observations. Opinions given are judgements to others....ask the supreme court. Their opions are judgements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, definitely. most people are judgemental. At the end of the day - their judgements are for the most part meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It all comes down to respect of someone else. One may make their own opinion or judgement against another but treating them disrespectfully for difference of opinion than yourself is on you.
Click to expand...


In my humble opinion, anytime I do catch myself looking in judgement on another I at least attempt to think deeply and critically about how and why I might be wrong in feeling the way that I do about said person, because I honestly think that it's the right thing to do.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.



If all gay people aren't pedophiles, the conclusion you're trying to draw is yet another logical fallacy. nice try, though.


----------



## koshergrl

Mr. Shaman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true logical fallacy.
> 
> Being gay is still not forcefully infringing on ANOTHER human being, like being a PEDOPHILE does.
> 
> Glad I could clear that up for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kinsey's research partner fought long and hard to make pedophilia an accepted sexual orientation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ....But, you _forgot_ where to find proof o' that, *right?*
Click to expand...


Lock down your gag factor:

"
*The Origins of the Pro-Pedophilia Movement*

 The modern pro-pedophilia movement has its roots in the controversial work of Alfred Kinsey. Kinseys 1953 book _Sexual Behavior in the Human Male_  has been a major resource for this movement. Kinsey collected data from  pedophiles, including ex-Nazi commandant Dr. Fritz von Balluseck, who  offered his victims a choice: rape or the gas chamber. With Dr.  Ballusecks research, and the information from other pedophiles,  Kinsey charted the length and frequency of infants and childrens  orgasms. He stated the children and infants reacted with violent  convulsions of the whole body; heavy breathing, groaning, sobbing, or  more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially  among the younger children). That was how he measured their orgasms.
 According to Janice Shaw Crouse,
Five of these infants and children were subjects for  months or years, and it is reported that much of the testing occurred  when they were either strapped or held down. There is no evidence that  the institute followed up to see whether they were adversely affected as  a result of this sexual abuse/experimentation. We do know that today  many of the adult subjects refuse to discuss Kinseys research; some  50 years later, they dont even want to talk about the horrific  experience​ Kinsey concluded that children as young as two months old derive  definite sexual pleasure from sexual stimulation and that children  needed sex with each other, and with adults."


The Shadow Sexual Revolution &#8211; The Push to Legalize Pedophilia | All American Blogger


That's the guy who the APA glorifies as the go-to guy for information about homosexuals...and he is the one who provided the current homosexual lobby with most of it's false information about homosexuality.


----------



## Ariux

Our genetic science is advanced enough that if there were a faggot gene, it would have been found by now.  Studies on identical twins generally rules out the genetic factor as a cause of homosexuality.  

The most any Politically Correct expert will claim is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality.  A predisposition is not a cause and can be very indirect.  Like, maybe men with small dicks are more likely to become faggots, not because of a biological instinct for the same sex, but because of penis envy, coupled with the inability to get satisfactory snugness in a woman's hole.


----------



## koshergrl

"
One of the most worrisome of his concepts is that which justifies  pedophiliac activity. Kinsey believed that children were predisposed to  sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sex was  included under the notion of a sexual outlet. Our social conditioning made  it taboo, although it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be  practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done  under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child, as would  a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove  to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable,  Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and  parents to believe that such conduct is immoral and incorrect.[5] "

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT

Kinsey, the darling of the progressive homosexual lobby.


----------



## High_Gravity

Ariux said:


> Our genetic science is advanced enough that if there were a faggot gene, it would have been found by now.  Studies on identical twins generally rules out the genetic factor as a cause of homosexuality.
> 
> The most any Politically Correct expert will claim is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality.  A predisposition is not a cause and can be very indirect.  Like, maybe men with small dicks are more likely to become faggots, not because of a biological instinct for the same sex, but because of penis envy, coupled with the inability to get satisfactory snugness in a woman's hole.



So you are saying you are a homosexual male?


----------



## Mr. Shaman

Ariux said:


> Our genetic science is advanced enough that if there were a faggot gene, it would have been found by now.  Studies on identical twins generally rules out the genetic factor as a cause of homosexuality.
> 
> The most any Politically Correct expert will claim is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality.  A predisposition is not a cause and can be very indirect.  Like, maybe men with small dicks are more likely to become faggots, not because of a biological instinct for the same sex, but because of penis envy, coupled with the inability to get satisfactory snugness in a woman's hole.


That's what _you heard_, right??



Your _inadequacies_....



> ....*are showing**.*


----------



## G.T.

Ariux said:


> Our genetic science is advanced enough that if there were a faggot gene, it would have been found by now.  Studies on identical twins generally rules out the genetic factor as a cause of homosexuality.
> 
> The most any Politically Correct expert will claim is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality.  A predisposition is not a cause and can be very indirect.  Like, maybe men with small dicks are more likely to become faggots, not because of a biological instinct for the same sex, but because of penis envy, coupled with the inability to get satisfactory snugness in a woman's hole.



This is incorrect. 

Shit, there's ocean creatures that live a looo000ooong seemingly unaging life - and we're trying to unravel THEIR DNA code to see what's in it to prolong their lives, and it's going to take YEARS of trial and error, and THEIR DNA code is only a FRACTION as big as a Human's. 

It's not a coincedence that your opinion is ignorant, because the things you've used to come to said opinion are ignorant in and of themselves. You're welcome.


----------



## koshergrl

In fact, Liam Neeson starred in a movie about him...I don't know that it was ever released, or if it ever will be. It's too foul even for Hollywood, apparently. Not too foul for Neeson, though...

He truly is a hero of the left.

"However, the truth is out, the facts are undeniable. Kinsey's  sensational "research" turns out to be not scientific at all, but  outright fraud. In order to undo traditional moral norms, Kinsey had to  perpetrate the lie that all kinds of perverse sexual practices were  "normal." According to Kinsey, anything goes: promiscuity, pornography,  prostitution, adultery, sodomy, pedophilia, group sex, sadomasochism,  even incest. To support his outlandish claims, Kinsey intentionally  skewed his population sample by secretly stacking his "research" with  selected cohorts from the most sexually disordered populations: rapists,  child molesters, prison inmates, homosexual activists, the "feeble  minded," and prostitutes."

Promoting Kinsey, censoring grandma | New American, The | Find Articles


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> "
> One of the most worrisome of his concepts is that which justifies  pedophiliac activity. Kinsey believed that children were predisposed to  sexual activity from the moment of birth and that adult-child sex was  included under the notion of a sexual outlet. Our social conditioning made  it taboo, although it is actually a "normal" sexual behavior that should be  practiced as well as pursued, Kinsey believed. He maintained that when done  under circumstances where the adult genuinely cares for the child, as would  a loving parent or relative, sex between an adult and a child could prove  to be a healthy experience for the child. The results are unfavorable,  Kinsey said, only when the child is conditioned by police authorities and  parents to believe that such conduct is immoral and incorrect.[5] "
> 
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT
> 
> Kinsey, the darling of the progressive homosexual lobby.



^ which, of course, is trite broad-brushing using anecdotal bullshit to come to an ignorant and small-minded conclusion.

Such a big person, you are.


----------



## koshergrl

"his colossal fraud and the damage it has done should be, alone,  sufficient to consign Kinsey to eternal infamy. However, the rest of the  Kinsey story is far, far worse. Kinsey himself was a pornographically  addicted, pedophile-promoting, bisexual sadomasochist. In the name of  science, Kinsey and his "research" acolytes engaged in heinous criminal  activity that would, even today in our more "liberated" society, get  them sent to prison for a long time. Most horrid of all was Kinsey's  recruitment and protection of pedophiles who sexually tortured hundreds  of children and even small infants."

Promoting Kinsey, censoring grandma | New American, The | Find Articles


----------



## koshergrl

There's your hero, GT. All the pro-homosexual bs you swallowed happily and whole was generated by him and his acolytes.

But you're willing to do that, because it promotes a lifestyle you want perpetuated.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> There's your hero, GT. All the pro-homosexual bs you swallowed happily and whole was generated by him and his acolytes.
> 
> But you're willing to do that, because it promotes a lifestyle you want perpetuated.



^ see, this is what makes you a degenerate who lacks character right here. Great example, thanks for providing it you re-treading no honor having schmuck, Allie Baba. 

More logical fallacy from the bitch who supposedly critically thinks.


----------



## TrinityPower

It is a very fine line to walk when someone lives in the home who says they are gay or bi sexual and everything in anothers inner most self is opposed to such things. Especially when one is being made subject to something they oppose and does not want in their home yet need to remember to be respectful of others beliefs and different lifestyle and upbringing. I don't feel for the most part and had been my personal experience that there is not respect given on both sides equally. If someone knows that an act or behavior hurts someone they should respect the other person in not bringing that around them if it is offensive. But I have found that in what I have dealt with personally that the other party pushes their lifestyle or behavior in the second party's face to show they can and will do something and bring it into the home whether it is welcome or not. I feel if said first party gets their own place they are welcome to conduct themselves as they wish as they support their self financially and have the freedom to do as they wish but if you have behaviors that are counter to someone who supports you financially you need to respect their beliefs and not be deliberately offensive and call them names because they are not of your same belief.


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's your hero, GT. All the pro-homosexual bs you swallowed happily and whole was generated by him and his acolytes.
> 
> But you're willing to do that, because it promotes a lifestyle you want perpetuated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ see, this is what makes you a degenerate who lacks character right here. Great example, thanks for providing it you re-treading no honor having schmuck, Allie Baba.
> 
> More logical fallacy from the bitch who supposedly critically thinks.
Click to expand...


No, I provided the information.

Kinsey, who is the source of the pro-homosexual, pro-pedophile agenda, was a monster.

And the APA loves him.


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, definitely. most people are judgemental. At the end of the day - their judgements are for the most part meaningless.
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to respect of someone else. One may make their own opinion or judgement against another but treating them disrespectfully for difference of opinion than yourself is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, anytime I do catch myself looking in judgement on another I at least attempt to think deeply and critically about how and why I might be wrong in feeling the way that I do about said person, because I honestly think that it's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

I do the same and I try very hard to be respectful of differences it becomes difficult when the other party involved does not do the same. I also feel that if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's your hero, GT. All the pro-homosexual bs you swallowed happily and whole was generated by him and his acolytes.
> 
> But you're willing to do that, because it promotes a lifestyle you want perpetuated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^ see, this is what makes you a degenerate who lacks character right here. Great example, thanks for providing it you re-treading no honor having schmuck, Allie Baba.
> 
> More logical fallacy from the bitch who supposedly critically thinks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I provided the information.
> 
> Kinsey, who is the source of the pro-homosexual, pro-pedophile agenda, was a monster.
> 
> And the APA loves him.
Click to expand...


No, you told me who my heroes are and how I concluded my views in a pig-headed, rude and disengenuous fashion - all while lacking the logical merit to back it up. 

You commit like 4-7 faux pas every time your prudish snot nosed self posts. It's because you can't think past yourself. Your brain actually literally fires on a lower and more primitive level, and you prove it over and over with your posting style and inane sub-human comments. Congratulations.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> It all comes down to respect of someone else. One may make their own opinion or judgement against another but treating them disrespectfully for difference of opinion than yourself is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my humble opinion, anytime I do catch myself looking in judgement on another I at least attempt to think deeply and critically about how and why I might be wrong in feeling the way that I do about said person, because I honestly think that it's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do the same and I try very hard to be respectful of differences it becomes difficult when the other party involved does not do the same. I also feel that if you stand for nothing you will fall for anything
Click to expand...


I dont find it hard when another won't do the same - it in fact inspires me to become even better at it.


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ see, this is what makes you a degenerate who lacks character right here. Great example, thanks for providing it you re-treading no honor having schmuck, Allie Baba.
> 
> More logical fallacy from the bitch who supposedly critically thinks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I provided the information.
> 
> Kinsey, who is the source of the pro-homosexual, pro-pedophile agenda, was a monster.
> 
> And the APA loves him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you told me who my heroes are and how I concluded my views in a pig-headed, rude and disengenuous fashion - all while lacking the logical merit to back it up.
> 
> You commit like 4-7 faux pas every time your prudish snot nosed self posts. It's because you can't think past yourself. Your brain actually literally fires on a lower and more primitive level, and you prove it over and over with your posting style and inane sub-human comments. Congratulations.
Click to expand...


And that is a logical fallacy as well.

So I don't know who your heroes are, I still supported my claims. So I threw in a little snottiness, I still delivered and supported my argument. 

You on the other hand, have contributed nothing at all except your opinion of me, personally. If you don't agree, provide evidence that supports whatever it is you're asserting.

Oh, wait..you aren't asserting anything except that I'm obnoxious. 

I guess you're entitled to your opinion. It does nothing to discredit me or the information I've provided, however.


----------



## sfcalifornia

koshergrl said:


> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.



You're so full of shit, you have it coming out of your ears.

The fact is, you don't know one fucking thing about gay people because you don't _know _any gay people.

Every venomous "factoid" you belch up is from some propaganda piece you've read or heard from somewhere.

I'll bet if any gay person could stand to be around you for any length of time, let alone actually call you a friend, you'd see things a little differently.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I provided the information.
> 
> Kinsey, who is the source of the pro-homosexual, pro-pedophile agenda, was a monster.
> 
> And the APA loves him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you told me who my heroes are and how I concluded my views in a pig-headed, rude and disengenuous fashion - all while lacking the logical merit to back it up.
> 
> You commit like 4-7 faux pas every time your prudish snot nosed self posts. It's because you can't think past yourself. Your brain actually literally fires on a lower and more primitive level, and you prove it over and over with your posting style and inane sub-human comments. Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And that is a logical fallacy as well.
> 
> So I don't know who your heroes are, I still supported my claims. So I threw in a little snottiness, I still delivered and supported my argument.
> 
> You on the other hand, have contributed nothing at all except your opinion of me, personally. If you don't agree, provide evidence that supports whatever it is you're asserting.
> 
> Oh, wait..you aren't asserting anything except that I'm obnoxious.
> 
> I guess you're entitled to your opinion. It does nothing to discredit me or the information I've provided, however.
Click to expand...


your posts are my evidence.

For instance, you said Kinsey was my hero. 

A few posts later, you say the above - that you don't know. 

I think it's blatantly obvious who's making all of these "logical fallacies," Genius.


----------



## koshergrl

sfcalifornia said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit, you have it coming out of your ears.
> 
> The fact is, you don't know one fucking thing about gay people because you don't _know _any gay people.
> 
> Every venomous "factoid" you belch up is from some propaganda piece you've read or heard from somewhere.
> 
> I'll bet if any gay person could stand to be around you for any length of time, let alone actually call you a friend, you'd see things a little differently.
Click to expand...


Look, random insanity from the left. Never saw that coming.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit, you have it coming out of your ears.
> 
> The fact is, you don't know one fucking thing about gay people because you don't _know _any gay people.
> 
> Every venomous "factoid" you belch up is from some propaganda piece you've read or heard from somewhere.
> 
> I'll bet if any gay person could stand to be around you for any length of time, let alone actually call you a friend, you'd see things a little differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, random insanity from the left. Never saw that coming.
Click to expand...


No worries. We all know you're not the sharpest crayon in the box.


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you told me who my heroes are and how I concluded my views in a pig-headed, rude and disengenuous fashion - all while lacking the logical merit to back it up.
> 
> You commit like 4-7 faux pas every time your prudish snot nosed self posts. It's because you can't think past yourself. Your brain actually literally fires on a lower and more primitive level, and you prove it over and over with your posting style and inane sub-human comments. Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a logical fallacy as well.
> 
> So I don't know who your heroes are, I still supported my claims. So I threw in a little snottiness, I still delivered and supported my argument.
> 
> You on the other hand, have contributed nothing at all except your opinion of me, personally. If you don't agree, provide evidence that supports whatever it is you're asserting.
> 
> Oh, wait..you aren't asserting anything except that I'm obnoxious.
> 
> I guess you're entitled to your opinion. It does nothing to discredit me or the information I've provided, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your posts are my evidence.
> 
> For instance, you said Kinsey was my hero.
> 
> A few posts later, you say the above - that you don't know.
> 
> I think it's blatantly obvious who's making all of these "logical fallacies," Genius.
Click to expand...


I assume Kinsey is your hero based on what you've said.

But that isn't my argument. My argument is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among pedophiles, despite the lies to the contrary, and the APA and the pro-homosexual, and pro-pedophilia, lobby hitched their star to Kinsey....

and Kinsey was a liar, a fraud, and a monster. 

And all the homosexual talking points...from "hardwired" language down...come straight from him.

Calling him your hero was just a dig, in response to repeated ad hominems from you. I should know better than to respond in kind, that's a common trap that lying hacks use and I should know better.


----------



## G.T.

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit, you have it coming out of your ears.
> 
> The fact is, you don't know one fucking thing about gay people because you don't _know _any gay people.
> 
> Every venomous "factoid" you belch up is from some propaganda piece you've read or heard from somewhere.
> 
> I'll bet if any gay person could stand to be around you for any length of time, let alone actually call you a friend, you'd see things a little differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, random insanity from the left. Never saw that coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries. We all know you're not the sharpest crayon in the box.
Click to expand...


Her posts are starting to read like Willow's:

"derp derp derp, derp derp, derp derp derp."


----------



## jillian

healthmyths said:


> Stupid?  So how do gays reproduce?



well, much like anyone else whose kids are produced via artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization or who are adopted.

oh...and auditor was being kind when he called you stupid.


----------



## koshergrl

No, I don't sound like that. But I've no doubt that's what you read.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is a logical fallacy as well.
> 
> So I don't know who your heroes are, I still supported my claims. So I threw in a little snottiness, I still delivered and supported my argument.
> 
> You on the other hand, have contributed nothing at all except your opinion of me, personally. If you don't agree, provide evidence that supports whatever it is you're asserting.
> 
> Oh, wait..you aren't asserting anything except that I'm obnoxious.
> 
> I guess you're entitled to your opinion. It does nothing to discredit me or the information I've provided, however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> your posts are my evidence.
> 
> For instance, you said Kinsey was my hero.
> 
> A few posts later, you say the above - that you don't know.
> 
> I think it's blatantly obvious who's making all of these "logical fallacies," Genius.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume Kinsey is your hero based on what you've said.
> 
> But that isn't my argument. My argument is that homosexuals are disproportionately represented among pedophiles, despite the lies to the contrary, and the APA and the pro-homosexual, and pro-pedophilia, lobby hitched their star to Kinsey....
> 
> and Kinsey was a liar, a fraud, and a monster.
> 
> And all the homosexual talking points...from "hardwired" language down...come straight from him.
> 
> Calling him your hero was just a dig, in response to repeated ad hominems from you. I should know better than to respond in kind, that's a common trap that lying hacks use and I should know better.
Click to expand...


your entire thesis regarding the subject is based on propogandist hit pieces that you've taken and used as solid conclusions, in which they could ONLY be logically used (if at all) as circumstancial.


----------



## sfcalifornia

koshergrl said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the sweeping being done is the gay parade's sweeping of the fact that homosexuals are disproportionately represented in the pedophile population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're so full of shit, you have it coming out of your ears.
> 
> The fact is, you don't know one fucking thing about gay people because you don't _know _any gay people.
> 
> Every venomous "factoid" you belch up is from some propaganda piece you've read or heard from somewhere.
> 
> I'll bet if any gay person could stand to be around you for any length of time, let alone actually call you a friend, you'd see things a little differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, random insanity from the left. Never saw that coming.
Click to expand...


Look, incapability from the right to address a topic intelligently.  We DID see that coming.


----------



## Foxfyre

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



The pertinent point is, at least to me, that we don't know.   For many years of my increasingly long life, the theory was that homosexuality was a chosen or learned behavior.  I have not believed that for a very long time now.  When the closest thing I have to a god son came out as gay, he felt comfortable enough with me to share what that was like for him.  He grew up with my kids, went to the same school, attended the same church, and, one of five siblings, was raised by parents who parented not a great deal differently than we did.   And he went through all the motions of a normal straight kid--took female dates to the proms, asked girls out on other dates, etc.  And to this day has close female friends.

He said he had no clue he was gay all the way well into highschool   But he was painfully aware that the dynamics of relationships were different for him than they were for his classmates.  He just didn't feel the same way toward the girls as his male friends talked about.  And he began having uncomfortable thoughts about some of the male students.  Eventually he had an experience that confirmed his sexual orientation and he is now at peace with it, happily legally married to a great guy, and lives a prosperous and satisfying life on the East Coast.  Sadly, he is also HIV positive which continues to be a concern to all of us who love him.

And here is the dilemma.   I cannot and do not believe that most gay people choose to be homosexual.  I think most, given a choice back whenever, would have chosen to be straight and thereby more mainstream.  But I think many do come to terms that they are not straight and that becomes okay.   And I know so many gay people who are absolutely at peace with who and what they are and who are people I am proud to call friend.  But if there was a gene for it, why would there not be more homosexuality within any given family?

We can go on and on with all the negatives such as HIV being far more of a problem among the gay community than it is among the heterosexual community, but all that is irrelevent to the issue of who and what a person is.

It is part of the human condition.


----------



## BDBoop

G.T. said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, random insanity from the left. Never saw that coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. We all know you're not the sharpest crayon in the box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Her posts are starting to read like Willow's:
> 
> "derp derp derp, derp derp, derp derp derp."
Click to expand...


You forgot to Herp.


----------



## koshergrl

Absolutely.

But that is no excuse to embrace the ideology of a proven monster, Kinsey, or to blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies.


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can control your sexual urges. *That doesn't mean you have the ability to control what arouses you*, you might not have that control. What you can control is whether or not you act on those urges.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds to me like an acknowledgement that a person cannot help it if they are attracted to members of the same sex.  You admit that what arouses you is out of your control.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The homosexual lobby believes you shouldn't have to restrain yourself, and maintains that people can't control themselves when it comes to their sexuality. They have no CHOICE but to be homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This sounds like you don't want gays to be gay.  That even though they are attracted to members of the same sex through no control of their own, as you have admitted, you want them to _force_ themselves to not be gay.
> 
> And you want this just because you hate homosexuality.  You want them to force themselves to be the way YOU want them to be.
> 
> By not forcing themselves to not be gay to make you happy, you are saying gays are making a choice to be gay.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> So underneath all your rhetoric is a belief system which simply hates homosexuality.  Pure and simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no. More logical fallacy..and then more..and more. Have you ever made a post that isn't logical fallacy? (aside from the outright lies, that is...)
> But that's a nice stretch. Feel the burn...
Click to expand...


Please explain what the logical fallacies are, A Student.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> But that is no excuse to embrace the ideology of a proven monster, Kinsey, or to blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies.



Your logical fallacy is:

 "if someone believes one part of Kinsey's ideaology"

= / = (does not equal, in the world of, you know, ACTUAL logic)

"they got it _FROM_ Kinsey, at all, and/or thus believe in *ALL he believes*......."


That is not sound, or logical, but it's what you're consistent in doing. There's no excuse for a critical thinking brain to miss that glaring hole in their own theory, except that they can't see past their own nose.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes, well, I never said that.

So again, the logical fallacy is yours.


----------



## g5000

TrinityPower said:


> I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay!



Does this happen to you often?

It has never happened to me.  

I've never known a gay person who made their gayness their number one trait about themselves.  

Are you sure you are not projecting?


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> Yes, well, I never said that.
> 
> So again, the logical fallacy is yours.



Um, yes you did. 

Here, let me help you find that:

"blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies"

Did I base anything on Kinsey's studies? No.

"I assume Kinsey is your hero based on what you've said." - 

here's an actual view inside of an illogical brain: 

"you and kinsey both believe gay is not a choice, thus kinsey is your assumed hero"

Thats a logical fallacy, hun. 

Should I keep going? Ohhhhhh...I should. 

Here's another logical fallacy:

"And all the homosexual talking points...from "hardwired" language down...come straight from him."

Oh, so if someone says something that is the same as what he's said in the past - it means they NECESSARILY got it, from HIM? NO - wrong, logical fallacy Fail number (how many?).



Need I keep going?


----------



## g5000

Here you go, koshergirl.  Allow me to demonstrate how one identifies and explains a logical fallacy when one sees one.

To wit:


Katzndogz said:


> Calling homosexuality an immutable sexual orientation is vital to pedophiles who are winning their own fight to have their perversion recognized as a sexual orientation.
> 
> WORLDmag.com | Pedophilia as a &#8217;sexual orientation&#8217;? | Marcia Segelstein
> 
> Member of Parliament Marc Lemay had this reaction to the testimony: &#8220;In my opinion, society and no one around this table will accept pedophilia, even if it is a sexual orientation. . . . I recall a period, not too long ago, when homosexuality was treated as an illness. It is now accepted, society has accepted it. . . . I cannot imagine pedophilia being accepted in 2011.&#8221;
> 
> The report raises many issues. First the good news. Legislators to our north are learning that there is no quick fix for pedophiles. Hopefully that will inform their decision-making on how to deal with them.
> 
> Now the not-so-good news. While I believe the doctors testifying were trying to make the point that pedophilia is a serious, perhaps untreatable, condition, calling it another &#8220;sexual orientation&#8221; undermines that point.
> 
> Lemay&#8217;s reaction is telling. Right now it may be impossible to imagine society accepting pedophilia. A generation ago it would have been impossible to imagine abortion on demand, or elementary school children being taught about homosexuality



This is identified as a "slippery slope fallacy."  

This particular fallacy of equating homosexuality with pedophilia or bestiality or incest or some other heinous activity never fails to appear in a topic about gays or gay marriage.  I have often predicted at the beginning of a topic about gays that someone will post in that topic something about pedophilia or bestiality.  And even though I have given fair warning, they STILL do it.  I have bagged two or three people at times.


Here is why this is a logical fallacy:  One cannot use the legalization of a harmless activity as justification for the legalization of a harmful activity.  And yet that is precisely what these people are doing when they say giving gays equal protection under the law will lead to pedophilia being legalized.

That is the slipperly slope fallacy.



Once again, at the bottom of the recreant illogic is a primal fear and hatred of homosexuals, and nothing more.

Homo = Pedophile in the minds of the fearful.

Somehow, Peter smoking Paul's pole in a bedroom somewhere just scares the ever loving shit out of some people.




So, koshergirl, please identify and explain the logical fallacy you claimed was in my post.

Thank you.


----------



## koshergrl

You can go on all day. It doesn't negate the valid points I made.

Homosexuals are over represented among pedophiles, in comparison to their percentage in the general population.

The APA legitimizes the mainstreaming of pedophilia.

The APA is the "go to" organization for the homosexual lobby.

The APA accepted Kinsey's studies as the premier studies in homosexuality, and the myths that were promoted by those studies still abound today, as evidenced by the idiotic parottings of posters in this forum...posters like pooper, bod, catz, and a variety of others.

Kinsey was a monster, a fraud, a pedophile, and wanted to see pedophilia de-stigmatized.

The APA continues to legitimize efforts to de-stigmatize pedophilia. They do it by lying about sexual deviancy and encouraging and lending credence to monsters like Kinsey and his co-horts, who actively campaign(ed) to de-criminalize and de-stigmatize pedophilia.

Those are the facts.

I don't care if you don't like the way I argue. I don't care if you think I'm ugly, or if you piss and moan that I mis-characterized you. You're just a troll. My argument stands on its own, and you are just...you. You've added zero to the conversation. You haven't contradicted any of the facts submitted, you haven't put forth any of your own. You've just pissed and moaned.

And that doesn't bother me at all.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> You can go on all day. It doesn't negate the valid points I made.
> 
> Homosexuals are over represented among pedophiles, in comparison to their percentage in the general population.
> 
> The APA legitimizes the mainstreaming of pedophilia.
> 
> The APA is the "go to" organization for the homosexual lobby.
> 
> The APA accepted Kinsey's studies as the premier studies in homosexuality, and the myths that were promoted by those studies about today.
> 
> Kinsey was a monster, a fraud, a pedophile, and wanted to see pedophilia de-stigmatized.
> 
> The APA continues to legitimize efforts to de-stigmatize pedophilia. They do it by lying about sexual deviancy and encouraging and lending credence to monsters like Kinsey and his co-horts, who actively campaign(ed) to de-criminalize and de-stigmatize pedophilia.
> 
> Those are the facts.
> 
> I don't care if you don't like the way I argue. I don't care if you think I'm ugly, or if you piss and moan that I mis-characterized you. You're just a troll. My argument stands on its own, and you are just...you. You've added zero to the conversation. You haven't contradicted any of the facts submitted, you haven't put forth any of your own. You've just pissed and moaned.
> 
> And that doesn't bother me at all.



No, your arguments are not based on logical a + b = c merit, they are flawed and have many many holes in them, and that's been proven. That's the only point I was attempting to make (because you were the one being a snot nose calling everyone else's (tighter than yours logically) points logical fallacies, and promoting the (not) fact that you got an "A" in critical thinking), but obviously you can't grasp it because again - you can't see past your own nose.


----------



## koshergrl

No, it hasn't been proven. You can't use logical fallacy to prove anything.


----------



## g5000

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well, I never said that.
> 
> So again, the logical fallacy is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yes you did.
> 
> Here, let me help you find that:
> 
> "blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies"
Click to expand...


This is identified as the "strawman fallacy".  

The strawman fallacy is where one invents a position taken by the opposition and then rhetorically destroying that position.

So here we see koshergirl invent that people who don't hate gays base their anti-hate beliefs on Kinsey's studies.  koshergirl them sets out to ad hominem the living shit out of Kinsey, thereby believing she has somehow destroyed the people who don't hate gays.  She also makes a slippery slope fallacy in attempting to also associate homosexuality with pedophilia.


----------



## TrinityPower

g5000 said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this happen to you often?
> 
> It has never happened to me.
> 
> I've never known a gay person who made their gayness their number one trait about themselves.
> 
> Are you sure you are not projecting?
Click to expand...

I have met some who have yes...others make sure to work it into a conversation soon after being introduced to them. That or someone they are with makes sure to advertise the fact. Had it done in my own home in fact. It was not appreciated since my views on bringing that lifestyle into my home is not ok with me. I was not rude however and said nice to meet you and did not treat the differently because of it but I didn't appreciate them being brought into my home knowing how I feel about it. I dont approve of the lifestyle but that is someone's choice I just do not want it brought into my home and acted on. That is disrespect to a host. I did not invite them here and the person who brought them knows this but continues to bring friends here and only those friends here and it is difficult to not feel my beliefs and rules are so meaningless. Yet I am expected to continue to be kind when the same kindness is not shown to me.


----------



## g5000

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this happen to you often?
> 
> It has never happened to me.
> 
> I've never known a gay person who made their gayness their number one trait about themselves.
> 
> Are you sure you are not projecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have met some who have yes...others make sure to work it into a conversation soon after being introduced to them. That or someone they are with makes sure to advertise the fact. Had it done in my own home in fact. It was not appreciated since my views on bringing that lifestyle into my home is not ok with me. I was not rude however and said nice to meet you and did not treat the differently because of it but I didn't appreciate them being brought into my home knowing how I feel about it. I dont approve of the lifestyle but that is someone's choice I just do not want it brought into my home and acted on. That is disrespect to a host. I did not invite them here and the person who brought them knows this but continues to bring friends here and only those friends here and it is difficult to not feel my beliefs and rules are so meaningless. Yet I am expected to continue to be kind when the same kindness is not shown to me.
Click to expand...


You ever have a straight man make a reference to his wife shortly after meeting you?  Or a straight woman mention her husband in conversation shortly after meeting you?  Are they deliberately "working it into the conversation" or just making conversation?

Do you think to yourself, "Gee, this guy/girl has just met me and already he's/she's telling me he's/she's straight.  Geez!"

Does this strike you as their making their heterosexuality their number one trait?  Do you get upset they came into your home and "acted on" their sexuality?

I think you may have a confirmation bias.

Perhaps you need a sign on your front door.  "If  you are a fag, don't bring up your faggy fagginess in my house.  Thanks."


----------



## koshergrl

g5000 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, well, I never said that.
> 
> So again, the logical fallacy is yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yes you did.
> 
> Here, let me help you find that:
> 
> "blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is identified as the "strawman fallacy".
> 
> The strawman fallacy is where one invents a position taken by the opposition and then rhetorically destroying that position.
> 
> So here we see koshergirl invent that people who don't hate gays base their anti-hate beliefs on Kinsey's studies.  koshergirl them sets out to ad hominem the living shit out of Kinsey, thereby believing she has somehow destroyed the people who don't hate gays.  She also makes a slippery slope fallacy in attempting to also associate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Click to expand...




That is the most convoluted line of bs I've ever seen.

Logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy claiming to point out logical fallacy.

That's just crazy shit...


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yes you did.
> 
> Here, let me help you find that:
> 
> "blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is identified as the "strawman fallacy".
> 
> The strawman fallacy is where one invents a position taken by the opposition and then rhetorically destroying that position.
> 
> So here we see koshergirl invent that people who don't hate gays base their anti-hate beliefs on Kinsey's studies.  koshergirl them sets out to ad hominem the living shit out of Kinsey, thereby believing she has somehow destroyed the people who don't hate gays.  She also makes a slippery slope fallacy in attempting to also associate homosexuality with pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the most convoluted line of bs I've ever seen.
> 
> Logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy claiming to point out logical fallacy.
> 
> That's just crazy shit...
Click to expand...


If you don't understand what he says - it's more proof that you have no fucking clue how to use logicalto come to a conclusion. Actually, there's no better proof than this post of yours I'm quoting right here.

If you understand the terms he's used - his post makes perfect sense.

If you're ignorant to the terms, his post is quite foreign. 

Looks like we know which you fall under.


----------



## g5000

HOST:  Hi, nice to meet you.  Would you like a drink?

GUEST: No, thanks.  I have to pick up my husband from work in an hour and I need to stay sober.

HOST: Hey, stop dripping your goddam sexuality all over my carpet!


----------



## g5000

koshergrl said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yes you did.
> 
> Here, let me help you find that:
> 
> "blindly accept the APA's legitimization of deviant sexual behavior BASED on Kinsey's studies"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is identified as the "strawman fallacy".
> 
> The strawman fallacy is where one invents a position taken by the opposition and then rhetorically destroying that position.
> 
> So here we see koshergirl invent that people who don't hate gays base their anti-hate beliefs on Kinsey's studies.  koshergirl them sets out to ad hominem the living shit out of Kinsey, thereby believing she has somehow destroyed the people who don't hate gays.  She also makes a slippery slope fallacy in attempting to also associate homosexuality with pedophilia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the most convoluted line of bs I've ever seen.
> 
> Logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy on top of logical fallacy claiming to point out logical fallacy.
> 
> That's just crazy shit...
Click to expand...


I hear you making a lot of claims but not supporting a single one with evidence.

Any idiot can claim "logical fallacy!"  

If you cannot actually point out any and explain why they are fallacious, then you probably want to stop now and preserve what shreds of integrity you have left.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this happen to you often?
> 
> It has never happened to me.
> 
> I've never known a gay person who made their gayness their number one trait about themselves.
> 
> Are you sure you are not projecting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have met some who have yes...others make sure to work it into a conversation soon after being introduced to them. That or someone they are with makes sure to advertise the fact. Had it done in my own home in fact. It was not appreciated since my views on bringing that lifestyle into my home is not ok with me. I was not rude however and said nice to meet you and did not treat the differently because of it but I didn't appreciate them being brought into my home knowing how I feel about it. I dont approve of the lifestyle but that is someone's choice I just do not want it brought into my home and acted on. That is disrespect to a host. I did not invite them here and the person who brought them knows this but continues to bring friends here and only those friends here and it is difficult to not feel my beliefs and rules are so meaningless. Yet I am expected to continue to be kind when the same kindness is not shown to me.
Click to expand...


Why dont you approve of the lifestyle? Have you thought this through allllllllll the way to the end, or does that ick emotion just overwhelm the scales to the one side of being intolerant?


----------



## TrinityPower

g5000 said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this happen to you often?
> 
> It has never happened to me.
> 
> I've never known a gay person who made their gayness their number one trait about themselves.
> 
> Are you sure you are not projecting?
> 
> 
> 
> I have met some who have yes...others make sure to work it into a conversation soon after being introduced to them. That or someone they are with makes sure to advertise the fact. Had it done in my own home in fact. It was not appreciated since my views on bringing that lifestyle into my home is not ok with me. I was not rude however and said nice to meet you and did not treat the differently because of it but I didn't appreciate them being brought into my home knowing how I feel about it. I dont approve of the lifestyle but that is someone's choice I just do not want it brought into my home and acted on. That is disrespect to a host. I did not invite them here and the person who brought them knows this but continues to bring friends here and only those friends here and it is difficult to not feel my beliefs and rules are so meaningless. Yet I am expected to continue to be kind when the same kindness is not shown to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ever have a straight man make a reference to his wife shortly after meeting you?  Or a straight woman mention her husband in conversation shortly after meeting you?  Are they deliberately "working it into the conversation" or just making conversation?
> 
> Do you think to yourself, "Gee, this guy/girl has just met me and already he's/she's telling me he's/she's straight.  Geez!"
> 
> Does this strike you as their making their heterosexuality their number one trait?
> 
> I think you may have a confirmation bias.
Click to expand...


I had a feeling you would bring  that argument. Saying something about ones partner is not the issue with me. And in a social setting i see it objectively. They are not in my home. When it is brought into my home without consideration of my feelings is where I have issue. And yes it has happened when the person bringing them here is well aware of my feelings about it. One person was brought here and proceeded to change clothes put on make up and a wig and pictures were taken of them dressed as a girl. Yet I was asked not to say anything and it is MY home. That is complete disrespect and their lifestyle was shoved down my throat. When I spoke about it later and how upset it made me was told it was no big deal. I said fine if it isn't then they can do it somewhere else


----------



## g5000

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have met some who have yes...others make sure to work it into a conversation soon after being introduced to them. That or someone they are with makes sure to advertise the fact. Had it done in my own home in fact. It was not appreciated since my views on bringing that lifestyle into my home is not ok with me. I was not rude however and said nice to meet you and did not treat the differently because of it but I didn't appreciate them being brought into my home knowing how I feel about it. I dont approve of the lifestyle but that is someone's choice I just do not want it brought into my home and acted on. That is disrespect to a host. I did not invite them here and the person who brought them knows this but continues to bring friends here and only those friends here and it is difficult to not feel my beliefs and rules are so meaningless. Yet I am expected to continue to be kind when the same kindness is not shown to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ever have a straight man make a reference to his wife shortly after meeting you?  Or a straight woman mention her husband in conversation shortly after meeting you?  Are they deliberately "working it into the conversation" or just making conversation?
> 
> Do you think to yourself, "Gee, this guy/girl has just met me and already he's/she's telling me he's/she's straight.  Geez!"
> 
> Does this strike you as their making their heterosexuality their number one trait?
> 
> I think you may have a confirmation bias.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had a feeling you would bring  that argument. Saying something about ones partner is not the issue with me. And in a social setting i see it objectively. They are not in my home. When it is brought into my home without consideration of my feelings is where I have issue. And yes it has happened when the person bringing them here is well aware of my feelings about it. One person was brought here and proceeded to change clothes put on make up and a wig and pictures were taken of them dressed as a girl. Yet I was asked not to say anything and it is MY home. That is complete disrespect and their lifestyle was shoved down my throat. When I spoke about it later and how upset it made me was told it was no big deal. I said fine if it isn't then they can do it somewhere else
Click to expand...


Yeah.  You should definitely get that sign.


----------



## g5000

You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.

Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.


----------



## TrinityPower

g5000 said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ever have a straight man make a reference to his wife shortly after meeting you?  Or a straight woman mention her husband in conversation shortly after meeting you?  Are they deliberately "working it into the conversation" or just making conversation?
> 
> Do you think to yourself, "Gee, this guy/girl has just met me and already he's/she's telling me he's/she's straight.  Geez!"
> 
> Does this strike you as their making their heterosexuality their number one trait?
> 
> I think you may have a confirmation bias.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a feeling you would bring  that argument. Saying something about ones partner is not the issue with me. And in a social setting i see it objectively. They are not in my home. When it is brought into my home without consideration of my feelings is where I have issue. And yes it has happened when the person bringing them here is well aware of my feelings about it. One person was brought here and proceeded to change clothes put on make up and a wig and pictures were taken of them dressed as a girl. Yet I was asked not to say anything and it is MY home. That is complete disrespect and their lifestyle was shoved down my throat. When I spoke about it later and how upset it made me was told it was no big deal. I said fine if it isn't then they can do it somewhere else
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah.  You should definitely get that sign.
Click to expand...

I don't appreciate affection being shown by same sex people in a romantic way in my home either so out of fairness and respect I do not do so in front of them either as I feel that is the respectful way to go about it but that rule has been broken in my home as well. It isn't anywhere else I feel I have the right to say anything...just in my own home and I feel that is fair


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I had a feeling you would bring  that argument. Saying something about ones partner is not the issue with me. And in a social setting i see it objectively. They are not in my home. When it is brought into my home without consideration of my feelings is where I have issue. And yes it has happened when the person bringing them here is well aware of my feelings about it. One person was brought here and proceeded to change clothes put on make up and a wig and pictures were taken of them dressed as a girl. Yet I was asked not to say anything and it is MY home. That is complete disrespect and their lifestyle was shoved down my throat. When I spoke about it later and how upset it made me was told it was no big deal. I said fine if it isn't then they can do it somewhere else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.  You should definitely get that sign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't appreciate affection being shown by same sex people in a romantic way in my home either so out of fairness and respect I do not do so in front of them either as I feel that is the respectful way to go about it but that rule has been broken in my home as well. It isn't anywhere else I feel I have the right to say anything...just in my own home and I feel that is fair
Click to expand...


but he's right - be open about your prejudices. Get a sign, so they know how you roll. You dont "approve" of their lifestyle, but maybe that disapproval in the form of an open and honest sign would deter them from entering your home, just like you like.


----------



## Dick Tuck

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Considering that we witness homosexuality in other species makes your argument bullshit.

Because you carry a gene is not a determinant of outcome.  Nor is the case of you having a butch mom and an interior decorator dad. Although, they do influence your orientation.   But if you're gay you're gay.  At that point who gives a damn, as long as you're not scaring horses.

If you don't want to suck cock, no one is making you.


----------



## TrinityPower

g5000 said:


> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.



I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
Click to expand...


I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.


----------



## g5000

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
Click to expand...


Hey, watching two guys swap spit skeeves the living daylights out of me.  You see more and more of that on TV all the time these days and I invariably jump like I have been electrocuted every single time.  

There should be a warning!  

I'm sure some people react the same way when they see a black man swallowing a white woman's tongue, you know?

So this has got me to thinking that perhaps all public displays of affection should be rolled back.  There is way too much sex on TV.  There's way too much of stupid stuff, too.  Reality TV especially annoys me.

I don't know.


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.
Click to expand...

That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.
Click to expand...


I got your point clearly - you don't think it's right.

It's that very fact that is why I hope your end of life care taker is a homosexual. 

It's a beautiful thing when an unjustly biased person is taught through a moment, instead of through words - like my great grandfather who did not like black people but his main hospice woman was black.


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
Click to expand...


And if you have or ever will have kids and they turn out to be gay?  Right out the door they go?


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got your point clearly - you don't think it's right.
> 
> It's that very fact that is why I hope your end of life care taker is a homosexual.
> 
> It's a beautiful thing when an unjustly biased person is taught through a moment, instead of through words - like my great grandfather who did not like black people but his main hospice woman was black.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem if someone is or not if they do not live in my home. And wishing something on someone in that manner is disrpectful


----------



## TrinityPower

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can probably get one of those NO ******* ALLOWED signs from one of those historical web sites and scratch out ******* and etch in FAGS.
> 
> Honesty is always the best policy.  Better than hiding behind a pretense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you have or ever will have kids and they turn out to be gay?  Right out the door they go?
Click to expand...

Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.


----------



## G.T.

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got your point clearly - you don't think it's right.
> 
> It's that very fact that is why I hope your end of life care taker is a homosexual.
> 
> It's a beautiful thing when an unjustly biased person is taught through a moment, instead of through words - like my great grandfather who did not like black people but his main hospice woman was black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not have a problem if someone is or not if they do not live in my home. And wishing something on someone in that manner is disrpectful
Click to expand...


I think that saying a Gay lifestyle is "wrong" is disrespectful, and so I'm not really sure I care to offer you any respect in not-wishing that upon you. You deserve enlightenment on the issue - you'll be a better and more whole person because of it whether you agree or not. 

And Barack Obama, albeit a flip flop, just became the first standing American President to endorse gay marriage. Any movement in a positive direction is progression.


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have or ever will have kids and they turn out to be gay?  Right out the door they go?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
Click to expand...


And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.


----------



## jillian

TrinityPower said:


> I do not know if people are born to be straight or gay but I have observed that many homosexuals make that aspect of their life their identity and that bothers me...it is if tht is the only part of their character they wish to portrait to others. There is so much more to an individual than their sexual orientation. I dislike it when you meet someone they immediately tell you hey I am gay! I don't see people who are straight introduce themselves and declare hey I am straight nice to know you.



is that what they do? or do they say "i'd like you to meet my husband, boyfriend, partner" or whatever else it is they say... 

just like you would?


----------



## TrinityPower

G.T. said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got your point clearly - you don't think it's right.
> 
> It's that very fact that is why I hope your end of life care taker is a homosexual.
> 
> It's a beautiful thing when an unjustly biased person is taught through a moment, instead of through words - like my great grandfather who did not like black people but his main hospice woman was black.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have a problem if someone is or not if they do not live in my home. And wishing something on someone in that manner is disrpectful
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that saying a Gay lifestyle is "wrong" is disrespectful, and so I'm not really sure I care to offer you any respect in not-wishing that upon you. You deserve enlightenment on the issue - you'll be a better and more whole person because of it whether you agree or not.
> 
> And Barack Obama, albeit a flip flop, just became the first standing American President to endorse gay marriage. Any movement in a positive direction is progression.
Click to expand...

Just another reason to vote him out of office.


----------



## g5000

TrinityPower said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have thought about it but I have others that live in my home that have other beliefs and that would be offensive to them. I just feel if you want to be free to practice that lifestyle don't live under the same roof of someone who pays your bills who doesn't feel it is ok in their home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.
Click to expand...


I understand wanting to be the boss of your home, but I think you are creating an unrealistic one-way street.  

Asking a homosexual to not behave as a homosexual is like asking a straight person not to behave as a straight person.

If a particular gay person is acting like a flaming homo, this is not a trait unique to homosexuals.  We all know straight men who screw everything that casts a shadow and straight women who sleep with any man with a pulse.  Spend five minutes on Bourbon Street in New Orleans during Mardi Gras and you will see heteros giving the yahoos in a Gay Pride parade a run for their money.

If you have a homosexual under your roof who is behaving outside the bounds of propriety, gay or straight, there is nothing wrong with asking them to tone it down. But if you are making exceptions just for gay people, that is unrealistic.


----------



## TrinityPower

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have or ever will have kids and they turn out to be gay?  Right out the door they go?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
Click to expand...


That is why so many are on welfare. Safety net


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why so many are on welfare. Safety net
Click to expand...


Yes, America needs a safety net to protect the kids whose parents are so blinded by their bigotry and stupidity that they are unable to parent effectively.


----------



## BDBoop

Anybody see the movie "Latter Days." I'm having flashbacks.


----------



## TrinityPower

g5000 said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that - like in my story earlier - your hospice or end of life care worker is Gay.
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the issue. I think I am not being clear. I feel that there are two things that constitute adult behavior....not only two but these are two that are big on my personal list. One is having sex. If you engage in that then for me that is adult behavior...it has adult consequences two if you are having a homosexual relationship. If you do so...fine but in both instances you need to be supporting yourself outside my home because it is not right for me to foot your expenses and support you while you engage in things I do not think are right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand wanting to be the boss of your home, but I think you are creating an unrealistic one-way street.
> 
> Asking a homosexual to not behave as a homosexual is like asking a straight person not to behave as a straight person.
> 
> If a particular gay person is acting like a flaming homo, this is not a trait unique to homosexuals.  We all know straight men who screw everything that casts a shadow and straight women who sleep with any man with a pulse.  Spend five minutes on Bourbon Street in New Orleans during Mardi Gras and you will see heteros giving the yahoos in a Gay Pride parade a run for their money.
> 
> If you have a homosexual under your roof who is behaving outside the bounds of propriety, gay or straight, there is nothing wrong with asking them to tone it down. But if you are making exceptions just for gay people, that is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

It isn't just geared to homosexuals. I have been very careful and thought deeply about it and discussed it and said ok I feel the fair thing to do here is treat a girl romantic relationship same as a boy...no engaging in sex in the home no going to room and shutting the door not visiting when adults are not home....things of that nature. Also not appropriate to be making out on the sofa and the like. I felt those requests were fair be it girl or boy but most of those requests have been not adhered to. It is not my child doing it and a blended family situation so I feel I am trying to be very fair the girl is 18 however and demands rights of a person of majority age yet does not work and therefore not supporting self. It is a sticky line to walk in trying to be fair but allow some compromise for things I don't agree with


----------



## TrinityPower

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is why so many are on welfare. Safety net
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, America needs a safety net to protect the kids whose parents are so blinded by their bigotry and stupidity that they are unable to parent effectively.
Click to expand...


Many assumptions made there


----------



## jillian

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you have or ever will have kids and they turn out to be gay?  Right out the door they go?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
Click to expand...


so many what?


----------



## FuelRod

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sCaNa2-46Q]The Office - Michael Scott learns Oscar is gay - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why so many are on welfare. Safety net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, America needs a safety net to protect the kids whose parents are so blinded by their bigotry and stupidity that they are unable to parent effectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many assumptions made there
Click to expand...


Well then help us out here.

You're ready to turn your kid out the door if they came out to you and said they were gay.  

We can all see here that your love for your kids would be conditional.  

That's a crappy way to teach kids to be themselves and to have self-respect.  

You'd turn your kid uncaringly out the door and let them fend for themselves without a hint of remorse?  Wouldn't you care at all what happens to them?  Just because they turned out to be gay?


----------



## TrinityPower

jillian said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so many what?
Click to expand...


If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread


----------



## BDBoop

TrinityPower said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so many what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
Click to expand...


Life will give them all the hard knocks they need, Trin. They don't need more of them from you.


----------



## sfcalifornia

jillian said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep and they have already been forewarned. Same goes for engaging in sex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so many what?
Click to expand...


Mainly kids who have been thrown out of the house because of who they are, what they've done...  Parents who don't know how to parent and get fed up or give up and just kick the kids out.  Plenty of homeless kids here in SF, living on the streets, turn to drugs or worse and ultimately become a financial drain to taxpayers.


----------



## koshergrl

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, America needs a safety net to protect the kids whose parents are so blinded by their bigotry and stupidity that they are unable to parent effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many assumptions made there
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then help us out here.
> 
> You're ready to turn your kid out the door if they came out to you and said they were gay.
> 
> We can all see here that your love for your kids would be conditional.
> 
> That's a crappy way to teach kids to be themselves and to have self-respect.
> 
> You'd turn your kid uncaringly out the door and let them fend for themselves without a hint of remorse?  Wouldn't you care at all what happens to them?  Just because they turned out to be gay?
Click to expand...


No, because they violated the rule of the house, which is no sex, and no identifying yourself as a homosexual.

I never threatened my kids with expulsion from the home...but I made it very clear...no sex until they're independent, and by independent I mean of age. 21...out of the house and on their own and no longer financially dependent.

No sex means no sex. I told them all that if they have time to be pondering their sexuality, they need to spend more time on their homework.


----------



## sfcalifornia

koshergrl said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many assumptions made there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then help us out here.
> 
> You're ready to turn your kid out the door if they came out to you and said they were gay.
> 
> We can all see here that your love for your kids would be conditional.
> 
> That's a crappy way to teach kids to be themselves and to have self-respect.
> 
> You'd turn your kid uncaringly out the door and let them fend for themselves without a hint of remorse?  Wouldn't you care at all what happens to them?  Just because they turned out to be gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because they violated the rule of the house, which is no sex, and no identifying yourself as a homosexual.
> 
> I never threatened my kids with expulsion from the home...but I made it very clear...no sex until they're independent, and by independent I mean of age. 21...out of the house and on their own and no longer financially dependent.
> 
> No sex means no sex. I told them all that if they have time to be pondering their sexuality, they need to spend more time on their homework.
Click to expand...


The no-sex under the parent's roof....   I have no problem with that.  I think ground rules like that are fine and all part of parenting.

But to throw them out underage because they are gay is something completely different.  

And let me ask, were you 18 before you even _thought_ about sex?  I don't think any of us were.........


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so many what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
Click to expand...


We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.


----------



## jillian

TrinityPower said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> And we wonder why there are so many on welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so many what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
Click to expand...


i thought you were talking about gays.

and i was going to remind you that gays have the highest per capita income of any demographic group.


----------



## High_Gravity

jillian said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so many what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i thought you were talking about gays.
> 
> and i was going to remind you that gays have the highest per capita income of any demographic group.
Click to expand...


Well of course because gays can't fuck up and get someone pregnant at a young age, thus becoming tied down and their cash going to child support, gays get the luxury of deciding when they are ready for children, when alot of straight people make mistakes and have kids at a young age and cannot afford them.


----------



## koshergrl

Funny you should mention income Jillian, because in my internet wanderings, I recently came across two pieces that claimed that homosexual parents were functioning below the poverty level, and this was evidence of discrimination against them.


----------



## TrinityPower

sfcalifornia said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then help us out here.
> 
> You're ready to turn your kid out the door if they came out to you and said they were gay.
> 
> We can all see here that your love for your kids would be conditional.
> 
> That's a crappy way to teach kids to be themselves and to have self-respect.
> 
> You'd turn your kid uncaringly out the door and let them fend for themselves without a hint of remorse?  Wouldn't you care at all what happens to them?  Just because they turned out to be gay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because they violated the rule of the house, which is no sex, and no identifying yourself as a homosexual.
> 
> I never threatened my kids with expulsion from the home...but I made it very clear...no sex until they're independent, and by independent I mean of age. 21...out of the house and on their own and no longer financially dependent.
> 
> No sex means no sex. I told them all that if they have time to be pondering their sexuality, they need to spend more time on their homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The no-sex under the parent's roof....   I have no problem with that.  I think ground rules like that are fine and all part of parenting.
> 
> But to throw them out underage because they are gay is something completely different.
> 
> And let me ask, were you 18 before you even _thought_ about sex?  I don't think any of us were.........
Click to expand...


Thinking and doing are not the same


----------



## BDBoop

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because they violated the rule of the house, which is no sex, and no identifying yourself as a homosexual.
> 
> I never threatened my kids with expulsion from the home...but I made it very clear...no sex until they're independent, and by independent I mean of age. 21...out of the house and on their own and no longer financially dependent.
> 
> No sex means no sex. I told them all that if they have time to be pondering their sexuality, they need to spend more time on their homework.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The no-sex under the parent's roof....   I have no problem with that.  I think ground rules like that are fine and all part of parenting.
> 
> But to throw them out underage because they are gay is something completely different.
> 
> And let me ask, were you 18 before you even _thought_ about sex?  I don't think any of us were.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thinking and doing are not the same
Click to expand...


Hormones. If they don't have any, they'll be fine.

Oh, wait.


----------



## chanel

KG - Just my 2 cents... I know a few gay people who are divorced. They tried the traditional family thing and they have kids, but of course it didn't work. That may account for those in the lower earnings group.


----------



## TrinityPower

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so many what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
Click to expand...

That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age


----------



## koshergrl

It does...

Homosexuality also lends itself to single parent families where one parent can't get visitation, and the other parent isn't obligated to pay support.

Which sort of puts the lie to "it's just as good as traditional two parent families"


----------



## BDBoop

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
Click to expand...


I was 'disciplined' to within an inch of my life, and still have flashbacks. That didn't preclude me getting pregnant without benefit of marriage.


----------



## TrinityPower

BDBoop said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was 'disciplined' to within an inch of my life, and still have flashbacks. That didn't preclude me getting pregnant without benefit of marriage.
Click to expand...


I had cousins who lived across the street from me growing up who had children earlier than they should. I saw the issues that it caused them. The only one who overcame it was the one who was thrown out. I learned many lessons by watching others experiences. I have come to understand that many do not do that


----------



## Ed Spacer

Homosexuality is a perversion nothing else,a matter of choice.


----------



## jillian

Ed Spacer said:


> Homosexuality is a perversion nothing else,a matter of choice.



so you wake up every day deciding you have to force yourself to keep your hands off of the hot guy on line next to you at starbucks?

if that's the case, you should really come out. your life will be happier.

and maybe your posts won't be so psychotic.


----------



## Ed Spacer

From the darwinian perspective its against the balance of nature.
From the religious perspective its an abomination.


----------



## Ed Spacer

Jillian.
I'm engaged to a model and actress.been and faithful for 7 years.
Sorry you're a fail on this.


----------



## Ed Spacer

Sorry Jillian..if you wanna rug munch...
Do you.
but its Yin and Yang.
Balance.


----------



## jillian

Ed Spacer said:


> Jillian.
> I'm engaged to a model and actress.been and faithful for 7 years.
> Sorry you're a fail on this.



lol... yeah, like you were a ranger.


----------



## NLT

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Not according to Bodey, She "turned gay" after she told he OCS recruitment Officer she was'nt. Sea Wytch "turned gay in boot camp" after she told her recruitment officer she wasnt. So I guess you become gay by choice.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was 'disciplined' to within an inch of my life, and still have flashbacks. That didn't preclude me getting pregnant without benefit of marriage.
Click to expand...


Discipline and abuse are not synonymous.


----------



## sfcalifornia

Ed Spacer said:


> From the darwinian perspective its against the balance of nature.
> From the religious perspective its an abomination.



Wrong.

From the darwinian perspective, it IS the balance of nature.

From the religious perspective, only those who follow your religion cares.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was 'disciplined' to within an inch of my life, and still have flashbacks. That didn't preclude me getting pregnant without benefit of marriage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Discipline and abuse are not synonymous.
Click to expand...


No, it was discipline. Being beaten for running away was discipline.


----------



## koshergrl

Meh, if you say so.


----------



## sfcalifornia

TrinityPower said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> If there were no welfare system I wonder if it would cause more people to think about consequences of sexual actions before doing the deed. But maybe that is a topic for a new thread
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
Click to expand...


Throwing your underage kids out of the house with no remorse or concern for their wellbeing simply because of _who they are _is not good parenting.  

If they were having sex under your roof against your rules, then there should be consequences, although I think throwing them out is draconian.


----------



## BDBoop

sfcalifornia said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're talking about kids here and we all know kids, thinking, and consequences don't always go hand in hand.  That's why it's up to the parents to be smart.
> 
> 
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Throwing your underage kids out of the house with no remorse or concern for their wellbeing simply because of _who they are _is not good parenting.
> 
> If they were having sex under your roof against your rules, then there should be consequences, although I think throwing them out is draconian.
Click to expand...


Personally, saying what you would do from the perspective of a vacuum is meaningless. She doesn't know what she'd do until she has to cross that bridge. In other words - people who love their kids don't treat them as disposable.


----------



## LilOlLady

Does not not matter if they were born that way or not. we are given free will and we have a choice to be gay or not and act upon it. In cor 6;9 it say "*that is what some of you were" *meaning it is *choice.*


 Cor 6;920
Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers *nor men who have sex with men,* nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you *were*


----------



## Steelplate

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it to be depravity and lack of character to snarl at others the way you do, koshergrl, and I think you show an enormous lack of character in the way that you conversate with other human beings right on this message board.
> 
> I can accept that you're "a person," but I dont have to accept your depravity and lack of character. You make me sick.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's funny the way some people react to truths they don't like. There's nothing depraved about refusing to accept the lie that humans have no control over their sexual behavior.
> 
> And conversate isn't a word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing depraved about being gay. your judgement means absolute zero. It's an opinion that shines a very negative light on not Gays, but your own insecure, crude and small self.
Click to expand...


The sad thing is folks like Koshergirl will have to one day stand before God and explain their judgmentalism to him. Us Christians who believe in "live and let live" won't have that burden.....not that we don't have other shit to answer for, but bring a self righteous pious prick won't be one of them....you see, some Christians have actually learner to love....which is the hallmark of Christs's message.....not finding solace in our own behavior by judging others. In fact, if I were a truly judgmental person, I'd accuse them of not being Christians at all....but I know that faith is a journey, and they are still stuck in the "don't do _________, or you're going to hell" phase.

They rightfully fear God's wrath, but don't have a clue as to God's love and the scope of his forgiveness.  Let me just simply say that they aren't being very Christ-like.

But that's Ok...there isn't any of us that are...but some do the best they can...which is all God asks. I truly hope that someday they'll see the light and that we are all brothers and sisters no matter what our "sins" may be.


----------



## Steelplate

LilOlLady said:


> Does not not matter if they were born that way or not. we are given free will and we have a choice to be gay or not and act upon it. In cor 6;9 it say "*that is what some of you were" *meaning it is *choice.*
> 
> 
> Cor 6;920
> Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers *nor men who have sex with men,* nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you *were*



Is there any where in the Bible where Jesus himself condemned homosexuality in his own words?
 Paul wrote Corinthians....


----------



## TrinityPower

BDBoop said:


> sfcalifornia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a job of the parent to instruct children on consequences for their action. It is called...discipline and starts at a young age
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Throwing your underage kids out of the house with no remorse or concern for their wellbeing simply because of _who they are _is not good parenting.
> 
> If they were having sex under your roof against your rules, then there should be consequences, although I think throwing them out is draconian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Personally, saying what you would do from the perspective of a vacuum is meaningless. She doesn't know what she'd do until she has to cross that bridge. In other words - people who love their kids don't treat them as disposable.
Click to expand...


When my daughter was 9 she threw a huge fit that lasted until 3 am on Christmas eve. She got Christmas taken from her. Opened gifts in front of her and had her be a part of the day that way. Was it hard? Hardest day of my life right up there with my mom passing on. Did she learn from it? She did! She learned that when I lay something down I mean it and I am not backing down. I did give her a chance to change and she did so therefore getting her gifts at a later date but she learned that I meant what I said and this past year remembered and said she was being very good because getting Christmas taken is something she never wants to happen again.


----------



## koshergrl

Oh spare me, Steelplate.

"
Since 1964, the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States  (SIECUS) has provided sex education materials to public schools. SIECUS, a  private entity, received initial seed money from the Playboy Foundation.  It was founded via the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University as its outreach.  SIECUS is dependent upon Indiana University&#8217;s Kinsey Reports, including the  &#8220;scientific&#8221; tables documenting the Kinsey protocol of ongoing molestation of  infants and children by pedophiles, including at least one former Gestapo  officer. These criminal acts provided the &#8220;proof,&#8221; Kinsey said, of sexual desire  and erotic capacity in infants and children. 
 Therefore, according to Kinsey, &#8220;science&#8221; requires teaching kindergarten  children about their sexuality. In the April 14, 1980 issue of Time  Magazine, SIECUS was described as part of the &#8220;pro-incest lobby,&#8221; and in 1996,  SIECUS issued a position statement advocating the use of &#8220;sexually explicit  materials&#8221; to teach school children:
  When sensitively used in a manner appropriate to the viewer&#8217;s age and  developmental level, sexually explicit visual, printed, or on-line materials can  be valuable educational personal aids helping to reduce ignorance and confusion  and contributing to a wholesome concept of sexuality."


That's what you're defending. 



And that makes you scum.


The ALEC Report on Kinsey


----------



## koshergrl

Think of all the lies the progressives tell us about how important it is to "educate" kids in school...how important it is to mainstream homosexuals, and "rethink" the family....

All based on this monster's garbage.

"*S*ince Kinseyan findings within sex education materials entered schools,  rates of sexual disease and dysfunction have increased. Condoms are now  ubiquitous and are widely promoted in schools by public school and health  authorities to prevent pregnancy and sexual disease. Yet, according to the  National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on condom effectiveness (June 2000),  condoms do not prevent a stunning 98% of STD transmissions. Condoms never  protect against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) which is spread by skin contact, not  by fluids and is the cause of cervical cancer, which kills 5,000 women per year  in the United States. The prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, suggests  that &#8220;increased condom use will increase the number of AIDS transmissions that  result from condom failures. There is a 24% pregnancy rate for teens who use  condoms."

The ALEC Report on Kinsey

The sexual revolution, from Margaret Sanger, to Kinsey, to whoever is running the propaganda today, has been a lie perpetuated against you by Nazis, child molesters, and eugenecists.

The plan was to reform society into a depraved mess. And it has been successful.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Koshergirl.

What happened to you?


----------



## thereisnospoon

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



Once the politically correct libs see this, you will be dragged to the town square and flogged at dawn.


----------



## koshergrl

LoneLaugher said:


> Koshergirl.
> 
> What happened to you?



I don't like lies touted as "fact" and I don't like the fact that pedophiles and Nazis convinced us to restructure our society according to their specifications and perversions.

And I don't like being called a "homophobe" when I point out the facts.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> Are all gays born that way?



Being science and fact grounded, I find there is really only one answer. 

Yes. 
Of course. 
Stupid to think otherwise. 

BUT -

A more important point is, what's it to ya?

Seriously. 

Somebody wants to make with their own sex, its not YOUR business. Not mine either. Not my business who you want to screw. Not your business who turns me on either. 

Damn rw busybody meddlers need to take care of what's in their bedroom and quit trying to control everybody else.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, luddly..you are a good Kinsite:

"
Based upon what has been previously shown in this study to be Kinsey&#8217;s  biased and seriously flawed data, the &#8220;Sexual Offenses&#8221; Article 207 of the 1955  Model Penal Code was constructed. For example, Section 207.5, titled &#8220;Sodomy and  Related Offenses,&#8221; proposed that consensual sodomy with an &#8220;actor&#8221; 10 years or  older be classified a misdemeanor. Appendix A to section 207.5 is titled  &#8220;Frequency of Sexual Deviation,&#8221; and of 21 quotations, 19 are taken from  Kinsey&#8217;s book, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948). 
 ALI Reporter Morris Ploscowe parroted Kinsey&#8217;s &#8220;scientific&#8221; findings:
         These pre-marital, extra-marital, homosexual and animal contacts, we     are told, are eventually indulged in by 95 per cent of the population in     violation of statutory prohibitions. If these conclusions are correct, then     it is obvious that our sex crime legislation is completely out of touch with     the realities of individual living and is just as inherently unenforceable as     legislation that prohibits . . . an activity that responds to a wide human     need.
   In addition to this book by Albert Deutsch (Ed.), to which Ploscowe  contributed, three of the four other 1948 releases called for &#8220;science-based&#8221;  law reform based on the new &#8220;science&#8221; of the Kinsey Reports. These three books  presented collections of essays by luminaries in education, law, psychiatry,  psychology, and medicine."


The ALEC Report on Kinsey


----------



## koshergrl

"
       To reveal that certain behavior patterns are widespread, that they are     a product of environment, opportunity, age and other factors over which the     individual has little control, that they are not objectively harmful except     as a result of society&#8217;s efforts at repression (Kinsey, pp. 385-86) to point     out that similar behavior is encountered among other animals than man, to     suggest that the law ought not to punish and that psychiatrists might better     devote themselves to reassuring the sexual deviate rather than attention to     &#8220;redirect behavior&#8221; (Kinsey p. 660) - all these add up to a denial that     sexual &#8220;perversion&#8221; is an evil.
   Schwartz then pictures &#8220;the distant day when Americans cease to regard  minority morals as a legitimate object of social coercion,&#8221; and suggests a  covert and undemocratic method for elites to change state criminal codes:
         Eventually, such distinctions ease themselves into the written law,     especially if it can be done in the course of a general revision of the penal     code. This avoids the appearance of outright repudiation of conservative     moral standards, by presenting the changes in a context of merely technical     improvements."


The ALEC Report on Kinsey


----------



## Seawytch

NLT said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Bodey, She "turned gay" after she told he OCS recruitment Officer she was'nt. Sea Wytch "turned gay in boot camp" after she told her recruitment officer she wasnt. So I guess you become gay by choice.
Click to expand...


Wrong. I hadn't had sex with another woman. I knew I was gay.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

koshergrl said:


> Think of all the lies the progressives tell us about how important it is to "educate" kids in school...how important it is to mainstream homosexuals, and "rethink" the family....
> 
> All based on this monster's garbage.
> 
> "*S*ince Kinseyan findings within sex education materials entered schools,  rates of sexual disease and dysfunction have increased. Condoms are now  ubiquitous and are widely promoted in schools by public school and health  authorities to prevent pregnancy and sexual disease. Yet, according to the  National Institutes of Health (NIH) study on condom effectiveness (June 2000),  condoms do not prevent a stunning 98% of STD transmissions. Condoms never  protect against Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) which is spread by skin contact, not  by fluids and is the cause of cervical cancer, which kills 5,000 women per year  in the United States. The prestigious British medical journal, Lancet, suggests  that &#8220;increased condom use will increase the number of AIDS transmissions that  result from condom failures. There is a 24% pregnancy rate for teens who use  condoms."
> 
> The ALEC Report on Kinsey
> 
> The sexual revolution, from Margaret Sanger, to Kinsey, to whoever is running the propaganda today, has been a lie perpetuated against you by Nazis, child molesters, and eugenicists.
> 
> The plan was to reform society into a depraved mess. And it has been successful.



You're confusing fact with history. 

Charles Lindbergh was a nazi sympathizer. Who cares? So was Sanger. 

Do you really believe that she was any more or less welcome when she made her rounds through the cold water walk up tenements of NYC? 

In those days, women were douching with Lysol (edited to add - for birth control)
and had the shit beat out of them when they refused their husbands. 

WTF did Sanger's beliefs about a master race have to do with that? 

Sanger was literally a life saver and was deported for giving the women "French letters". If you don't know what that was, look it up because a factual and historical grounding would do you some good.


----------



## koshergrl

You're a good Nazi acolyte. Viva la sex revolution!

"
The manufactured statistics of The Kinsey Reports transformed America&#8217;s  institutions of medicine, education and law. &#8220;Normal&#8221; human sexuality was  metamorphosed into another image, which became indelible, when the American Law  Institute delivered The Kinsey Reports junk science (in 1955 Draft #4, &#8220;Sexual  Offenses,&#8221; Section 207 of the Model Penal Code) to the bench and bar in every  state. Soon, based on the ALI MPC and the Kinsey Reports, the states&#8217;  long-settled and fixed common law sexual and reproductive standards were  abolished via misinformed legislation and judicial decisions. After the laws  were changed, the SIECUS brand of sex education entered schoolrooms to  permanently alter Marriage, and the American family. 
 Prior to 1950 American Law largely prohibited any sexual acts outside of  marriage. Marriage was a public contract, both civil and religious. Society had  an interest in the security and solvency of every marriage. Marriage was to  provide for the progeny of the union, secure the orderly passage of property to  the next generation and prevent any burden to the State wrought by divorce,  promiscuity, perversion and &#8220;unnatural&#8221; acts. 
 Marriage served the &#8220;public interest.&#8221; However, the &#8220;experts&#8221; of the ALI  MPC dismantled the institution, based on the Kinsey Reports. By recommending the  legalization of fornication, cohabitation, adultery, sodomy, etc., the MPC  transformed what were known as &#8220;Public Morals&#8221; or &#8220;vice&#8221; laws into private  sexual behaviors between &#8220;consenting&#8221; individuals. The new freedom, &#8220;Privacy,&#8221;  would allow one to be left alone to pursue one&#8217;s one sexual &#8220;tastes,&#8221; according  to Judge Learned Hand.
 The &#8220;junk science&#8221; based on the debunked and discredited Kinsey Reports  today serves as the foundation of publicly funded sex education. In addition,  the ALI Model Penal Code has been adopted, all or in part, in every state. The  harmful results can be seen over the past 50 years, especially as these changes  negatively affect the lives of American women and children. The case is strong  for real fact-based reform to remove the fraudulent findings of the Kinsey  Reports from publicly funded programs, policies, and laws beginning with sex  education and criminal law."


The ALEC Report on Kinsey


I've always said the people who support abominable eugenics programs know exactly what they're doing, and you're proof they do.


----------



## hortysir

NLT said:


> Not according to Bodey, She "turned gay" after she told he OCS recruitment Officer she was'nt. Sea Wytch "turned gay in boot camp" after she told her recruitment officer she wasnt. So I guess you become gay by choice.




I honestly don;t care about Bo's or SW's sexuality.

But you reminded me of a story from boot camp.

The CC asked us if anyone had homosexual tendencies. Of course no one spoke up.
He repeated, "Nobody here has homosexual tendencies?!"
Again, silence.

Then he asked, "How many of you have ever sucked a dick?"
Shocked silence....

"So you ALL have the "tendency" to be gay!!"


----------



## RetiredGySgt

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



I believe that a small percentage, about 2 or 3 percent of the overall population may have been born predisposed to being Gay. However something like 6 to 8 percent claim they are gay, so in my opinion some of them are Bisexual or learned the sexual orientation. 

Science usually pegs gay as about 2 or 3 percent of a population in the creatures that have gay members. I doubt it is higher in the Human race.

However I am still opposed to gay marriage. Marriage is between a Man and a woman. I am fine with domestic partnerships or what ever term you want to use just not marriage.

By the way, even in the States that have approved Gay Marriage, the Federal Government does not recognize it so they get no tax benefits from the Federal Government.


----------



## healthmyths

My point on this thread was simple.
More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!
Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!

I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?

I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!

Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!


----------



## BDBoop

Okay, it's not because you're old. You're just willfully ignorant.


----------



## koshergrl

The gay community was championed by and fostered by Kinsey. 

Of course they should be abjectly ashamed. As should anyone who propagates the ridiculous lies that have been mainstreamed into our laws and our schools by the monsters who started all this bs.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The T said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that scientists haven't isolated a "gay gene" doesn't "prove" that homosexuality is a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science still has YET to explain what happened to the large REPTILES idiot.
Click to expand...


Noah left them behind.


----------



## NYcarbineer

healthmyths said:


> My point on this thread was simple.
> More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!
> Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
> Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!
> 
> I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?
> 
> I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!
> 
> Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!



You've been forced to attend a gay pride parade?  

Fascinating.


----------



## initforme

As a heterosexual married man for the past 53 years, I can say that gay marriage is of no consequence to me.   As a practicing Christian it is of no consequence to me.    If you find it an issue, please explain how it is a threat to YOUR lifestyle.   Is it your right and is it ok for me to even form a PERSONAL judgement about the gay lifestyle?   Is it?  Come on, take me on.  I', 75.  Come and get me.


----------



## koshergrl

luddly.neddite said:


> Are all gays born that way?
> 
> 
> 
> Being science and fact grounded, I find there is really only one answer.
> 
> Yes.
> Of course.
> Stupid to think otherwise.
> 
> BUT -
> 
> A more important point is, what's it to ya?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> Somebody wants to make with their own sex, its not YOUR business. Not mine either. Not my business who you want to screw. Not your business who turns me on either.
> 
> Damn rw busybody meddlers need to take care of what's in their bedroom and quit trying to control everybody else.
Click to expand...


You  mean...Kinsey science, and Kinsey fact? The science and fact adopted by our government and schools?

Here's that science and fact:

"
With regard to sex offense crimes in the ALI MPC: A rash of state sex  offense commissions convened just prior to the ALI MPC publication, providing  findings to MPC authors. These commissions also relied heavily upon Alfred  Kinsey and the fraudulent Kinsey Reports view of normal human sexuality.  Sexual activities are presented by the ALI MPC authors as wide human need and  necessary from womb to tomb for health and happiness. Language and terms are  changed to neutralize crimes against women and children. Rape and child abuse  are redefined and de-stigmatized; the definition of adult tends to include  children for purposes of sex. Creation of multiple degrees of a sex crime  negates the felony penalty. And sex education in public schools is recommended  as the primary crime prevention measure.
 As in law, terms were changed in sex education to dissociate it from the  eugenics movement. The Birth Control Federation of America became Planned  Parenthood, which was necessary to neutralize the highly negative image offered  to the public by the term birth control (Alan Guttmacher writing in the  preface of Margaret Sangers autobiography, 1970). The new term family  planning did not convey prejudice against large families, and linked  contraceptives with marriage and babies instead of with prostitutes and illicit  sexual alliances.  Sex education became family life education which  SIECUS founder Lester Kirkendall said would be less threatening to parents and  teachers and, in the end, would lead to more not less sex education. 
*The plans legal revolutionaries made and acted upon overturned or  trivialized 52 designated laws protective of women and children, aided and  enabled by the indispensable sex science of the Kinsey Reports.  Over the  past fifty years, our sex and reproduction laws have been deconstructed on the  basis of a fraudulent set of data.*"


When pooper says a poster is "ignorant" she means they don't follow Kinsey's lead. 

The ALEC Report on Kinsey


----------



## healthmyths

BDBoop said:


> Okay, it's not because you're old. You're just willfully ignorant.


 
Believe me ignorance is my forte... but not when it comes to "gayness"!
I had gay roommate in college in the 60s! 

Being gay was not the flamboyant, flaunting hissies we see today!  Gays were cool about it then and they were accepted by us because they were cool... Not today though!
I mean look at Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, Troy Donohue.. to name a few "closet" gays with bearded wives!  Why even John Wayne had more swagger then most gays today!
But he wasn't flaunting it!
Gays... be cool.  Sophisticated.  QUIET!


----------



## initforme

bottom line if you are for less gov't then you have no right to even form a personal opinion about what goes on in a gay home.   I dont care what this somewhat tolerable country votes on gay marriage.   It isnt my business.  Nor does it affect my own marriage.   So who the heck cares.


----------



## hortysir

healthmyths said:


> My point on this thread was simple.
> More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!
> Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
> Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!
> 
> I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?
> 
> I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!
> 
> Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!




Apparently no one has forced you accept any-damned-thing.



There was a comment, early on, in this thread that 'no one would choose to be ridiculed'
I don't disagree.

But it's _not_ something that is ridiculed (as much) these days.

I submit that, for some teens and young adults, it's "cool".
I think some young people act out in a rebellious way, much like we used to do with drugs.
That's not to say that some are legitimately gay or bi, but I do believe there is a percentage that do it just for the shock value.


----------



## BluePhantom

healthmyths said:


> My point on this thread was simple.
> More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!



Hmmmm.....I am not sure I could train my Johnson to rise for another guy's hairy ass if I tried for a year.  I'm pretty skeptical (and that's putting it mildly) that most gays, as you suggest, have been "trained to be gay".



healthmyths said:


> Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
> Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!
> 
> I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?



I imagine white people in the 60s wanted blacks to be cool, black, and quiet too.



healthmyths said:


> I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!
> 
> Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!



So in other words masculine gay men are ok and feminine gay women are ok, but if they cross the stereotype then they are classless and a shame to the community because you feel threatened by it...perhaps because it challenges the security of your own notions about traditional roles (perhaps even your role) in regards to sexuality


----------



## BDBoop

initforme said:


> As a heterosexual married man for the past 53 years, I can say that gay marriage is of no consequence to me.   As a practicing Christian it is of no consequence to me.    If you find it an issue, please explain how it is a threat to YOUR lifestyle.   Is it your right and is it ok for me to even form a PERSONAL judgement about the gay lifestyle?   Is it?  Come on, take me on.  I', 75.  Come and get me.



Congratulations on your marital longevity, and greetings to the Mrs.


----------



## BDBoop

healthmyths said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, it's not because you're old. You're just willfully ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me ignorance is my forte... but not when it comes to "gayness"!
> I had gay roommate in college in the 60s!
> 
> Being gay was not the flamboyant, flaunting hissies we see today!  Gays were cool about it then and they were accepted by us because they were cool... Not today though!
> I mean look at Rock Hudson, Tab Hunter, Troy Donohue.. to name a few "closet" gays with bearded wives!  Why even John Wayne had more swagger then most gays today!
> But he wasn't flaunting it!
> Gays... be cool.  Sophisticated.  QUIET!
Click to expand...


Dude. Who cares. Life is too short to waste judging others on how they live their lives.


----------



## thereisnospoon

Seawytch said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Bodey, She "turned gay" after she told he OCS recruitment Officer she was'nt. Sea Wytch "turned gay in boot camp" after she told her recruitment officer she wasnt. So I guess you become gay by choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. I hadn't had sex with another woman. I knew I was gay.
Click to expand...

Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges. 
You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual. 
On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior. 
I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is. 
And yes, we have had this discussion.


----------



## BDBoop

thereisnospoon said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not according to Bodey, She "turned gay" after she told he OCS recruitment Officer she was'nt. Sea Wytch "turned gay in boot camp" after she told her recruitment officer she wasnt. So I guess you become gay by choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I hadn't had sex with another woman. I knew I was gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
> Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
> In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
> Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
> In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
> You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
> On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
> I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
> And yes, we have had this discussion.
Click to expand...


So priests and nuns aren't straight?


----------



## Steelplate

How about they Koshergirl.... spiraling to the depths of hell, because she can't fathom that she is sinning mightily in the eyes of the Lord.


----------



## BluePhantom

thereisnospoon said:


> Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.



Sorry dude but that's about the most ignorant statement I have ever heard.  I am not even going to bother reading the rest. When I was a small child I used to look at Anni-Frida and Agnetha from ABBA and spring a wee little boner and game myself to sleep listening to "Super Trouper".  Seems I was pretty predisposed to being turned on by women and the bulk of my sexual experience was walking in on my mother getting out of the shower.  You don't have to have actually fucked to know what excites you.  Unfuckingreal.

Hmmmm.....Agnetha and Anni-Frida.....boy they were hot:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqJBp_TgSG0&feature=fvwrel]ABBA-Super Trouper (1980) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## TrinityPower

hortysir said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point on this thread was simple.
> More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!
> Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
> Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!
> 
> I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?
> 
> I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!
> 
> Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently no one has forced you accept any-damned-thing.
> 
> 
> 
> There was a comment, early on, in this thread that 'no one would choose to be ridiculed'
> I don't disagree.
> 
> But it's _not_ something that is ridiculed (as much) these days.
> 
> I submit that, for some teens and young adults, it's "cool".
> I think some young people act out in a rebellious way, much like we used to do with drugs.
> That's not to say that some are legitimately gay or bi, but I do believe there is a percentage that do it just for the shock value.
Click to expand...

I agree that seems to be a trend I have observed also


----------



## koshergrl

I sin all the time. So do you.

So what? At least I don't sacrifice children in the name of "live and let live". Nor do I propagate lies that we embraced as "mainstream" but were really concocted by sexal deviants, Nazis, and child molesters.


----------



## BluePhantom

TrinityPower said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point on this thread was simple.
> More people are "gay" today NOT because they were born "gay" but because they LEARNED to be gay!
> Accepting "gays" is what "smart" people do.  Accepting "gays" rights to be what they want is one thing!
> Forcing the REST of us non-gays to accept flaunting,flaming gay behavior most notably at "gay pride" marches, forced integration of flagrant gay behavior on to us NON-gays is another!
> 
> I have always accepted gays in my 70 years of life, in school, college, etc. but as my parents and I believe it is something best kept private.  Why flaunt it?  Why not be cool and gay and quiet?
> 
> I KNEW gay couples i.e. "OLD bachelors" in my younger days who lived together.. maybe had sex but nevertheless would be considered "GAY" today!  BUT they didn't rub our noses in it as we have with the more flagrant, flamboyant majority of gays!
> 
> Most of these flaming gays have NO class.  No dignity.  To the shame of the gay community!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently no one has forced you accept any-damned-thing.
> 
> 
> 
> There was a comment, early on, in this thread that 'no one would choose to be ridiculed'
> I don't disagree.
> 
> But it's _not_ something that is ridiculed (as much) these days.
> 
> I submit that, for some teens and young adults, it's "cool".
> I think some young people act out in a rebellious way, much like we used to do with drugs.
> That's not to say that some are legitimately gay or bi, but I do believe there is a percentage that do it just for the shock value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that seems to be a trend I have observed also
Click to expand...


I used to have green hair for the shock value too.  Does that mean my constitutional rights should be less than a natural blonde? Does that mean I am no longer entitled to equal access under the law?


----------



## hortysir

BluePhantom said:


> TrinityPower said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently no one has forced you accept any-damned-thing.
> 
> 
> 
> There was a comment, early on, in this thread that 'no one would choose to be ridiculed'
> I don't disagree.
> 
> But it's _not_ something that is ridiculed (as much) these days.
> 
> I submit that, for some teens and young adults, it's "cool".
> I think some young people act out in a rebellious way, much like we used to do with drugs.
> That's not to say that some are legitimately gay or bi, but I do believe there is a percentage that do it just for the shock value.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that seems to be a trend I have observed also
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I used to have green hair for the shock value too.  Does that mean my constitutional rights should be less than a natural blonde? Does that mean I am no longer entitled to equal access under the law?
Click to expand...



I'm just commenting as an unaffected observer.

I am quite secure in my skin, marriage, and faith.




But, since you brought it up;
What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?


----------



## Misty

I'm not gay but I can say that I was born this way.


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?



Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?


----------



## rightwinger

What difference does it make if gays are born that way?

Even if you were born heterosexual and made a choice that you preferred homosexuality, why shouldnt Americans have the right to love the person they want regardless of sex?


----------



## hortysir

BluePhantom said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
Click to expand...



I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.
Click to expand...


Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.


----------



## BDBoop

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.
Click to expand...


You weren't? What does your wife have to say about that.


----------



## Toro

koshergrl said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Koshergirl.
> 
> What happened to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like lies touted as "fact" and I don't like the fact that pedophiles and Nazis convinced us to restructure our society according to their specifications and perversions.
> 
> And I don't like being called a "homophobe" when I point out the facts.
Click to expand...


Some racists will also rationalize their racism by pointing to all sorts of facts why blacks are inferior - lower income, less education, higher crime rates, etc. It doesn't make them any less racist.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not pretending homosexuals are inferior. I'm pointing out that our entire social network was reworked based on a fraudulent and disgusting study by Nazis and child molesters.

Whose purpose was to convince the world that depravity is normal, and therefore should be embraced.....


----------



## koshergrl

Glad to see you're embracing it.

You know how you came to believe that children are sexual, and experimentation among children is normal?

Kinsey strapped babies to boards and stimulated them to erection.


----------



## koshergrl

You want to know how the world came to believe that most people have so called deviant sexual fantasies, and homosexuality is "normal" in a large segment of the population?

He polled incarcerated sex offenders!It's certainly the norm for them. And now it's the norm for us!


----------



## Pheonixops

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



I'm frankly tired of that "they/we were born that way" crap. I don't care if they were born that way, chose to be that way, or both. If one truly believes in FREEDOM and SELF DETERMINATION, I don't think it should matter if a person is straight, gay, or bi-sexual. Two homosexuals marrying each other isn't going to ruin my heterosexual marriage.


----------



## koshergrl

The whole theory of sexuality being hardwired...guess where that came from originally?

KINSEY! Based on his "studies"...aka "child rape". The kids liked it, by golly, even when they were infants...which means, guess what? It's hardwired!

That and a study of wasps..which are relevant to humans..somehow....


----------



## Ariux

Misty said:


> I'm not gay but I can say that I was born this way.



Have you ever tried to change?  Did your parents not try to raise you as a heterosexual?

Nearly ever faggot was born looking like a heterosexual.  Were you born looking like a heterosexual?

So, I hope you don't confuse you being born straight with faggots who claim they were born queer, even though they were being raped as a child by some faggot since before they could remember.


----------



## Valerie

Law abiding, tax paying citizens are Citizens and as far as public policy, what makes ANYONE who they _are_ is none of your funkin business...


----------



## hortysir

BluePhantom said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.
Click to expand...



I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.


----------



## Valerie

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long *as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS*, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
Click to expand...




That is the question.


----------



## thereisnospoon

BDBoop said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. I hadn't had sex with another woman. I knew I was gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
> Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
> In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
> Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
> In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
> You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
> On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
> I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
> And yes, we have had this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So priests and nuns aren't straight?
Click to expand...

Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual". 
Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.


----------



## hortysir

Valerie said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long *as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS*, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the question.
Click to expand...


As I agree.
I have yet to receive a definitive answer if it does or not.

I can sit here in my comfy marriage and act all high and mighty and say it doesn't matter.
But it does matter if any group is being unconstitutionally discriminated against.


----------



## thereisnospoon

BluePhantom said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
Click to expand...

What is your point? That a member of a behavior group of which the majority of the population deems "outside the norm" ( covering all descriptors depending on one's belief system) is entitled to "special rights"..
Here's the deal, gays who wish to "marry" are not looking for equality. They are seeking protected class status.


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
Click to expand...


But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.


----------



## BluePhantom

thereisnospoon said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, since you brought it up;
> What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice?  Yes.  Do homosexuals?  No.  That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not.  Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group.  Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.
> 
> Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your point? That a member of a behavior group of which the majority of the population deems "outside the norm" ( covering all descriptors depending on one's belief system) is entitled to "special rights"..
> Here's the deal, gays who wish to "marry" are not looking for equality. They are seeking protected class status.
Click to expand...


Nope....just the same rights as everyone else. Granting them the right to marry is not "special status".  It's the same thing anyone who isn't gay can do any day of the week they choose.  And if you have a problem with "protected classes" are you suggesting that laws protecting blacks, women, senior citizens, Hispanics, etc should be eliminated?  It seems to me that if you wish to be consistent that if you argue that rights should be denied to gays they should be denied to those demographics as well.


----------



## hortysir

BluePhantom said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed.  And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned.  Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual?  Are you *really *ready to make that argument?  If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.
Click to expand...


Marriage is conditional.
Not every couple can legally marry.
You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.

Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are asking for special treatment?


----------



## Toro

koshergrl said:


> I'm not pretending homosexuals are inferior. I'm pointing out that our entire social network was reworked based on a fraudulent and disgusting study by Nazis and child molesters.
> 
> Whose purpose was to convince the world that depravity is normal, and therefore should be embraced.....



OK, let's say Kinsey was full of shit. Now, choose to become sexually aroused by a woman. Do it many times. After all, you say sexuality is a choice, so you should be able to do so. Walk the talk.


----------



## koshergrl

You're obsessing over something that has no bearing on anything. The fact of the matter is, Kinsey was a sick, twisted individual, who tricked the world into accepting his sick, twisted view of life...for the express purpose of making that lifestyle the accepted lifestyle of the world. He knew he was lying. He and the other sickos who perpetrated this fraud on us wanted us to believe sexuality is hardwired. THAT'S WHY THEY TORTURED CHILDREN and lied about their *studies*. It's not true...but they want people to believe it, because that makes a society of willing victims and depraved monsters.

I have no need to prove him wrong. He's been exposed and disgraced before the world... why would any of us have to prove a pedophile who tortured infants was wrong about the sexuality of infants? It's like proving a negative. There's no evidence that sexuality is hardwired. There's no genetic evidence, there's no scientific evidence, and the only evidence that existed has been exposed as a violent and fraudulent fraud.


----------



## Foxfyre

Marriage laws have nothing to do with love, affection, or the desire to live happily ever after.  None of that is required either as proof or via affidavit in the marriage license application.

What is included in the marriage laws in all 50 states, with some slight variations, is requirements that the participants be of legal age or get parental consent to marry, that they not be closely related, and that any communicable diseases are known to the parties entering into the marriage contract.  Neither party may be married in any way to anybody else at the time the marriage license is signed.  Any property that will not become community property must be so designated via pre nuptial contract.  And so far as the federal government is concerned and so far as most states in the union are concerned, the married couple consists of one man and one woman.

All the 50 states, anybody who meets the above requirements can marry regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, or sexual orientation.  It is 100% equitable for every citizen.  And in all 50 states the regulations governing marriage are for one purpose:  to protect any children who are born into the marriage.

But for those who do not anticipate having children together, none of the above rules and regulations would be necessary.  That is when a second civil union contract should be available to provide the tax benefits, rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. that people who, for whatever reason do not wish or cannot marry, can form themselves into legally recognized family units.


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Glad to see you're embracing it.
> 
> You know how you came to believe that children are sexual, and experimentation among children is normal?
> 
> *Kinsey strapped babies to boards and stimulated them to erection*.



And the link proving THAT little tidbit of info is......?


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> The whole theory of sexuality being hardwired...guess where that came from originally?
> 
> KINSEY! Based on his "studies"...aka "child rape". The kids liked it, by golly, even when they were infants...which means, guess what? It's hardwired!
> 
> That and a study of wasps..which are relevant to humans..somehow....



Still asking you when it was you CHOSE to stop being sexually attracted to women and exclusively attracted to men.


----------



## BDBoop

thereisnospoon said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
> Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
> In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
> Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
> In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
> You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
> On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
> I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
> And yes, we have had this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So priests and nuns aren't straight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
> it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual".
> Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
> No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.
Click to expand...


I'm a freak? Well, at least I'm in good company.

You're a dick.


----------



## koshergrl

Still ignoring your trolling.


----------



## bodecea

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is conditional.
> Not every couple can legally marry.
> You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
> Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are *asking for special treatment*?
Click to expand...



How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?


----------



## BDBoop

thereisnospoon said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
> Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
> In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
> Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
> In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
> You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
> On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
> I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
> And yes, we have had this discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So priests and nuns aren't straight?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
> it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual".
> Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
> No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.
Click to expand...


Point B) Virgins are NOT asexual. Dimwatt.


----------



## BDBoop

And, for the dimwatts playing:



> Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others[4][5][6] or the lack of interest in sex.[6][7] It may also be considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[8] One commonly cited study published in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.[8][9]
> 
> Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs;[10] sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring".[11] Some asexual people do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners.[6]
> 
> Only recently has asexuality started to become accepted as a sexual orientation and a field of scientific research,[4][6][12][13] and a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to coalesce.[6] While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others disagree,[12] and various asexual communities have started to form since the advent of the Internet and social media. The most prolific and well-known of these communities has been the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), which was founded in 2001.



Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Still ignoring your trolling.



FFS, put some clothes on, freak.


----------



## BDBoop

bodecea said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is conditional.
> Not every couple can legally marry.
> You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
> Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are *asking for special treatment*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?
Click to expand...


"Dammit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker!!"


----------



## bodecea

koshergrl said:


> Still ignoring your trolling.



We interrupt this thread for a very important message from Allie Baba.   *She is ignoring us.   *  We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## BDBoop

bodecea said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still ignoring your trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We interrupt this thread for a very important message from Allie Baba.   *She is ignoring us.   *  We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Click to expand...


I could swear a couple of hours ago she said I was on a higher plane than you. Apparently she routinely forgets what she says. But now that we are both on ignore, I must say I'm relieved. Now I can say whatever I want, without having to see her classic responses, such as:

Loon. 

Okay .... 

And the ever popular;

I'm ignoring you. 

Truly hilarious, when the reality is more like


----------



## koshergrl

From yet another source than the ones I've already cited and linked...

I just told someone who had pos repped me that the harpies were absent, feverishly shoring up support for Kinsey. And here you are, demanding evidence...again...

"Kinsey's work and research was manipulated so that its results would be 
indicative of what he himself believed, without any real and tangible 
scientific support. According to Paul Robinson, one of Kinsey's 
biographers, Kinsey's work was designed to "undermine the traditional 
sexual order."[6] Kinsey had his own amoral agenda and hoped to use his 
research as the scientific base to "change society's traditional moral 
values." 

Kinsey's research included two main parts: he used data from the "sex 
histories" of about 18,000 persons, and he directed experimental sex 
research on several hundred children aged two months to almost 15 years of 
age. "

"The experimental research on several hundred children consisted of the 
molestation of these children by a group of nine persons. Some were 
"technically trained" and in reality acted like pedophiles. It is reported 
that some were indeed already pedophiles because not all had to be trained. 
In Kinsey's <Male Report> (1948) it is reported that the children reacted 
to the oral and manual stimulation by these nine adults in various ways. 
The reactions ranged from bodily "twitching", "violent cries", "violent 
convulsions", and "extreme trembling", to "excruciating pain".[9]"

"This was all done in order to supposedly demonstrate that children are 
sexual beings and can enjoy sexual pleasure as well as any adult. Kinsey 
sought to use these results to indicate that children are indeed able to 
engage in and benefit from sexual activity."

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> From yet another source than the ones I've already cited and linked...
> 
> I just told someone who had pos repped me that the harpies were absent, feverishly shoring up support for Kinsey. And here you are, demanding evidence...again...
> 
> "The experimental research on several hundred children consisted of the
> molestation of these children by a group of nine persons. Some were
> "technically trained" and in reality acted like pedophiles. It is reported
> that some were indeed already pedophiles because not all had to be trained.
> In Kinsey's <Male Report> (1948) it is reported that the children reacted
> to the oral and manual stimulation by these nine adults in various ways.
> The reactions ranged from bodily "twitching", "violent cries", "violent
> convulsions", and "extreme trembling", to "excruciating pain".[9]"
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/KINSEY.TXT



Is that what we were doing? And here I thought I was napping.


----------



## koshergrl

You find it amusing?

Of course you do.

"A 76-year-old woman with a pseudonym of "Esther White" has come forward to expose herself as a rape victim of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey started as a biologist, but began delving into the world of pedophilia. He soon started studying the reactions of children to sex. From what he and his associates claim were interviews with pedophiles (see a PBS interview with an associate, Paul Gebhard), he produced records showing "evidence" that children are orgasmic from infancy.
Through his now-famous "Table 34," Kinsey concluded that no type of sexual intimacy should be denied to children. He used this research in the books "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953). From this, he earned the name "father of the sexual revolution" - and the books were embraced without questions about how he got his research."

Rape Victim Accuses Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Using Children for His Research - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

The result of Kinsey being discredited was that the APa quietly revised it's statement about homosexuality being hardwired. They accepted his studies and his mantra at face value...as did the rest of academia.

"SIEUCUS, the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States, is the primary organization that establishes sex ed curriculum for the National Education Association. It's based on Kinsey Institute research."

Rape Victim Accuses Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Using Children for His Research - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> You find it amusing?
> 
> Of course you do.
> 
> "A 76-year-old woman with a pseudonym of "Esther White" has come forward to expose herself as a rape victim of Dr. Alfred Kinsey.
> Kinsey started as a biologist, but began delving into the world of pedophilia. He soon started studying the reactions of children to sex. From what he and his associates claim were interviews with pedophiles (see a PBS interview with an associate, Paul Gebhard), he produced records showing "evidence" that children are orgasmic from infancy.
> Through his now-famous "Table 34," Kinsey concluded that no type of sexual intimacy should be denied to children. He used this research in the books "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (1948) and "Sexual Behavior in the Human Female" (1953). From this, he earned the name "father of the sexual revolution" - and the books were embraced without questions about how he got his research."
> 
> Rape Victim Accuses Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Using Children for His Research - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com
> 
> The result of Kinsey being discredited was that the APa quietly revised it's statement about homosexuality being hardwired. They accepted his studies and his mantra at face value...as did the rest of academia.
> 
> "SIEUCUS, the Sexual Information and Education Council of the United States, is the primary organization that establishes sex ed curriculum for the National Education Association. It's based on Kinsey Institute research."
> 
> Rape Victim Accuses Dr. Alfred Kinsey of Using Children for His Research - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com



You assume I read your sick shares? Of course you do.


----------



## koshergrl

"As you said, it&#8217;s been 50 years since Alfred Kinsey published his infamous 1948 report, _Sexual Behavior in the Human Male_, which has so profoundly and grievously affected not only American society, but the moral, social, and political order worldwide. It is difficult to exaggerate the horrendous effects of the widespread promotion and acceptance of his work. Kinsey&#8217;s "research" shook America&#8217;s moral foundations and launched the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s. Its terrible results are obvious in the skyrocketing incidence of all the social pathologies afflicting us today: divorce, abortion, sexual promiscuity, sexually transmitted diseases, illegitimate births, cohabitation, pornography, homosexuality, sadomasochism, rape, child molestation, sexual crimes of all types, family breakup, endemic violence, etc."

Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman

What's sick is your acceptance of what a known pedophile feeds to you as "normal". What's sick is the fact that you're okay with information that was produced via rape of infants.

You repeat every single talking point this piece of shit raped children in order to "prove". 

"
Certainly the cultural validating and "mainstreaming" of homosexuality is one of the major shifts that can be marked down as a Kinsey triumph. And the people who are trying to preserve traditional values and Judeo-Christian morality &#8212; and I believe we are still the majority &#8212; feel desperately besieged on all sides by this "new morality" being promoted by the small but powerful minority of artistic, intellectual, academic, and scientific elite.
One of the important areas where I think my research has made a very significant contribution is in uncovering the legal subversion that Kinsey is greatly responsible for. Very few Americans have any knowledge or appreciation for the enormity of his influence in this important realm. One indicator of this is the fact that Kinsey is the most cited sex scientist by far in _Westlaw _and the other legal indices. In my latest book I give several pages listing hundreds of law journal citations. His bogus science has been cited in case after case to overturn laws, for instance, that protect society against sex offenders."

"
Kinsey claimed to have proven, based upon the deviant samples used in his research, that 95 percent of American men engaged in deviant sex and thus were sex offenders. This obviously proved that our sex laws were based on repressive, antiquated notions and had to be radically changed. Morris Ernst, Kinsey&#8217;s ACLU lawyer, wrote that "virtually every page of the Kinsey Report touches on some section of the legal code." That was no exaggeration. Kinsey believed that all sex was legitimate &#8212; pedophilia, bestiality, incest, adultery, prostitution, group sex, transvestitism, sadomasochism &#8212; and he worked to overthrow all laws prohibiting any of these perversions.
He and his associates also testified and wrote in favor of parole for sex offenders and violent felons, and are greatly responsible for the reduction of penalties for rapists and child molesters and the release of these repeat offenders back into society. In the Kinseyan view, brutal sex predators were deserving of "therapeutic," not "retributive," action. Millions of American children and women have been brutally victimized as a result of these Kinsey-inspired "reforms."

Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman


----------



## koshergrl

"
Prior to Kinsey, rape was treated as a heinous crime in keeping with the Common Law standard. If convicted, rapists faced mandatory execution in three states, the possibility of a death penalty in 20 states, and a minimum of a 20-year sentence in all but one of the states. Kinsey changed all that.
Now the most vulnerable of society &#8212; women and children &#8212; are victimized twice: once by sexual crimes and vice, and again by the changed laws that refuse to penalize the perpetrator. This is Kinsey&#8217;s legacy, which is anti-marriage, anti-father, anti-mother, and, most definitely, anti-child."

"Kinsey claimed that his data proved that children are "sexual" from birth. What was this based upon? According to the admission of his associates, such as Wardell Pomeroy and Paul Gebhard, much of this data came from an habitual pedophile Kinsey code-named "Mr. Green" (also referred to sometimes as "Mr. X"), who had molested as many as 800 boys and girls over many years, and who kept meticulous records of his exploits.
We now know that this predatory pervert was Rex King, a U.S. government land examiner, who traveled about Arizona, New Mexico, and the Southwest. Much of Kinsey&#8217;s data comes from the diaries of this monster who sexually tortured children, some infants as young as three months, and recorded their screams of pain as "orgasms."
Instead of being repulsed and horrified by this, as any normal person would be, Kinsey was tantalized. He told King, "I congratulate you on the research spirit which has led you to collect data over these many years." He assured King that his insidious criminal activity had great scientific importance. Research spirit! We do not know how many other violent pedophiles &#8212; even child murderers &#8212; Kinsey may have used as "researchers," nor do we know for certain how many children Kinsey and/or members of his staff directly abused themselves, but there is evidence in their own notes that they were present and at least witnessed some of this activity."

Fighting the Kinsey Fraud: Interview with Dr. Judith Reisman


----------



## koshergrl

One wonders why a person would frequent the threads about deviant sexuality if they aren't interested in reading the material?


----------



## BDBoop

To read the sane posts.


----------



## koshergrl

But not the posts that expose the fraud upon which the "hardwire" myth was based?

You realize it was after Kinsey was exposed that the APA reworded their stance that homosexuality was hardwired, right?

Or are you saying that Kinsey is the sane one, and the culture based upon his abuse of children and his research lies is sane?


----------



## BDBoop

G'nite, Gracie.


----------



## Toro

koshergrl said:


> You're obsessing over something that has no bearing on anything. The fact of the matter is, Kinsey was a sick, twisted individual, who tricked the world into accepting his sick, twisted view of life...for the express purpose of making that lifestyle the accepted lifestyle of the world. He knew he was lying. He and the other sickos who perpetrated this fraud on us wanted us to believe sexuality is hardwired. THAT'S WHY THEY TORTURED CHILDREN and lied about their *studies*. It's not true...but they want people to believe it, because that makes a society of willing victims and depraved monsters.
> 
> I have no need to prove him wrong. He's been exposed and disgraced before the world... why would any of us have to prove a pedophile who tortured infants was wrong about the sexuality of infants? It's like proving a negative. There's no evidence that sexuality is hardwired. There's no genetic evidence, there's no scientific evidence, and the only evidence that existed has been exposed as a violent and fraudulent fraud.



Yes, Kinsey is bullshit. But you continue to dodge the issue. If sexuality is a choice, choose to get aroused by a woman. Walk the talk.


----------



## Seawytch

hortysir said:


> I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.



Well, then let me educate you. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared marriage a fundamental right on no less than three occasions. The cases were:

Loving v Virginia (1967)
Zablocki v Wisconsin (1978)
Turner v Safley (1987) 

Now, that being said, all fundamental rights have qualifiers. The right to free speech, to bear arms, etc have "qualifiers", right? Okay, now that we have that "straight"...you must be able to provide a societal harm if you want to keep a person or even a group of people from any of those fundamental rights, correct? Where is the societal harm in allowing a consenting adult couple the fundamental right to legally marry each other?


----------



## Seawytch

What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.


----------



## Liability

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



I don't think any heterosexual male could ever look at some guy's hairy ass and honestly "learn" to say to himself "oh, I gotta get me some of that!"

It took no "teaching" to have me view a pretty female form and decide that it was "desirable," however.

And having had a conversation along these lines with many guys and some free-spirited women, I conclude that there is essentially NOthing "learned" about a person's sexuality.  If you are in the minority (maybe 10% of the population) who is attracted sexually to your own gender, you're gay.  If you are in the majority (i.e., probably around 90%) who is attracted to the so-called "opposite" gender, then you are heterosexual.

Oh, and if you are attracted to children you're a sick fuck  And if you act on it, you should be a dead sick fuck.


----------



## Liability

Look at High_Gravity's avie.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Now look at koshergrl's present avie. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That's all.

Do your homework


----------



## Zoom-boing

Liability said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any heterosexual male could ever look at some guy's hairy ass and honestly "learn" to say to himself "oh, I gotta get me some of that!"
> 
> It took no "teaching" to have me view a pretty female form and decide that it was "desirable," however.
> 
> And having had a conversation along these lines with many guys and some free-spirited women, I conclude that there is essentially NOthing "learned" about a person's sexuality.  If you are in the minority (maybe 10% of the population) who is attracted sexually to your own gender, you're gay.  If you are in the majority (i.e., probably around 90%) who is attracted to the so-called "opposite" gender, then you are heterosexual.
> 
> Oh, and if you are attracted to children you're a sick fuck  And if you act on it, you should be a dead sick fuck.
Click to expand...


^  This.

Homosexuality has been around since mankind began and will remain so.  And??  Why do some of you have such a problem with this?


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.
> 
> if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Marriage is conditional.
> Not every couple can legally marry.
> You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
> Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are asking for special treatment?
Click to expand...


You can't marry your mother, sister, or daughter because of the genetic consequences of child bearing. That doesn't apply to homosexuals and there is a secular purpose behind that particular legislation.  Where is the secular purpose behind banning gay marriage?


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.



No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
Click to expand...


do you ever get tired of being wrong?

Here's the first one in a google search, of MANY.

A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome an... [Science. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), *indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.*


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you ever get tired of being wrong?
> 
> Here's the first one in a google search, of MANY.
> 
> A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome an... [Science. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), *indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.*
Click to expand...


" In 1993, linkage between homosexuality and chromosomal region Xq28  based on molecular approaches was reported. Nevertheless, this was not  confirmed in later studies."

[Influence of genetic factors on human sexual or... [Invest Clin. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> do you ever get tired of being wrong?
> 
> Here's the first one in a google search, of MANY.
> 
> A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome an... [Science. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> revealed a correlation between homosexual orientation and the inheritance of polymorphic markers on the X chromosome in approximately 64 percent of the sib-pairs tested. The linkage to markers on Xq28, the subtelomeric region of the long arm of the sex chromosome, had a multipoint lod score of 4.0 (P = 10(-5), *indicating a statistical confidence level of more than 99 percent that at least one subtype of male sexual orientation is genetically influenced.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> " In 1993, linkage between homosexuality and chromosomal region Xq28  based on molecular approaches was reported. Nevertheless, this was not  confirmed in later studies."
> 
> [Influence of genetic factors on human sexual or... [Invest Clin. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...


Yes, there is science and counter-science. You said the studies do not exist. They do, you were shown to be wrong.


----------



## G.T.

Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons | LiveScience


----------



## G.T.

What Makes People Gay? - The Boston Globe

Homosexual Behavior Largely Shaped By Genetics And Random Environmental Factors

(study names sourced just for one study, below):

1) Genetics and Homosexuality, from the Gene Letter 

2) Homosexuality: Genetics and the Bible, by Tom Terry, Cutting Edge Magazine 

3) Statement on NIH Genetic Study on Homosexuality, from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force

4) New study says genetics influences homosexuality, from St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 1995

5) Homosexuality and Genetics, one person's views 

6) A commentary on "Research on Sex Orientation Doesn't Fit the Mold" 

7) Genetics Press Cuttings, from The Knitting Circle, South Bank University, London

8) The Hypothetical Genetics of Sexual Orientation, by Keith Bell, a Boston University undergraduate

9) Is there a genetic basis for sexual orientation?, from Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

10) Lesbianism/homosexuality - a human surival trait, a commentary on the Queer Resources Directory

11) Homosexuality: Its in Your Genes, an article posted on QRD 

12) Genetics and sexuality, a news report


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
Click to expand...


http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=155

But god forbid you let SCIENCE dissuade you from your learned bigotry.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell does Kinsey have to do with any of this? He has little to do with the APA's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of "mental disorders" and there have been plenty of studies since Kinsey that point to a genetic predisposition for sexual orientation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome
> 
> But god forbid you let SCIENCE dissuade you from your learned bigotry.
Click to expand...

 
Essentially, the "ask a genetecist guy" bloviated and said it appears to be it's not a choice...but hey, there's no evidence..then he went on to talk about fruit flies and brains and such.

The twin study he cites was discredited, btw. As I'm sure he knows...that's why he said "that's only one study". Because he knows that the study was hideously flawed, and the results could not be replicated.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there haven't been. You're lying there, skippy.The studies show there is no genetic disposition. The one study that was made that DID suggest that was found to be so terribly flawed that the researchers who did it were disgraced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Understanding Genetics: Human Health and the Genome
> 
> But god forbid you let SCIENCE dissuade you from your learned bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Essentially, the "ask a genetecist guy" bloviated and said it appears to be it's not a choice...but hey, there's no evidence..then he went on to talk about fruit flies and brains and such.
> 
> The twin study he cites was discredited, btw. As I'm sure he knows...that's why he said "that's only one study". Because he knows that the study was hideously flawed, and the results could not be replicated.
Click to expand...


There are literally hundreds of studies, we know we know - your google is broken.


----------



## koshergrl

No, there aren't. If there were, you'd be able to link one.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> No, there aren't. If there were, you'd be able to link one.



I linked several for you already, batshit.


----------



## hortysir

bodecea said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment.  It's pretty clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is conditional.
> Not every couple can legally marry.
> You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
> Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are *asking for special treatment*?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?
Click to expand...


You and I have had this discussion, before, Bo and you know I think that you should the same right to lose half your shit in a divorce as I do.

But if a state and it's voters make a certain decision, just don't reside there.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2XdmyBtCRQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Mötley Crüe - Girls, Girls, Girls - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## koshergrl

G.T. said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there aren't. If there were, you'd be able to link one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I linked several for you already, batshit.
Click to expand...

 
Debunked. If you linked them at all.


----------



## G.T.

koshergrl said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there aren't. If there were, you'd be able to link one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I linked several for you already, batshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked. If you linked them at all.
Click to expand...


your opinion doesnt debunk studies, at places such as uconn, as linked. Sorry. You're an obnoxious twit who doesnt even know how to use basic a + b = c logic.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think any heterosexual male could ever look at some guy's hairy ass and honestly "learn" to say to himself "oh, I gotta get me some of that!"
> 
> It took no "teaching" to have me view a pretty female form and decide that it was "desirable," however.
> 
> And having had a conversation along these lines with many guys and some free-spirited women, I conclude that there is essentially NOthing "learned" about a person's sexuality.  If you are in the minority (maybe 10% of the population) who is attracted sexually to your own gender, you're gay.  If you are in the majority (i.e., probably around 90%) who is attracted to the so-called "opposite" gender, then you are heterosexual.
> 
> Oh, and if you are attracted to children you're a sick fuck  And if you act on it, you should be a dead sick fuck.
Click to expand...


Frankly, I don't know how women look at a hairy ass and .... never mind.


----------



## BDBoop

Liability said:


> Look at High_Gravity's avie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now look at koshergrl's present avie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's all.
> 
> Do your homework



/falls over laughing

^5


----------



## Seawytch

So kosher doesn't believe the science...how about an eye witness? I didn't choose to be gay. I was "born this way".


----------



## BDBoop

Same for my sister-in-law.


----------



## koshergrl

What science?
There is no science that proves homosexuality is hardwired.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> What science?
> There is no science that proves homosexuality is hardwired.



Apparently, there's not a gene that made me left-handed, either.


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> Marriage is conditional.
> Not every couple can legally marry.
> You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
> Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.
> 
> Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are *asking for special treatment*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and I have had this discussion, before, Bo and you know I think that you should the same right to lose half your shit in a divorce as I do.
> 
> But if a state and it's voters make a certain decision, just don't reside there.
Click to expand...


Not that easy, brother.  Most people never move out of their home county let alone state.  There are a lot of reasons for this but one of the big ones is economics.  A lot of people don't have the money to relocate. So a homosexual individual that is born in Michigan, Oregon, or California, for example, that has no financial resources to relocate is in a situation where there is not only inequality regarding sexual orientation but faces a restriction of their civil rights due to poverty as well.

Now for those who can relocate, fine...but what if a same-sex couple gets a once in a lifetime job offer but would have to relocate to Oregon, California, or Michigan? Doing so would void their marriage and as such they could sue the state for untold millions because they are experiencing direct financial damages due to a civil rights violation. 

By your suggestion, homosexuals would experience even more restrictions on their rights and suffer direct economic damages based upon the fact that they belong to a specific demographic of United States society.  Yet in *no *state is there a situation where a given demographic of United States citizens cannot freely establish residency, work, marry, etc.....no demographic *except *homosexuals.   That's not what this great nation is about...and I issue the warning: if we allow a specific demographic to have their constitutional rights violated we open up the door for other demographics to receive the same treatment.  Today it might be homosexuals....tomorrow it might be Jews, Catholics, blacks, whites, women, the obese, people with bad credit, people in debt....you name it. That's not a path I am willing to endorse.

Whether one approves or disapproves of the gay lifestyle is irrelevant. Protecting the rights of all citizens equally should be paramount in our mind, because once you justify the opposite you create opportunity for further exploitation based on a different and completely arbitrary criteria.


----------



## Gadawg73

At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also. 
Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> What science?
> There is no science that proves homosexuality is hardwired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, there's not a gene that made me left-handed, either.
Click to expand...

 
Actually, there is.


----------



## koshergrl

Gadawg73 said:


> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.


 
Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.

Indian tribes don't pay casino money to all Indians...just the ones in their tribe. Are they "persecuting" the people they aren't paying?


----------



## TrinityPower

The song by lady gaga keeps playing in my head called born this way lol
LADY GAGA - BORN THIS WAY LYRICS


----------



## BluePhantom

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
Click to expand...


Hmmmm....well Jews make up about 2.1% of the United States population and they participate in activities that are not the "favored social construct". Shall we deny them the right to marry too?  Southern Baptists 6.7%, Mormons 1.4%, Seventh Day Adventist 0.4%, Buddhists 0.5%, evangelicals 0.9%.  All of them choose to participate in activities that are not in a "favored social construct".  Shall we ban their rights to marry?


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
> 
> Indian tribes don't pay casino money to all Indians...just the ones in their tribe. Are they "persecuting" the people they aren't paying?
Click to expand...


The "favored social construct" this way was NO ******* for how many years?
Who makes the "favored social construct" rules?


----------



## BluePhantom

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
> 
> Indian tribes don't pay casino money to all Indians...just the ones in their tribe. Are they "persecuting" the people they aren't paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "favored social construct" this way was NO ******* for how many years?
> Who makes the "favored social construct" rules?
Click to expand...


Her.


----------



## koshergrl

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
> 
> Indian tribes don't pay casino money to all Indians...just the ones in their tribe. Are they "persecuting" the people they aren't paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "favored social construct" this way was NO ******* for how many years?
> Who makes the "favored social construct" rules?
Click to expand...

 
So is it discrimination when the casinos only pay out to their own tribe?

Is it discrimination when McDonald's employees aren't afforded the same tax breaks as people who employ hundreds of people?


----------



## hortysir

BluePhantom said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have had this discussion, before, Bo and you know I think that you should the same right to lose half your shit in a divorce as I do.
> 
> But if a state and it's voters make a certain decision, just don't reside there.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that easy, brother.  Most people never move out of their home county let alone state.  There are a lot of reasons for this but one of the big ones is economics.  A lot of people don't have the money to relocate. So a homosexual individual that is born in Michigan, Oregon, or California, for example, that has no financial resources to relocate is in a situation where there is not only inequality regarding sexual orientation but faces a restriction of their civil rights due to poverty as well.
> 
> Now for those who can relocate, fine...but what if a same-sex couple gets a once in a lifetime job offer but would have to relocate to Oregon, California, or Michigan? Doing so would void their marriage and as such they could sue the state for untold millions because they are experiencing direct financial damages due to a civil rights violation.
> 
> By your suggestion, homosexuals would experience even more restrictions on their rights and suffer direct economic damages based upon the fact that they belong to a specific demographic of United States society.  Yet in *no *state is there a situation where a given demographic of United States citizens cannot freely establish residency, work, marry, etc.....no demographic *except *homosexuals.   That's not what this great nation is about...and I issue the warning: if we allow a specific demographic to have their constitutional rights violated we open up the door for other demographics to receive the same treatment.  Today it might be homosexuals....tomorrow it might be Jews, Catholics, blacks, whites, women, the obese, people with bad credit, people in debt....you name it. That's not a path I am willing to endorse.
> 
> Whether one approves or disapproves of the gay lifestyle is irrelevant. Protecting the rights of all citizens equally should be paramount in our mind, because once you justify the opposite you create opportunity for further exploitation based on a different and completely arbitrary criteria.
Click to expand...


So gays ARE vying to become a protected class?

There is equal protection under the law, BP.
Like I pointed out earlier.
There are laws that say who can and cannot marry.

Will our next protected class be incestuous couples?


My main issue with gay marriage is the redefining of the word, itself.
I would be willing to recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. The company I work for does for all of our benefits.
Ya just can't put an eraser on a marker and call it a pencil.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> What science?
> There is no science that proves homosexuality is hardwired.



There is, you just choose to ignore it. A preponderance of evidence points to a genetic predisposition. There is NONE that prove it is a choice. There's none that even hints that it is a choice.

I'm gay and I'm telling you I didn't choose. Can you choose your attractions? Perhaps you are bisexual.


----------



## koshergrl

No, there isn't. You are lying. Or just stupid.

The APA had to revise it's statement regarding the nature of homosexuality..after Kinsey was exposed, and they weren't able to buy or even fake evidence solid enough to support their previous assertion that it was hardwired.


----------



## koshergrl

"
The huge amount of change in sexual orientation is one of the clearest evidences that homosexuality is not hard-wired by genes or anything in the biological environment. "

"These very complex comparisons of identical twins and non-identical twins definitively rule out genetic determinism. Identical twins with identical genes are about 11-14% concordant for SSA. If homosexuality were &#8220;genetic,&#8221; identical co-twins of homosexual men and women would also be homosexual 100% of the time."

"There is no genetic determinism, and genetic influence at most is minor. Individualistic reactions to random factors are very important. 
Those who say homosexuality is genetically influenced are correct, but only to about this degree: 
If a girl becomes pregnant at age fifteen, we could argue that she is genetically predisposed to. We could say that in her culture, her genes gave her the kind of face and figure that send male hormones into orbit and bring her under a level of pressure that she is unable to resist. But that&#8217;s about the strength of the genetic influence. There are a huge number of environmental factors that could also have brought the pregnancy about, from cancellation of the basketball game she was going to watch with a girlfriend, permission to use Dad&#8217;s car, her boyfriend&#8217;s company, the movie they had just viewed together, and failure to use a contraceptive, to big environmental factors like personal values systems, peer group pressure, and an emotionally distant father. "

Summary of scientific findings on homosexuality | what does science say about homosexuality?​


----------



## Gadawg73

koshergrl said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
> 
> Indian tribes don't pay casino money to all Indians...just the ones in their tribe. Are they "persecuting" the people they aren't paying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "favored social construct" this way was NO ******* for how many years?
> Who makes the "favored social construct" rules?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So is it discrimination when the casinos only pay out to their own tribe?
> 
> Is it discrimination when McDonald's employees aren't afforded the same tax breaks as people who employ hundreds of people?
Click to expand...


Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
Except gay folk.
See how stupid your post was?


----------



## uscitizen

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



NOpe all of em are not born that way. No more than all republicans are born with the "republican brain".


----------



## Seawytch

Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay? 

You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...

Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it? 

And sex is just the fringe benefit... 

Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?


----------



## uscitizen

We should really do away with that marriage tax break.


----------



## Seawytch

Gadawg73 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "favored social construct" this way was NO ******* for how many years?
> Who makes the "favored social construct" rules?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is it discrimination when the casinos only pay out to their own tribe?
> 
> Is it discrimination when McDonald's employees aren't afforded the same tax breaks as people who employ hundreds of people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
> McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
> Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
> Except gay folk.
> See how stupid your post was?
Click to expand...


Committed murderers on death row can get married no matter what prison they are in. (SCOTUS ruling)


----------



## uscitizen

Priests can't get married.


----------



## Seawytch

uscitizen said:


> Priests can't get married.



No, but the straight ones have girlfriends and the gay ones have boyfriends. The pedophile ones have the Church leaders to protect them and transfer them to new parishes.


----------



## Seawytch

Oh, and _*legally *_Priests can...


----------



## uscitizen

Seawytch said:


> Oh, and _*legally *_Priests can...



Yeah it is wonderful that we do not live under a religious government.

Of couese they are not priests anymore if they marry.
so technically they can get married but not be married.


----------



## Peach

Seawytch said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is it discrimination when the casinos only pay out to their own tribe?
> 
> Is it discrimination when McDonald's employees aren't afforded the same tax breaks as people who employ hundreds of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
> McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
> Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
> Except gay folk.
> See how stupid your post was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Committed murderers on death row can get married no matter what prison they are in. (SCOTUS ruling)
Click to expand...


The dregs of societies often are compelled to seek out "groups" of other humans that they can focus their lack of a soul, their inner void, by hating.


----------



## uscitizen

Peach said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
> McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
> Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
> Except gay folk.
> See how stupid your post was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committed murderers on death row can get married no matter what prison they are in. (SCOTUS ruling)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dregs of societies often are compelled to seek out "groups" of other humans that they can focus their lack of a soul, their inner void, by hating.
Click to expand...


so someone marries one on death row because they hate them??

I thought only normal people did that.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So is it discrimination when the casinos only pay out to their own tribe?
> 
> Is it discrimination when McDonald's employees aren't afforded the same tax breaks as people who employ hundreds of people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
> McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
> Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
> Except gay folk.
> See how stupid your post was?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Committed murderers on death row can get married no matter what prison they are in. (SCOTUS ruling)
Click to expand...


Gays can get married too. 

Just not to each other. Because that's not what our society recognizes as "marriage".


----------



## koshergrl

Peach said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indians can get married no matter what tribe they are from.
> McDonalds employees can get married no matter what tax break they get.
> Everyone that gets tax breaks can get married.
> Except gay folk.
> See how stupid your post was?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Committed murderers on death row can get married no matter what prison they are in. (SCOTUS ruling)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dregs of societies often are compelled to seek out "groups" of other humans that they can focus their lack of a soul, their inner void, by hating.
Click to expand...


That's right. Cuz if you don't agree with crap reasoning, obviously you "hate".

"Hate" is what the left uses to intimidate the majority into coming to heel.

Marriage is one man and one woman. It is not discriminatory, any adult can get married...to one person of the opposite sex, one at a time, in this country.

Gays can as well. Nobody cares what their sexual orientation is. But two guys are not one man and one woman, and therefore don't meet the criteria required to be a married couple in this country.


----------



## Seawytch

Seawytch said:


> Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay?
> 
> You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...
> 
> Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it?
> 
> And sex is just the fringe benefit...
> 
> Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?



Kosher, you gonna answer my question about "choice"?


----------



## koshergrl

uscitizen said:


> We should really do away with that marriage tax break.



I'm sure you would prefer heteros be penalized for getting married, and be forced to sterilize themselves after 1 child.

Too bad for you.


----------



## BDBoop

Seawytch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay?
> 
> You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...
> 
> Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it?
> 
> And sex is just the fringe benefit...
> 
> Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosher, you gonna answer my question about "choice"?
Click to expand...


Phfft.


----------



## koshergrl

Seawytch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay?
> 
> You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...
> 
> Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it?
> 
> And sex is just the fringe benefit...
> 
> Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosher, you gonna answer my question about "choice"?
Click to expand...


Of course I could choose to do that. 

I'm not going to, though, any more than I'm going to choose to be over the moon over a guy right now.

People make these choices all the time. Women and men choose to remain single, and talk themselves into love, and out of love, with inappropriate, or appropriate, people all the time.

They choose to put love on hold for years, decades even, and then when they are in a different spot in their lives, they choose to find someone to fall in love with...and they do it. Or they decide with their minds that a person would be a suitable partner, and they convince their hearts to follow suit. This happens all the time with arranged marriages, but it happens outside of that construct as well. I know people who have done this, and you probably do, too.

We are not slaves to our bodies, nor to our emotions. People who are are patently narcissistic, and undisciplined.

I've had very close and loving relationships with women as well as men. They could easily have been sexual, except I chose not to pursue sexual relations...and not because I was repulsed by them. I just didn't see the point. I have control over myself and my emotions. That's not to say I haven't made stupid decisions, chosen the wrong people, become overwrought...I have. But it always came down to a choice. Always. As it does with every person in the world, except those who are literally forced and abused and cannot make choices on their own.


----------



## BDBoop

Yeah. She lied.


----------



## koshergrl

Pooper, I wouldn't dream of toppling you from your liar's throne.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Pooper, I wouldn't dream of toppling you from your liar's throne.



But you do! All day, every day. You post, you breathe, you lie.


----------



## koshergrl

Stalker!!!


----------



## MikeK

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally "learned" or behavior modification response.


Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.  

PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES


----------



## MikeK

Mr.Nick said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No....
> 
> An individual that has been molested by the same sex is more often going to be a homosexual.
> 
> Homosexuality can be brainwashed into an individual to boot...
> 
> You think the Romans were all born bi-sexual or were they trained to be bi-sexual or even homosexual??
> 
> Homosexuality violates every aspect of evolution, yet it's those who strongly promote evolution who accept homosexuality as "rational behavior."
> 
> Please anyone explain how survival of a species includes homosexuality??
Click to expand...

Homosexuality has been observed in virtually all animal species.  While it is abnormal it is not unnatural.


----------



## koshergrl

BluePhantom said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At one time the Christian church persecuted left handed folk also.
> Amazing how ignorance prevails each and every election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not allowing gays to marry isn't "persecution". It's just refusing to give them the benefits we allot to people who choose to participate in a favored social construct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmm....well Jews make up about 2.1% of the United States population and they participate in activities that are not the "favored social construct". Shall we deny them the right to marry too?  Southern Baptists 6.7%, Mormons 1.4%, Seventh Day Adventist 0.4%, Buddhists 0.5%, evangelicals 0.9%.  All of them choose to participate in activities that are not in a "favored social construct".  Shall we ban their rights to marry?
Click to expand...


Nope, because anybody can get married

But two guys together aren't a marriage. Sorry. You'll have to find a different word. That one's already taken.


----------



## BDBoop

Sorry, there are several states where men are already married. They got to keep the word, and everything.


----------



## koshergrl

Good for them. All gays who want to get married should move to those states.


----------



## WinterBorn

Seawytch said:


> Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay?
> 
> You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...
> 
> Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it?
> 
> And sex is just the fringe benefit...
> 
> Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?



This is what has been missing!   The idea that being gay is not just about sex, anymore than being straight is just about the sex.  It is about who attracts you.  And we do not control that.


----------



## WinterBorn

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should really do away with that marriage tax break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you would prefer heteros be penalized for getting married, and be forced to sterilize themselves after 1 child.
> 
> Too bad for you.
Click to expand...


So two people having to pay the same tax they paid before they married is a penalty??

But not allowing two men to marry, or two women to marry, is not a penalty?


----------



## koshergrl

No penalty. When you aren't married, you don't get the perks.

A penalty would be them paying a fine.


----------



## Seawytch

BDBoop said:


> Yeah. She lied.



Sure, that's one possibility. The other is that she is bisexual and just choosing not to act on her natural inclinations. Only she knows for sure.


----------



## Seawytch

koshergrl said:


> No penalty. When you aren't married, you don't get the perks.
> 
> A penalty would be them paying a fine.



Hmmmm, I am legally married in the state of California, but I'm *paying *a penalty that other legally married couples do not. 

Ending the Gay Health Care Tax


----------



## Peach

MikeK said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.
> 
> PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES
Click to expand...


There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:

Is there a homosexuality gene?

And being gay is not "abnormal".


----------



## Zoom-boing

Peach said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.
> 
> PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> Is there a homosexuality gene?
> 
> *And being gay is not "abnormal".*
Click to expand...


Yes it is.  

Heterosexuality is the norm; 90% of people are heteros.

Homosexuality is not the norm; 10% of people are homos.

My son is in the autistic spectrum; most people aren't.

My son isn't what is considered 'normal'.

Not being 'normal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.  

It's just different.  It just  . . . . . _is_.


----------



## Peach

Zoom-boing said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.
> 
> PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> Is there a homosexuality gene?
> 
> *And being gay is not "abnormal".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Heterosexuality is the norm; 90% of people are heteros.
> 
> Homosexuality is not the norm; 10% of people are homos.
> 
> My son is in the autistic spectrum; most people aren't.
> 
> My son isn't what is considered 'normal'.
> 
> Not being 'normal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> It's just different.  It just  . . . . . _is_.
Click to expand...


Not being part of the "majority" isn't abnormal in my view. Males are a minority in America, are they ABNORMAL?


----------



## Gadawg73

Friend of mine is career military retired. Army Ranger. He now works in law enforcement and is early 50s.
"40 years from now Americans will look back and see how ridiculous this gay argument was"
We call him Vike because the school he played for were the Vikings. Vike is like me. In the 60s and 70s and part of the 80s we were anti gay everything. Just part of the culture we grew up in. Vike has been retired military for about 8 years and was for the open service in the military for the last 15 years. Like me he has no problem with gay marriage.
Because it is a NON ISSUE.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Peach said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> Is there a homosexuality gene?
> 
> *And being gay is not "abnormal".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Heterosexuality is the norm; 90% of people are heteros.
> 
> Homosexuality is not the norm; 10% of people are homos.
> 
> My son is in the autistic spectrum; most people aren't.
> 
> My son isn't what is considered 'normal'.
> 
> Not being 'normal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> It's just different.  It just  . . . . . _is_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not being part of the "majority" isn't abnormal in my view. Males are a minority in America, are they ABNORMAL?
Click to expand...


It's not majority that makes it normal, there is a standard which is considered normal.  Heterosexuality is that standard.  Average intelligence is the standard which is considered normal.  Most people happen to fall into these two standards.  My son doesn't.  Is he 'normal'?  No, he falls outside of the standard.  Genius is also abnormal, as is homosexual.  

Male may not be the majority sex but that doesn't make them abnormal, they don't fall outside of the standard of what is considered normal.  A hermaphrodite would be abnormal.

Actually, males are generally just kinda weird and hairy.


----------



## koshergrl

It's not 10 percent that is gay..that's a number that came from Kinsey and was derived from his fraudulent study of pimps, prostitutes, prison inmates and pedophiles that he passed off as a cross section of the at large population.

It's more like 3 percent.


----------



## Zoom-boing

koshergrl said:


> It's not 10 percent that is gay..that's a number that came from Kinsey and was derived from his fraudulent study of pimps, prostitutes, prison inmates and pedophiles that he passed off as a cross section of the at large population.
> 
> It's more like 3 percent.



I figured my numbers were likely off, I was just using it as an example.  Thx.


----------



## G.T.

"like, 3 percent" is soo00oo00 scientific though.


----------



## Gadawg73

If sexuality is a choice why would one come out, proclaim they are gay and catch the "you are immoral" claims?
Why not just stay in the closet your entire life?
No one chooses to be condemned publicly. 
Human sexuality is not a choice.


----------



## Peach

Gadawg73 said:


> If sexuality is a choice why would one come out, proclaim they are gay and catch the "you are immoral" claims?
> Why not just stay in the closet your entire life?
> No one chooses to be condemned publicly.
> Human sexuality is not a choice.



No, but the human desire to be free from public condemnation runs deep; as does the need to condemn as we are seeing.


----------



## BDBoop

Seawytch said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah. She lied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, that's one possibility. The other is that she is bisexual and just choosing not to act on her natural inclinations. Only she knows for sure.
Click to expand...


The fact that she's ignoring you again makes me go with liar. Well - that and her posting history.


----------



## koshergrl

Bisexual is a choice.


----------



## koshergrl

Gadawg73 said:


> If sexuality is a choice why would one come out, proclaim they are gay and catch the "you are immoral" claims?
> Why not just stay in the closet your entire life?
> No one chooses to be condemned publicly.
> Human sexuality is not a choice.



Uh, people do stay in the closet their entire lives. You seriously think people become openly gay because they just can't control their desire to wear purple satin smoking jackets and air kiss their girlfriends?


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Bisexual is a choice.



So you're bi. Well, I guess it's a start.


----------



## koshergrl

Everybody's bi.


----------



## BluePhantom

hortysir said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and I have had this discussion, before, Bo and you know I think that you should the same right to lose half your shit in a divorce as I do.
> 
> But if a state and it's voters make a certain decision, just don't reside there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that easy, brother.  Most people never move out of their home county let alone state.  There are a lot of reasons for this but one of the big ones is economics.  A lot of people don't have the money to relocate. So a homosexual individual that is born in Michigan, Oregon, or California, for example, that has no financial resources to relocate is in a situation where there is not only inequality regarding sexual orientation but faces a restriction of their civil rights due to poverty as well.
> 
> Now for those who can relocate, fine...but what if a same-sex couple gets a once in a lifetime job offer but would have to relocate to Oregon, California, or Michigan? Doing so would void their marriage and as such they could sue the state for untold millions because they are experiencing direct financial damages due to a civil rights violation.
> 
> By your suggestion, homosexuals would experience even more restrictions on their rights and suffer direct economic damages based upon the fact that they belong to a specific demographic of United States society.  Yet in *no *state is there a situation where a given demographic of United States citizens cannot freely establish residency, work, marry, etc.....no demographic *except *homosexuals.   That's not what this great nation is about...and I issue the warning: if we allow a specific demographic to have their constitutional rights violated we open up the door for other demographics to receive the same treatment.  Today it might be homosexuals....tomorrow it might be Jews, Catholics, blacks, whites, women, the obese, people with bad credit, people in debt....you name it. That's not a path I am willing to endorse.
> 
> Whether one approves or disapproves of the gay lifestyle is irrelevant. Protecting the rights of all citizens equally should be paramount in our mind, because once you justify the opposite you create opportunity for further exploitation based on a different and completely arbitrary criteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So gays ARE vying to become a protected class?
> 
> There is equal protection under the law, BP.
> Like I pointed out earlier.
> There are laws that say who can and cannot marry.
> 
> Will our next protected class be incestuous couples?
> 
> 
> My main issue with gay marriage is the redefining of the word, itself.
> I would be willing to recognize Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships. The company I work for does for all of our benefits.
> Ya just can't put an eraser on a marker and call it a pencil.
Click to expand...


I understand your point of view.  Now I might look at it a bit different and say: "well if you grant them the right to form a legal union, benefits, same tax implications, etc but you are not calling it marriage...isn't that putting an eraser on a marker and calling it a pencil?" You know...if it's the exact same thing but with a different name....see where I am going here?  If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck....it's a fucking duck.   Why play the little word games?


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> Everybody's bi.



Okay. Probably 98% of the board doesn't know they're bi, you should probably spread the word.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> It's not 10 percent that is gay..that's a number that came from Kinsey and was derived from his fraudulent study of pimps, prostitutes, prison inmates and pedophiles that he passed off as a cross section of the at large population.
> 
> It's more like 3 percent.



But if everybody is bi, then who cares how many are gay. It's more like 100%, but nobody is acting on it.


----------



## koshergrl

It's a choice.

People who choose to be gay can also choose if they want to participate in marriage or not,which means they aren't being denied anything.


----------



## G.T.

^ cornball.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.
> 
> PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> Is there a homosexuality gene?
> 
> *And being gay is not "abnormal".*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Heterosexuality is the norm; 90% of people are heteros.
> 
> Homosexuality is not the norm; 10% of people are homos.
> 
> My son is in the autistic spectrum; most people aren't.
> 
> My son isn't what is considered 'normal'.
> 
> Not being 'normal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> It's just different.  It just  . . . . . _is_.
Click to expand...


different does not mean abnormal. it means not average.

blue eyes are not the norm. however people with blue eyes are not abnormal, they simply exhibit a recessive, rather than a dominant, trait.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 10 percent that is gay..that's a number that came from Kinsey and was derived from his fraudulent study of pimps, prostitutes, prison inmates and pedophiles that he passed off as a cross section of the at large population.
> 
> It's more like 3 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if everybody is bi, then who cares how many are gay. It's more like 100%, but nobody is acting on it.
Click to expand...


Your side is the one who is always quoting the fake figures as if it matters.

I agree, it doesn't matter, because it's a choice. People choose their sexuality. People choose whether they want to get married or not.

If they don't want to be in a male/female union, then they don't want to be married, since that's what marriage is.

If they change their mind and want to go there, they can.

No discrimination. It's just a choice.

If you don't want to take a driver's license exam, are we obligated to provide you with a license anyway? Nope.

If you won't enter into a contract with a person of the opposite sex, are we obligated to give you a piece of paper that says you did? Nope.


----------



## koshergrl

If a single person says they want to be considered married...but it's just them, are they being discriminated against?


----------



## BDBoop

G.T. said:


> ^ cornball.



Seconded.

By the way, G.T.; did you know you are bi?


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not 10 percent that is gay..that's a number that came from Kinsey and was derived from his fraudulent study of pimps, prostitutes, prison inmates and pedophiles that he passed off as a cross section of the at large population.
> 
> It's more like 3 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if everybody is bi, then who cares how many are gay. It's more like 100%, but nobody is acting on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your side is the one who is always quoting the fake figures as if it matters.
> 
> I agree, it doesn't matter, because it's a choice. People choose their sexuality. People choose whether they want to get married or not.
> 
> If they don't want to be in a male/female union, then they don't want to be married, since that's what marriage is.
> 
> If they change their mind and want to go there, they can.
> 
> No discrimination. It's just a choice.
> 
> If you don't want to take a driver's license exam, are we obligated to provide you with a license anyway? Nope.
> 
> If you won't enter into a contract with a person of the opposite sex, are we obligated to give you a piece of paper that says you did? Nope.
Click to expand...


I'm just bemused by the fact that you can talk SO. MUCH. SHIT! and make it sound normal. Logical. Rational. If this was being said under a psych eval, they'd be measuring you for one of those cute little white jackets with the long, long sleeves.


----------



## uscitizen

koshergrl said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> We should really do away with that marriage tax break.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure you would prefer heteros be penalized for getting married, and be forced to sterilize themselves after 1 child.
> 
> Too bad for you.
Click to expand...


Now why the hell do you think that about me?

I am hetro all the way.
I just do not try and run othwers lives and do not think the govt should promote hetro marriage thru the tax structure.


----------



## uscitizen

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody's bi.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay. Probably 98% of the board doesn't know they're bi, you should probably spread the word.
Click to expand...


some are trysexual.  They will try anything sexual.


----------



## koshergrl

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> But if everybody is bi, then who cares how many are gay. It's more like 100%, but nobody is acting on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your side is the one who is always quoting the fake figures as if it matters.
> 
> I agree, it doesn't matter, because it's a choice. People choose their sexuality. People choose whether they want to get married or not.
> 
> If they don't want to be in a male/female union, then they don't want to be married, since that's what marriage is.
> 
> If they change their mind and want to go there, they can.
> 
> No discrimination. It's just a choice.
> 
> If you don't want to take a driver's license exam, are we obligated to provide you with a license anyway? Nope.
> 
> If you won't enter into a contract with a person of the opposite sex, are we obligated to give you a piece of paper that says you did? Nope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just bemused by the fact that you can talk SO. MUCH. SHIT! and make it sound normal. Logical. Rational. If this was being said under a psych eval, they'd be measuring you for one of those cute little white jackets with the long, long sleeves.
Click to expand...

 
That's okay, we all know by now that you're befuddled by words. You've admitted you don't bother reading about the thread topics you stupidly troll. 

I've been evaluated about every way you can imagine and I always rise to the top of my group....I'm incredibly employable that way, particularly when taken into consideration with my work history, criminal history (none) and other reasoning test scores when applicable...

My SAT score for comprehension was as high as they can get....now that was almost 30 years ago, but I don't think my comprehension has decreased since I was 18 years old.


----------



## koshergrl

And I was hung over when I took my SAT, lol.


----------



## BDBoop

No surprise there.


----------



## koshergrl

And I still aced it.


----------



## MikeK

Peach said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally "learned" or behavior modification response.
> 
> 
> 
> Homosexuality is not genetic nor is it a _learned behavior._   The sex urge is facilitated by the influence of hormones on the brain.  If a male is born with or develops a hormonal imbalance (too much estrogen + not enough testosterone) he will be sexually attracted to other males.  Same (though inverted) situation with females.  But owing to their more complicated hormonal makeup and innate psychological sensitivity human females are more inclined to superficial homosexual conduct than are males.
> 
> PsychiatryOnline | American Journal of Psychiatry | QUANTITATIVE SEX HORMONE STUDIES IN HOMOSEXUALITY, CHILDHOOD, AND VARIOUS NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISTURBANCES
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> http://phys.org/news84720662.html
Click to expand...


[...]_"During the past several decades, scientists have discovered some interesting patterns that may point toward genetic causes of homosexuality."_[...]

_[...]"These studies and otherswhile unable to point to a specific genedo point to the idea that homosexuality may be inherited through a polymorphic gene,"[...]_ 

The above quotes are excerpted from your source and clearly refer to theoretical rather than empirical data.  At this time there is no evidence of a homosexual gene but there is evidence of hormonal influence.



> And being gay is not "abnormal".


Any exception to a widely accepted norm is _ab-_normal. 

I.Q. of 90 - 110 is normal.  I.Q. of 140 or greater is _abnormal._


----------



## MikeK

Peach said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If sexuality is a choice why would one come out, proclaim they are gay and catch the "you are immoral" claims?
> Why not just stay in the closet your entire life?
> No one chooses to be condemned publicly.
> Human sexuality is not a choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but the human desire to be free from public condemnation runs deep; as does the need to condemn as we are seeing.
Click to expand...

You should not allow that to cause you to become hypersensitive and infer offense or condemnation where none is intended.  That is self-defeating and socially awkward.


----------



## MikeK

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is evidence of a genetic VARIANT:
> 
> Is there a homosexuality gene?
> 
> *And being gay is not "abnormal".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> Heterosexuality is the norm; 90% of people are heteros.
> 
> Homosexuality is not the norm; 10% of people are homos.
> 
> My son is in the autistic spectrum; most people aren't.
> 
> My son isn't what is considered 'normal'.
> 
> Not being 'normal' isn't necessarily a bad thing.
> 
> It's just different.  It just  . . . . . _is_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> different does not mean abnormal. it means not average.
> 
> blue eyes are not the norm. however people with blue eyes are not abnormal, they simply exhibit a recessive, rather than a dominant, trait.
Click to expand...

Blue eyes are normal.  Brown eyes are normal.  One blue eye and one brown eye is abnormal.  (But there's nothing _wrong_ with it.)


----------



## thereisnospoon

Seawytch said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you are going to ignore the _overwhelming majority_ of scientists that will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. So, that being the case, let's talk this out, Seawytch to Koshergrl, okay?
> 
> You want to insist that orientation is a choice (for what reason I don't know) so let's go with that for a sec...
> 
> Could you choose to have sex with a woman? And I'm not just talking about closing your eyes and being on the receiving end of the most mind blowing cunnilingus you've ever experienced, but *giving *it in return and caring about how well you were doing it?
> 
> And sex is just the fringe benefit...
> 
> Could you _choose _to be emotionally attracted to a woman? Could you _choose _to have your stomach flip flop when she smiled at you? Could you _choose _to want to melt when she gave you that certain look? Could you _choose _to want to spend the rest of your life with her as a partner in mind, body and soul? Could you _choose _to look at her every day and thank your lucky stars that she came into your life and hung a string of lights around your heart? Could you _*choose *_all that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kosher, you gonna answer my question about "choice"?
Click to expand...

Majority of which scientists?..Go ahead and post your data.
Being gay is a choice. Just as being straight is a choice. If one abstains from sex they are neither straight nor gay. So if a person who may be attracted to a member of the same gender does NOT act upon the attraction, no one would ever know about the attraction.


----------



## koshergrl

That is exactly what I said!


----------



## bayoubill

healthmyths said:


> Given the FACT that human reproduction requires intercourse between a man (donor) and a woman(host) isn't "gayness" a learned, or behavior modification i.e. "nature vs nurture"?
> 
> I mean researchers still haven't found a "dominate" GAY gene.
> So existing gays are totally a "learned" or behavior modification response.



I remember a time when tomboys were admired for their independence...

and swishy guys were appreciated because they were the only ones who freely gave quality time to our bothersome high-maintenance aunts...

what happened to that...?


----------



## koshergrl

Plus they could play piano like crazy.


----------



## bayoubill

koshergrl said:


> Plus they could play piano like crazy.



lol... my mom has told me that, when I was a toddler back in the 50's, I was a big fan of Liberace's TV show...


----------



## Gadawg73

You guys are about as naive as they come. 
Dude I played football with turned out he was gay. Same with many of the cops I have worked with for years. 
Few gay men fit the Liberace model. Same with few gay women fit the bull dyke model.
You folks really need to get out more. I know American Idol and Entertainment Tonight are fun to watch but the real world awaits you.


----------



## koshergrl

One of my best friends growing up was gay. He was awesome on the piano, he had a paying gig at my  hometown's nicest restaurant on the weekends; he took requests. 

He also was a great athlete and played football, which is probably why he never got the shit beaten out of him by our male classmates, who were loggers that worked in the mills and the woods with their dads from the time they were 14.

His dad was a state cop.

I absolutely loved him..he was funny, and smart, and sooo much fun. Plus he's a Christian. He's incredibly wealthy now and works with kids, and I'm sure he's great with them...

and he still plays the piano like crazy.


----------

