# Identical twins, one gay, one ain't



## glockmail (Mar 4, 2009)

I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means. 

Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.


----------



## Burp (Mar 4, 2009)

I heard that everyone has cancerous cells.  But how they mutate, get killed off, and/orrepair themselves that will or will not result in someone "having cancer."

Or something like that.

Maybe everyone has the trait (gene) but how it morphs in one's body make the difference?

FWIW, my jury is out on whether it is genetic or not.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 4, 2009)

Cancer's a mutation that occurs after your born. Oh, I suppose it could occur while in the womb, but with all that protection from the environment it seems unlikely.


----------



## Burp (Mar 4, 2009)

Maybe, while the babies were in the womb, the positioning of one blocked the other from hearing the Barry Manilow music when mom played it?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 4, 2009)

Barely Maninuf never made a gal gay. Suicidal maybe.


----------



## Burp (Mar 4, 2009)

Hear about the mall that wants to pipe in BM (and the initials are NOT a coincidence) music to keep the kids away?

WELLINGTON, New Zealand (AP) &#8212; It'll be Barry Manilow versus the mall rats. The New Zealand city of Christchurch hopes that putting the American crooner's smooth and gentle tones into the mix of music to be broadcast through the central mall district can pacify unruly teens who congregate there_ or at least convince them to go elsewhere.

"The intention is to change the environment in a positive way ... so nobody feels threatened or intimidated," Central City Business Association manager Paul Lonsdale told The Associated Press. "I did not say Barry Manilow is a weapon of mass destruction."

A group of several dozen young people regularly spread rubbish, spray graffiti, get intoxicated, use drugs, swear and intimidate patrons at the outdoor mall, he said.

The city council, police and local property owners covering 410 businesses agree that "nice, easy listening" music like Manilow's "Can't Smile Without You," "Mandy" and other hits might change the behavior of loitering teens.

But one 16-year-old told The Press newspaper that unfashionable music wouldn't deter them.

"We would just bring a stereo and play it louder," Emma Belcher said.

Lonsdale countered that the city would then hit them with anti-noise laws.

The Associated Press: Mall wants Manilow music to drive out unruly teens


----------



## Missourian (Mar 4, 2009)

Interesting line of reasoning.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 4, 2009)

It's an interesting question for sure.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 4, 2009)

In essense, they are bisexual.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 4, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> In essense, they are bisexual.


 No, the couple that gave birth via artificial insemination (OK, I told y'all) are in a committed, long term, _lesbian _relationship. Yet the _identical twin_ sister is in a normal marriage.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 4, 2009)

glockmail said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > In essense, they are bisexual.
> ...



No.  I'm talking about the identical twins.  Genetically speaking, they are one "person"...making that one person bisexual.


----------



## random3434 (Mar 4, 2009)

What's the difference between a "normal marriage" and an "abnormal marriage" Glock?




Why was my friend Chris born with half an arm, and his identical twin brother born with both arms?


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 4, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> Why was my friend Chris born with half an arm, and his identical twin brother born with both arms?



Intrauterine fight.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 5, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> What's the difference between a "normal marriage" and an "abnormal marriage" Glock?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not the same and you know it.

If Genetics determine homosexuality how is it an identical twin is gay but the other is not? When two or more fetus are in a womb it is possible for lots of physical ailments to manifest due to the constraints put on the fetus.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...


Huh. Is that true?


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> In essense, they are bisexual.



That would be my guess. History would suggest (outside of Abrahamic religions bisexuality/homosexuality was common) that many, but not all, people are biologically capable of bisexuality, *but those who are bisexual *can be pushed one way or another by environmental factors. It seems that it isn't everybody though. For example, I have exactly zero qualms with the homosexual lifestyle, but I have zero desire to join in. To me, this suggests that my status as heterosexual is not a choice, at this point. There's no reason not to suspect the same applies to some, if not most, homosexuals. But if you think it's a choice, you must be bisexual. Whether that was determined genetically or not is hard to say. I wasn't born thinking about sex, but most of our our genes are not being used at any given time. Most likely it's a complex interaction effect between many factors including but not limited to genes.



Burp said:


> I heard that everyone has cancerous cells.  But how they mutate, get killed off, and/orrepair themselves that will or will not result in someone "having cancer."
> 
> Or something like that.
> 
> ...



Multicellular organisms evolved so that cells destroy themselves (apoptosis) and stop dividing when their DNA is damaged and cannot be repaired, allowing the error to die with the defective cell. Your DNA is constantly being damaged by carcinogenic compounds and background radiation. Adding further insults (tanning, eating burnt food) increases the risk, and antioxidants decrease the risk (neutralize free radicals). So long as the control mechanisms are in place the cell will not become cancerous. But when the DNA coding for one or more of the control mechanisms themselves is damaged, the cell line can proliferate uncontrollably, disrupting the overall function of the organism. Your immune system tries to label and destroy such defective cells as well. When that last line of defense is crossed cancer occurs.

Example of a critical control protein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> ....
> 
> No.  I'm talking about the identical twins.  Genetically speaking, they are one "person"...making that one person bisexual.


  OK I see your position now. However, Normal Gal is married to _real _old school guy. I _guarantee _you that he wouldn't put up with that shit.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Echo Zulu said:


> What's the difference between a "normal marriage" and an "abnormal marriage" Glock?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Normal is defined statistically as one or two standard deviations within the fat part of the bell curve. Outside of this range is considered abnormal. The term by itself does not indicate good or bad.

I suspect the arm deformation occurred at sometime in utero.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

It doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not.

What matters is that there are homosexuals and that they DO NOT choose to be homosexual but simply ARE homosexual.  It can not be cured (despite what you've might've heard from those religious institutions).  Think of sexuality as a spectrum: 0 being straight and 10 being homosexual.  Everyone fits into that spectrum, some 0, some 10, but most of us at the bottom of the scale like 1 and 2, a few of us at 8 and 9, and some between 4 and 7.  Those who are "cured" would most likely be found around the 4 to 7 range.  Essentially, they are bi-sexual, tended to find their own gender more attractive, but can make a life with the opposite gender.

The point is, homosexuals are gay.  They don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.   They just are.  And we shouldn't punish them for it.  Especially since being gay doesn't hurt anybody.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> It doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not.
> 
> What matters is that there are homosexuals and that they DO NOT choose to be homosexual but simply ARE homosexual.  It can not be cured (despite what you've might've heard from those religious institutions).  Think of sexuality as a spectrum: 0 being straight and 10 being homosexual.  Everyone fits into that spectrum, some 0, some 10, but most of us at the bottom of the scale like 1 and 2, a few of us at 8 and 9, and some between 4 and 7.  Those who are "cured" would most likely be found around the 4 to 7 range.  Essentially, they are bi-sexual, tended to find their own gender more attractive, but can make a life with the opposite gender.
> 
> The point is, homosexuals are gay.  They don't choose to be gay any more than you choose to be straight.   They just are.  And we shouldn't punish them for it.  Especially since being gay doesn't hurt anybody.



Your position seems to be 'they are, therefore they are'. Its illogical.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't matter if homosexuality is genetic or not.
> ...



His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.


He can believe whatever he wants, but I'm bringing up a case of identical twins- pesky facts. Raised in the same womb. Again, you can't tell these two gals apart except one had a longer hair style when I met her.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.



This is what I said:

Sexual ORIENTATION, not preference, is not a choice.

Homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual.  Straights do not choose to be straight.  Bisexuals can choose to be in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, but do not choose to be bisexual.

Don't confuse actions and behavior with what a person is.  Just because someone is in a homosexual relationship doesn't mean s/he is gay, but, looking at some of the right-wing family values and conservative leaders recently, being in a straight relationship doesn't make a person straight.

Genetics doesn't matter.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.
> ...



Actually I think it accounts for that quite well. According to the model he mentioned, the twins in question would likely be near the middle of the spectrum, say a 4, 5, or 6. Somebody who is a 6, for example, might weakly prefer the same sex. For such people environmental factors or other preferences are much more significant. One question is whether their social relations have led them to believe that bisexuality, or even homosexuality, is a viable option. Like many heterosexuals, some homosexuals don't believe in bisexuality as a distinct orientation.

However, somebody who is a 10 cannot, under any circumstances, be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex. So their choice is really between homosexuality and nothing.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > His first statement can be boiled down to it's not a choice. It seems he then said he believes there's a spectrum of preference, and those at the extreme ends of the spectrum have no choice but those in the middle do. But that it doesn't matter whether it's a choice or not because homosexuality doesn't harm anybody.
> ...



I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.


----------



## Care4all (Mar 5, 2009)

Burp said:


> Maybe, while the babies were in the womb, the positioning of one blocked the other from hearing the Barry Manilow music when mom played it?



I don't care what anyone says about Manilow....My husband and I, over a decade ago, went to a concert of his at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center...

It was a fantastic showing, goose bumpy for the both of us and the hubby really is not a manilow fan....at all, and he was pretty impressed, it was a great show and he was a great entertainer....very personal, very responsive to the crowd...

the only other setting that i felt similar on, was an Elton John concert, at the university of Connecticut Campus....where your seats were folding chairs in their auditorium....another goose bump situation because Elton really played to the audience and even went out among it...a very relaxed, fun on his part and ours, concert....

Weird....cuz i have loved alot of other concerts in my day....Eagles-3 times, Stones-twice, Fleetwood Mac, Chicago, santana, Yes, Alice Cooper, Billy Joel, Beach Boys, ELO, James Taylor, ...and the Lord only knows due to my youth at the time, the concerts I have forgotten 

Who would have thunk that Barry would have made it up there in ranking, but he did, surprisingly so.

care


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.



What I was saying is that genetics doesn 't matter when it comes to treating homosexuals as equal citizens witht the same rights and status as straight citizens.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> Actually I think it accounts for that quite well. According to the model he mentioned, the twins in question would likely be near the middle of the spectrum, say a 4, 5, or 6. Somebody who is a 6, for example, might weakly prefer the same sex. For such people environmental factors or other preferences are much more significant. One question is whether their social relations have led them to believe that bisexuality, or even homosexuality, is a viable option. Like many heterosexuals, some homosexuals don't believe in bisexuality as a distinct orientation.
> 
> However, somebody who is a 10 cannot, under any circumstances, be attracted to somebody of the opposite sex. So their choice is really between homosexuality and nothing.


I understand the hypothesis, however there is nothing to back it up, certainly not the facts of this case. The twins grew up in the same family, same house, same schools. In fact they chose identical careers in their formative years, both achieving nearly identical results. 

If the normal gal had married some fruity guy, then the hypothesis might have some validity, but she married a real old school type.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What I was saying is that genetics doesn 't matter when it comes to treating homosexuals as equal citizens witht the same rights and status as straight citizens.


 That's not the issue here. We are discussing if gays are born that way or not. This evidence says that they are not.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.





Twins are born, one has brown eyes and one has blue, therefore eye color is not genetic?

Twins are born, one is right handed and the other is a lefty, therefore hand dominance is not genetic?

Twins are born, one is a boy and one is a girl, therefore gender is not genetic?

Identical twins boys are born, one becomes a football player the other a figure skater.

Identical twins are born, one becomes a priest and the other becomes a politician, how could this possibly be? 

You follow?    Even twins are unique individuals.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics? 

good fucking lord, when did TWINS become CLONES?


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think anybody can definitively say the last statement you made. But I'd agree that being in a homosexual relationship does not exclude the possibility that the person is bisexual. It's not like most people see a 3-person relationship as a possibility.
> ...


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

Shogun said:


> wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> 
> good fucking lord, when did TWINS become CLONES?



Yes, exactly...I guess I actually misspoke by using the term "identical" in my examples, but the point is the same....Of course twins are unique individuals.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

Identical twins have the same dna...but that doesn't mean they are the same person or react to situations in the same manner.

IMO, we are all born with the capacity to go either way...or both ways, lol. It's probably just a matter of preference, like picking a chocolate chip cookie as a favorite snack as opposed to picking a potato chip.


----------



## DavidS (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.



Easy peasy.

Identical twins aren't as identical as you think.

http://multiples.about.com/cs/funfacts/a/twinfingerprint.htm

Identical twins generate a lot of curiosity.  And a lot of misconceptions!  Parents of multiples have probably not given a great deal of thought to their childrens' fingerprint patterns, but the general public has spent a lot of time wondering about this topic. 



So, do identical twins have identical fingerprints?  The basic answer is NO.  Identical -- or monozygotic -- twins form when a single fertilized egg splits in two after conception.  Because they form from a single zygote, the two individuals will have the same genetic makeup.  Their DNA is virtually indistinguishable.  

However, fingerprints are not an entirely genetic characteristic.  Scientists love to use this topic as an example of the old "nature vs. nurture" debate.  Fingerprinting, along with other physical characteristics, is an example of a phenotype -- meaning that it is determined by the interaction of an indivdual's genes and the developmental environment in the uterus.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

This whole thread is nothing but stupid assertions ... even the OP. One major issue that most people forget: Identical twins are NOT exact copies of each other, they just share most traits.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.



If they didn't have the homosexuals to argue about it would be "missionary" versus "doggy".


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.


Translation: it can't be true because I don't believe it. *ppfftt*


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> If the normal gal had married some fruity guy, then the hypothesis might have some validity, but she married a *real old school type*.



So I assume that this "real old school guy" doesn't wear cardigans and khakis, cologne, and has nicely trimmed hair and clean shaven, and enjoys a fine cabernet savignon and watching sex in the city, but rather he wears Carhartts and steel-toe boots, smells faintly of motor oil, has greasy hair with scruffy beard, and likes drinking Pabst and watches Ultimate Fighting?

I bet he also belches, openly scratches his hairy belly, and watches Spike TV in the living room while wearing T-shirt and boxers.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.
> ...



Except they argue about vaginal versus anal.  Condoms and Pills, versus Abstinence.  Christian versus Muslim.  Capitalism vs. Socialism.  The death penalty vs. abortion.  Oh wait, that last one isn't right...  Damn it.  Conservatives, I think, just like to play the Devil's Advocate.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

DavidS said:


> ....
> 
> 
> So, do identical twins have identical fingerprints? ....


 The fingerprints on each of my ten fingers are unique, yet none of them belong to a gay man. Your attempt at equivalence here is meaningless.


----------



## AllieBaba (Mar 5, 2009)

The whole "gay is hardwired" is based on even worse science than global warming.

There is absolutely nothing to support the theory. Nothing.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > If the normal gal had married some fruity guy, then the hypothesis might have some validity, but she married a *real old school type*.
> ...



LOL ... Glocksucker thinks that straight men don't shower!


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> Identical twins are born, one has brown eyes and one has blue, therefore eye color is not genetic....


 Identical twins have the same eye color.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> ....
> So I assume that this "real old school guy" doesn't wear cardigans and khakis, cologne, and has nicely trimmed hair and clean shaven, and enjoys a fine cabernet savignon and watching sex in the city, but rather he wears Carhartts and steel-toe boots, smells faintly of motor oil, has greasy hair with scruffy beard, and likes drinking Pabst and watches Ultimate Fighting?
> 
> I bet he also belches, openly scratches his hairy belly, and watches Spike TV in the living room while wearing T-shirt and boxers.



Way to generalize about people. *shrug*


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Coloradomtnman said:
> ...



LOL ... yep. As for the "anal" v "vaginal" ... funny little factoid ... most straight couples have a lot of anal play. The butt plug was invented for straight people, by a straight person so he didn't have to "be gay", even.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.
> ...



C'mon Glock.  What's the point?  I don't believe it because it isn't true.  I know many homosexuals.  I am close friends with homosexuals.  My uncle and his life partner of 15 years are homosexuals.  We have dinner, we got to movies, we attend concerts (the lesbians go to hockey games), we go to strip clubs, we get drunk together, we do all the same things that you and your friends do.  My friends, especially the gay ones, discuss these issues A LOT.  And they ALL OF THEM agree that they HAVE NOT made a choice to be homosexual.  THEY JUST ARE, and they have always been since they can remember.  Now, do I trust them (people who are actually homosexuals) or do I trust dogmatic, faith-based, fearful, hateful religiomatics and men who are afraid of being called "fag" who claim that homosexuality is a chosen practice even though they themselve aren't gay and have no real experience with homosexuals beyond what they learned in Church and in comedy movies?

Hmmm.  Difficult decision...  I guess all those fags and dikes I know could be lying to push some agenda, but, no, probably not.  They're just regular people who ARE sexually attracted to the same gender.  Kinda how some men have foot fetishes, or some white women are attracted to black men, or a million other ways that people experience sexuality beyond the narrow-Biblical-repressed men-have-to-like-women and can only have sex when married without a condom to have children and not for pleasure.  Jesus didn't have sex, so we can't enjoy it!  Cause the Bible told me so.

Why do you hate homosexuals so much, Glock?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.


Glock struggles with his choice to be straight on a daily basis.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Alright ... a little question and answer: Why would anyone *choose* to be something that is openly ridiculed, attacked, and even with restricted rights?


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Identical twins are born, one has brown eyes and one has blue, therefore eye color is not genetic....
> ...





Valerie said:


> I actually misspoke by using the term "identical" in my examples, but the point is the same....Of course *twins are unique individuals.*




I realized I could have said it better, but you get my point?

Some people want to make a case that individuals who turn out to be homosexual are only "choosing" to be "that way" and therefore they should be treated as second class citizens for "choosing" the wrong path in life?  Judging by your OP, you seem to be attempting to support that theory?  

I agree with Coloradoman -- What makes one become who they are does not determine whether or not one should be treated as a second class citizen, IF that's what your getting at. 

I'll assume you're legitimately baffled by identical twins who turn out differently, but I really can't see why.  Unique individuals who happen to be identical twins turn out to have all sorts of different tendencies or preferences in life.  When one of the identical twins turns out to be a lefty, what does that mean?  One tends to enjoy classical music, one tends to excel at mathematics, one tends to be introverted and one is gregarious, etc.  

So what?  As Shogun said, twins aren't clones.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > Identical twins are born, one has brown eyes and one has blue, therefore eye color is not genetic....
> ...



LOL ... there have been many cases where this isn't even true. It's a myth, identical twins are never truly "identical". DNA is a map for the body, various other factors can alter how it develops ... also identical twins only have 90% common DNA on average, that's 10% of which we still do not fully understand. So even if it is true that it's all choice this does not prove anything more than you really don't know much about genetics.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 5, 2009)

Shogun said:


> wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> 
> good fucking lord, when did TWINS become CLONES?



I guess the whole IDENTICALLY genetically escapes your idiotic concepts. IF as claimed, Homosexuality is Genetic, then they BOTH should be either homosexual or straight. Since they are IDENTICAL Twins. You know, both GENETICALLY the same?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.



Actually yes we all CHOSE our sexuality. As kids most youth experiment with both. Yet MOST, about 97 percent, CHOSE to be normal.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

90% common DNA isn't identical:
Identical Twins' Genes Are Not Identical: Scientific American


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Hell ... even MSNBC printed it:
âIdenticalâ twins? Not according to their DNA - More health news- msnbc.com


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Thus why it proves nothing either way. Of course you will deny this unless there was a pair of "identical" twins who were both gay.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> ....
> 
> 
> I realized I could have said it better, but you get my point?
> ...



Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way. These two gals, obvious not clones, are obviously identical in nearly every way. Others have hypothesized that there may have been a hormonal difference in utero, but for that to be the case other aspects would have to be different as well. The gay twin obviously chose her orientation.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Scientific Fact: Identical twins are NOT identical ...


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

âIdenticalâ twins? Not according to their DNA - More health news- msnbc.com


> Now scientists find that when it comes to the genetics of identical twins, unexpectedly "there in fact are tiny differences and that they are relatively common,"



Homosexuality is a _tiny _difference? That's a stretch.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> ...


I'm not sure if anyone ever claimed that homosexuality was genetic...but you seem to have some misconceptions about identical twins. This might help.



> *Dear Yahoo!:* *Do identical twins have identical DNA?* _Ben
> Evans, Georgia _ *Dear Ben:*                                                    A search on "identical twins DNA" led us into a fascinating world of genetics, cloning, and the old nature vs nurture debate.  As we soon learned, *identical twins*, formed when one fertilized egg splits, are the only people in the world with identical DNA. Fraternal twins, on the other hand, are formed when two different eggs are fertilized. Genetically speaking, fraternal twins are no closer than normal siblings, sharing only about 50% of their genes.
> Although identical twins have the same genotype, or DNA, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways.
> Traits determined by phenotype, such as fingerprints and physical appearance, are the result of "the interaction of the individual&#65533;s genes and the developmental environment in the uterus." Thus, a DNA test can't determine the difference between identical twins, while a simple fingerprint can.



Do identical twins have identical DNA?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> âIdenticalâ twins? Not according to their DNA - More health news- msnbc.com
> 
> 
> > Now scientists find that when it comes to the genetics of identical twins, unexpectedly "there in fact are tiny differences and that they are relatively common,"
> ...



You do realize what "tiny differences" mean in DNA ... right?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Scientists have yet to find a gene that causes homosexuality....


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



...but the premise of your assumption is that identical twins are identical in all physic aspects up to and including their gender identity.

Perhaps you should spell out what you think it means when one twin is strait and the other is gay.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> ...



Where is that claimed?  The OP is claiming that since the twins turned out differently then sexuality mustn't be genetic and people are simply refuting that assertion.  

I think we each become who we are as unique individuals as a result of several factors including but not limited to our most basic factor, genetics.  

What makes an individual prefer vanilla over chocolate?  What if those who prefer chocolate got special treatment under the tax laws?  Should you have to change your preference in order to be treated equally under the law?  Shouldn't the law treat people with either preference equally?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Scientists have yet to find a gene that causes homosexuality....



Yet ... you have yet to prove it doesn't exist. Which was the point you missed all along.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> ...



Identical twins are never 100% identical, stupid.  How many SHARED FINGER PRINTS have you ever heard of?  Good fucking lord you people are ignorant as HELL.  


hey, I know it might sound CARAZY to you but I hear that even identical twins disagree on the better tasting cola beverage!  HOLY SHIT!


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Your opinion about "identical in every other way" means two things: jack and shit.  Not only do you totally ignore what SCIENCE and GENETICS tells you about the imperfect nature of twins but you assume that one twin chose her orientation without nary the slightest evidence beyond goofy assumptions.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Yet ... you have yet to prove it doesn't exist. Which was the point you missed all along.


 Argumentum ad ignorantiam


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Yet ... you have yet to prove it doesn't exist. Which was the point you missed all along.
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad ignorantiam



*eye roll* Do you just want to ignore science or is there some deep underlying reason you feel the need to sensationalize like the media?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> How many SHARED *FINGER PRINTS* have you ever heard of?  Good fucking lord you people are ignorant as HELL.



Previously addressed:



glockmail said:


> The *fingerprints *on each of my ten fingers are unique, yet none of them belong to a gay man. Your attempt at equivalence here is meaningless.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Do you just want to ignore science or is there some deep underlying reason you feel the need to sensationalize like the media?


Non Sequitur


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Do you just want to ignore science or is there some deep underlying reason you feel the need to sensationalize like the media?
> 
> 
> Non Sequitur



No ... honest question. But your answer leads to: Do you just want to ignore reality for some hidden agenda?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

"Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."


We are all waiting for you to actually present a scientific fact for discussion.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."



Again ... you ignore the scientific fact that identical twins are NOT identical ....
That's science, if you want to use science you can't cherry pick your "evidence" for any argument like this.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."



OK professor glockmail, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that hormones are not a factor?



> Others have hypothesized that there may have been a hormonal difference in utero, but for that to be the case other aspects would have to be different as well. The gay twin obviously chose her orientation.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."



Okay, you win.  What's your point?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Actually ... physical attraction is 100% hormone controlled. But it's another of the scientific facts that GlockSwallower likes to ignore.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> OK professor glockmail, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that hormones are not a factor?


 For the reasons previously stated Dr. Valerie. Do you have a specific comment on what I've already argued?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Actually ... physical attraction is 100% hormone controlled. But it's another of the scientific facts that GlockSwallower likes to ignore.


Argumentum ad hominem


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Okay, you win.  What's your point?


 As stated. 

How's the skiing in March?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Here's a page of links:
http://www.pheromones.com/about_kohl.html


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Ravi said:


> We are all waiting for you to actually present a scientific fact for discussion.


 See post 1.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > We are all waiting for you to actually present a scientific fact for discussion.
> ...



Post one states nothing more than an opinion formed in absence of scientific fact.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> ]Here's a page of links:
> http://www.pheromones.com/about_kohl.html


Red herring


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.



I guess it could be a genetic trait that is activated by an environmental response.  Identical twins are not identical from the moment they are born.  They have different views of the world.

Just a guess.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > How many SHARED *FINGER PRINTS* have you ever heard of?  Good fucking lord you people are ignorant as HELL.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no, that really doesn't address the point unless you are a twin with identical fingerprints to your gay twin.


So, which is it?  Are twins IDENTICAL or not?  If you say yes, which is the premise of your OP assumption, then why dont' twins share identical fingerprints?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Post one states nothing more than an opinion formed in absence of scientific fact.


Listing of facts:
"[1]I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. [2]One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. [3]One is normal, [4]married, [5]one child. [6]The other is gay, "domestic partner", and [7]has a kid through artificial means."


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> no, that really doesn't address the point unless you are a twin with identical fingerprints to your gay twin.


Non Sequitur


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Post one states nothing more than an opinion formed in absence of scientific fact.
> 
> 
> Listing of facts:
> "[1]I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. [2]One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. [3]One is normal, [4]married, [5]one child. [6]The other is gay, "domestic partner", and [7]has a kid through artificial means."



Your point? If this supports a false theory that identical twins are exact copies of each other you fail miserably. You do realize how many people have "twins" who are completely unrelated in the world ... right? You can't tell them apart except at the level of DNA or fingerprints. Even then, fingerprinting has proven to produce less than significant results lately, as they found that many people will have such close matches to others they are unreliable.


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > no, that really doesn't address the point unless you are a twin with identical fingerprints to your gay twin.
> 
> 
> Non Sequitur



your whole goddamn assumption is a non sequiter, dude.  

once again, we see why science PWNS dogma junkies.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Your point?...


 As stated previously.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> your whole goddamn assumption is a non sequiter, dude.
> 
> once again, we see why science PWNS dogma junkies.


Non Sequitur; Argumentum ad hominem


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> I've know one of them for a while, and met her identical twin sister only once. One had longer hair so that's the only way I could tell them apart. One is normal, married, one child. The other is gay, "domestic partner", and has a kid through artificial means.
> 
> Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.



There are numerous possibilities and/or explanations.  Just because their genetics are identical, do all identical twins have identical personalities?  Have there ever been identical twins where one has a type A personality and the other type B?  I don't know the answer, but my guess would be yes.  Assuming yes is the answer, how would you explain this?  Just because their genetic makeup is exactly the same, it doesn't mean that other factors within the body could be different.  For instance, one might be lacking in a certain enzyme/hormone that could be responsible for the conundrum.

Here's another more likely hypothesis; While I personally believe that the vast majority of homosexual tendencies and behavior are instinctive and completely natural to those individuals, I do believe that in certain circumstances, a small number of these people actually choose the lifestyle against their own natural insticts.  Maybe the twin that is in the lesbian relationship made a consious choice to go against her natural sexuality due to outside influences.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, you win.  What's your point?
> ...



Its been a good year this year.  Its been snowing a lot in the mountains and sunny warm days when it isn't.  Its been in 70s most of this week in Denver and snowing on the west side of the divide.  Its totally gnar, er, whatever, dude!

Now back to the argument!

You state that homosexuality isn't genetic.  Okay.  You may be right.  If so, what do you think should happen?  What are the further reaching ramifications if your statement is correct?


----------



## Shogun (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > your whole goddamn assumption is a non sequiter, dude.
> >
> > once again, we see why science PWNS dogma junkies.
> 
> ...



*yawn*


when you scrape together enough balls to fill in the holes of your assumptions let us know.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > OK professor glockmail, can you explain how you came to the conclusion that hormones are not a factor?
> ...



I've already made several comments showing twins with different tendencies and preferences.  You said you wanted to stick to "science", so again, please explain how you came to the conclusion that hormones were not a factor?  Because the girls LOOK alike?

Can you answer about the one who is a lefty?  Or the one wants to play hockey and the other prefers figure skating?  What about taste in food, taste in music, taste in LOVE? 

And then there's the question, so what are you driving at here?

Is _your_ predisposition to prove gays should be treated as second class citizens, genetic or not?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

auditor0007 said:


> There are numerous possibilities and/or explanations.  Just because their genetics are identical, do all identical twins have identical personalities?  Have there ever been identical twins where one has a type A personality and the other type B?  I don't know the answer, but my guess would be yes.  Assuming yes is the answer, how would you explain this?  Just because their genetic makeup is exactly the same, it doesn't mean that other factors within the body could be different.  For instance, one might be lacking in a certain enzyme/hormone that could be responsible for the conundrum.
> 
> Here's another more likely hypothesis; While I personally believe that the vast majority of homosexual tendencies and behavior are instinctive and completely natural to those individuals, I do believe that in certain circumstances, a small number of these people actually choose the lifestyle against their own natural insticts.  Maybe the twin that is in the lesbian relationship made a consious choice to go against her natural sexuality due to outside influences.


Based on their athletic careers (both Olympic medalists, one gold, one silver) I assure you that they are both "type A". I think its fairly obvious in this case that one chose her orientation, although I agree that you can never be 100% certain.


----------



## Abelian Sea (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."



Heh, or couldn't it be that the straight twin could not have been born that way?

Anyway, it's an interesting case because how very similar their genetics and formative environments were. It's a compelling piece of evidence for the theory that sexual orientation is or can be determined mainly through free will, independent of both nature and nurture.

It isn't exactly ironclad, though, since neither their genetics nor experiences were _completely_ identical, not to mention that it's isolated and anecdotal. Interesting nonetheless; thanks for sharing it.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> I've already made several comments showing twins with different tendencies and preferences.  You said you wanted to stick to "science", so again, please explain how you came to the conclusion that hormones were not a factor?  Because the girls LOOK alike?
> 
> Can you answer about the one who is a lefty?  Or the one wants to play hockey and the other prefers figure skating?  What about taste in food, taste in music, taste in LOVE?
> 
> ...



I don't think hormones were a factor because they both developed in the same womb, and both grew up with similar interests. "Looks" are certainly an indication of health and equivalence in other areas. No doubt their personalities are different- I can't attest to that since I've only met the gay twin once- but that is the basis for my argument that the gay twin wasn't born gay. 

Again, my discussion here will be limited as previously stated.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

Abelian Sea said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."
> ...





What is it that makes you predisposed to such gracious rationality, kind sir?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Abelian Sea said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > "Again, I'm going to limit my discussion of the scientific facts here, that in this case, the gay twin could not have been born that way."
> ...


 You're welcome. I appreciate your obviously open-minded thoughts.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> You state that homosexuality isn't genetic.  Okay.  You may be right.  If so, what do you think should happen?  What are the further reaching ramifications if your statement is correct?



So like I asked, what's your point?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Its been a good year this year.  Its been snowing a lot in the mountains and sunny warm days when it isn't.  Its been in 70s most of this week in Denver and snowing on the west side of the divide.  Its totally gnar, er, whatever, dude!
> 
> Now back to the argument!
> 
> You state that homosexuality isn't genetic.  Okay.  You may be right.  If so, what do you think should happen?  What are the further reaching ramifications if your statement is correct?



This is the best winter in the South in my memory. Last Sunday we had 10" of snow, and 1/2 of that while I was skiing. I'm thinking of going to Copper next November. 

Again, I would like to keep my comments on ramifications out of this particular thread. Everyone should know my political positions anyway, and I don't want to derail this discussion.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> This is the best winter in the South in my memory. Last Sunday we had 10" of snow, and 1/2 of that while I was skiing. I'm thinking of going to Copper next November.



Yeah, that's right.  You guys just got slammed!  Then what the hell are doing on this forum!  You should be out in the powder!  Enjoy it before it melts, man!


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Again, I would like to keep my comments on ramifications out of this particular thread. Everyone should know my political positions anyway, and I don't want to derail this discussion.





> Someone explain to me how this is possible, if homosexuality is a genetic trait.



My questions and comments were relevant to the OP, but okay.  

Let me ask you this, glockmail.  Before you were married, did you have a preference in women?  A certain "type" that you're attracted to?  I'm not talking just about physicality, but personalty too.  Assuming yes, do you think you consciously chose to have such a preference or it was just some natural instinct you found yourself responding to?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Yeah, that's right.  You guys just got slammed!  Then what the hell are doing on this forum!  You should be out in the powder!  Enjoy it before it melts, man!


Tragically, my wife had to work Monday, and the roads were full of snow and abandoned cars, so I had to drive her home. School was canceled Monday and Tuesday, so I offered to take the kids back up to go skiing, _and they didn't want to get up early and go_. Spoiled little bastards. I've skied deep fresh powder exactly two runs in my entire life, and these little shits don't want to get their asses out of bed to experience it. So now we're going back up Friday night to enjoy mashed potato skiing this weekend with temperatures in the 50s.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, that's right.  You guys just got slammed!  Then what the hell are doing on this forum!  You should be out in the powder!  Enjoy it before it melts, man!
> ...



Bummer.  Better than nothing, I suppose.  Your kids don't know what they're missing.  You oughta get'em outta bed Clint-in-Heartbreak Ridge style!


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> My questions and comments were relevant to the OP, but okay.
> 
> Let me ask you this, glockmail.  Do you have a preference in women?  A certain "type" that you're attracted to?  I'm not talking just about physicality, but personalty too.  Assuming yes, do you think you consciously chose to have such a preference or it was just some natural instinct you found yourself responding to?



Please point out to me how cuz I'm not seeing it.

Although I can see that you are bound and determined to derail this....

My "type" is tall or short, black, brown, yellow or white, average to well above average intelligence, perky to cerebral.....  Seriously, throughout my life I've found many, many different "types" of woman to be attractive. The ones that paid attention are the ones that I went out with. I think most guys are like that.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> Bummer.  Better than nothing, I suppose.  Your kids don't know what they're missing.  You oughta get'em outta bed Clint-in-Heartbreak Ridge style!


 Believe me, I do at least with my son. We have skied every weekend except two this winter, plus school holidays. I have a cabin close by and we're lucky to be close enough so that we only have to get up at 6:30, and we're on the hill at 8 or so. He sleeps in the open loft so I'll start breakfast and if he's not seated at the table by 8:45 I start cranking the stereo- and I know just which tunes he hates.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Glock loves his manly men too much to be straight ... just look at all his avatars.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Glock loves his manly men too much to be straight ... just look at all his avatars.


Argumentum ad hominem

As an aside, why do liberals always use "gay" an an insult?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Aaah ... see, he doesn't deny it. Fact is flaming gay men LOVE butch men, so much that it's usually what's hanging on their walls at night. I know a ton of them in love with Clint Eastwood.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 5, 2009)

Anyway, your question was answered...twins share the same dna, but they aren't exact duplicates. So it is possible that sexual orientation is genetic. 

Why you care so much is anyone's guess...


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Aaah ... see, he doesn't deny it. Fact is flaming gay men LOVE butch men, so much that it's usually what's hanging on their walls at night. I know a ton of them in love with Clint Eastwood.



True, but even straight men love Clint Eastwood.  Who doesn't?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Aaah ... see, he doesn't deny it. Fact is flaming gay men LOVE butch men, so much that it's usually what's hanging on their walls at night. I know a ton of them in love with Clint Eastwood.
> ...



Meh .. lots of people don't, you just haven't met any yet.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Believe me, I do at least with my son. We have skied every weekend except two this winter, plus school holidays. I have a cabin close by and we're lucky to be close enough so that we only have to get up at 6:30, and we're on the hill at 8 or so. He sleeps in the open loft so I'll start breakfast and if he's not seated at the table by 8:45 I start cranking the stereo- and I know just which tunes he hates.



Ha!

Well, at least you can get'em out on the slopes.  That's what matters.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Aaah ... see, he doesn't deny it. Fact is flaming gay men LOVE butch men, so much that it's usually what's hanging on their walls at night. I know a ton of them in love with Clint Eastwood.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Argumentum ad hominem


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Aaah ... see, he doesn't deny it. Fact is flaming gay men LOVE butch men, so much that it's usually what's hanging on their walls at night. I know a ton of them in love with Clint Eastwood.
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Argumentum ad hominem



Still ... not denying it ... just come right out and say you fantasize about man love with Clint and get it over with.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 5, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Meh .. lots of people don't, you just haven't met any yet.



You just don't know!  You don't even know!

I even persuaded my girlfriend, who used to hate Clint.  Then she saw Gran Torino with me when it came out, and converted.  C'mon!  Nobody can squint like Clint!


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

Coloradomtnman said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Meh .. lots of people don't, you just haven't met any yet.
> ...



Wouldn't work with me, my dad was a huge fan for a short time so I've seen almost everything he did prior to 1990. I just don't like the rugged look myself. I prefer men like Marylin Manson ... androgeny is where it's at.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> Still ... not denying it ... just come right out and say you fantasize about man love with Clint and get it over with.


Argumentum ad hominem; Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Argumentum ad nauseam

And again, why is it that liberals use "gay" as an insult?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Still ... not denying it ... just come right out and say you fantasize about man love with Clint and get it over with.
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem; Argumentum ad ignorantiam; Argumentum ad nauseam
> ...



*smirks* Why is it people in denial assume it's an insult?


----------



## Valerie (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Valerie said:
> 
> 
> > My questions and comments were relevant to the OP, but okay.
> ...



I appreciate your response because I'd really like to get you to see my points.  You asked how could it be possible for one twin to be homosexual if there is a genetic component to sexuality and I gave several examples of other differences in twins.  Twins are unique individuals with unique tendencies and preferences, so how is that not relevant?  

One twin likes chocolate and the other likes vanilla,* so what are you getting at*? That's my honest response to your thread.  Individuals have natural tendencies toward lots of things.  That's my whole point.  Your personal observations regarding these twins you know neither proves nor disprove whether or not sexual preference has a genetic component.  As Abelian Sea said, your "scientific" evidence is isolated and anecdotal.

I didn't know your politics on this subject, but I guess I do now.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

Valerie said:


> I appreciate your response because I'd really like to get you to see my points.  You asked how could it be possible for one twin to be homosexual if there is a genetic component to sexuality and I gave several examples of other differences in twins.  Twins are unique individuals with unique tendencies and preferences, so how is that not relevant?
> 
> One twin likes chocolate and the other likes vanilla,* so what are you getting at*? That's my honest response to your thread.  Individuals have natural tendencies toward lots of things.  That's my whole point.  Your personal observations regarding these twins you know neither proves nor disprove whether or not sexual preference has a genetic component.  As Abelian Sea said, your "scientific" evidence is isolated and anecdotal.
> 
> I didn't know your politics on this subject, but I guess I do now.



I think homosexuality is a bit different than vanilla v chocolate, don't you? One involves a desert that lasts a few minutes and the other a lifestyle choice that effects not just her but her children as well.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

> *smirks* Why is it people in denial assume it's an insult?


 So now its a term of endearment- and obvious lie. *ppfftt*


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> ...a lifestyle choice that effects not just her but her children as well.



Pray tell, how does her lifestyle choice effect her children?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Pray tell, how does her lifestyle choice effect her children?


 They don't have a father?


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Pray tell, how does her lifestyle choice effect her children?
> ...




Is her partner butch?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 5, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Is her partner butch?


 No she's a cute girl, about 10 years younger. Reminds me of my niece actually. _Definitely _not butch. 

Does it matter?


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 5, 2009)

glockmail said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Is her partner butch?
> ...



Not really.

Does it matter if a child has no father?  Many don't.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Based on their athletic careers (both Olympic medalists, one gold, one silver) I assure you that they are both "type A". I think its fairly obvious in this case that one chose her orientation, although I agree that you can never be 100% certain.



This would not mean that all self-described homosexuals can choose. Bisexuals can choose. Not everybody is bisexual but it is clear some unknown proportion are.



glockmail said:


> Scientists have yet to find a gene that causes homosexuality....



One gene couldn't cause sexuality anyway. It's a combination of variable factors both genetic and not. The real question now is the relative importance of different factors.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > wait a minute.. so, is the premise of this thread REALLY that we expect identical twins to react to life and their individual perception EXACTLY THE SAME?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Do OTHER identical (looking) twins always share the exact same personality characteristics?
> ...



But what the OP and the above poster may fail to grasp is that most of our genes are silent and many can be activated or deactivated depending upon subtle differences in environment - sometimes seemingly randomly. So having the exact same genetic code, even if that did occur, does not mean expression of DNA will be identical. Gene silencing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



glockmail said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > Actually I think it accounts for that quite well. According to the model he mentioned, the twins in question would likely be near the middle of the spectrum, say a 4, 5, or 6. Somebody who is a 6, for example, might weakly prefer the same sex. For such people environmental factors or other preferences are much more significant. One question is whether their social relations have led them to believe that bisexuality, or even homosexuality, is a viable option. Like many heterosexuals, some homosexuals don't believe in bisexuality as a distinct orientation.
> ...



Im not so sure you do. It is impossible to perfectly reproduce the same social environment, let alone all aspects of experience. It could be something as simple as one of them having a conversation with somebody that another didnt if theyre near the middle of the scale (and therefore bisexual). Not all gay people are "fruity." 

A polygrapher I talked to said that most men who come to him are innocent and have had homosexual experiences, but most characterize themselves as heterosexual. Whether it's relevant to the charges in question or not, they almost always deny even the thought of doing something homosexual until the polygrapher tests them. Though they can still legally pass in regards to whether a case is brought against them even if they "fail" parts of the battery of questions not directly related to the allegations. One part they usually failed is the homosexual experience/desire part.

Those who would be a zero on the scale would be the only ones without homosexual tendencies under any situation, and those who are a 10 on the scale would be the only ones who are purely homosexual. Everybody else would be capable of bisexuality, even if they have a preference for one sex or the other. This says nothing of the relative proportions.



RetiredGySgt said:


> Coloradomtnman said:
> 
> 
> > What's the point of this thread?  So what if homsexuality isn't genetic.  So what if it is?  Are you trying to assert that since homosexuality isn't genetic, its a choice?  Well, that isn't true, ask any homosexual.  Do you choose to be straight?  No.  So this thread is pointless.  The End.
> ...



Um sorry I couldn't get hard to a guy even if it was for the noble purpose of experimenting with my sexuality. If you can get hard to both guys and girls, you're bi. I did not choose to be heterosexual. Time for a phallometric study. I'd wager that many guys who call themselves straight would get hard to gay porn. But some, such as myself, would not.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Does it matter if a child has no father?  Many don't.


 It puts them at an immediate disadvantage, especially if the child is a boy.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> [1]This would not mean that all self-described homosexuals can choose. Bisexuals can choose. Not everybody is bisexual but it is clear some unknown proportion are.
> 
> [2]One gene couldn't cause sexuality anyway. It's a combination of variable factors both genetic and not. The real question now is the relative importance of different factors.
> 
> ...


1.	The gals a lesbian in a long term committed relationship that includes a child. Shes not bisexual. Her twin is in a long term normal marriage that includes a child and shes not bisexual. *shrug*
2.	Theyve found the gene combination for lots of things yet spent millions on finding a gay gene- or combination- and havent got anywhere. Time to divert the money into useful research.
3.	This supports my argument that homosexuality is a learned trait.
4.	Obviously these guys had some encounter and chose not to be gay. *shrug*
5.	Again, nice hypothesis, but not backed up by the logistics of this case.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > Does it matter if a child has no father?  Many don't.
> ...




A disadvantage?  

A disadvantage in what?

You do realize that there are lots of people out there that don't have one of the two parents in their life (gay or straight) who end up perfectly fine.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> A disadvantage?
> 
> A disadvantage in what?
> 
> You do realize that there are lots of people out there that don't have one of the two parents in their life (gay or straight) who end up perfectly fine.


I know there are many- I have a friend who grew up with a single mom and he's doing great. But ask him, and he sure as hell wishes the old man was there to give a man's advice and perspective. And I'll bet he's damn glad he didn't have to put up with the baggage of two lesbian mothers.


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> LiveUninhibited said:
> 
> 
> > [1]This would not mean that all self-described homosexuals can choose. Bisexuals can choose. Not everybody is bisexual but it is clear some unknown proportion are.
> ...



I do see what you're saying, but we're getting hampered by ambiguity of language here. When I use the word bisexual, I mean they are capable of sexual desire for both sexes, not that they actually act on their desire for both sexes. 

The problem with figuring out how many bisexuals there are is that some of both heterosexual and homosexual communities claim there is no such thing as a bisexual for political reasons.

There is also the idea that you're supposed to commit to one person in ours and most contemporary cultures, thus making it necessary for bisexuals to choose one gender or the other. It would be against their interests to be open about having bisexual thoughts or tendencies because that may threaten their current or even future relationships, causing people to question their fidelity.

Finally and probably most importantly, people in our culture often demonize homosexuality for whatever reason. Thus if somebody did have bisexual tendencies, it would be safest for them to deny their gay side, so to speak.

So the reason my polygraph example is interesting is because it highlights the fact that, within that group of people (mostly innocent people accused of sexual misconduct), there are a significant number of self-described heterosexual men who may actually be bisexual. 



> 2. They&#8217;ve found the gene combination for lots of things yet spent millions on finding a gay gene- or combination- and haven&#8217;t got anywhere. Time to divert the money into useful research.



Some things are simpler than others. When you're talking about behavior of any kind, it's going to be quite complex. It's true that everybody has choices in their behavior, but what are the choices? Somebody who is purely homosexual in preference literally can choose between living a homosexual lifestyle and not having a sex life. Should they have to make that choice? No, because homosexuality doesn't hurt anybody. What if they were a pedophile? In that case not acting on their desires would be a choice they should make morally because their sexual preference likely will hurt others when turned to action. To be clear, pedophilia has nothing to do with homosexuality. Pedophiles can be homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual.



> 3. This supports my argument that homosexuality is a learned trait.



Not if you suppose these women are "naturally" bisexual while some people are naturally homosexual or heterosexual. It would be hard to test that idea without a polygraph, and even then it wouldn't be 100% certain. (polygraphs aren't perfect, but they're more reliable than relying on somebody's honesty about such an issue, lol).



> 4. Obviously these guys had some encounter and chose not to be gay. *shrug*



If they messed around with a guy, and liked it, they were bisexual or homosexual. Bisexuals have a choice. Homosexuals do not.



> 5. Again, nice hypothesis, but not backed up by the logistics of this case



It's always possible we're both seeing what we want to see, but as far as I can tell my example strongly supports my hypothesis and your example neither supports nor refutes my hypothesis. We'd need more information than you can likely obtain.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2009)

How do you know they aren't bisexual? Did you ask them?


----------



## LiveUninhibited (Mar 6, 2009)

I should also say that having the same genetic code wouldn't necessarily lead to the same outcome even if it were genetically based because of gene silencing and the like. (not that identical twins have the exact same genetic code, but alleles are generally the same).


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

LiveUninhibited said:


> [1]I do see what you're saying, but we're getting hampered by ambiguity of language here. When I use the word bisexual, I mean they are capable of sexual desire for both sexes, not that they actually act on their desire for both sexes.
> 
> The problem with figuring out how many bisexuals there are is that some of both heterosexual and homosexual communities claim there is no such thing as a bisexual for political reasons.
> 
> ...



1.	Bisexual: characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes [m-w.com]  It appears to be that a person involved in a long-term monogamous relationship has directed her desire towards one sex.
2.	The reason why the behavior so complex is that it is learned. 
3.	Again, your hypothesis. A better explanation is the simpler one, and the simpler one is usually the correct one.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

Ravi said:


> How do you know they aren't bisexual? Did you ask them?


Observed behavior.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > How do you know they aren't bisexual? Did you ask them?
> ...


Oh, that's really scientific.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > A disadvantage?
> ...



Okay...which would be a better situation in which to raise a boy?

A family with two nurturing lesbian mothers

or 

A family with a drunk, abusive father and an enabling mother.

Generalizations will always result in proving you wrong.


----------



## Coloradomtnman (Mar 6, 2009)

Give it a rest guys...

This thread is dead.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 6, 2009)

Ravi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



There are scientists working eagerly to prove it is not genetic so they can feel better about treating gays as second class citizens.  *If only *they could find this elusive "proof" that being homosexual is simply an immoral lifestyle "choice" then they can feel justified in discriminating against this "behavior".

There are also scientists working eagerly to prove that there _is_ indeed a genetic component to human sexuality and this proof would presumably make some people feel better about accepting people for who they are and justify wanting society to respect them as individuals who deserve equality under the law.

Unfortunately for glockmail his personal experience with one set of twins doesn't sway the argument either way.



> Research involving identical twins, often used to study genetics since they share the same DNA, has had mixed results.
> 
> One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.
> 
> ...





> Until a few years ago, sexual orientation used to be called sexual preference. Obviously, the two terms denote significant differences in the the manner by which sexuality develops. A preference is something that is chosen, whereas orientation is merely something that defines us. The differences are potentially important regarding how the law applies to those who are gay. If homosexuality is not chosen, but actually is a biologically-determined characteristic over which we have no choice, then laws should not treat gays and straights differently, since homosexuality would be equivalent to one's race, over which we have no control.
> Genetics and Homosexuality: Are People Born Gay?
> 
> Since sexual differentiation occurs within the womb, as a result of hormonal influences, it has been hypothesized that homosexuality may result from a differential hormone balance in the wombs of those who eventually exhibit a homosexual orientation. Since hormonal levels within the womb are not available, proxies for hormonal influences have been used to examine the question of how hormonal influences might impact sexual orientation.





> *
> US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics*
> December 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## Againsheila (Mar 6, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > xotoxi said:
> ...



Yes, it does matter.  I don't care who you are, children need fathers just as they need mothers.  

Yes, I know many don't have fathers in the home and I think our society is much poorer for it, don't you?


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 6, 2009)

Againsheila said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...



Really ... most people I knew raised by only one parent had only one problem ... their household had to struggle for needs. Other than that, they are fine, many even better than those who had two parents while growing up. The very few I know who had gay parents (thus two of the same sex) had no problems or differences from others, though they seemed much more well adjusted and often more sympathetic to others in need.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Oh, that's really scientific.


 Science is based on observations. *shrug*


----------



## glockmail (Mar 6, 2009)

Valerie said:


> There are scientists working eagerly to prove it is not genetic *so they can feel better about treating gays as second class citizens.* *If only *they could find this elusive "proof" that being homosexual is simply an immoral lifestyle "choice" then they can feel justified in discriminating against this "behavior".
> 
> There are also scientists working eagerly to prove that there _is_ indeed a genetic component to human sexuality and this proof would presumably make some people feel better about accepting people for who they are and justify wanting society to respect them as individuals who deserve equality under the law.



Interesting how one group of scientists has devious motives and the other no motives whatsoever. I'm curious as to how you arrived at this conclusion and what is its basis.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, that's really scientific.
> ...


Cool. My observation of your posting style proves that you are a closeted gay.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 6, 2009)

Ravi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I verify and confirm that assessment ... thus making it fact.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 6, 2009)

glockmail said:


> > Glock loves his manly men too much to be straight ... just look at all his avatars.
> 
> 
> Argumentum ad hominem
> ...



Same reason conservatives use 'gay' as an insult.  Immaturity.


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 6, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...



Seconded.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 6, 2009)

Well, if two posters make the same assertion about a third, must be true.  BTW I know a number of identical and fraternal twins.

One set of identical twins, one is lesbian and the other is not.  A couple sets of fraternal twins, both twins are gay.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 6, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It's official. It is no longer just a theory--Glock come on out of the closet!


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 6, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> One set of identical twins, one is lesbian and the other is not.  A couple sets of fraternal twins, both twins are gay.



So you know 6 people that are twins and 5 of the 6 are homosexual?

That's queer!


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 6, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > One set of identical twins, one is lesbian and the other is not.  A couple sets of fraternal twins, both twins are gay.
> ...



Yes ... very ...


----------



## glockmail (Mar 8, 2009)

Ravi said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



Why do liberals always use "gay" as an insult? They maintain that its normal moral and healthy. Apparently they don't believe what they say.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 8, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > > Glock loves his manly men too much to be straight ... just look at all his avatars.
> ...


 Actually, conservatives maintain that gay is not normal, not moral and unhealthy, while liberals maintain the opposite. It doesn't make sense to insult someone by saying : 'hey, you're normal, moral and healthy'.

No, I think liberals are being hypocritical when they use gay as an ad-hom.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 8, 2009)

Ravi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


 The observation of an openly shit-stabber like yourself is meaningless.


----------



## WhiteLion (Mar 9, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 9, 2009)

That is funny ... Glock ... seriously dude ... lay off the whippits.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 9, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > One set of identical twins, one is lesbian and the other is not.  A couple sets of fraternal twins, both twins are gay.
> ...



I know lots of twins and lots of queers, yes.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 9, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...



Conservatives are just as likely or _more likely_ to use 'gay' as an ad-hom than liberals for the very reason you site.   Liberals think being gay is normal, moral, and just as healthy as being straight.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> That is funny ... Glock ... seriously dude ... lay off the whippits.


I'll leave the laughing gas, and avoidance of reality, to you.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Conservatives are just as likely or _more likely_ to use 'gay' as an ad-hom than liberals for the very reason you site.   Liberals think being gay is normal, moral, and just as healthy as being straight.


 Again, my point is that liberals are being hypocritical when they use gay as an ad-hom. Apparently you agree.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 9, 2009)

I don't see _liberals _using 'gay' as an ad hom on USMB.     glock--is your point libs and cons both misuse the term 'gay' as an ad hom?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> I don't see _liberals _using 'gay' as an ad hom on USMB.     glock--is your point libs and cons both misuse the term 'gay' as an ad hom?


You need to open your eyes then dear:

Kittenkoder http://www.usmessageboard.com/1080843-post112.html
Xotoxi http://www.usmessageboard.com/1082863-post154.html
Ravi http://www.usmessageboard.com/1082675-post151.html
Paulie http://www.usmessageboard.com/943041-post116.html
Macintosh http://www.usmessageboard.com/913735-post742.html
bikersailer http://www.usmessageboard.com/913735-post742.html
bobo http://www.usmessageboard.com/882378-post92.html
DavidS http://www.usmessageboard.com/872134-post145.html
Shogun http://www.usmessageboard.com/853721-post63.html


----------



## manifold (Mar 9, 2009)

Why does everything have to be so black and white?

Why isn't it possible that some homosexuals are born that way and some are a product of their environment?  The hypocrisy of both sides shines brightly on this one too.  The same leftist moonbats insisting that intelligence is a product of environment insist sexual preference isn't.  And on the flip side the same fascist douchebags that insist sexual preference is environmental also insist that intelligence isn't.


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 9, 2009)

The 'discussion' here is .... priceless... the lot of ya just made me laugh my Bjorn Borg underwear off...  

I sorta kinda second what *manifold* said... btw.


----------



## Ravi (Mar 9, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see _liberals _using 'gay' as an ad hom on USMB.     glock--is your point libs and cons both misuse the term 'gay' as an ad hom?
> ...


You're the only one that is insulted by being called gay...I wonder why that is?


----------



## Ravi (Mar 9, 2009)

manifold said:


> Why does everything have to be so black and white?
> 
> Why isn't it possible that some homosexuals are born that way and some are a product of their environment?  The hypocrisy of both sides shines brightly on this one too.  T*he same leftist moonbats insisting that intelligence is a product of environment insist sexual preference isn't.*  And on the flip side the same fascist douchebags that insist sexual preference is environmental also insist that intelligence isn't.


Who?


----------



## del (Mar 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



it's about intent, don't you think?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2009)

Ravi said:


> You're the only one that is insulted by being called gay...I wonder why that is?


Thanks for proving my point, again.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 9, 2009)

manifold said:


> Why does everything have to be so black and white?
> 
> Why isn't it possible that some homosexuals are born that way and some are a product of their environment?  The hypocrisy of both sides shines brightly on this one too.  The same leftist moonbats insisting that intelligence is a product of environment insist sexual preference isn't.  And on the flip side the same fascist douchebags that insist sexual preference is environmental also insist that intelligence isn't.


The problem is that gays are now routinely insisting that they are born gay and therefore are entitled to the same privileges as normal people, like marriage. Here we see that that argument falls apart.


----------



## Neser Boha (Mar 9, 2009)

glockmail said:


> The problem is that gays are now routinely insisting that they are born gay and therefore are entitled to the same privileges as normal people, like marriage. Here we see that that argument falls apart.



Here we see what?  I'm sorry... the only thing I've seen so far.. here .. was a hilarious and pretty much pointless discussion...  Srsly.  Oh yeah.. and that different people have different concept of what is 'normal'... here they've been all separated into two camps - those that feel homosexuals are normal and those that don't - which includes you, glocky-pooh.


----------



## WhiteLion (Mar 10, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...


True


----------



## glockmail (Mar 10, 2009)

Neser Boha said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is that gays are now routinely insisting that they are born gay and therefore are entitled to the same privileges as normal people, like marriage. Here we see that that argument falls apart.
> ...


The percent of homosexuals is about 1% of the population- that's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## WhiteLion (Mar 10, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Neser Boha said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...


Lead him out on the limb little further there Glock


----------



## manifold (Mar 10, 2009)

glockmail said:


> The percent of homosexuals is about 1% of the population- that's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.



And yet for some reason they still scare the living shit out of you.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 10, 2009)

manifold said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > The percent of homosexuals is about 1% of the population- that's not normal by any stretch of the imagination.
> ...


Not really. If two guys want to push shit in their own home then by all means push shit. Just don't call it normal moral and healthy, cuz it ain't.


----------



## WhiteLion (Mar 11, 2009)

glockmail said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > glockmail said:
> ...


True again lol


----------



## manifold (Mar 11, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Just don't call it normal moral and healthy, cuz it ain't.



I wouldn't dream of it.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 11, 2009)

Why are straight men so firghtened of gay men?  I don't think straight men or straight women are particularly 'scared' of lesbians.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 11, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Why are straight men so firghtened of gay men?  I don't think straight men or straight women are particularly 'scared' of lesbians.


 I don't think that "frightened" is the correct term. More like "disgusted" or "flabbergasted".


----------



## xotoxi (Mar 11, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Argumentum ad hominem
> 
> As an aside, why do liberals always use "gay" an an insult?



I don't use "gay" as an insult, but on the contrary.

From what I understood (and I may be wrong), but the term gay is preferred by gay people because it defines them as more than just sexual beings, while homosexual implies that they are only having sex contantly.

Gays are not only homosexuals, but they are business people, siblings, parents, aunts and uncles, friends, volunteers, raquetball players, movie buffs, intelectuals, outdoor enthusiasts, church-goers, etc, etc, etc.  

Just like your life is not consumed and defined by your sexuality (I assume), gay people are also not consumed and defined by their sexuality.

I don't know what you do for work, but say you sell cars.  When asked, would you refer to yourself as a "heterosexual car salesman"?  How about I am a "heterosexual fan of the Boston Red Sox"?

So...that's why I don't use the word homosexual, but instead use the word gay.  It's what I've been told in the past, and it makes sense to me.

Plus it's much quicker to type.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2009)

xotoxi said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Argumentum ad hominem
> ...


I'm sorry, but you apparently misunderstood. I am asserting that liberals in general (not all of course), insult their conservative rivals by insisting that they are gay. It's the ultimate hypocrisy when they also condone the gay lifestyle.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 12, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Why are straight men so firghtened of gay men?  I don't think straight men or straight women are particularly 'scared' of lesbians.
> ...



Why the gender bias?  I do think the term fear or fright is appropriate.  Why are male homosexuals feared by straight men, whereas straight women are not afraid of lesbians?

Are women braver?


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> glockmail said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Again, I don't agree with the premise of your question. A more appropriate one would be, why are straight men repulsed by gay men, but straight women not repulsed by lesbians? The answer to that is that lesbians in general are less militant about their sexuality, and that straight women are generally repulsed by militant lesbians.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 12, 2009)

Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.


----------



## manifold (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.



False.


----------



## del (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 12, 2009)

manifold said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.
> ...



Posted by Manifold:

And yet for some reason they still scare the living shit out of you.
Reply With Quote


----------



## Ravi (Mar 12, 2009)

I doubt most men are afraid of gay men...

Now Glock, that's a different story. I believe his fear comes from the fact that he's afraid he'll like it.


----------



## manifold (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...



Your statement is still false.


----------



## Sky Dancer (Mar 12, 2009)

I think most men who are sexually secure are not afraid of gay men.  I think the ones who kick the shit out of a gay man who makes a pass at them are afraid of gay men.

You know who you are.  If that's your reaction instead of a simple, 'no thanks'.


----------



## manifold (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> I think most men who are sexually secure are not afraid of gay men.  I think the ones who kick the shit out of a gay man who makes a pass at them are afraid of gay men.



True


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.


 Gee, I don't recall beating the crap out of the gays who have expressed interest in me several times during my long life. I recall changing the subject or simply ignoring them. *shrug*


----------



## Abelian Sea (Mar 12, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.



Sometimes it's simpler than that. Some men attack gay men because they enjoy hurting people and the gay makes a tempting target because he appears weak and is unlikely to have backup.

Sometimes it's more complicated than that. I once met a man who was violent towards gays who was wholly secure in his sexuality. He had had a gay brother, though, who was ostracized and attacked by his family and community for it. This presented him with a choice: he could either stand by his brother and share in the ostracizism and attacks, or he could side with the larger community and embrace the precept that gays deserve to be treated violently. He embraced the violence. Thenceforth, he was sort of locked into it; he had to maintain the violent attitude in order to continue feeling justified about betraying his brother.

Sometimes it is movitaved by fear, not of being gay but of being seen as possibly being gay. This is prevalent in environments where a more passive response to a gay advance would be interpreted as weakness that should be exploited.

There are lots of reasons for attacks on gay men by other men. I believe that homophobia is overdiagnosed.


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 12, 2009)

glockmail said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Men are afraid of gay men.  If a gay man makes a pass at a straight man, he gets the crap beat out of him because the straight man is afraid of him.  The straight man is not secure enough to just say no.
> ...



Probably only because you know you would be thrown in jail. This is why discrimination laws still have so much damned strength, if people like you would just stop being so against people being different we could get rid of those idiotic laws because then the extremist liberals wouldn't be able to say they are needed ... the sad part is that you, and those like you, will never learn this very simple fact. You are both washing each others back by given excuses to support both your moronic views.


----------



## glockmail (Mar 12, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Probably only because you know you would be thrown in jail. ...


 Sure Kitty, like you know what you're talking about.  Back in the day a guy could beat the crap out of another and that would be the end of it. If there were police involved, which would have been extremely rare, they'd call am ambulance and maybe write a ticket for disorderly conduct if some shit was broken.


----------



## DavidS (Mar 12, 2009)

Fuck!


----------



## KittenKoder (Mar 13, 2009)

Glock ... it's closet cases like you that make me have to actually feel sorry for the human race sometimes ... but meh ... go on kill each other off, I'll still be here and online 24/7.


----------

