# The Homosexual Agenda, The aclu, And Your Children...



## 007




----------



## doniston

Pale Rider said:


> Congratulations, you have finally found a site which supports your homophobic position.  ---feel better now?
> 
> the average person will not allow this program to succeed.


----------



## mattskramer

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

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Alliance_Defense_Fund

Im familiar with the routine.  It is a special interest law firm fixated on pushing Christianity.  It looks for those isolated incidences and blows them out of proportion.  It then rants and raves and asks for money so that it can put a halt to such transgressions.  It builds mountains out of molehills and call for donations so that it can file suits to destroy these tiny insignificant incidences. 

This ad for donations looks rather tame when compared to other the sky is falling hype and paranoia that it often puts out.


----------



## 007

I would have expected as much... the boards two perverts jumping to the defense of the homos.

Number one homo defender, doniston, the old pervert who sat around with little boys discussing penis size.

Number two homo defender, matskramer, the guy who openly purported he participated in a queer boy circle jerk with his buddies, and also openly purported that he thinks incest is OK.

You two take the cake.


----------



## Larkinn

Nice Ad hominem attack there PR.   But I guess thats all you can fall back on after you post obvious bullshit propaganda like this.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Number two homo defender, matskramer, the guy who openly purported he participated in a queer boy circle jerk with his buddies, and also openly purported that he thinks incest is OK.
> 
> You two take the cake.



You lie about me again.  I was not with buddies. 

I was attracted to one young man years ago.  It was just one incident. Aside from that, a while ago, I thought (note the past tense) that it should be okay for consenting adults, even of the same family, to have sex.  Oh well. 

People of this board:  Don&#8217;t trust what Pale Rider says about me.  Search the posts for yourself or ask me directly.  I have nothing to hide.


----------



## mattskramer

Larkinn said:


> Nice Ad hominem attack there PR.   But I guess thats all you can fall back on after you post obvious bullshit propaganda like this.



It seems to be his typical predictable tactic.  Not only are his Ad hominem attacks so common.  They are even, often, technically incorrect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Doesn't sound like minor or isolated events to me at all. Just glad my kids are out of the public school system now.


----------



## Shogun

good grief.


Is it too much to ask to get more interesting righties on this board?


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't sound like minor or isolated events to me at all. Just glad my kids are out of the public school system now.



Thats because:

1)  You lack critical reading skills
2)  ADF puts out lies and misleading statements
3) You are terrified by people who think differently than you do.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Thats because:
> 
> 1)  You lack critical reading skills
> 2)  ADF puts out lies and misleading statements
> 3) You are terrified by people who think differently than you do.



Well there you have it, Mensa boy has used his intellectual powers, his medical degree and his psychic powers to solve another case of someones personal opinion.

I have an idea Mensa boy. take EACH of the specific cases mentioned in the article and prove they never happened. I mean you ARE claiming they didn't occur aren't you? If not then explain my LACK of critical reading skills, point out the lies and misleading statements and then prove how you know I am terrified of anyone.

Shouldn't be hard for super Mensa boy, now should it? I won't hold my breath for anything except word games from you.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't sound like minor or isolated events to me at all. Just glad my kids are out of the public school system now.



So we disagree.  It is my understanding that organizations like that look all over the country to find incidences and blow them out of proportion.  They need to convince people that it is a major problem so that they can get as much in donations as they can.

Anyway.  I support the privatization of education or at least using the voucher system.  If we had that, then parents would be better able to take children to the schools that they want teaching their children.  If they want schools that lean to the left teaching their children, then they can take their children there.  If they want to have their children taught in a conservative school, they can have their children taught there.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well there you have it, Mensa boy has used his intellectual powers, his medical degree and his psychic powers to solve another case of someones personal opinion.



God...you really are a fucking moron.



> I have an idea Mensa boy. take EACH of the specific cases mentioned in the article and prove they never happened. I mean you ARE claiming they didn't occur aren't you? If not then explain my LACK of critical reading skills, point out the lies and misleading statements and then prove how you know I am terrified of anyone.



Lmao...yes everything ADF says is a lie.   Oh wait I didn't say that did I?  Hence my statement about your lack of critical reading skills.   Gee, what a surprise, you still can't read simple english.



> Shouldn't be hard for super Mensa boy, now should it? I won't hold my breath for anything except word games from you.



I know...you like to communicate in grunts because words are far too complicated for an incompetent yourself.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well there you have it, Mensa boy has used his intellectual powers, his medical degree and his psychic powers to solve another case of someones personal opinion.
> 
> I have an idea Mensa boy. take EACH of the specific cases mentioned in the article and prove they never happened. I mean you ARE claiming they didn't occur aren't you? If not then explain my LACK of critical reading skills, point out the lies and misleading statements and then prove how you know I am terrified of anyone.
> 
> Shouldn't be hard for super Mensa boy, now should it? I won't hold my breath for anything except word games from you.



Shouldnt it be ADFs responsibility to prove that it did happen?  I was hoping for a few links to less biased sources that would provide confirming information.  What is GLSENs position on the incidences?  Even if some of these incidences occurred as they were described it hardly deserves the hype that it is being given.  Oh no!  A child was punished for wearing a shirt that criticized the school that she was attending!  Horrors.


----------



## Larkinn

I particularly like the case where they sued the school, lied about what the school had done, then got a settlement from the school.   I thought you were against frivolous lawsuits RGS?   Oh wait...but its ok here because they principal wasn't letting a teacher pass out religious propaganda.


----------



## jillian

> Right Wing Organizations
> 
> 
> Alliance Defense Fund
> 
> Founded by a group of high-profile Religious Right leaders such as D. James Kennedy and James Dobson, the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) sees itself as a counter to the ACLU. As a legal group, it assists and augments the efforts of other right-wing groups to keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel. The ADF has been active on issues including pushing marriage protection, exposing the homosexual agenda and fighting the supposed war on Christmas.
> 
> Alliance Defense Fund
> 15333 N. Pima Road - Suite 165
> Scottsdale AZ 85260
> Website: www.alliancedefensefund.org
> 
> Founders: Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ; Larry Burkett, founder of Christian Financial Concepts; Rev. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Rev. D. James Kennedy, founder of Coral Ridge Ministries; Marlin Maddoux, President of International Christian Media; Don Wildmon, founder of American Family Association; and 25+ other ministries.
> Founded: 1994
> President and General Counsel: Alan Sears
> Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees: Alan Sears, Wayne N. Swindler, Marv McCarthy
> Other Staff: 38 employees
> Finances: $15,744,101 (2003 budget)
> Major Donors: Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation, Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation, Bradley Foundation.
> 
> 
> Principal Issues
> Background
> Alan Sears Background
> Quotes
> 
> 
> Principal Issues
> The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is a Christian legal firm established by more than 30 Christian ministries to help defend family values and work against the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union).
> 
> ADF defines itself by its ability to strategize and coordinate with lawyers all over the United States. Lawyers who sign up for their Blackstone Legal Institute are expected to donate 450 pro bono hours over a three year period.
> 
> ADF has coordinated more than 750 lawyers and 125 right-wing organizations, and many conservative ministries on behalf of ADF-defined Christian legal issues.
> 
> ADF claims 25 victories before the Supreme Court, including: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), which allowed the Boy Scouts to fire a Scout Leader due solely to his sexual orientation; United States v. American Library Association (2003), in which the Court voted to allow the federal government to withhold federal funds if libraries did not comply with the filtering called for by the Childrens Internet Protection Act of 2000; and Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), upheld Ohios school voucher system, which allows for parents to send their children to private or religious schools with taxpayer-funded vouchers.
> 
> ADF has linked more than 125 groups to create a combined effort to fight for their issues. Theyve brought together attorneys and allied legal groups to help develop a national strategy on controversial social issues, for example they worked with others to develop a national strategy to protect marriage across the United States after Vermont's decision to legalize civil unions for gays and lesbians.
> 
> In addition to organizing lawyers and ministries, ADF also trains and recruits and provides grants to support legal cases as well as pro-bono assistance.
> 
> ADF also defends the right of Christians to share the gospel in workplaces and public schools, claiming that any efforts to curb proselytizing at work and school are anti-Christian.
> 
> ADF has had success in anti-gay cases all over the US, from Alaska to Massachusetts.
> 
> Back to Top
> 
> 
> 
> Background
> Unique to the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is their collective of high-power founders, including wealthy right-wing organizations such as Dobsons Focus on the Family and D. James Kennedys Coral Ridge Ministries.
> 
> The ADF embodies the beliefs of its founders, harnessing the efforts of a cadre of right-wing groups with hundreds of millions of dollars at their disposal. All of these groups are influential members of the Right; they are pro-life and anti-gay, and their ultimate goal is to see the law and U.S. government enshrined with conservative Christian principles.
> 
> The relationship between ADF and its founders is one of mutual self-interest; ADF has access to the resources and networking of large organizations, who in turn are equipped with an endless supply of readily-available lawyers.
> 
> ADFs strength goes beyond their budget due to their influence with well-funded religious-right groups.
> 
> Two issues common to each of ADFs founders are their work against the right to abortion, and against the civil rights/liberties of gays and lesbians. They are particularly persistent in attacking attempts by homosexuals to have families, establish domestic partnerships or civil unions, or to be protected from discrimination in employment or housing.
> 
> Back to Top
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Sears Background
> Alan Sears was the Executive Director of the Attorney Generals Commission on Pornography under President Ronald Reagan. Sears was a federal prosecutor for former Secretary of Interior Don Hodel (former Christian Coalition President), and has produced several anti-gay works, such as The Homosexual Agenda in paperback, and Exposing the Homosexual Agenda on broadcast cassette.
> Back to Top
> 
> 
> 
> Quotes
> The Alliance Defense Fund is a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.
>  The Alliance Defense Fund website, February 2006




http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457

Ahhhhhhhhh.... now I get it... it's one of that psycho Dobson's groups.... lol. Yep... a bunch of loonies with a 15 million dollar a year budget.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Nice Ad hominem attack there PR.   But I guess thats all you can fall back on after you post obvious bullshit propaganda like this.



Nothing "ad hominem" about it. doniston and matskramer are perverts. 

You on the other hand, you're just a bull shit artist.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457
> 
> Ahhhhhhhhh.... now I get it... it's one of that psycho Dobson's groups.... lol. Yep... a bunch of loonies with a 15 million dollar a year budget.



Sure thing, but I bet you do not mind Moveon.Org or other LEFTWING groups, now do you?

As for Mattskramer, Larkinn is making the claim that what is in the article is somehow not true, it there for falls on HIM to prove they are made up.

Further Larkinn has made mindless attacks on me for no other reason then he doesn't like me, I love how he accuses  others of those same kinds of attacks in other threads. And as i expected his defense is semantics.

The story has NUMEROUS specific examples that are anything but minor and would disqualify the claim they are infrequent. So much for my not having a critical comprehension ability, the one with an agenda would be Larkinn, he has accused the article of lying, provide some evidence. He has made personal attacks on me, provide some evidence. Larkinn is an ass. Go ahead and defend him and show us what you think is acceptable behavior on this board.

Ohh and Jillian, just because it is a right wing group does not automaticly make its claims wrong or lies. I notice when people dismiss Jewish groups our quick to point out that they are valid ON THE Information not the group.


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4457
> 
> Ahhhhhhhhh.... now I get it... it's one of that psycho Dobson's groups.... lol. Yep... a bunch of loonies with a 15 million dollar a year budget.



Suuuuurrreee... they're "Christian," they MUST be loonies right? Well, understandebly they are to a heathen such as yourself. ANY organization that supports "MORALS" _HAS_ to be psycho... ppphhhtt.

You people never cease to amaze me as to how unwitting some of your responses are, even though they are predictable.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Nothing "ad hominem" about it. doniston and matskramer are perverts.
> 
> You on the other hand, you're just a bull shit artist.



LOL.  Uh.  Do you know what an Ad hominem is?  It means to attack the person instead of the criticism that he is making.  So you think Im a pervert.  I dont care.  Now are you going to debate the topic or my supposedly being a pervert?


----------



## 007

Fact of the matter is, even after the thread hijacking and character assassinations by the frothing at the mouth liberals, the homos and their supporters DO have an agenda, and it's aimed squarely at the indoctrination of young, impressionable kids captive in a school classroom.

Vehemently deny it as you may, it won't change the truth.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, but I bet you do not mind Moveon.Org or other LEFTWING groups, now do you?
> 
> As for Mattskramer, Larkinn is making the claim that what is in the article is somehow not true, it there for falls on HIM to prove they are made up.
> 
> Further Larkinn has made mindless attacks on me for no other reason then he doesn't like me, I love how he accuses  others of those same kinds of attacks in other threads. And as i expected his defense is semantics.
> 
> The story has NUMEROUS specific examples that are anything but minor and would disqualify the claim they are infrequent. So much for my not having a critical comprehension ability, the one with an agenda would be Larkinn, he has accused the article of lying, provide some evidence. He has made personal attacks on me, provide some evidence. Larkinn is an ass. Go ahead and defend him and show us what you think is acceptable behavior on this board.
> 
> Ohh and Jillian, just because it is a right wing group does not automaticly make its claims wrong or lies. I notice when people dismiss Jewish groups our quick to point out that they are valid ON THE Information not the group.



Anyway, getting back to the article (not the person why posted the article) I do see that it mentions some incidences but I still consider them to be minor.  We are counting beans. There is no more an insidious effort to turn juveniles into raging homosexuals than there is in trying to turn youngsters into raging heterosexuals.   Anyway, can we agree that a good way to end this fight about what is best for our children would be to promote school choice, vouchers, privatization, etc?


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> LOL.  Uh.  Do you know what an Ad hominem is?  It means to attack the person instead of the criticism that he is making.  So you think I&#8217;m a pervert.  I don&#8217;t care.  Now are you going to debate the topic or my supposedly being a pervert?



I don't think you're a pervert... I know you're a pervert.

What's there to debate? Possibly the "extent" of the homo agenda? Because I know they have one. There is categorically no denying it.


----------



## jillian

Pale Rider said:


> Fact of the matter is, even after the thread hijacking and character assassinations by the frothing at the mouth liberals, the homos and their supporters DO have an agenda, and it's aimed squarely at indoctrination of young, impressionable kids captive in a school classroom.
> 
> Vehemently deny it as you may, it won't change the truth.



The truth is that it's a bunch of garbage. Total an complete trash circulated by the same hate-filled trash who try to say gays are pedophiles.

 

But keep on flashin' the white supremacist symbols and spreading the hate ....


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Fact of the matter is, even after the thread hijacking and character assassinations by the frothing at the mouth liberals, the homos and their supporters DO have an agenda, and it's aimed squarely at indoctrination of young, impressionable kids captive in a school classroom.
> 
> Vehemently deny it as you may, it won't change the truth.



Oh my gosh!  You have got to be kidding.   





> the thread hijacking and character assassinations by the frothing at the mouth liberals


 I almost fell out of my chair.  Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Anyway, getting back to the article (not the person why posted the article) I do see that it mentions some incidences but I still consider them to be minor.  We are counting beans. There is no more an insidious effort to turn juveniles into raging homosexuals than there is in trying to turn youngsters into raging heterosexuals.   Anyway, can we agree that a good way to end this fight about what is best for our children would be to promote school choice, vouchers, privatization, etc?



Ask Jillian and Larkinn, it is not the right that is against vouchers it is the left.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Nothing "ad hominem" about it. doniston and matskramer are perverts.
> 
> You on the other hand, you're just a bull shit artist.



Aww, don't I get to be a pevert as well?

And yes its an ad hominem.   Do a little bit of research.  Maybe then you'll be able to present a competent argument.



> Suuuuurrreee... they're "Christian," they MUST be loonies right? Well, understandebly they are to a heathen such as yourself. ANY organization that supports "MORALS" HAS to be psycho... ppphhhtt.



And of course you define morals as your morals, right?   Lmao...and they aren't Christian they are far right Christian.   



> What's there to debate? Possibly the "extent" of the homo agenda? Because I know they have one. There is categorically no denying it.



Sure there is.   Oh wait...your mind has been poisoned because you only read  far-right propaganda...I forgot.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> I don't think you're a pervert... I know you're a pervert.
> 
> What's there to debate? Possibly the "extent" of the homo agenda? Because I know they have one. There is categorically no denying it.



Yeah.  Some homosexuals have an agenda.  Some Christians have an agenda of assaulting and harassing abortion providers.  White people have an agenda of getting Black people to move back to Africa. Everyone and every group and subgroup has an agenda.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ask Jillian and Larkinn, it is not the right that is against vouchers it is the left.



I am not of the right or the left.  Im not a member of any party. I am an independent thinker.  Do you blindly follow the Republican platform? I simply asked you (not your party or political identity) if you support school privatization and/or school vouchers.


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> The truth is that it's a bunch of garbage. Total an complete trash circulated by the same hate-filled trash who try to say gays are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> But keep on flashin' the white supremacist symbols and spreading the hate ....



It's only garbage to those who support homos and their agenda. Cock roaches don't like the light of day either, just like you liberals don't like the light of being exposed. The article is true enough. I've seen plenty to over the years to support it, and you can't prove a damn thing said in it a lie. You are just another frothing at the mouth liberal whining because a conservative has the audacity to shine the light of truth on you and your sick, pervert, homo friends agenda.

And please, point out where I EVER mentioned "hate." Well... you can't. Because I haven't. I haven't claimed to be a supremacist either. I do however realize those are buzz words directly quoted from your liberal handbook. You liberals know you can't win an argument, so that's what you resort to. Throw out a few buzz words and attack the messenger. Pretty pathetic though if you ask me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I am not of the right or the left.  Im not a member of any party. I am an independent thinker.  Do you blindly follow the Republican platform? I simply asked you (not your party or political identity) if you support school privatization and/or school vouchers.



And I answered you. Here let me spoon feed it to you.... The Federal Government should not be in Education at all. However at the State level I support the concept of allowing parents the choice of what school to send their child to. The concept of equal but seperate would apply. If it is against the law to segregate ( and I agree it is) then it should be illegal to force parents to send their children to public schools that are failing and are NOT equal in any way.


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Oh my gosh!  You have got to be kidding.  &#8211;  I almost fell out of my chair.  Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.



Take a break son... you've run out of steam.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ask Jillian and Larkinn, it is not the right that is against vouchers it is the left.



Of course, I'm against vouchers. They're designed to create a parochial school system in this country and destroy the public school system by diverting funds.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Aww, don't I get to be a *pevert* as well?


Suit yourself. And it's spelled "pervert," not pevert. So... do you often forget you're trying to pass yourself of as a mensa member? Pppphht... LOL!



Larkinn said:


> And yes its an ad hominem.   Do a little bit of research.  Maybe then you'll be able to present a competent argument.


So what? What's your point?



Larkinn said:


> And of course you define morals as your morals, right?   Lmao...and they aren't Christian they are far right Christian.


No... I don't define anything. I get my morals from the Bible. You should look into it. You need it.



Larkinn said:


> Sure there is.   Oh wait...your mind has been poisoned because you only read  far-right propaganda...I forgot.


Wha? If you're going to fish... use different bait. This is pathetic.


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Yeah.  *Some homosexuals have an agenda.*  Some Christians have an agenda of assaulting and harassing abortion providers.  White people have an agenda of getting Black people to move back to Africa. Everyone and every group and subgroup has an agenda.



Glad you see that. You have nothing left to say here.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sure thing, but I bet you do not mind Moveon.Org or other LEFTWING groups, now do you?
> 
> As for Mattskramer, Larkinn is making the claim that what is in the article is somehow not true, it there for falls on HIM to prove they are made up.
> 
> Further Larkinn has made mindless attacks on me for no other reason then he doesn't like me, I love how he accuses  others of those same kinds of attacks in other threads. And as i expected his defense is semantics.



I said they put out lies and misleading statements.   See the wiki article for evidence of that.   And no I made attacks on you because you are an idiot.



> The story has NUMEROUS specific examples that are anything but minor and would disqualify the claim they are infrequent. So much for my not having a critical comprehension ability, the one with an agenda would be Larkinn, he has accused the article of lying, provide some evidence. He has made personal attacks on me, provide some evidence. Larkinn is an ass. Go ahead and defend him and show us what you think is acceptable behavior on this board.
> .



If you take them at face value, which if you do you are a fool.


----------



## mattskramer

jillian said:


> Of course, I'm against vouchers. They're designed to create a parochial school system in this country and destroy the public school system by diverting funds.



Wouldnt that only happen if the parents were not satisfied with the way that the public school was working?  Wouldnt vouchers open the doors up for competition and accountability?  Wouldnt public and non parochial schools exist in places (particularly if they were good at teaching)? Also, so what if a parent wants to send his child to a parochial school? Shouldnt she be allowed to do so? 

Perhaps you could indicate that your portion of the school tax that you would have to pay be strictly designated for non-parochial schools.  That way your tax money would not be going to support religious teaching that you oppose. Likewise, my tax money would not go to support schools whose teachings run contrary to my religious sentiments.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Suit yourself. And it's spelled "pervert," not pevert. So... do you often forget you're trying to pass yourself of as a mensa member? Pppphht... LOL!



Lmao...I offered you a bet on that score which you refused.   Put up or shut up.



> So what? What's your point?



That its a logical flaw.   Hence, you are wrong.



> No... I don't define anything. I get my morals from the Bible. You should look into it. You need it.



I'm doing quite well without that antiquated book.   I get my morals from more consistent and reasoned books which were written when we had the wisdom of the enlightenment.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> It's only garbage to those who support homos and their agenda. Cock roaches don't like the light of day either, just like you liberals don't like the light of being exposed. The article is true enough. I've seen plenty to over the years to support it, and you can't prove a damn thing said in it a lie. You are just another frothing at the mouth liberal whining because a conservative has the audacity to shine the light of truth on you and your sick, pervert, homo friends agenda.
> 
> And please, point out where I EVER mentioned "hate." Well... you can't. Because I haven't. I haven't claimed to be a supremacist either. I do however realize those are buzz words directly quoted from your liberal handbook. You liberals know you can't win an argument, so that's what you resort to. *Throw out a few buzz words and attack the messenger.* Pretty pathetic though if you ask me.



Like pervert?   Ouch...you might look like less of a dumbass if you were even slightly consistent you know.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Glad you see that. You have nothing left to say here.



I never said that no homosexual has an agenda.  It seems like you are suggesting that all homosexuals have an agenda to turn young children into homosexuals.  That would be like me saying that all Christians have an agenda to physically and violently destroy abortion clinics and kill abortion doctors. 

I still have plenty to say here and will do so in due time.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Glad you see that. You have nothing left to say here.



Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?

So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?
> 
> So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?



And you won't mind if I say there is a Democratic agenda to strip us all of our rights right?


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Lmao...I offered you a bet on that score which you refused.   Put up or shut up.


I'm not the one lying about mensa... you are. You're the one that needs to put up or shut up.



Larkinn said:


> That its a logical flaw.   Hence, you are wrong.


I see no flaw, and I'm not wrong.



Larkinn said:


> I'm doing quite well without that antiquated book.   I get my morals from more consistent and reasoned books which were written when we had the wisdom of the enlightenment.


Here is where you show your ignorance. There hasn't been a person, culture, or civilization, ever in the history of the world, that has been able to rely on "enlightenment" to govern their own morality. It doesn't work, and that's why you are as screwed up as you are for thinking you can.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Is that the criteria to say that a group has an agenda PR?...that some of them have an agenda?
> 
> *So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?*


Quite an assumption. Start another thread with that claim and prove it.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> I'm not the one lying about mensa... you are. You're the one that needs to put up or shut up.



If you are so certain that I am lying then why won't you make a wager on that?   



> I see no flaw, and I'm not wrong.



Umm its called Ad Hominem.   Its a flaw.  



> Here is where you show your ignorance. There hasn't been a person, culture, or civilization, ever in the history of the world, that has been able to rely on "enlightenment" to govern their own morality. It doesn't work, and that's why you are as screwed up as you are for thinking you can.



Actually lots of people have and survive just fine.   But you condemn them because they are different then you.   Disgusting.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> No... I don't define anything. I get my morals from the Bible. You should look into it. You need it.



I've read it. I bet that you follow all of the advice in the New Testament including those things mentioned here:

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



> New Testament Atrocities
> 
> The outlook doesnt substantially improve for women in the New Testament either. The author of Ephesians insists that wives should submit to their husbands in everything (5:22-24). While its true that the author later instructs men to love their wives and treat them well, what does a devout Christian woman do when her husband decides to break the bounds of his instructions by asking her to embrace something she knows is evil? Remember, the woman has no right to divorce the man. In addition, the author fails to mention the existence of any out clause for her in such a situation. It would appear as though she has no choice but to comply with his orders if she is to obey the words in the scripture.
> 
> The authors of Colossians, Titus, and 1 Peter all agree that women should submit to their husbands (3:18, 2:5, and 3:1, respectively). The books of Peter also forbid women to wear any type of decorative jewelry to adorn their bodies (1 Peter 3:2-6), refer to women as the weaker vessel of the couple (1 Peter 3:7), and deem Lot to be a righteous man even though he once offered his daughters as a suitable alternative for homosexual rapists surrounding his house (2 Peter 2:8 referring to Genesis 19:4-8). A man with the immoral qualities of Lot cannot be regarded as righteous unless you discount the inherent rights of all people, more specifically, the inherent rights of women.
> 
> The author of Timothy also follows suit with his bigoted opinions of women. Like Peter, he says that females shouldnt wear decoration or try to usurp authority over their husbands. Instead, women should remain silent and fully submissive to them. As he also declares that Adam was not the one who was deceived in the Garden of Eden, Eve is clearly the party implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man (1 Timothy 2:9-15). This author isnt particularly kind to widows either. He says we should leave these women in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. A widow experiencing pleasure while shes still alive, on the other hand, is already dead in the afterlife. In the authors eyes, the only respectable widows are at least sixty years old, have had only one husband, and have been well known for their positive accomplishments in life. In contrast, younger widows arent worth assisting because they eventually remarry, become idle, or venture from house to house with their gossip (1 Timothy 5:5-15).
> 
> As we discussed near the beginning of this book, Paul is no doubt the single most important figure in getting Christianity to where it is today. Unfortunately, he is also one of the most sexist people youll find in the New Testament. Paul is very adamant in his belief that women arent useful for much more than sexually satisfying their husbands. He even remarks that its good for a man to refrain from touching a woman, but he realizes the need for a man to have sexual contact and permits each to have a wife (1 Corinthians 7:1-2).
> 
> Paul also tells a story in his letter to the Romans about men leaving the natural use of the woman to have sexual relations with other men (Romans 1:27). The passage is more or less saying that the natural use of a woman is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for a man. He continues to spread his bigoted beliefs in a letter to the Corinthians by unambiguously declaring the man to be the head of the woman, similar to the way that Jesus is the authority figure for men. Paul also says women, who are the glory of men, were made for men, who are the glory of God (1 Corinthians 11:3-9). The clearly implied chain of importance goes Christ first, man second, and woman last.
> 
> Paul also establishes a few ground rules before the men can bring their women to church. The women are to choose between concealing their heads and having their hair completely shaven. Later, Paul takes away the latter choice by declaring a shaved head to be a disgrace in need of covering (1 Corinthians 11:5-7). He also doesnt permit women to speak in church because that also is a shame. If they have a question concerning the material, they must ask their husbands at home. Paul also reminds us once again, they are commanded to be under obedience according to the law (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). If you ever attend a Southern Baptist church, you will notice that its members tend to remain clung to these values in some fashion. Unfortunately, some ultra-conservative members continue to take these biblical guidelines into their homes.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Quite an assumption. Start another thread with that claim and prove it.



Way to dodge the question, genius.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> And you won't mind if I say there is a Democratic agenda to strip us all of our rights right?



Of course I'll mind.   Because it is exactly that I _ don't _ subscribe to that theory of thinking.   Which is why I was pointing out how absurd it is.  Notice that I didn't make the claim about Republicans (oh, but with your fabulous reading comprehension skills, I'm sure you already noticed it, right?).   Rather I asked if he would mind me making that claim...obviously he would...because the standard (HIS standard) is idiotic.   He just can't realize that until its used against a group he favors.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn can not prove anything, that would require he A) do some actual web search besides wiki and B) not play word games with what things mean.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Larkinn can not prove anything, that would require he A) do some actual web search besides wiki and B) not play word games with what things mean.



Are you claiming the wiki article is false then?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Of course I'll mind.   Because it is exactly that I _ don't _ subscribe to that theory of thinking.   Which is why I was pointing out how absurd it is.  Notice that I didn't make the claim about Republicans (oh, but with your fabulous reading comprehension skills, I'm sure you already noticed it, right?).   Rather I asked if he would mind me making that claim...obviously he would...because the standard (HIS standard) is idiotic.   He just can't realize that until its used against a group he favors.



Well Mr. Mensa the only problem being that HIS claim IS backed up with numerous court cases and non court cases. You have yet to provide a single link to prove even ONE of the events listed in the article are in fact lies. All we have is YOUR opinion on the matter. You can't even provide any evidence your opinion is valid.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Are you claiming the wiki article is false then?



I notice when you do not LIKE what WIKI says your quick to point out the obvious flaws in its credibility. I have an Idea, find a source ( since your whole schtick is that some sources are bad) that is not WIKI and is not some left wing loon site.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Well Mr. Mensa the only problem being that HIS claim IS backed up with numerous court cases and non court cases. You have yet to provide a single link to prove even ONE of the events listed in the article are in fact lies. All we have is YOUR opinion on the matter. You can't even provide any evidence your opinion is valid.



Try and be more clear, this makes no sense.   You are responding to a comment that had nothing directly to do with the article, and you are referencing the article.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice when you do not LIKE what WIKI says your quick to point out the obvious flaws in its credibility. I have an Idea, find a source ( since your whole schtick is that some sources are bad) that is not WIKI and is not some left wing loon site.



Please quote me where I've countered a point by saying that Wikipedia is unreliable.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Try and be more clear, this makes no sense.   You are responding to a comment that had nothing directly to do with the article, and you are referencing the article.



Are you claiming your to stupid to understand it? Do I, the ignorant neanderthal need to explain it to you in smaller words?


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Are you claiming your to stupid to understand it? Do I, the ignorant neanderthal need to explain it to you in smaller words?



I don't understand it because its incomprehensible.   As I pointed out you are responding to a point that _has nothing directly to do with the article _ by referencing the article.   Hence it is impossible to get any coherent meaning out of it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> I don't understand it because its incomprehensible.   As I pointed out you are responding to a point that _has nothing directly to do with the article _ by referencing the article.   Hence it is impossible to get any coherent meaning out of it.



No, your just playing games again. Here let me break it down for you Brainiac.... Now do follow along Mensa boy...

Pale Rider made a blanket statement about Homosexuals that while not really applying to all ( no generalization ever does) is backed up by his posted article. You made a generalization about Republicans that has ZERO basis in fact, all you have is two incidents in the past that were not even rape, which by the way I can counter with a similar number of democrats in the past. Of course playing word games you didn't REALLY claim it just said "would it be ok if.." 

Now use that high IQ of yours and start twisting this too. I have faith you will.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> And I answered you. Here let me spoon feed it to you.... The Federal Government should not be in Education at all. However at the State level I support the concept of allowing parents the choice of what school to send their child to. The concept of equal but seperate would apply. If it is against the law to segregate ( and I agree it is) then it should be illegal to force parents to send their children to public schools that are failing and are NOT equal in any way.



I dont recall your giving me a straight answer to this question until now  and you still made a drawn out paragraph out of it.  I didnt ask for what the Constitution says or what the law is or any thing else.  I simply asked if you support vouchers and/or privatization. Why is it so hard to get yes-or-no or fill-in-the-blank answers from people. Anyway, thanks for your answer.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> I dont recall your giving me a straight answer to this question until now  and you still made a drawn out paragraph out of it.  I didnt ask for what the Constitution says or what the law is or any thing else.  I simply asked if you support vouchers and/or privatization. Why is it so hard to get yes-or-no or fill-in-the-blank answers from people. Anyway, thanks for your answer.



Most questions do not have a simple yes or no answer. If you think life is that simply I suggest your headed for some major disappointments later.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, your just playing games again. Here let me break it down for you Brainiac.... Now do follow along Mensa boy...
> 
> Pale Rider made a blanket statement about Homosexuals that while not really applying to all ( no generalization ever does) is backed up by his posted article. You made a generalization about Republicans that has ZERO basis in fact, all you have is two incidents in the past that were not even rape, which by the way I can counter with a similar number of democrats in the past. Of course playing word games you didn't REALLY claim it just said "would it be ok if.."
> 
> Now use that high IQ of yours and start twisting this too. I have faith you will.



I do think that Republicans and rape is a poor example.  Christians and violence against abortion clinics / providers is a more parallel appropriate example.  I can make a blanket statement about Christians that while not really applying to all (no generalization ever does) is backed up by several examples that I can post.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> No, your just playing games again. Here let me break it down for you Brainiac.... Now do follow along Mensa boy...
> 
> Pale Rider made a blanket statement about Homosexuals that while not really applying to all ( no generalization ever does) is backed up by his posted article.



Umm, no, actually its not.   It has several instances of allegations of "homosexuals having an agenda".   That hardly warrants generalization to all homosexuals.   



> You made a generalization about Republicans that has ZERO basis in fact,



Zero basis in fact?   So its your assertion that Republicans never rape children?   



> all you have is two incidents in the past that were not even rape, which by the way I can counter with a similar number of democrats in the past. Of course playing word games you didn't REALLY claim it just said "would it be ok if.."



Ah yes, your the one who likes to communicate by grunts.   



> Now use that high IQ of yours and start twisting this too. I have faith you will.



It really does bother you that I'm much smarter than you doesn't it?   It would be funny if it weren't so pathetically sad.


----------



## Larkinn

Here is the "evidence" RGS.   Not that it really means anything, I'm sure you could go out and find as many cases as Democrats who do shit like this.   Thus the point is * the statement about a "homosexual agenda" is idiotic, incorrect, and an over-generalization *.   But of course you can't realize that unless its about Republicans/Christians/Whites/some demographic you favor.   

Never thought I'd post this as it supports some rather gross and unappealing incorrect stereotypes, but here you go RGS...just for you.

Republican County Constable Larry Dale Floyd was arrested on suspicion of soliciting sex with an 8-year old girl. Floyd has repeatedly won elections for Denton County, Texas, constable.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican Party leader Bobby Stumbo was arrested for having sex with a 5-year old boy.
Republican teacher and former city councilman John Collins pleaded guilty to sexually molesting 13 and 14 year old girls.
Republican campaign worker Mark Seidensticker is a convicted child molester.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Mayor John Gosek was arrested on charges of soliciting sex from two 15-year old girls.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Committeeman John R. Curtain was charged with molesting a teenage boy and unlawful sexual contact with a minor.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican zoning supervisor, Boy Scout leader and Lutheran church president Dennis L. Rader pleaded guilty to performing a sexual act on an 11-year old girl he murdered.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican advertising consultant Carey Lee Cramer was charged with molesting his 9-year old step-daughter after including her in an anti-Gore television commercial.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican Judge Ronald C. Kline was placed under house arrest for child molestation and possession of child pornography.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican president of the New York City Housing Development Corp. Russell Harding pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer.
Republican Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized the rape of children in Iraqi prisons in order to humiliate their parents into providing information about the anti-American insurgency.
Republican serial killer Ted Bundy was hired by the Republican Party
Republican activist Matthew Glavin, who preached family values, was caught masturbating in public and fondling an undercover park ranger
Republican Party Chairman Sam Walls, who is married, was urged to drop his candidacy for Congress when it was found he likes to dress up in women's clothing
Republican Congressman Edward Schrock resigned from Congress after he was caught searching for sex on a gay telephone service
Republican Mayor Jim West Republican voter Timothy McVeigh bombed Oklahoma City championed an anti-gay agenda, but was later found to be gay himself
Republican preacher Jimmy Swaggart preached fidelity, but cheated on his wife with a prostitute
Republican Congressman Bob Livingston was about to vote for impeaching President Clinton for sexual improprieties until it was disclosed he was an adulterer
Republican Congressman Henry Hyde denounced President Clinton's extramarital affair, but was later found to be an adulterer himself
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was found guilty of raping a 15-year old girl. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren,
has told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation.
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo was sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his daughter between the ages of 9 and 17.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girl.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having an inappropriate relationship with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter.
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women.
Republican Mayor John Gosek, 58, of 275 West 7th Street, Oswego, was arrested for the federal offense of "using a facility in inte-state commerce (a telephone) to knowingly attempt to persuade, induce, entice, and coerce an individual under the age of 18 years to engage in sexual activity for which he could be charged with criminal offenses, that is, rape in the third degree and criminal sexual act in the third degree" in violation of the New York State Penal Code.
Republican racist pedophile and United States Senator Strom Thurmond had sex with a 15-year old black girl which produced a child.
Republican activist Lawrence E. King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano is serving a 37-year sentence in federal prison for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens was found guilty of having sex with a minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio was found guilty of child porn charges.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on six counts of sex crimes involving children.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child.
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter.
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a juvenile and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks, an advisor to a California assemblyman, was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
Republican preacher Stephen White was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews of Houston was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling confessed to molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram of Thurston County, Washington, pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
Republican St. Louis Election Board official Kevin Coan was arrested and charged with trying to buy sex from a 14-year-old girl whom he met on the Internet.
Republican politician Andrew Buhr, former committeeman for Hadley Township Missouri, was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland, a Tennessee state representative, was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15 year old girl.
Republican legislator, Richard Gardner, a Nevada state representative, admitted to molesting his two daughters.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession.
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet.
Republican anti-abortion activist Howard Scott Heldreth is a convicted child rapist in Florida.
Republican County Commissioner David Swartz pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison.
Republican judge Mark Pazuhanich pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. Of course it's no contest! How could he even get a fair fight against those activist judges!
Republican anti-abortion activist Nicholas Morency pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor. - That's the culture of life we all know and love!
Defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, admitted that he paid California Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (republican) more than $1 million in bribes in exchange for millions more in government contracts.
Republican legislator Edison Misla Aldarondo sentenced to 10 years in prison for raping his 9 yr old daughter.
Republican Mayor Philip Giordano serving a 37-year sentence for sexually abusing 8- and 10-year old girls.
Republican campaign consultant Tom Shortridge sentenced to 3 years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. I'm sure he had a good explanation.
Republican racist pedophile and esteemed US Senator Strom Thurmond fathered a chiled with a 15-year old black girl.
Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to sexual relations with a juvenile. Praise George!
Republican legislator Peter Dibble pleaded no contest to having inappropriate relations with a 13-year-old girl.
Republican activist Lawrence E King, Jr. organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican lobbyist Craig J. Spence organized child sex parties at the White House during the 1980s.
Republican Congressman Donald "Buz" Lukens found guilty of sex with a female minor and sentenced to one month in jail.
Republican fundraiser Richard A. Delgaudio found guilty of child porn charges and paying two teenage girls to pose for sexual photos.
Republican activist Mark A. Grethen convicted on 6counts of child sex crimes.
Republican activist Randal David Ankeney pleaded guilty to attempted sexual assault on a child. Look, he didn't actually do anything. He only TRIED! You can't fault a republican for trying!
Republican Congressman Dan Crane had sex with a female minor working as a congressional page.
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. Prai$e the lord!
Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allegedly had sex with a 16 year old girl when he was 28. I love this country!
Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar. Now I'm sure he can give us a good explanation for this.
Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. Obviously a liberal conspiracy!
Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD. He was obviously trying to help this woman! Do you liberals no shame!Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography. Look! It was his own son. Geez you liberals are SICK!
Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media. He was trying to explain to her what NOT to do when in a difficult situation!
Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced to jail after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl. She could have turned away.
Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her. Liberal jury of course.
Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison. Now how could anyone rape their daughter 6 times! Can you say Liberal psycologist!
Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl. Obviously set up by a liberal computer hacker. These hackers no NO SHAME!
Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
Republican politician Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children). You see, actually he happened to be changing out of his bathing suit when these kids walked by.
Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was charged with sexual misconduct involving a 15-year old girl.
Republican County Councilman Keola Childs pleaded guilty to molesting a male child. He pleaded guilty only to keep his family out of the liberal media's spotlight.
Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl. She was eighTEEN. That's still a teenager!
Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters. He only had their interests in mind. Why don't you liberals see that!
Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl. No comment.
Republican benefactor of conservative Christian groups, Richard A. Dasen Sr., was charged with rape for allegedly paying a 15-year old girl for sex. Dasen, 62, who is married with grown children and several grandchildren, has allegedly told police that over the past decade he paid more than $1 million to have sex with a large number of young women. Philanthrapy at it's finest!
Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy. That boy was a liberal trying to corrupt his mind. He did the right thing.
Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. He did the honorable thing and did his time.
Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000. Lies. Lies! All liberal lies!
Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, Larry Jack Schwarz, was fired after child pornography was found in his possession. Obviously set up by that liberal media!
Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate Robin Vanderwall was convicted in Virginia on five counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet. Who said republicans were sexist!
The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested
Tuesday, April 04, 2006, for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage
girl, authorities said. Rep. Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested in Maryland where he lives
on charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material
to a minor. The charges were issued out of Polk County, Fla.
Republican anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley admitted to having sex with a mule.
A judge on Wednesday, 04-05-06, allowed a lawsuit to proceed against Jessica Cutler, the
former Senate aide who posted details of her sex life on the Internet. The case brought
by REPUBLICAN Sen. Mike DeWine's former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Robert Steinbuch, alleges that Cutler engaged in an invasion of his privacy in 2004
by publishing sexually explicit facts about a relationship with Steinbuch.
REPUBLICAN Otis O'Neal Horsley (born 1944) is an American political figure of the far REPUBLICAN right.
He is the author of christiangallery.com, a website devoted to his advocacy of militant anti-abortion,
secessionist, and anti-gay views. Last night, May 09, 2005, anti-abortion extremist
Neal Horsley was a guest on The Alan Colmes Show, a FOX News radio program. The topic
was an interesting one - whether or not an internet service provider should allow Horsley
to post the names of abortion doctors on his website. Horsley does that as a way of
targeting them and one doctor has been killed. In the course of the interview, however,
Colmes asked Neal Horsley about his background, including a statement that he had admitted to
engaging in homosexual and bestiality sex, including having sex with a MULE!
Republican city councilman Mark Harris, who is described as a "good military man" and "church goer," was convicted of repeatedly having sex with an 11-year-old girl and sentenced to 12 years in prison. If you do the crime, you do the time + 1.
Republican businessman Jon Grunseth withdrew his candidacy for Minnesota governor after allegations surfaced that he went swimming in the nude with four underage girls, including his daughter. He just wanted to keep an eye out for those girls...and his daughter. He even had pictures to prove it!
Republican director of the "Young Republican Federation" Nicholas Elizondo molested his 6-year old daughter and was sentenced to six years in prison.
Rev. C. Stephen White -- better known on Penn's campus as "Brother Stephen" -- will face
trial on charges of soliciting sex from a 14-year-old boy, according to the West Chester
District Attorney's office. At a preliminary hearing held Aug. 12, White pleaded not
guilty to charges of criminal solicitation, criminal attempt to lure a child into a motor
vehicle and corruption of minors. All charges will be held for court, according to West
Chester Assistant District Attorney Kimberly Callahan, who will prosecute the case.
White is married and has three sons and republican fundraiser in the area.
Republican Jack Burkmana reportedly has been caught allegedly offering to pay $1,000 for
sex with two homosexuals ... Republican operative Jack Burkmana former lobbyist for
"Family Research Council" The council and Mr. Burkmana support and donate money to the Bush
administration and the GOP.
(June 28, 2006)--A South Texas jury has found a 44-year-old REPUBLICAN political consultant guilty of
four counts involving the sexual molestation of children. The 44-year-old CARY LEE CRAMER was
convicted of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child, two of indecency with a
child by contact and one of indecency with a child by exposure. Cramer, who now lives in
Tucson, Ariz., gained national attention during the 2000 presidential election.
His McAllen company created a TV ad accusing the Clinton-Gore administration of giving away
nuclear technology to China in exchange for campaign contributions. Cramer faces a maximum
of 149 years in prison for the four felony charges.
Republican Lou Beres denied sexual-molestation allegations when the Oregonian newspaper first reported them in October.
Beres acknowledged sexually touching a 16- or 17-year-old friend of his daughter in 1976 or 1977.
But a local Police Department report released as part of a lawsuit said Beres "readily admitted sexually touching" one girl when she was 13 or 14 years old.
The longtime leader of the Oregon Christian Coalition and staunch opponent of gay rights
admits in a newly released police report that he sexually touched three underage girls.
August 30, 2006 A Texas pastor accused of raping a church member after telling her she was possessed by a lesbian demon at his house last year has been indicted. Republican, Leonard Ray Owens, 63, who is free on $25,000 bail, is now awaiting trial on a charge of sexual assault, a second-degree felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison. He was arrested in November, 2005.
Police began investigating Owens last year after a 22-year-old woman reported that Owens raped her twice at his Fort Worth home. The woman told police that in July, several months after she began attending the Prayer House of Faith, she went to Owens' home for counseling following a miscarriage. Owens told her that a sex spirit and lesbian demon were inside her and needed to be cast out, police said. The pastor then asked her to lie on the floor and began yelling at her as if she were a demon, saying, "Loose her in the name of Jesus," according to an arrest warrant affidavit.
Christian bookstore owner, cop admit sex with boy
Pittsburgh, PA, August 30, 2006
A former college administrator, a former Christian bookstore owner and a former policeman admitted to sexual misconduct with a teenage boy.They were among five men arrested in March as part of an ongoing investigation of men who meet boys through Internet chat rooms, authorities said.William Gillin, 53, republican and Paul Skiles, 63, republican, both of Johnstown, pleaded guilty yesterday to corruption of minors, indecent assault and unlawful communications with minors. Mr. Gillin is the former alumni relations director at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Mr. Skiles owned the now-closed B&K Christian Bookstore in Richland Township.Some of the incidents occurred when the boy was 16, prosecutors said. He is now 17.
Donald Lukens, Republican Congressman, was found guilty of having sex with a minor - a girl he was accused of sleeping with since she was 13. Time Article

Pat McPherson, Douglas County Election Commissioner. Arrested for fondling a 17-year-old girl. Article

Jon Matthews, Republican talk show host in Houston, was indicted for indecency with a child, including exposing his genitals to a girl under the age of 17. Source: ABC News

Jeff Miller, (R-Cleveland), Senate Republican Caucus Chairman in Tennessee and the sponsor of Tennessee's Marriage Protection act, getting divorced (as of April 2005) because of an affair he was having with an office aid. Miller described the Tennessee Marriage Protection Act as a means of preserving the sanctity of marriage. He opposed an amendment, however, which stated that "Adultery is deemed to be a threat to the institution of marriage and contrary to public policy in Tennessee." [8] [9]

Jim Wesr, Spokane Mayor. Supported a bill, which failed, would have barred gays and lesbians from working in schools, day-care centers and some state agencies. Voted to bar the state from distributing pamphlets telling people how to protect themselves from AIDS. Proposed that "any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person" among teens be criminalized. Had a sexual affair with an 18 year old boy.Source: Spokesman review

Keith Westmoreland, a Tennessee state representative (R), was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to minors under 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children). Tennesean Article

Stephen White, Republican preacher. Was arrested after allegedly offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him. Daily Pennsylvanian article | Daily yale News Article

Nicholas Morency, Republican anti-abortion activist, pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography on his computer and offering a bounty to anybody who murders an abortion doctor The Dallas Morning News article.

Sue Myrick, Congresswoman (R-NC), describes herself as a "devout Christian." Committed adultery with a married man.

Bill O'Reilly Right-wing conservative talk show host on Fox News, sued for sexual harrassment by his producer.

Bob Packwood, Senator (R-Ore.), resigned in 1995 under a threat of public senate hearings related to 10 female ex-staffers accusing him of sexual harassment.

Jeffrey Patti, Republican Committee Chairman, was arrested for distributing what experts call "some of the most offensive material in the child pornography world" - a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped. Daily Record News Article

John Paulk, lied about prowling for gay sex while running a fundamentalist group to cure gays.

Brent Parker Utah State Representetive. Arrested for soliciting sex from an undercover officer posing as a male prostitute. KSL News Article |Deseret News Article

John Peterson, Congressman (R-Pa), accused of sexual harassment and creation of a hostile work environment by six women. Peterson has refused to admit a crime, saying only "I may have been an excessive hugger."

Harvey Pitt, SEC Chief under George W. Bush until he was forced to resign in 2002. Worked for New Frontier Media, a firm which distributed teen sex videos.

Mark Pazuhanich, Republican judge, pleaded no contest to fondling a 10-year old girl and was sentenced to 10 years probation. Pocono Record article

George Roche III, carried on a 19 year affair with his son's wife, while serving as president of Hillsdale College, which "emphasizes the importance of the common moral truths that bind all Americans, while recognizing the importance of religion for the maintenance of a free society."

Beverly Russell, County Chairman of the Christian Coalition, sexually molested his step-daughter, Susan Smith, who later drowned her two children. Herald-Journal Article |Commentary on Newsweek Article

Jack Ryan, 2004 Republican nominee for US Senate from Illinois, pressured his wive, actress Jeri Ryan, to have sex with other men. Tricked her into visiting sex clubs, where he asked her to have sex with him while others watched.[10]

Joe Scarborough, former Republican Congressman, currently a conservative talk show host. Resigned his congressional seat abruptly to spend more time with his family, amidst allegations of an affair. His intern, Lori Klausutis, was soon after found dead in his office. The medical examiner, who had his license revoked in Missouri for falsifying information in an autopsy report, and suspended in florida for six years, ruled the case an accident, after giving conflicting information about her injuries. He said he lied about them because "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury."

Ed Schrock, two-term republican congressman, with a 92% approval rating from the Christian Coalition. Cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, consistently opposed gay rights. Married, with wife and kids. Withdrew his candidacy for a third term after tapes of him soliciting for gay sex were circulated.

Dr. Laura Schlessinger, right wing conservative radio host. Promotes family values, estranged from her mother, opposes birth control, has had her tubes tied, espouses saving oneself for marriage, admits to having had sex before she was married, opposes adultery, has committed adultery while she was married, and has slept with a married man, opposes divorce, is divorced and remarried, has posed for nude photos which are available online.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican governor, had sex with a 16 year old when he was 28.

Jean Schmidt, OH-2, though not herself implicated, employed a campaign manager (Joe Braun) in her 2005 election who once wrote an article condemning gay men for running sex ad profiles, and who was then accused of running his own sex profile on Collarme, an S&M sex site. The profile called for "submissives" to wear only a collar and handcuffs and to have hot wax dripped on them. DKOS Diary

John Scmitz, right-wing republican congressman, who had had his committee chairship taken away from him in the California State Senate after issuing a press release attacking Jews, feminists and gays. Forced out of office in 1982 for having an adulterous affair and fathering two children out of wedlock with one of his students. He was caught because his baby was admitted to hospital for having hair tied so tightly around his penis that it was almost severed. His daughter, Mary Kay LeTourneau, was convicted of having an adulterous affair with one of her students, and giving birth to two of his children. Wikipedia article

Larry Jack Schwarz, Republican parole board officer and former Colorado state representative, fired after child pornography was found in his possession. Rocky Mountain News article With his political career over, he went to work in the hard-core pornography industry for Platinum X Pictures, owned by his daughter, porn starlet Jewel De'Nyle (Stephany Schwarz). Wikipedia article

Jim Stelling, Seminole County Republican Party chairman who believes in "family values", as he told a judge. Filed a defamation lawsuit againt Nancy Goettman, a former county GOP executive committee member, for falsely claiming he had been married six times. Stelling has been married 5 times. Article

Don Sherwood, Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives. Eventually admitted to an affar with a woman 30 years younger than him, after she accused him of physical abuse and attempting to choke her. Post-Gazette article

Tom Shortridge. Republican campaign consultant, was sentenced to three years probation for taking nude photographs of a 15-year old girl. LA Times article

Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr., Republican City Councilman, pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison. Sex Offender Registry page | Article

Craig J. Spence, Republican lobbyist, organized orgies with child prostitutes in the White House during the 1980s. Full page including Washington Times article Discovery Channel documentary

Jimmy Swaggart, televangelist, said during a sermon "I'm trying to find the correct name for it ... this utter absolute, asinine, idiotic stupidity of men marrying men. ... I've never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry. And I'm gonna be blunt and plain; if one ever looks at me like that, I'm gonna kill him and tell God he died." Had an affair with a prostitute.

David Swartz, Republican County Commissioner, pleaded guilty to molesting two girls under the age of 11 and was sentenced to 8 years in prison. Rocky Mountain News Article

Randall Terry, Right to Life activist, founder of Operation Rescue, involved in the Terri Schiavo protests. Once imprisoned for sending former President Bill Clinton an aborted fetus. His son Jamiel is gay; his daughter Tila had sex outside of marriage, became pregnant, had a miscarriage - she is no longer welcome in his home; his daughter Ebony had 2 children outside of wedlock and became Muslim. He has campaigned against infidelity and birth control, gays and unwed mothers. Terry himself was censured by his church after committing adultery.

Bill Thomas Republican congressman, had an affair with Deborah Steelman, a health care lobbyist who steered huge campaign gifts to Thomas' war chest.

Strom Thurmond, republican senator and racist, raped and impregnanted a 15-year old African American maid. (BBC Article)

Robin Vanderwall, Republican strategist and Citadel Military College graduate, director of Faith & Family Alliance, (a Christian Coalition spin off), former student of Pat Robertson's Regent Universtity, member of Ralph Reed's inner circle who funneled money to from lobbiest Jack Abromoff to Reed [11], convicted in Virginia for soliticing sex from a 13-year-old-boy[12] and on four other counts of soliciting sex from boys and girls over the internet. Virginian-Pilot Article

J.C. Watts, Representative (R-Oklahoma), loud champion of "moral values." Has out-of-wedlock children.

Congressman Mark Foley (REPUBLICAN-FL) planned to resign today, hours after ABC questioned him about sexually explicit internet messages with current and former Congressional pages under the age of 18. A spokesman for Foley, the chairman of the House Caucus on MISSING and EXPLOITED CHILDREN, said the congressman submitted his resignation in a letter late this afternoon, September 29, 2006, to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
Reply With Quote


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> The truth is that it's a bunch of garbage. Total an complete trash circulated by the same hate-filled trash who try to say gays are pedophiles.
> 
> 
> 
> But keep on flashin' the white supremacist symbols and spreading the hate ....



I disagree.  You're saying homosexuals don't have an agenda?  and/or that agenda is not being enforced in public schools in the name of political correctness?

It's a fact, not garbage.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> I disagree.  You're saying homosexuals don't have an agenda?  and/or that agenda is not being enforced in public schools in the name of political correctness?
> 
> It's a fact, not garbage.



Similarly Christians try to get students to become Christians. Some do it subtly and some use more brash tactics.  Some call for a quiet time.  Some call for teacher led prayer. You will find some bad apples in every bunch.  Some homosexuals would recommend holding off teaching homosexuality until students become older and more mature.  I think that some homosexuals want children taught about homosexuality at too young an age.  Likewise, I think that in some cases, sex itself is taught to students that are too young.  Anyway, every group had an agenda.  Some members within that group may have their own extreme version of that agenda.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Similarly Christians try to get students to become Christians. Some do it subtly and some use more brash tactics.  Some call for a quiet time.  Some call for teacher led prayer. You will find some bad apples in every bunch.  Some homosexuals would recommend holding off teaching homosexuality until students become older and more mature.  I think that some homosexuals want children taught about homosexuality at too young an age.  Likewise, I think that in some cases, sex itself is taught to students that are too young.  Anyway, every group had an agenda.  Some members within that group may have their own extreme version of that agenda.



Point is, the agenda exists.  Point a finger at someone else is attempting to deflect from the topic of this thread.  If it exists, then pointing out that it does is not "garbage."


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Point is, the agenda exists.  Point a finger at someone else is attempting to deflect from the topic of this thread.  If it exists, then pointing out that it does is not "garbage."



Yeah.  Okay.  Some people and small groups have agendas.  Big deal.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Yeah.  Okay.  Some people and small groups have agendas.  Big deal.



Everyone has an agenda.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Everyone has an agenda.



But yet we only hear about the liberal agenda and homosexual agenda.

Why is that?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

mattskramer said:


> I think that some homosexuals want children taught about homosexuality at too young an age.



that is a fact. Why do you suppose they want to do that?
Could it be that they feel oppressed by those evil hetero people?


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> But yet we only hear about the liberal agenda and homosexual agenda.
> 
> Why is that?



How is that?  matts just tried to toss in the Christian agenda two posts ago.  There's as much name-calling on one side as the other.

So, if you mean that's all you hear from conservatives, it's rather obvious why ... a clash of ideals.  Same as all we hear about is the Christian right agenda, warmongering agenda, capitalist agenda ..... 

just depends on where you're looking at it from.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Unlike Larkinn I won't stoop to his childish level and hunt out every minor democratic official that has ever been accused of or convicted of said crime. One need only look at his post to understand that he is a childish immature buffoon that has way to much time on his hands and hates his political rivals.

His superior intellect is wasted on an idiot. Further Mensa boy I have yet to see you provide us with your supposed superior intelligence. I provided a valid test to my current IQ as tested by a test that is within 4 percent of a proctored test. And it was hardly a low IQ. All we have is you claiming other wise.

Tell ya what Mensa boy, you pay for it and I will take a proctored IQ test. Of course I expect you to take one also. You may be 10 or 12 points higher then me but since we are talking 120's compared to 130's hardly a striking difference. Further I have probably forgotten more then you even know. The last proctored test I took that grades IQ I scored a 137, of course I was 22 at the time. 

I won't hold my breath for Mr Mensa to put up or shut up.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> How is that?  matts just tried to toss in the Christian agenda two posts ago.  There's as much name-calling on one side as the other.



I think Matt was pointing out the ridiculousness of the concept...as I was with the Republican agenda thing.



> So, if you mean that's all you hear from conservatives, it's rather obvious why ... a clash of ideals.  Same as all we hear about is the Christian right agenda, warmongering agenda, capitalist agenda .....
> 
> just depends on where you're looking at it from.



I've never heard of the capitalist agenda...or a warmongering agenda.   I've heard of a christian right agenda, although not that much...and of a neocon agenda.   But the thing is those are generally political ideologies...homosexuality is a sexual orientation.   Its like saying the straight agenda, black agenda, white agenda...just seems weird to me.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unlike Larkinn I won't stoop to his childish level and hunt out every minor democratic official that has ever been accused of or convicted of said crime. One need only look at his post to understand that he is a childish immature buffoon that has way to much time on his hands and hates his political rivals.



One has only to read my post with a tiny iota of reading comprehension (which you obviously lack) to realize that I didn't compile that list.   



> His superior intellect is wasted on an idiot. Further Mensa boy I have yet to see you provide us with your supposed superior intelligence.



Its fairly obvious from conversing with you.   But I'm not going to bother proving it unless my proof causes you or PR to lose something besides your self respect, which I'm assuming you don't have anyway.



> I provided a valid test to my current IQ as tested by a test that is within 4 percent of a proctored test. And it was hardly a low IQ. All we have is you claiming other wise.



If you think I am lying, then want to bet me?   I'm more than happy to provide proof if I'll get something for it.



> Tell ya what Mensa boy, you pay for it and I will take a proctored IQ test.



Umm, no.   If you think me proving to you what I already know is worth even a penny to me you are stupider than I thought.   



> Of course I expect you to take one also. You may be 10 or 12 points higher then me but since we are talking 120's compared to 130's hardly a striking difference.



You are welcome to take the same test that I took.   It is somewhat correlative to IQ...at least MENSA thinks so.  Again you don't need to tell me what you got...just be aware of how much better I did on it than you will.  



> Further I have probably forgotten more then you even know.



I've forgotten more than I know as well.   We retain very little of what we actually learn and come across.



> The last proctored test I took that grades IQ I scored a 137, of course I was 22 at the time.
> 
> I won't hold my breath for Mr Mensa to put up or shut up.



put up...what exactly?   You want me to pay to prove something to you who I consider a complete and utter moron who will just squirm out of it anyways?  Just take a LSAT.   You can take one for free.   I don't care what you get, I'll tell you what I got and you can ruminate over how much better I did than you.


----------



## mattskramer

RightWingSpirit said:


> that is a fact. Why do you suppose they want to do that?
> Could it be that they feel oppressed by those evil hetero people?




No.  I also think that many heterosexuals teach heterosexuality to children who are too young of age.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> I think Matt was pointing out the ridiculousness of the concept...as I was with the Republican agenda thing.
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard of the capitalist agenda...or a warmongering agenda.   I've heard of a christian right agenda, although not that much...and of a neocon agenda.   But the thing is those are generally political ideologies...homosexuality is a sexual orientation.   Its like saying the straight agenda, black agenda, white agenda...just seems weird to me.




Doesn't matter whether or not it's a philosophy, lifestyle, etc ... only that there's a mutual goal to push whatever it is (philosophy, lefestyle, etc ...).  

It's not weird.  Even YOU try to sell homosexuality as normal behavior.  That's pushing an agenda.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> Doesn't matter whether or not it's a philosophy, lifestyle, etc ... only that there's a mutual goal to push whatever it is (philosophy, lefestyle, etc ...).



Yeah well most homosexuals just want equality.  I guess thats an agenda but it seems a bit silly to condemn them for that.



> It's not weird.  Even YOU try to sell homosexuality as normal behavior.  That's pushing an agenda.



No thats called arguing for what one believes in on an internet message board.  Unless you think every statement on here equals "pushing an agenda"?


----------



## RightWingSpirit

mattskramer said:


> No.  I also think that many heterosexuals teach heterosexuality to children who are too young of age.



that was sarcasm no doubt.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Yeah well most homosexuals just want equality.  I guess thats an agenda but it seems a bit silly to condemn them for that.
> 
> They don't want equality.  They want their abnormal behavor declared normal, and they want laws that support only their sexual behavior.
> 
> 
> No thats called arguing for what one believes in on an internet message board.  Unless you think every statement on here equals "pushing an agenda"?



A rose by an other name that Matts tries to twist it into is STILL a rose.


----------



## Larkinn

> They don't want equality. They want their abnormal behavor declared normal, and they want laws that support only their sexual behavior.



Declared normal?   By who exactly are "they" trying to get homosexuality declared to be normal by?   Ah wait...they aren't.

And exactly what laws are they trying to get which "support only their sexual behavior"?


----------



## mattskramer

RightWingSpirit said:


> that was sarcasm no doubt.



No sarcasm.  Children are taught about sex (heterosexual or homosexual) at too young an age.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Declared normal?   By who exactly are "they" trying to get homosexuality declared to be normal by?   Ah wait...they aren't.
> 
> And exactly what laws are they trying to get which "support only their sexual behavior"?



They have been trying for the last 10 years to get special laws passed in numerous States. Laws that would give them special status if fired, for hiring, for renting or buying, special status on par with blacks. They even make the same claims that somehow they are entitled because they are just like blacks when it comes to past discrimination and behavior. Which is of course an interesting feat since Homosexual behavior is not skin color and while there are a few people that are so queer you can tell most are not. Special laws that are not required since they already have all the same protections as everyone else.

Further they have derailed any effort to compromise and create Civil Union laws that would give them everything they claim they are lacking. Instead demanding the term marriage be used.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Declared normal?   By who exactly are "they" trying to get homosexuality declared to be normal by?   Ah wait...they aren't.
> 
> And exactly what laws are they trying to get which "support only their sexual behavior"?




You going to try one of your dishonest, games of semantics?  The Hell they aren't trying to have homosexuality accepted as normal behavior.  You even argue that it is.  Or are you now going to try and say you don't?

A law that allows gay marriages is beneficial to only who?  Gays.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> They have been trying for the last 10 years to get special laws passed in numerous States. Laws that would give them special status if fired, for hiring, for renting or buying, special status on par with blacks. They even make the same claims that somehow they are entitled because they are just like blacks when it comes to past discrimination and behavior. Which is of course an interesting feat since Homosexual behavior is not skin color and while there are a few people that are so queer you can tell most are not. Special laws that are not required since they already have all the same protections as everyone else.



Umm, no they aren't.   The most they have been trying to do is try to get non-discrimination laws passed, or get sexual orientation added to existing discrimination categories.  



> Further they have derailed any effort to compromise and create Civil Union laws that would give them everything they claim they are lacking. Instead demanding the term marriage be used.



Separate but equal is not equal.   Sound familar?


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> A rose by an other name that Matts tries to twist it into is STILL a rose.



We have gone over this before.  Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are people.  They want different things.  Some want federal recognition of gay marriage.  Some just want civil unions.  Some gays just dont care.  Another point is that what they want, even if legislated, might not be what they get.  Some people to this day do not think that interracial marriage is normal or okay.  Yet, interracial marriage is legal.  You cant force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so.


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> You going to try one of your dishonest, games of semantics?  The Hell they aren't trying to have homosexuality accepted as normal behavior.  You even argue that it is.  Or are you now going to try and say you don't?



Ahh...accepted and declared are very different things.   



> A law that allows gay marriages is beneficial to only who?  Gays.



Perhaps the most dishonest thing ever.  Yes it would only help gays...because gays are the only ones being discriminated in this way.   That does NOT mean it is a "special law only for gays"...it means it is making them the SAME as straights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Umm, no they aren't.   The most they have been trying to do is try to get non-discrimination laws passed, or get sexual orientation added to existing discrimination categories.
> 
> 
> 
> Separate but equal is not equal.   Sound familar?



It is not separate, In order for Civil Unions to work correctly a push would have to occur to eliminate States from the marriage business all together. Marriage is ultimately a RELIGIOUS function, Government only cares about assigning rights and ensuring proper passing of rights. Civil Unions is all that is required and in fact a Judge marrying you is nothing more than a civil union anyway.

Civil Unions are what is needed to ensure that all the States meet the requirement of honoring all other States laws. As it stands now Constitutionally if any State ( and one does) legally allows gays to marry, in effect every State has to honor that law. That is Tryanny and has resulted in the idiotic push in Congress to pass legislation stating that in the case of marriages, one State does not have to honor another States marriages.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is not separate, In order for Civil Unions to work correctly a push would have to occur to eliminate States from the marriage business all together.



Many gays are in favor of that.   But the problem is that its unrealistic.  If you are only advocating gay civil unions if the state gets out of marriage, then you might as well be advocating for not allowing gays civil unions because its not going to happen.



> Civil Unions are what is needed to ensure that all the States meet the requirement of honoring all other States laws. As it stands now Constitutionally if any State ( and one does) legally allows gays to marry, in effect every State has to honor that law. That is Tryanny and has resulted in the idiotic push in Congress to pass legislation stating that in the case of marriages, one State does not have to honor another States marriages.



Tyranny?   A bit melodramatic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Many gays are in favor of that.   But the problem is that its unrealistic.  If you are only advocating gay civil unions if the state gets out of marriage, then you might as well be advocating for not allowing gays civil unions because its not going to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> Tyranny?   A bit melodramatic.



It is Tyranny when ONE State's Judge's or even Legislature shit on what the other 49 believe. 

Once again a civil union that has all the power of what we call marriage now is in fact all the State needs as a power. And even if initially only Gays HAVE to get Civil Unions, it is irrelevant to the Separate but Equal claim you made.

I DO though mean that EVERYONE that wants the Government to recognize their union should get Civil Unions. The State should not be in the marriage business. It solves all kind of problems. Further it cuts the argument out from under the right and the left that Marriage is only between a man and a woman, since the Government will not be issuing marriage licenses and will not be authorizing marriage at all. AND believe me both the Right AND the Left are against Gay marriages.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> If you are so certain that I am lying then why won't you make a wager on that?


I got enough money to cover anything you can put up, so just prove it, and stop pretending.



Larkinn said:


> Umm its called Ad Hominem.   Its a flaw.


You love word games don't you? Problem is, I don't. I deal in facts and straight talk. I know that irritates you when you can't suck someone into your games. I'm the real deal. You're an equivocator.



Larkinn said:


> Actually lots of people have and survive just fine.   But you condemn them because they are different then you.   Disgusting.


I'm not condemning anyone. That's God's job, and yes, he has condemned them. I'm exposing the sickness, and the agenda of those who push it.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Way to dodge the question, genius.



Good Lord... what a moron. "YOU" made an OUTLANDISH claim. 



			
				Larkinn said:
			
		

> *So you won't mind me saying that there is a Republican agenda to rape children then?*



"I" challenged you to PROVE IT. 

Get with the program you fucking IDIOT!


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> It is Tyranny when ONE State's Judge's or even Legislature shit on what the other 49 believe.



Nope...they still can't get married in that state, just the state has to recognize them as married if they go there.   



> Once again a civil union that has all the power of what we call marriage now is in fact all the State needs as a power. And even if initially only Gays HAVE to get Civil Unions, it is irrelevant to the Separate but Equal claim you made.



Irrelevant?   You just basically said separate but equal is irrelevant to separate but equal.


> I DO though mean that EVERYONE that wants the Government to recognize their union should get Civil Unions. The State should not be in the marriage business. It solves all kind of problems.



And creates a lot as well.   Wills, hospital visits, etc.   It also gets rid of any incentives the government can give individuals to get married.



> Further it cuts the argument out from under the right and the left that Marriage is only between a man and a woman, since the Government will not be issuing marriage licenses and will not be authorizing marriage at all. AND believe me both the Right AND the Left are against Gay marriages.



So if the right and the left are all against gay marriage, who exactly are the 39&#37; of Americans who favor it?

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=273


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> You love word games don't you? Problem is, I don't. I deal in facts and straight talk. I know that irritates you when you can't suck someone into your games. I'm the real deal. You're an equivocator.



It is not &#8220;word games&#8221;.  It is called vocabulary, logic, grammar, and communication.  They are skills and tools that you evidently lack. Without them, you are merely a BS artist.



> I'm not condemning anyone. That's God's job, and yes, he has condemned them. I'm exposing the sickness, and the agenda of those who push it.



Ah yes.  You mention God again.  You never did say whether or not you believe in all of those bizarre sexist things in the New Testament that I pulled from another web site.  Do you make sure that the heads of the churchwomen are well covered?


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> I got enough money to cover anything you can put up, so just prove it, and stop pretending.



So would you like to make a wager?...$1k?   We can each send it to gunny and if I can prove I qualify for Mensa I get all the money, and if I can't, you get all the money.   Sound fair?



> You love word games don't you? Problem is, I don't. I deal in facts and straight talk. I know that irritates you when you can't suck someone into your games. I'm the real deal. You're an equivocator.



Aww...did I confuse widdle PR with the word Ad hominem?   I'm sorry...a logical flaw means your argument has no merit and come up with a better argument, retard.   



> I'm not condemning anyone. That's God's job, and yes, he has condemned them. I'm exposing the sickness, and the agenda of those who push it.



Ahh, God talks to you does he?   



> Good Lord... what a moron. "YOU" made an OUTLANDISH claim.



Notice the question mark at the end of that sentence?   That means its a QUESTION, not a CLAIM, dumbass.   I'm curious how you want me to prove my question.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> But yet we only hear about the liberal agenda and homosexual agenda.
> 
> Why is that?



Because even though there is a brash and blatant homosexual agenda, there are those who try and deny it exists, like some did here, and they are ALWAYS "liberals."

That's why.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Because even though there is a brash and blatant homosexual agenda, there are those who try and deny it exists, like some did here, and they are ALWAYS "liberals."
> 
> That's why.



No, actually its probably because there are paranoid conspiracy theorist freaks like yourself.


----------



## mattskramer

Larkinn said:


> So would you like to make a wager?...$1k?   We can each send it to gunny and if I can prove I qualify for Mensa I get all the money, and if I can't, you get all the money.   Sound fair?



That might be a little bit complicated.  Why not ask a moderator to judge and ban the loser from the board for a few days.


----------



## Larkinn

mattskramer said:


> That might be a little bit complicated.  Why not ask a moderator to judge and ban the loser from the board for a few days.



Why pass up easy money if I can convince the sucker to do it?  I'll go through a little bit of complexity for taking $1k from a moron like PR.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> So would you like to make a wager?...$1k?   We can each send it to gunny and if I can prove I qualify for Mensa I get all the money, and if I can't, you get all the money.   Sound fair?


$1K? What's the matter? You broke? Lets make it $100K. Didn't know you were dealing with a millioniare did you? Just goes to show, you never know who's on the other end of the internet. 



Larkinn said:


> Aww...did I confuse widdle PR with the word Ad hominem?   I'm sorry...a logical flaw means your argument has no merit and come up with a better argument, retard.


You are an idiot and an equivocator.



Larkinn said:


> Ahh, God talks to you does he?


Yes he does, through the words in the Bible.



Larkinn said:


> Notice the question mark at the end of that sentence?   That means its a QUESTION, not a CLAIM, dumbass.   I'm curious how you want me to prove my question.


I think it's amazing anybody here tolerates you. 99 out of 100 of your posts are full of nothing more than bull shit.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> No, actually its probably because there are paranoid conspiracy theorist freaks like yourself.



Thank you, for that fine display of total misunderstanding of what words really mean.

You're not doing your claim that you're a mensa member any good at all talking horse shit like that.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> $1K? What's the matter? You broke? Lets make it $100K. Didn't know you were dealing with a millioniare did you? Just goes to show, you never know who's on the other end of the internet.



I don't have 100k.   So if you are a millionaire then 1k will be sufficient, yes?  



> I think it's amazing anybody here tolerates you. 99 out of 100 of your posts is full of nothing more than bull shit.



Thats your response to my pointing out the difference between a claim and a question?   Come now, certainly you can do better then that.  



> You're not doing your claim that you're a mensa member any good at all talking horse shit like that.



Well I guess you'll win 1k when you agree to the bet then, won't you?  PS..I'm not a MENSA member, I'm just automatically qualified if I chose to be one.


----------



## Kagom

For a minute there I thought someone had revived some old bullshit thread.


----------



## Larkinn

Nope...new bullshit thread.


----------



## RightWingSpirit

mattskramer said:


> No sarcasm.  Children are taught about sex (heterosexual or homosexual) at too young an age.



no, they are taught about homosexuality being the norm, THAT is the problem.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> For a minute there I thought someone had revived some old bullshit thread.



Homosexuality = perverted.

Heterosexuality = normal.

Any questions?


----------



## Kagom

I'm not feeling like a tango today, Pale.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> We have gone over this before.  Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, are people.  They want different things.  Some want federal recognition of gay marriage.  Some just want civil unions.  Some gays just dont care.  Another point is that what they want, even if legislated, might not be what they get.  Some people to this day do not think that interracial marriage is normal or okay.  Yet, interracial marriage is legal.  You cant force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so.



I never had said they are not people.  Matter of fact, I have made the point that they are more than once.  You're doing nothing but attempting to obfuscate.  

What they want, both individually and collectively is the point ... what they actually get or don't is irrelevant.  

You're right, we've been over this before; yet, you keep on using the same apples-n-oranged analogy.  Race is a hereditary trait.  Homosexuality is a behavior.

*"You cant force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so."*

Now I want you think REAL hard about this statement and apply it from the other point of view.  It is just as true.


----------



## Gunny

Larkinn said:


> Ahh...accepted and declared are very different things.
> 
> Gee, I sure didn't call this one.  Same shit within the context I used it.  Try arguing the issue instead of the semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the most dishonest thing ever.  Yes it would only help gays...because gays are the only ones being discriminated in this way.   That does NOT mean it is a "special law only for gays"...it means it is making them the SAME as straights.



There's not a damned thing dishonest about it.  Dishonest would be claiming gays do not ALREADY have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexuals.  A law allowing gays to marry is exclusively beneficial only to them.  They make up less than 10% of the population.  

How's your argument on abortion?  I don't know what the actual percentage of people adamnatly opposed to abortion for any reason is, but I'd venture to say you are pro-choice based on most of your stances.

What's the difference between the minority having its agenda forced on the majority between the two topics?  None.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> It is not word games.  It is called vocabulary, logic, grammar, and communication.  They are skills and tools that you evidently lack. Without them, you are merely a BS artist.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah yes.  You mention God again.  You never did say whether or not you believe in all of those bizarre sexist things in the New Testament that I pulled from another web site.  Do you make sure that the heads of the churchwomen are well covered?



Bullshit.  It's word games, and it's dishonest.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> That might be a little bit complicated.  Why not ask a moderator to judge and ban the loser from the board for a few days.



Neither money nor memberships will be wagered on this site.  Any wagers made between members that include any transactions of goods, money, etc will be made in private, outside the public domain of this board, and not with the consent or knowledge of this message board and/or its staff.


----------



## 007

GunnyL said:


> Neither money nor memberships will be wagered on this site.  Any wagers made between members that include any transactions of goods, money, etc will be made in private, outside the public domain of this board, and not with the consent or knowledge of this message board and/or its staff.



Don't worry GunnyL... it appears we already have our answer, and it's not what he's been claiming either....



			
				Larkinn said:
			
		

> PS..I'm not a MENSA member, I'm just automatically qualified if I chose to be one.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> I'm not feeling like a tango today, Pale.



GOOOooood... perhaps you're finally getting tired of lying to yourself.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Don't worry GunnyL... it appears we already have our answer, and it's not what he's been claiming either....



Its not what I've been claiming?

Please quote me where I've said I was in MENSA...you lying piece of shit.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> I never had said they are not people.  Matter of fact, I have made the point that they are more than once.  You're doing nothing but attempting to obfuscate.



Nope.  Im not trying to obfuscate.  



> What they want, both individually and collectively is the point ... what they actually get or don't is irrelevant.



You seem to have missed my point or you are trying to avoid it.  You will find small groups of groups that are trying to do things that are wrong.  You will find larger groups of such people trying to do things that are good.  Homosexuals, as a whole, are not doing things that are bad.  They do not have an evil agenda.  Some individual homosexuals may have created groups that are attempting to do bad things.  You can find such in any group. White Pride groups have segments of violent skinheads.     



> You're right, we've been over this before; yet, you keep on using the same apples-n-oranged analogy.  Race is a hereditary trait.  Homosexuality is a behavior.



The relationship is still a choice.  Someone may be attracted to people outside his or her race.  Likewise, someone may be attracted to people inside his or her own sex.  Anyway, if you dont like the comparison between interracial relationships and homosexual relationships, we can compare interfaith relationships with homosexual relationships.  In certain segments of America it used to actually be illegal for people for different religions to get married.  As opposed to views held by many homosexuals, I do think that the issue ultimately is choice (choice to wed inside your sex, outside your race, outside your religion. It is a comparison between apples and apples (perhaps big apples and small apples). 

*"You cant force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so."*



> Now I want you think REAL hard about this statement and apply it from the other point of view.  It is just as true.



It is a true statement.  Some people think that we should have racial segregation.  People think that interracial marriage is wrong.  Some people think that abortion is wrong.  Legislation does not change the hearts of many people but it likely influences their behaviors.


----------



## mattskramer

RightWingSpirit said:


> no, they are taught about homosexuality being the norm, THAT is the problem.



Then they are being lied to.  Something that is not the norm is not necessarily good or bad.  Yet, I do believe that homosexuality is outside the norm.  Anyway, I also think that children are being educated about sex at too young an age.  I think that we can agree on that, and that privatization and vouchers are good ideas.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> Bullshit.  It's word games, and it's dishonest.



Using logic and proper vocabulary is to play word games?!?  Whatever.  It would seem that avoiding logic and not understanding vocabulary would be to play word games.


----------



## mattskramer

Hey, *Pale Rider*.  You said that you follow the ethics of the Bible (You turn to the Bible as an authority) but you never responded to my post. Do you make sure that women should submit to their husbands?  Do you reprimand them if they wear decorative jewelry?  Since the Bible says so, you must also believe that men should leave widows in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. You make sure that women conceal their heads.


----------



## doniston

GunnyL said:


> There's not a damned thing dishonest about it.  Dishonest would be claiming gays do not ALREADY have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexuals.  A law allowing gays to marry is exclusively beneficial only to them.  They make up less than 10% of the population.
> 
> 
> [/ QUOTE]   GAYS do NOT have all the same rights as hetros,  they are not allowed to marry.  That is discrimionation.  Not only regarding the word marraige, but the fact that they are refused certain Legal rights that only marriage can offer.  If those laws were changed, that would be a different story.


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Hey, *Pale Rider*.  You said that you follow the ethics of the Bible (You turn to the Bible as an authority) but you never responded to my post. Do you make sure that women should submit to their husbands?  Do you reprimand them if they wear decorative jewelry?  Since the Bible says so, you must also believe that men should leave widows in need because their rewards will arrive as an answer to prayer. You make sure that women conceal their heads.



That's not what this thread is about. If you want to debate the above topic, start another thread about it and I'll be glad to debate you.


----------



## 007

Larkinn said:


> Its not what I've been claiming?
> 
> Please quote me where I've said I was in MENSA...you lying piece of shit.



Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.

You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.


----------



## jillian

Pale Rider said:


> Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.
> 
> You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.



Not really... he kicks butt on a regular basis. But I can see where that would annoy you.


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> Not really... he kicks butt on a regular basis. But I can see where that would annoy you.



Well... you're the only one that sees that. But I can see where that would annoy you.


----------



## jillian

Pale Rider said:


> Well... you're the only one that sees that. But I can see where that would annoy you.



Try to write your own material.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.
> 
> You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.



That is an excellent example of an ad hominem.  You are so good at creating them.  Good job.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> GOOOooood... perhaps you're finally getting tired of lying to yourself.


I never lie to myself.


----------



## Larkinn

Pale Rider said:


> Whatever... no matter how you slice it, you're a fraud and an equivocator.



Whatever?   Whatever meaning you are a bald faced *liar*?   You make claims, aren't willing to back them up, and then lie about them.   You are pathetic.   



> You don't debate... you troll around the board being a fucking pain to most all here that talk intelligently. Your total repituare is 99% sass and bullshit.



Its repitoire, actually.   And I'm mostly a pain to lying fuckwits like yourself.


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> Try to write your own material.



Hmmm... it's getting hard to tell you apart from Larkinn.


----------



## 007

Kagom said:


> I never lie to myself.



You think what you do is normal Kag... you're LIVING a lie.


----------



## Kagom

Pale Rider said:


> You think what you do is normal Kag... you're LIVING a lie.


Umhmm...whatever.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Nope.  Im not trying to obfuscate.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed my point or you are trying to avoid it.  You will find small groups of groups that are trying to do things that are wrong.  You will find larger groups of such people trying to do things that are good.  Homosexuals, as a whole, are not doing things that are bad.  They do not have an evil agenda.  Some individual homosexuals may have created groups that are attempting to do bad things.  You can find such in any group. White Pride groups have segments of violent skinheads.
> 
> I haven't missed your point at all.  As I said, you are trying to obfuscate.  We aren't discussing what other little groups may or may not do.
> 
> I don't recall saying that homosexuals as a whole were "bad" nor have an "evil agenda."
> 
> 
> 
> The relationship is still a choice.  Someone may be attracted to people outside his or her race.  Likewise, someone may be attracted to people inside his or her own sex.  Anyway, if you dont like the comparison between interracial relationships and homosexual relationships, we can compare interfaith relationships with homosexual relationships.  In certain segments of America it used to actually be illegal for people for different religions to get married.  As opposed to views held by many homosexuals, I do think that the issue ultimately is choice (choice to wed inside your sex, outside your race, outside your religion. It is a comparison between apples and apples (perhaps big apples and small apples).
> 
> The relationship may be a choice, however, race is NOT a choice while sexual behavior IS.
> 
> You'll have to back up the "illegal for different religions to get married" statement.
> 
> *"You cant force people to change their hearts and minds about something being right or wrong just because the government declares it so."*
> 
> It is a true statement.  Some people think that we should have racial segregation.  People think that interracial marriage is wrong.  Some people think that abortion is wrong.  Legislation does not change the hearts of many people but it likely influences their behaviors.



And when the behavior of the vast majority is "influenced" (read: having it shoved down their throats) via tyranny of the minority, the majority rebels.  All such legislation does is foster resentment and hatred.


----------



## Gunny

mattskramer said:


> Using logic and proper vocabulary is to play word games?!?  Whatever.  It would seem that avoiding logic and not understanding vocabulary would be to play word games.



Purposefully choosing a meaning other than what was clearly intended for the purpose of twisting an argument, and hiding behind a smokescreen of semantics is dishonest.  

It isn't about proper use of voacbulary.  It's about MISuse of vocabulary which creates a convoluted logic.


----------



## Gunny

doniston said:


> GunnyL said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's not a damned thing dishonest about it.  Dishonest would be claiming gays do not ALREADY have EXACTLY the same rights as heterosexuals.  A law allowing gays to marry is exclusively beneficial only to them.  They make up less than 10% of the population.
> 
> 
> [/ QUOTE]   GAYS do NOT have all the same rights as hetros,  they are not allowed to marry.  That is discrimionation.  Not only regarding the word marraige, but the fact that they are refused certain Legal rights that only marriage can offer.  If those laws were changed, that would be a different story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gays are allowed to marry.  They can marry a person of the opposite gender the very same as I can.
> 
> If they want the so-called "legal rights" marriage offers, again, they have every legal right to get married the same as I do.
Click to expand...


----------



## Gunny

jillian said:


> Not really... he kicks butt on a regular basis. But I can see where that would annoy you.



Who's butt does he kick, and which message board would THAT be happening on?


----------



## Doug

Two questions: 

-- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?


-- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Doug said:


> Two questions:
> 
> -- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?
> 
> 
> -- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?



Several rights stick out. Tax breaks ( assuming one thinks married people get a break) and the biggest is the difficulty in making sure your partner is the person that legally gets everything and has the legal right to make decisions for you while incapacitated. Same with Children, if one partner is the "legal" parent the other may have no rights if something happens to that parent. There are solutions to most of these issues but they require numerous documents and not all courts put the weight they should on them.

Civil Unions would solve those issues. The militants will NOT accept that though, they are on record as opposing civil unions and insisting on "marriage"


----------



## Gunny

Doug said:


> Two questions:
> 
> -- what legal rights does an unmarried couple miss out on?
> 
> 
> -- suppose these legal rights were extended to unmarried couples, without the definition of marriage (a union between people of opposite sexes) being changed. Would the militant supporters of gay marriage be happy with that?



Excellent point ... one which I have made many times; yet, no one is willing to address.  The problem here are insurance companies and hospitals and such being allowed to dictate who one can and cannot consider "next of kin."  It suits their financial bottom line.

Problem is, just as many were not against civil union, that is not good enough for those vocal flamers driving the gay agenda train that allegedly doesn't exist according to several in this thread.  They demanded marriage or nothing.  They got nothing, and the gays who could care less about the semantics got screwed.


----------



## jillian

GunnyL said:


> Excellent point ... one which I have made many times; yet, no one is willing to address.  The problem here are insurance companies and hospitals and such being allowed to dictate who one can and cannot consider "next of kin."  It suits their financial bottom line.
> 
> Problem is, just as many were not against civil union, that is not good enough for those vocal flamers driving the gay agenda train that allegedly doesn't exist according to several in this thread.  They demanded marriage or nothing.  They got nothing, and the gays who could care less about the semantics got screwed.



There are always going to be a vocal minority. I don't think most gay people would have an objection to civil unions if it gives them the same legal rights as a married couple. Ultimately, there's a recognition of the relationship and it doesn't matter what you call it.

This view of gays as radical is kind of silly. Yes...there are radicals. But most are high-income, conservative types who simply want to be treated like everyone else. But, if the loud minority weren't raising their voices, we wouldn't even be having this debate. ;o)


----------



## Larkinn

GunnyL said:


> The relationship may be a choice, however, race is NOT a choice while sexual behavior IS.



Sex is not a choice, which specifically determines sexual orientation.



> Gays are allowed to marry. They can marry a person of the opposite gender the very same as I can.



However a woman is NOT allowed to marry the same individuals you are.   Therefore there is discrimination based on sex.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Civil Unions would solve those issues. The militants will NOT accept that though, they are on record as opposing civil unions and insisting on "marriage"



I find it striking that you consider individuals "militants" for refusing to adhere to a doctrine the USSC struck down 40 years ago, and one which nobody would even think of applying even more to race...but yet its ok for sexual orientation somehow.


----------



## doniston

jillian said:


> There are always going to be a vocal minority. I don't think most gay people would have an objection to civil unions if it gives them the same legal rights as a married couple. Ultimately, there's a recognition of the relationship and it doesn't matter what you call it.
> 
> This view of gays as radical is kind of silly. Yes...there are radicals. But most are high-income, conservative types who simply want to be treated like everyone else. But, if the loud minority weren't raising their voices, we wouldn't even be having this debate. ;o)


  I absolutely agree.


----------



## doniston

Larkinn said:


> Sex is not a choice, which specifically determines sexual orientation.


  I beleive you are speaking of GENDER, not sex, but in either case that is not always correct.   Gays who are truely gay are exceptions. 



> However a woman is NOT allowed to marry the same individuals you are.   Therefore there is discrimination based on sex.


  That is true, but that is also flat garbage.  -just playing silly games with the facts.


----------



## Larkinn

doniston said:


> I beleive you are speaking of GENDER, not sex, but in either case that is not always correct.   Gays who are truely gay are exceptions.



No, I am talking about sex.  Gender is socially constructed, sex is not.


----------



## Larkinn

doniston said:


> \
> That is true, but that is also flat garbage.  -just playing silly games with the facts.



So you acknowledge that its discriminatory, but you simply don't care?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> I find it striking that you consider individuals "militants" for refusing to adhere to a doctrine the USSC struck down 40 years ago, and one which nobody would even think of applying even more to race...but yet its ok for sexual orientation somehow.



You are pretty ignorant for such a bright guy, did you just miss the part about everyone would be Civil Unions? Or the fact sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as skin color?

Point me to a court case where gays are the same as race? You won't find one but do try.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> No, I am talking about sex.  Gender is socially constructed, sex is not.



Gender is social? Thats an interesting concept, be so kind as to support it.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are pretty ignorant for such a bright guy, did you just miss the part about everyone would be Civil Unions? Or the fact sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as skin color?



Did you miss the point (oh, say, around 40 years ago) that separate but equal is not equal?

Oh and what about the point that I am comparing sex to race, not sexual orientation to race.



> Point me to a court case where gays are the same as race? You won't find one but do try.



Nice strawman.  Really.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Gender is social? Thats an interesting concept, be so kind as to support it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender#Social_category


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Did you miss the point (oh, say, around 40 years ago) that separate but equal is not equal?
> 
> Oh and what about the point that I am comparing sex to race, not sexual orientation to race.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice strawman.  Really.



In other words you can not back up your claim? Thought so. Thanks for playing though.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Sex to race? There is no double standard. Men can marry women and women can marry men. That's the law. Well except in Massachusetts and they are wrong.

No seperate but equal at all in that.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> In other words you can not back up your claim? Thought so. Thanks for playing though.



And you wonder why I think you are an idiot?

Hi, I wasn't comparing sexual orientation to race, I was comparing sex to race.  Do you get it now?  Can I make it any clearer for you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> And you wonder why I think you are an idiot?
> 
> Hi, I wasn't comparing sexual orientation to race, I was comparing sex to race.  Do you get it now?  Can I make it any clearer for you?



And the sex's are treated equally, they both can equally marry someone of the other sex.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sex to race? There is no double standard. Men can marry women and women can marry men. That's the law. Well except in Massachusetts and they are wrong.



Whites can marry whites and blacks can marry blacks...no double standard.  Thats the law.  

Whats the difference between this statement and yours?



> No seperate but equal at all in that.



In civil unions there certainly is separate but equal.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> And the sex's are treated equally, they both can equally marry someone of the other sex.



Just like blacks and whites can each equally marry someone of their own race, right?


----------



## Larkinn

How would you like it if the state government barred you from marrying your current wife RGS?   Race is biological, sex is biological.   Both are only allowed to marry others in certain biologically determined groups.   There is NO difference between barring gays from marrying and barring different races from marrying.  So, would you be happy with a civil union?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> How would you like it if the state government barred you from marrying your current wife RGS?   Race is biological, sex is biological.   Both are only allowed to marry others in certain biologically determined groups.   There is NO difference between barring gays from marrying and barring different races from marrying.  So, would you be happy with a civil union?



Simply not proven to be biological. And of those that MIGHT be biologically wired that way it is something on the order of 2 percent.  I am sure we can now argue that pologamy be allowed as well, after all it is segregation and it is discrimation based on sex.

Claiming homosexuals are the same as blacks is the most ignorant of claims. It does not stand up to the light of day.

Further claiming that if the Government ONLY preformed civil Unions that would some how be separate but equal is moronic on its face. IF everyone has the same exact option, it is hardly separate, but do keep pretending otherwise, Mr. Mensa.

I will I see have to start supporting a Constitutional amendment stating MArriage is between a man and a woman. Then you can whine all you want, it won't matter at all. You won't even be able to play word games then.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not proven to be biological. And of those that MIGHT be biologically wired that way it is something on the order of 2 percent.  I am sure we can now argue that pologamy be allowed as well, after all it is segregation and it is discrimation based on sex.



Sex hasn't been proved to be biological?   Wha now?  



> Claiming homosexuals are the same as blacks is the most ignorant of claims. It does not stand up to the light of day.



I said sex was the same as race, not sexual orientation.   I need to repeat this how many times exactly?



> Further claiming that if the Government ONLY preformed civil Unions that would some how be separate but equal is moronic on its face. IF everyone has the same exact option, it is hardly separate, but do keep pretending otherwise, Mr. Mensa.



tsk tsk...bitching about that again?   What a surprise.   Get over it boy.   And yes that would make it equal, but it ain't gonna happen.   



> I will I see have to start supporting a Constitutional amendment stating MArriage is between a man and a woman. Then you can whine all you want, it won't matter at all. You won't even be able to play word games then.



And then we will have the Constitution contradicting itself.   Awesome.  And support whatever you want, it ain't ever going to happen.   The tide is turning old man...homophobes are no longer the norm in this country.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Sex hasn't been proved to be biological?   Wha now?
> 
> 
> 
> I said sex was the same as race, not sexual orientation.   I need to repeat this how many times exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> tsk tsk...bitching about that again?   What a surprise.   Get over it boy.   And yes that would make it equal, but it ain't gonna happen.
> 
> 
> 
> And then we will have the Constitution contradicting itself.   Awesome.  And support whatever you want, it ain't ever going to happen.   The tide is turning old man...homophobes are no longer the norm in this country.



Calling me a homophobe is rich. The idiot in this thread would be you.

Sex is Male or Female. Unless you care to provide a different proven definition. And Males and females have exactly the same rights in regards marriage as each other. Now if you mean the ACT of sex, that is hardly covered by what we are talking about.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Calling me a homophobe is rich. The idiot in this thread would be you.
> 
> Sex is Male or Female. Unless you care to provide a different proven definition. And Males and females have exactly the same rights in regards marriage as each other. Now if you mean the ACT of sex, that is hardly covered by what we are talking about.



Yes, sex is male or female.   And we treat them differently depending on which cateogory they fall into.   Just as we did with race.   

The argument you are making applies _exactly as well_ to race as it does to sex.   So...do you think its ethical to let blacks only marry blacks and whites only marry whites?   Because there is NO difference.   As I said before...blacks and whites can both marry someone of their own race...exactly the same, right?  

To make the comparison crystal clear, I will provide you with a hypothetical.  Do you think its acceptable to let blacks ONLY marry whites and to let whites ONLY marry blacks?   

Biological cateogory 1:  Blacks OR men
Biological cateogry 2:  Whites OR women.   

Each can ONLY marry from the opposite category.   Its the exact same thing as race but using different categories.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Some definitions for ya...

SEX...

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



> sex      /s&#603;ks/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[seks] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
> noun
> 1.	either the male or female division of a species, esp. as differentiated with reference to the reproductive functions.
> 2.	the sum of the structural and functional differences by which the male and female are distinguished, or the phenomena or behavior dependent on these differences.
> 3.	the instinct or attraction drawing one sex toward another, or its manifestation in life and conduct.



and



> sex       (s&#283;ks)  Pronunciation Key
> n.
> 
> 1.
> 1. The property or quality by which organisms are classified as female or male on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions.
> 2. Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, of this classification.
> 2. Females or males considered as a group.
> 3. The condition or character of being female or male; the physiological, functional, and psychological differences that distinguish the female and the male. See Usage Note at gender.



Then we have this



> sex  (n.)
> 1382, "males or females collectively," from L. sexus "state of being either male or female, gender." "Commonly taken with seco as division or 'half' of the race" [Tucker], which would connect it to secare "to divide or cut" (see section). Meaning "quality of being male or female" first recorded 1526.



or



> 2. 	either of the two categories (male or female) into which most organisms are divided; "the war between the sexes"



And then this



> sex1 [seks] noun
> either of the two classes (male and female) into which human beings and animals are divided according to the part they play in producing children or young
> Example: Jeans are worn by people of both sexes; What sex is the puppy?



I can go on if I must.


----------



## Larkinn

Any particular reasons you are citing definitions which agree with the statement that I made of *Yes, sex is male or female.*?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Yes, sex is male or female.   And we treat them differently depending on which cateogory they fall into.   Just as we did with race.
> 
> The argument you are making applies _exactly as well_ to race as it does to sex.   So...do you think its ethical to let blacks only marry blacks and whites only marry whites?   Because there is NO difference.   As I said before...blacks and whites can both marry someone of their own race...exactly the same, right?
> 
> To make the comparison crystal clear, I will provide you with a hypothetical.  Do you think its acceptable to let blacks ONLY marry whites and to let whites ONLY marry blacks?
> 
> Biological cateogory 1:  Blacks OR men
> Biological cateogry 2:  Whites OR women.
> 
> Each can ONLY marry from the opposite category.   Its the exact same thing as race but using different categories.



It IS NOT the same. That is why we get on your games with words. On this one you have no leg to stand on.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> It IS NOT the same. That is why we get on your games with words. On this one you have no leg to stand on.



Please explain how its different then.


----------



## Doug

There are plenty of gay conservatives, as* Jillian*notes. Some no doubt vote their pocketbooks, as they see it. And others are genuine, ideological conservatives. 

I suspect most gays would be happy to get the legal disabilities from which they suffer out of the way, and leave the marriage issue to a future generation.

Is it "discrimination" to restrict the formal, legal recognition of marriage to two people of opposite sex? Of course it is. 

However, we discriminate in many ways which may not be justifiable through the exercise of Pure Reason. But there are no societies built on Pure Reason, and those which were tried did not last.

We don't recognize polygamous marriages, although we tolerate them in fact. There are rational, consequential arguments against them, but there are also arguments for them. Our attitude is not derived from these arguments.

We don't let people below the age of X get married -- X has varied over time and place, but notice that whatever X is set at, it discriminates against those people who are a few weeks younger than X when they wish to get married.

We forbid -- with lots of toleration depending on time place and circumstance -- public nudity. Why? There is only feeble justification to be found for this if we consult Pure Reason.

We forbid -- with less tolerance -- public copulation. Why? What harm could it do? It certainly discriminates against those who can only find satisfaction before an involuntary audience.

We forbid consensual cannibalism. Even if I willed my post-decease body, which was tested by the most rigorous standards to meet public health criteria, you could not advertise a feast of sauteed Long Doug. Why? Our ancestors probably did it. Why cater to these prejudices, especially since a major religion makes a weekly sacrament out of ritual cannibalism.

There are many customs and taboos which have been encrusted in law. Few people want to  rush to repeal these laws out of some mad desire for perfect consistency, or the wish to punish only those activities which are directly and provably harmful to non-consenting adults.

Perhaps we subconsciously feel that breaking all but provably-harmful  restraints on our behavior may have repercussions down the line which, although not predictable now, will be very serious and socially-harmful.

Perhaps we are not keen to leap into the superficially attractive libertarian world of "an it hurt no one, do what thou wilt" because we have seen things like the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and the expansion of the welfare state, with the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.

So many conservatives, and I suspect many liberals too, are willing to offer gays a good-faith effort to remove whatever current legal disabilities they face in the realms of inheritance, visitation rights, and so on. In other areas, such as military service, _de facto_ reality is approaching what is asked for _de jure_. 

There are things which are done, and not said. There are things which are said, and not done. This is how a society of diverse but sophisticated adults deals with its problems, when it can.

In turn we ask that gays let the traditional definition of marriage remain. Perhaps in fifty years things will look different to our descendants, who in any case will have more information about the social effects, if any, of the growing acceptance of the homosexual condition. 

The liberal democracies, of which the United States is the principal sword and shield, are facing myriad problems and potential threats in the world. A power which punishes homosexuality by death is about to acquire nuclear weapons. We have plenty of things to worry about, and to argue about, and to fight over, which directly affect our future. Let's put this one off the agenda.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> I suspect most gays would be happy to get the legal disabilities from which they suffer out of the way, and leave the marriage issue to a future generation.



Some would, some wouldn't.   Many gays feel as though they are second class citizens in this country and the marriage issue doesn't help much.



> However, we discriminate in many ways which may not be justifiable through the exercise of Pure Reason. But there are no societies built on Pure Reason, and those which were tried did not last.



How about a society built on Federal Law which outlaws discrimination based on sex?  



> We don't recognize polygamous marriages, although we tolerate them in fact. There are rational, consequential arguments against them, but there are also arguments for them. Our attitude is not derived from these arguments.



I don't think we "tolerate them in fact".  And perhaps your attitudes are not derived from the arguments, but some peoples attitudes are.



> We don't let people below the age of X get married -- X has varied over time and place, but notice that whatever X is set at, it discriminates against those people who are a few weeks younger than X when they wish to get married.



This is merely an illustration of the "grains of sand" problem in which you have one grain of sand, add another, add another, add another, etc, etc...and at some point, it is impossible to determine when, suddenly you have a mound of sand.   This is a fact of reality and hence one must approach it differently than societal discrimination based on nothing more than prejudices.



> We forbid -- with lots of toleration depending on time place and circumstance -- public nudity. Why? There is only feeble justification to be found for this if we consult Pure Reason.



There is no justification for it.



> We forbid -- with less tolerance -- public copulation. Why? What harm could it do? It certainly discriminates against those who can only find satisfaction before an involuntary audience.



Utilitarian reasons.



> We forbid consensual cannibalism. Even if I willed my post-decease body, which was tested by the most rigorous standards to meet public health criteria, you could not advertise a feast of sauteed Long Doug. Why? Our ancestors probably did it. Why cater to these prejudices, especially since a major religion makes a weekly sacrament out of ritual cannibalism.



A bit silly to forbid it...but a justification similar to the one against virtual child porn can be used.



> There are many customs and taboos which have been encrusted in law. Few people want to  rush to repeal these laws out of some mad desire for perfect consistency, or the wish to punish only those activities which are directly and provably harmful to non-consenting adults.



Few people are rational or are able to step out of their own prejudices.   This is not a justification for continuing them.



> Perhaps we are not keen to leap into the superficially attractive libertarian world of "an it hurt no one, do what thou wilt" because we have seen things like the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and the expansion of the welfare state, with the growth in violent crime predicted and explained by no one.



We have?  



> In turn we ask that gays let the traditional definition of marriage remain. Perhaps in fifty years things will look different to our descendants, who in any case will have more information about the social effects, if any, of the growing acceptance of the homosexual condition.



So basically your argument is that people are too stupid, selfish, and prejudiced to allow gays to have full equality in this country?   It may be, but that is no reason for them to stop fighting for such equality.



> The liberal democracies, of which the United States is the principal sword and shield, are facing myriad problems and potential threats in the world. A power which punishes homosexuality by death is about to acquire nuclear weapons. We have plenty of things to worry about, and to argue about, and to fight over, which directly affect our future. Let's put this one off the agenda.



Marriage directly affects many peoples futures, although it may not affect yours.


----------



## jasendorf

RetiredGySgt said:


> Doesn't sound like minor or isolated events to me at all. Just glad my kids are out of the public school system now.



Should have guessed RSG would come to the defense of Mr. "White Power" Pale Rider and his ADF friends...


----------



## Doug

*Larkinn*: I said:





> ... we have seen things like
> 
> --- the enormous increase in violent crime side by side with
> --- the enormous increase in popular disposable wealth and
> --- the expansion of the welfare state,
> with
> --- the growth in violent crime predicted and  explained by no one.



And you said:





> We have?



With which of the above statements do you disagree?


----------



## Larkinn

> the enormous increase in violent crime side by side



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01a.html



> the expansion of the welfare state,



It has not been expanded in the past 6 years.   Rather the opposite has happened.


----------



## Doug

Well, I was not talking about the last few years, but the last few decades. The effects of changes in laws and customs generally are not felt for a generation or two.

If you check the thread on the Stupidity of Militant Atheism, you will see some figures for the last 100 years in Britain, comparing 1898 and some intermediate years up to 1998.

The British standard of living has improved enormously during that time. The welfare state holds the entire population in its clammy embrace: free this and free that, you name it. Those mean old policemen have been restrained in all kinds of ways. Capital punishment was abolished almost fifty years ago. If a welfare-scrounging immigrant stabs a school principal to death in broad daylight, he will be out of prison and back on welfare in eleven years. The laws are much more permissive. A liberal's paradise. And crime of all sorts has increased by  twenty, thirty, fifty times (except for murder, where the rate has only tripled).

Now no one predicted this. And no one can really explain it. But in light of these developments I am reluctant to keep pulling threads out of the fabric of the social order.


----------



## Larkinn

Discriminating against homosexuality is hardly a necessary "thread in the social order".   

And making the correlation between this vague concept of "the social order" and crime is not correlative unless you think the social order improved in the 1990's?


----------



## 007

jillian said:


> *But most are high-income, conservative types....*



Please... *PLEASE*... prove that.


----------



## 007

jasendorf said:


> Should have guessed RSG would come to the defense of Mr. "White Power" Pale Rider and his ADF friends...



If that's all you have to say... that's pathetic.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Once again for the slow ( that would be Larkinn) claiming that some how preventing a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman is sexual discrimination is ignorant.

Men and Women have the EXACT same rights in regards marriage as each other, there is no discrimination. And not allowing Homosexuals to marry is NOT on par with not letting black MEN marry white WOMEN or vice versa. It is an ignorant argument, one that is absent any logic or compelling evidence.

Further it is nice to know Larkinn is all for public nudity, public acts of sex and on and on. When are you Larkinn planning to campaign for multiple marriage partners?

The entire argument that Homosexual marriage is about an inequality between the sexes is stupid. It is IGNORANT. It has no basis in fact.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Once again for the slow ( that would be Larkinn) claiming that some how preventing a man from marrying a man and a woman from marrying a woman is sexual discrimination is ignorant.



Yes yes, you've made this assertion before.   Now back it up with something. 



> Men and Women have the EXACT same rights in regards marriage as each other, there is no discrimination.



Really?   So if person A( a male) and person B(a female) both want to marry person C, they have exactly the same rights in regards to marriage?   Oh wait, no they don't.   



> And not allowing Homosexuals to marry is NOT on par with not letting black MEN marry white WOMEN or vice versa. It is an ignorant argument, one that is absent any logic or compelling evidence.



What a surprise.   Another assertion with nothing at all to back it up.   At least try for fucks sake.  



> Further it is nice to know Larkinn is all for public nudity, public acts of sex and on and on. When are you Larkinn planning to campaign for multiple marriage partners?



And its reassuring to know that, although the world may change, RGS still won't be able to read.



> The entire argument that Homosexual marriage is about an inequality between the sexes is stupid. It is IGNORANT. It has no basis in fact.



Amazing how its so incredibly ignorant, but you in all your infinite wisdom haven't given even one single reason to think thats the case.   Its not even that your reasoning is bad or flawed its that you * haven't provided anything * except for naked assertions with no evidence.


----------



## Doug

For those interested in some actual facts about American gays, look  here .  (Click on the "PUMS" link for income data.) The data do not include comparisons with straights, nor are the political opinions of gays mentioned, but there are a lot of interesting facts, taken from the US Census. (The Census does not -- yet -- ask about sexual orientation, but the last one did ask about "unmarried partners" living in the same household, and it asked their sex, and the sex of the respondent, so a good guess can be made about the number of gay couples. This misses out single gays, underaged gays and those who chose not to respond, or respond correctly, but the data are probably as reliable as most other surveys.)

I do recall reading, a couple of years ago, some rather surprising statistic about the number of conservative-voting gays. I shall try to locate it -- it supported *Jillian's* assertion, as I believe the statistics about gay income above do too. The following   link  is interesting in this regard.


----------



## 007

Doug said:


> For those interested in some actual facts about American gays, look  here .  (Click on the "PUMS" link for income data.) The data do not include comparisons with straights, nor are the political opinions of gays mentioned, but there are a lot of interesting facts, taken from the US Census. (The Census does not -- yet -- ask about sexual orientation, but the last one did ask about "unmarried partners" living in the same household, and it asked their sex, and the sex of the respondent, so a good guess can be made about the number of gay couples. This misses out single gays, underaged gays and those who chose not to respond, or respond correctly, but the data are probably as reliable as most other surveys.)
> 
> I do recall reading, a couple of years ago, some rather surprising statistic about the number of conservative-voting gays. I shall try to locate it -- it supported *Jillian's* assertion, as I believe the statistics about gay income above do too. The following   link  is interesting in this regard.



And all this has exactly what to do with the homos infiltrating schools and pushing their sick agenda on young, impressionable children?


----------



## AllieBaba

If we allow homosexuals to indoctrinate our children, we should allow right-wing fundamentalists in to teach the bible as well.

Shall we go there? It will mean rioting in the grade schools. Can't have one without the other.


----------



## Shogun

that was one of the stupidest things I read today, Allie.


And I"ve been arguing with Roomy!


----------



## roomy

Shogun said:


> that was one of the stupidest things I read today, Allie.
> 
> 
> And I"ve been arguing with Roomy!



I beg to differ Numpty, I have been showing you the error of your stupid ways, I have my work cut out for me, it seems.


----------



## Shogun

roomy said:


> I beg to differ Numpty, I have been showing you the error of your stupid ways, I have my work cut out for me, it seems.




You are showing me the error of my ways much like a viewmaster shows major motion pictures.


----------



## AllieBaba

I shall re-iterate.

If a group who wants one life choice is allowed to spend time in public schools telling kids why everyone should accept that life choice, and choose it, if they want, then who's to say everyone can't come in and push their life choices?

To say it's okay to promote one but not the other is the definintion of hyocrisy and even tyranny.


----------



## Shogun

no,  It's neither.  But comparing the indoctrination into christianity with tolorance towards a sexual orientation sure is retarded!


----------



## AllieBaba

I beg to differ. Can you show how they're different?


----------



## Shogun

Can you show how they are even close to being the same?

after all, YOU are the one making the comparison.


But Ill bite..
Tolerance towards christians is already a reality in school.  Last I heard you didn't have to hide your christianity when attending a public forum in fear of being treated like matthiew sheppherd.  

You are not asking for a similar tolerance towards christians as the gays are asking for when acknowledging that theirs is not a choice (like yours is)

What YOU are asking for is to indoctrinate kids into your belief system using a public forum.  Now, you might be onto something if public school were actively recruiting kids into a gay lifestyle.  However, since public schools couldn't TURN anyone gay any more than I could turn YOU gay your comparison falls on it's face.

You can't use every new issue that chaffes your religion's sense of hatred as a bargaining chip for instilling your dogma into public schools.  No one is out treating christians like your church openly treats gays.  That is the difference.  christians used the same shit to rationalize away rights for women and minorities and this is the exact same pattern of behaviour.  


Now, pray tell.  educate me on how, exactly, acknowledging that homosexuality is not a choice is in any way similar to keeping prothetization out of schools.


feel free to touch on why it's not fair to teach about gravity and evolution if we don't also allow flat earth theory and creationism too.. I've got an answer ready for ya there too.


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, no, I'm not proposing that fundamentalists be allowed in the school to indoctrinate. You are proposing that gays be allowed into the school to indoctrinate. I am simply saying, you let one in, you let the other in.

And you're assumption that it "can't be helped" has nothing to do with reality. It has been proven, ad nauseum, that gayness is a choice, not a biological fact. Just like being Christian is a choice, not a biological fact.

And if you think there's an air of "tolerance" towards out-of-the closet Christians in today's public schools, you're so far off the mark I don't even know how to reach you.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> If we allow homosexuals to indoctrinate our children, we should allow right-wing fundamentalists in to teach the bible as well.
> 
> Shall we go there? It will mean rioting in the grade schools. Can't have one without the other.



Homosexuality isn't a religion.   



> It has been proven, ad nauseum, that gayness is a choice, not a biological fact.



Incorrect.



> And if you think there's an air of "tolerance" towards out-of-the closet Christians in today's public schools, you're so far off the mark I don't even know how to reach you.



Are you honestly asserting the claim that Christians are discriminated in US schools?


----------



## AllieBaba

Really?

Name a study that has proven it's biological. Homosexuality is a choice, just like religion.

Hamer couldn't prove otherwise. In fact, Hamer, an openly gay man trying to prove a point, stated that lesbianism was entirely cultural. And when he tried to prove it was otherwise with men, he failed to do so. He did open the door for more studies, which proved conclusively that there's not hardwiring to gays.
Brian Mustanski, University of Illinois, Chicago, conducted a study which proved there is "no statistical findings to support" the gene theory.
Daryl Bern 2000 study showed there was zero relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men (again, women are not addressed because NOBODY believes they're hardwired.)
The Human Genome Project, supported by the US Department of Energy (why, I have no idea) and the National Institute of Health, blasted any correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
The Department of Neurological Sciences in Canada and Stanford's Dept. of Genetics have said the data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation.
Dr. Richard Pillard, a pschiatric professor at Boston University's school of medicine, says "Sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."

There's absolutely nothing which supports the statement that genetics or biology "cause" homosexuality. Get over it. The only people who argue for it anymore are the people who just don't know. You won't find it being seriously debated by great minds anymore.

And yeah, Christians are discriminated against in schools. By teachers, administration and students alike.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, no, I'm not proposing that fundamentalists be allowed in the school to indoctrinate. You are proposing that gays be allowed into the school to indoctrinate. I am simply saying, you let one in, you let the other in.
> 
> And you're assumption that it "can't be helped" has nothing to do with reality. It has been proven, ad nauseum, that gayness is a choice, not a biological fact. Just like being Christian is a choice, not a biological fact.
> 
> And if you think there's an air of "tolerance" towards out-of-the closet Christians in today's public schools, you're so far off the mark I don't even know how to reach you.



No, you won't find a single post of mine that says that gays should indoctrinate or recruit kids to the gay lifestyle.  You see, I'm not dense enough to believe that exposure to the REALITY of homosexuality will *POOF* torn someone gay.  If you can quote me then be my guest...


And no, just saying "if you teach on then you must teach the other" doesn't make sense either.  So, let's turn this back onto you..  If we allow christianity then we ALSO let the hindus' and the muslims and, just because I'm feeling saucy, some good ole SANTARIA VOODOO in to be taught ON PAR with christiany...  all of a sudden it doesn't sound so intersting anymore, eh?

Again, since YOU are the one making the direct comparison between being tolorant towards gays and indocrination can YOU show me how they compare without falling back on simple mantras like "one then the other'?

NO, it has not been proven, Allie.  Maybe at bob jones university but not out in the consensus of the real world.  Sorry.  Maybe you'd like to show your evidence that it has been PROVEN so that I can laugh and then pick apart your "evidence"?  by all means.. shock this monkey.

Indeed, you CHOSE to be a christian.  Ill ask again, ad nauseum, WHAT AGE DID YOU SHOOSE TO BE STRAIT?  be specific because I want to hear about how this DECISION presented itself among your viable apparent choices..  


out of the closet christians?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

the majoiryt of the fucking public school going population ARE CHRISTIANS.  this isnt rome.  you can lay off the martyrdom routine.  give me a fucking break.  

So, who was the last christian to be dragged behind a truck again?   I just don't recall that a single christian has been tortured for being a christian in the last decade so refresh my memory since you want to ASSIMILATE a phrase associated with the very social stigma that christians forced onto gays by making them actually have to hide their sexuality.

out of the closet christians.. oh man.. I've heard everything today!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Really?
> 
> Name a study that has proven it's biological. Homosexuality is a choice, just like religion.
> 
> And yeah, Christians are discriminated against in schools. By teachers, administration and students alike.




you know, insisting in your opinion doesn't make it true.  YOU are the one asserting things here.  Let's see YOUR evidence that homosexuality is not biological.  


while you are at it go ahead and whip out the last matthiew sheppherd scenario that killed and tortured some christian because of their faith.


I assure you... being told you cannot prothletise in public schools is NOT treating you like lionfood.  It's REAL dramatic and may fill the tithing buckets but, in the context of history, its laughable..



Hey, Im out for the day, Allie... it was a fun day!   I look forward to your answers tomorrow.

Have a great evening!


----------



## AllieBaba

Proof provided, upon edit, below. Though I'm not required to provide proof, necessarily, if I'm simply disputing a claim for which you haven't provided proof.

But proof I have provided, regardless, for your reading pleasure. Ciao.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Really?
> 
> Name a study that has proven it's biological. Homosexuality is a choice, just like religion.
> 
> Hamer couldn't prove otherwise. In fact, Hamer, an openly gay man trying to prove a point, stated that lesbianism was entirely cultural. And when he tried to prove it was otherwise with men, he failed to do so. He did open the door for more studies, which proved conclusively that there's not hardwiring to gays.
> Brian Mustanski, University of Illinois, Chicago, conducted a study which proved there is "no statistical findings to support" the gene theory.
> Daryl Bern 2000 study showed there was zero relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men (again, women are not addressed because NOBODY believes they're hardwired.)
> The Human Genome Project, supported by the US Department of Energy (why, I have no idea) and the National Institute of Health, blasted any correlation between genetics and homosexuality.
> The Department of Neurological Sciences in Canada and Stanford's Dept. of Genetics have said the data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation.
> Dr. Richard Pillard, a pschiatric professor at Boston University's school of medicine, says "Sexuality is greatly influenced by environment, and that the role of genetics is, in the end, limited."
> 
> There's absolutely nothing which supports the statement that genetics or biology "cause" homosexuality. Get over it. The only people who argue for it anymore are the people who just don't know. You won't find it being seriously debated by great minds anymore.



Are you serious?   I mean I know logic can be hard, but this particular principle isn't complicated and is really quite intuitive.   Here you go : *Lack of evidence for a proposition is NOT evidence against it*.   Keep in mind that while there is no proof it is genetic there is also * no proof it is a choice *.   Hence, by your reasoning, it is true that it is both a choice AND genetic...which is why, in part, your reasoning is so flawed.

By the way...there are numerous very intelligent biologists proposing theories in evolutuon for homosexuality...hardly a reason to think that everyone has concluded that its purely environmental.



> And yeah, Christians are discriminated against in schools. By teachers, administration and students alike.



Care to give some examples?   As there is such rampant discrimination going on, I'm sure you can give me some names of some poor Christian folk who have been discriminated against.


----------



## AllieBaba

There's more proof against it being hardwired than there is for it, and I've listed several prestigious sources which agree. I'm a little unclear on the whole, "gayness is hardwired" is NOT an opinion but fact, while "gayness is not hardwired" backed up by science is opinion.

Christian discrimination in schools. Back in a flash.
Here:
School asks student to replace Bible reading with book about witches
Rusty Pugh
OneNewsNow.com
September 6, 2007

In one Pennsylvania public school, reading from the Bible is forbidden -- but reading about witches and Halloween is encouraged.

Wesley Busch is a kindergarten student at Culbertson Elementary School in Newton Square, Pennsylvania -- and all he wanted to do was have his mother read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible. The book reading was part of a classroom assignment called "All About Me," the purpose of which was to provide students an opportunity to identify individual interests and learn about each other through the use of items such as stuffed animals, posters, books and other mediums.

Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the school district had a big problem with Wesley's favorite book. "When Wesley told his mom 'I want you to read the Bible, that's my favorite book,' the school said no -- even though they let every other book reading go forward," the attorney explains. "And even though they told Mrs. Busch 'no, you can't read the Bible,' [they said] 'but here, read this book on witches and Halloween instead,'" says Tedesco.

In May, a federal court sided with the school and the case is now on appeal. Tedesco says *public school officials need to understand that Christian students cannot be treated as second-class citizens.*
"The lower court's decision said that it was okay to restrict the Bible. But the bottom line is that Christian students and their parents aren't second-class citizens at school, and shouldn't be discriminated against based on their religious speech that they want to engage in when they're invited to engage in private expression," he says.

*According to ADF, although reading from the Bible was forbidden the teacher allowed another parent to discuss the Jewish religious holidays of Passover and Hanukkah with the class.*

All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007 

And the *Chicago Sun-Times *ran a story about a school in Illinois that tried to eradicate any reference/symbol of Christmas because it was offensive to Muslims.

*"Earlier this month, the district's top official called on principals to tone down holiday celebrations after complaints the activities offend some Muslim families."*

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/587655,CST-NWS-oaklawn04.article

They changed their tune. But if there hadn't been a huge outcry, they would have just done it.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> There's more proof against it being hardwired than there is for it, and I've listed several prestigious sources which agree.



Actually this is incorrect.   There is NO proof against it, while there is some proof for it.   As I've already stated, abscence of proof for something is not proof that its false.



> Christian discrimination in schools. Back in a flash.



Can't wait.


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> And you're assumption that it "can't be helped" has nothing to do with reality. It has been proven, ad nauseum, that gayness is a choice, not a biological fact.
> 
> QUOTE]You are absolutely wrong.  no such thing has been proven.  whether it is biological or not,  is still up in the air.
> 
> It is true that Gay actions are a choice, but not gayNESS.


----------



## doniston

mattskramer said:


> You lie about me again.  I was not with buddies.
> 
> I was attracted to one young man years ago.  It was just one incident. Aside from that, a while ago, I thought (note the past tense) that it should be okay for consenting adults, even of the same family, to have sex.  Oh well.
> 
> People of this board:  Don&#8217;t trust what Pale Rider says about me.  Search the posts for yourself or ask me directly.  I have nothing to hide.


  he exagerates everything he reads and litterally makes mountains out of molehils.   The only thing he doesn't exagerate is his obvious leanings to the gay side. he tries to hide that.  but it still leaks thru.

"Methinks he protestith muchly"


----------



## doniston

RetiredGySgt said:


> Simply not proven to be biological. And of those that MIGHT be biologically wired that way it is something on the order of 2 percent.  I am sure we can now argue that pologamy be allowed as well, after all it is segregation and it is discrimation based on sex.
> 
> Claiming homosexuals are the same as blacks is the most ignorant of claims. It does not stand up to the light of day.
> 
> Further claiming that if the Government ONLY preformed civil Unions that would some how be separate but equal is moronic on its face. IF everyone has the same exact option, it is hardly separate, but do keep pretending otherwise, Mr. Mensa.
> 
> I will I see have to start supporting a Constitutional amendment stating MArriage is between a man and a woman. Then you can whine all you want, it won't matter at all. You won't even be able to play word games then.


  But it would never ever fly, because sooner or later someone in the process would chance upon a dictionary, and find "Lo and behold"  that marriage is the joining of two or more "ANYTHINGS"  it is not just between people, or a man and a woman.


----------



## AllieBaba

Zero relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men, according to the Bern study of 2000. Sounds like proof to me.

"Data do not support" genetic influence of homosexuality, according to Dept. of Neurological Sciences and Stanford's Dept. of Genetics.

Don't sound like opinions to me.


----------



## Larkinn

Got links?


----------



## AllieBaba

I've provided you with the names of the studies, the results and the players, that's enough work for me. If you still doubt, look them up.

Here's a link to Bern to get you started:
http://dbem.ws/Exotic&#37;20Becomes Erotic.pdf


----------



## Larkinn

The "Bern study" doesn't pop up on Google.   That and really, if you want to support a position do your own work.   You made the claim, so ostensibly you have some idea where it came from, so back it up.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> Zero relationship between genotype and sexual orientation in men, according to the Bern study of 2000. Sounds like proof to me.
> 
> "Data do not support" genetic influence of homosexuality, according to Dept. of Neurological Sciences and Stanford's Dept. of Genetics.
> 
> Don't sound like opinions to me.



That actually isn't what Bern's study says at all. While, of course, there is no specific single "gay gene", Bern hypothesizes that it is a complex interaction of predisposition and environment. Gee.... wonder where I heard that one before?  

http://books.google.com/books?id=yE...ts=KnIUv-Jjz_&sig=cpbnLK3nZQXdCtZdwQigDFB-ZPo


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> The "Bern study" doesn't pop up on Google.   That and really, if you want to support a position do your own work.   You made the claim, so ostensibly you have some idea where it came from, so back it up.



Actually, no, the claim has been made repeatedly that homosexuality isn't a choice. But there's no proof that it's true, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> \
> And you're assumption that it "can't be helped" has nothing to do with reality. It has been proven, ad nauseum, that gayness is a choice, not a biological fact. Just like being Christian is a choice, not a biological fact.





> Actually, no, the claim has been made repeatedly that homosexuality isn't a choice. But there's no proof that it's true, and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary.



The claim has NOT been made by me that it is not a choice.   The claim HAS been made by you that it is NOT a choice.   Therefore back it up with links, or back down.

Although from Jillians post I see now why you won't provide the links...because they don't support your pov.   Amusing really...just as you quoted the Hamer study as supporting your pov, you quoted that as supporting your view as well?


----------



## jillian

Larkinn said:


> The "Bern study" doesn't pop up on Google.   That and really, if you want to support a position do your own work.   You made the claim, so ostensibly you have some idea where it came from, so back it up.



I googled 

Bern study sexuality to get the link.


----------



## AllieBaba

For people who insist homosexuality is hardwired, you appear to not have a lot of background on the subject.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> The claim has NOT been made by me that it is not a choice.   The claim HAS been made by you that it is NOT a choice.   Therefore back it up with links, or back down.
> 
> Although from Jillians post I see now why you won't provide the links...because they don't support your pov.   Amusing really...just as you quoted the Hamer study as supporting your pov, you quoted that as supporting your view as well?




No, the claim has been made by me that it IS a choice, genius. In direct contradiction to myriad references and insistence that it's NOT a choice.

The Hamer study does support my pov, despite the fact that he tried really hard to make the point otherwise. He really wanted to prove without a doubt that homosexuals can't help it. He failed. 

And so does the Bern study.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> For people who insist homosexuality is hardwired, you appear to not have a lot of background on the subject.



Far more than you apparently. Particularly given that you tossed around the name of a study which didn't say what you said it did. ;o)

I think perhaps we just aren't as obsessed with it as you are since most of us have gay friends or family or co-workers and really couldn't care less who they love.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> For people who insist homosexuality is hardwired, you appear to not have a lot of background on the subject.



I am NOT insisting its hardwired.



> The Hamer study does support my pov, despite the fact that he tried really hard to make the point otherwise. He really wanted to prove without a doubt that homosexuals can't help it. He failed.



Learn some logic, then get back to me.   His failure does NOT support your pov.


----------



## AllieBaba

My pov is that it's not hardwired.

It's not, as indicated by his study and the multiple studies aside from that one. There's absolutely no evidence that it's hardwired.

What does that mean? Why, it must mean that it's NOT HARDWIRED. They tried to prove it (repeatedly) and they failed (repeatedly) which leads most intelligent humans to the understanding that, garsh, it must just not be so.

Well, my logic is intact. How's yours?


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> My pov is that it's not hardwired.
> 
> It's not, as indicated by his study and the multiple studies aside from that one. There's absolutely no evidence that it's hardwired.



Actually both the Bern and the Hamer studies came to the conclusion that it may be hardwired.



> What does that mean? Why, it must mean that it's NOT HARDWIRED. They tried to prove it (repeatedly) and they failed (repeatedly) which leads most intelligent humans to the understanding that, garsh, it must just not be so.



No, it leads most idiots who don't know logic to believe that.



> Well, my logic is intact. How's yours?



No, actually your logic is terrible.   Educate yourself for the love of god...


----------



## AllieBaba

They came to the conclusion that they couldn't prove it was hardwired. Which was the purpose of the study in both cases...an optimistic person with an agenda then tries to save the study by qualifying it with "may" but the result is the same, and the scientific community recognizes that.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> They came to the conclusion that they couldn't prove it was hardwired. Which was the purpose of the study in both cases...an optimistic person with an agenda then tries to save the study by qualifying it with "may" but the result is the same, and the scientific community recognizes that.



*sigh*

Can you prove that there are aliens?

Can you prove string theory?

Can you prove evolution?

Can you prove God exists?

Can you prove the big bang theory?

None of those are provable at this time.  Therefore, by your own retarded logic, they are all false.


----------



## AllieBaba

And I would never go around harping that those things are true, if studies existed to show they weren't.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> And I would never go around harping that those things are true, if studies existed to show they weren't.



But neither would you go harping that they are false, merely because they haven't been *proven*.   So, why the double standard for homosexuality?


----------



## AllieBaba

There's no double standard. The hard-wired theory has had its day in court, and it was convicted.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> There's no double standard. The hard-wired theory has had its day in court, and it was convicted.



Please...explain in detail why you make a judgement about homosexuality, but NOT the rest of the things listed even though individuals have tried to prove claims about each of them, and failed.


----------



## AllieBaba

I don't believe in aliens, because there's never been any proof that they exist.
I do believe in evolution, though not to the exclusion of God. We see the evidence of evolution, we know that populations evolve.
I don't subscribe to the Big Bang theory. It hasn't been proven.
I can't prove God exists, but neither can you prove he doesn't. Which means it's a matter of faith and choice.

Just like homosexuality. 

So where's the problem? I'm consistent....and you spell judgment without an e in the middle.

I learned that while preparing judgments for the court.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> I don't believe in aliens, because there's never been any proof that they exist.
> I do believe in evolution, though not to the exclusion of God. We see the evidence of evolution, we know that populations evolve.
> I don't subscribe to the Big Bang theory. It hasn't been proven.
> I can't prove God exists, but neither can you prove he doesn't. Which means it's a matter of faith and choice.
> 
> Just like homosexuality.



So now you are saying homosexuality is a matter of "faith and choice" where as before you were saying being gay was definitely a choice?   




> and you spell judgment without an e in the middle.
> 
> I learned that while preparing judgments for the court.



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

The spelling judgment is found in the Authorized Version of the Bible. However, the spelling judgement (with e added) largely replaced judgment in the United Kingdom in a non-legal context, possibly because writing dg without a following e for the /d&#658;/ was seen as an incorrect spelling. In the context of the law, however, judgment is preferred. In the U.S. judgment strongly prevails. As with many such spelling differences, both forms are equally acceptable in Canada and Australia, although judgment is more common in Canada and judgement in Australia.[1] In New Zealand the form judgment is the preferred spelling in dictionaries, newspapers and legislation, although the variant judgement can also be found in all three categories. In South Africa, judgement is the more common form. See further at American and British English spelling differences.

Besides the fact that we aren't talking about a Judgment that a judge hands down, we are talking about judgement in a non-legal context.


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm not in the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada. And this is a US forum, as you can see from the name of it. "US Message Board". Sorry, I should have known you weren't American.

And since I was referring both to my belief in God and to homosexuality, I thought you'd catch on that when I said it's a matter of faith and choice, you would understand that I was referring to both. Not just homosexuality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not in the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada. And this is a US forum, as you can see from the name of it. "US Message Board". Sorry, I should have known you weren't American.
> 
> No, scratch the "faith" from the homosexuality comment. It's a matter of choice.



You can forget it. When Larkinn runs out of real argument he always resorts to word games, spelling games and twisting meanings.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not in the United Kingdom, Australia or Canada. And this is a US forum, as you can see from the name of it. "US Message Board". Sorry, I should have known you weren't American.



The point was that it is accepted, as most international spellings are, both ways in America.   Besides the fact that we are talking about it in a non-legal context.



> No, scratch the "faith" from the homosexuality comment. It's a matter of choice.



Its a matter of choice whether to believe its choice/genetics, or its a matter of choice to be gay?   Because you've only provided any support for one of those assertions.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> You can forget it. When Larkinn runs out of real argument he always resorts to word games, spelling games and twisting meanings.



This from the boy who ran away from the argument.   Whatsa matter RGS, can't answer my responses to you?


----------



## AllieBaba

You can choose to believe whatever you want.

But it's not genetics. The guys with the big brains accept it, why can't you?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> This from the boy who ran away from the argument.   Whatsa matter RGS, can't answer my responses to you?



You mean your ignorant claim, that you can not support , that marriage is sexual discrimination? No need to answer it, it is ignorant. Without merit and just another of your games you play.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> You can choose to believe whatever you want.



Nice dodge, that wasn't the question.



> But it's not genetics. The guys with the big brains accept it, why can't you?



Thats the point.   They don't accept it.   Few well known scientists are saying its purely environmental.   Most people nowadays are saying its a combination.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> You mean your ignorant claim, that you can not support , that marriage is sexual discrimination? No need to answer it, it is ignorant. Without merit and just another of your games you play.



What a surprise.   Another assertion of opinion without anything to back it up.  No need to answer it?   Translation:  "I can't think up a good response, so I will bluster and throw insults instead".  

Go away child.  Even Allie's logic can run circles around you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Nice dodge, that wasn't the question.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the point.   They don't accept it.   Few well known scientists are saying its purely environmental.   Most people nowadays are saying its a combination.



A combination? Say it is not so? You have insisted it is hard wired and has NOTHING to do with choice or environment. You have argued that teaching our young to accept homosexuals has no effect on them, that homosexual parents have no sexual influence on their children. Perhaps you care to change your statement?


----------



## AllieBaba

RetiredGySgt said:


> A combination? Say it is not so? You have insisted it is hard wired and has NOTHING to do with choice or environment. You have argued that teaching our young to accept homosexuals has no effect on them, that homosexual parents have no sexual influence on their children. Perhaps you care to change your statement?



Ask him to prove it's hardwired. Though now he's saying he never said that.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> A combination? Say it is not so? You have insisted it is hard wired and has NOTHING to do with choice or environment.



Please quote me saying it is solely genetic, has nothing to do with choice or environment, or any one of those things.   Or retract that statement.   Not that I expect either, you are a habitual liar.



> You have argued that teaching our young to accept homosexuals has no effect on them,



I haven't argued that, but it doesn't.



> that homosexual parents have no sexual influence on their children. Perhaps you care to change your statement?



I haven't argued that.   But no I don't believe they do.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Ask him to prove it's hardwired. Though now he's saying he never said that.



I'm sure it will be easy enough for you to find if I said that it is hardwired.   So go back and find it.   Or else, like RGS, I expect a retraction.   Like him, I doubt I will get one however.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> Please quote me saying it is solely genetic, has nothing to do with choice or environment, or any one of those things.   Or retract that statement.   Not that I expect either, you are a habitual liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't argued that, but it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't argued that.   But no I don't believe they do.



So what "environment" do they mean?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

RetiredGySgt said:


> So what "environment" do they mean?



I am sorry, I forgot you never actually make any statements, just wishy washy comments that you can later claim didn't mean what they obviously did mean.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> So what "environment" do they mean?



Not going to retract the statement I see?   Its alright...I'm getting used to you habitually lying.

And environment is generally a vague term meant as non-genetic.   Could be anything from parental influence to how long they were in the womb, what kinds of food they ate when they were little, etc, etc.

I believe that kids with homosexual parents are more likely to be outwardly gay themselves...that is act on their homosexuality, but not actually more likely to be gay.   In fact there is at least one interesting study out there that I read a while ago which said that the children of lesbians are *more* likely to be both male, and straight, than the general population.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> I am sorry, I forgot you never actually make any statements, just wishy washy comments that you can later claim didn't mean what they obviously did mean.



I take that to mean you looked, and couldn't find anything which supported your bald faced lie?   

Nothing new there.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> I'm sure it will be easy enough for you to find if I said that it is hardwired.   So go back and find it.   Or else, like RGS, I expect a retraction.   Like him, I doubt I will get one however.



Hell no, you won't get one from me. Because while you may or may not have actually said homosexuality is genetic, I know very well you are taking the stance that homosexuals don't have a choice in the matter, and nothing on God's green earth (including scientific studies) will make you think differently. You have faith in homosexuality being a non-choice.

And homosexual parents are harmful to kids. I just ran across a study today while racing around trying to make it easy for you to lay hands on some actual knowledge about homosexuality. I'll see if I can find that one. Though you probably won't believe that, either.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> I take that to mean you looked, and couldn't find anything which supported your bald faced lie?
> 
> Nothing new there.



The only liar here is you. Remind me again how marriage is sexual discrimination. How Homosexual behavior is normal. How Civil Unions are separate but equal. How Homosexuals are like blacks and the civil rights fight.


----------



## jillian

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only liar here is you. Remind me again how marriage is sexual discrimination. How Homosexual behavior is normal. How Civil Unions are separate but equal. How Homosexuals are like blacks and the civil rights fight.



Those aren't lies, RGS. Many people believe marriage for some people and civil unions for others is tantamount to separate but equal and that the way gays are being treated now is very much like the way blacks used to be treated. It's fair for you to have a difference of opinion. But they aren't lies, so I think that's a bit unfair.


----------



## AllieBaba

The Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples has examined findings from multiple international studies, and concluded homosexual parenting carries significant risks for children, including an increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, mental illness, drug use, and promiscuity. 

The report also warned that same-sex relationships show much higher rates of separation and break-up than heterosexual relationships, increasing the likelihood that the child will experience familial instability.

Unfortunately, the study hasn't been translated to English yet. But when it is, I'll grab a link for you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> Those aren't lies, RGS. Many people believe marriage for some people and civil unions for others is tantamount to separate but equal and that the way gays are being treated now is very much like the way blacks used to be treated. It's fair for you to have a difference of opinion. But they aren't lies, so I think that's a bit unfair.



I notice you NEVER tell Larkinn his opinion the other way when he tells me I am lying is a "bit unfair", I wonder why that is?


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Hell no, you won't get one from me. Because while you may or may not have actually said homosexuality is genetic, I know very well you are taking the stance that homosexuals don't have a choice in the matter, and nothing on God's green earth (including scientific studies) will make you think differently. You have faith in homosexuality being a non-choice.



Please don't attempt to tell me what I believe.   You have no idea.



> And homosexual parents are harmful to kids. I just ran across a study today while racing around trying to make it easy for you to lay hands on some actual knowledge about homosexuality. I'll see if I can find that one. Though you probably won't believe that, either.



Oh please do.   Please explain in detail how they are oh so harmful.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> Those aren't lies, RGS. Many people believe marriage for some people and civil unions for others is tantamount to separate but equal and that the way gays are being treated now is very much like the way blacks used to be treated. It's fair for you to have a difference of opinion. But they aren't lies, so I think that's a bit unfair.




Just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. This is one of those comments I was telling you about that won't fly in court. The fact that people believe marriage is tantamount to separate but equal doesn't make it true.

Lots of people believe in martians. It doesn't mean there are martians.

Now do you understand what faulty logic REALLY looks like?


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Please don't attempt to tell me what I believe.   You have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please do.   Please explain in detail how they are oh so harmful.



I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm telling you what you've lead me to believe about you. 

See below for how they are harmful.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> The only liar here is you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remind me again how marriage is sexual discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained how it is, and the only response you can come up with "omg thats ignorant".   If I were so wrong, it would be easy to disprove me.   But you can't, because I'm not wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Homosexual behavior is normal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on the definition of normal.   I've specifically said under certain definitions it is NOT normal.   What a surprise.  Yet another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Civil Unions are separate but equal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are.  Again I've explained this to you and you have no response.  What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Homosexuals are like blacks and the civil rights fight.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See above.
Click to expand...


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> I notice you NEVER tell Larkinn his opinion the other way when he tells me I am lying is a "bit unfair", I wonder why that is?



Maybe because the FACT that I *never* said that homosexuality is hardwired isn't an opinion, its a fact.   Gee...so subtle and complicated, right RGS?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only liar here is you.
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained how it is, and the only response you can come up with "omg thats ignorant".   If I were so wrong, it would be easy to disprove me.   But you can't, because I'm not wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on the definition of normal.   I've specifically said under certain definitions it is NOT normal.   What a surprise.  Yet another lie.
> 
> 
> 
> They are.  Again I've explained this to you and you have no response.  What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> See above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you have provided is YOUR opinion. No proof, no evidence. But do keep claiming otherwise.
Click to expand...


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> I'm not telling you what you believe. I'm telling you what you've lead me to believe about you.



Then you don't have very good critical reading skills.   I specifically never stated my position on it because I don't think there is an answer out there now, and I don't really care.   Its a non-issue to me.   Homosexuality is acceptable, and should be accepted, whether its biological or not.



> Just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. This is one of those comments I was telling you about that won't fly in court. The fact that people believe marriage is tantamount to separate but equal doesn't make it true.



No but because someone believes it makes it not a lie.   She didn't say it was  true because people believed it, she said that made it not a lie.   



> The Report on Infantile Development in Same-Sex Couples has examined findings from multiple international studies, and concluded homosexual parenting carries significant risks for children, including an increase in low self-esteem, stress, confusion regarding sexual identity, mental illness, drug use, and promiscuity.



Until its translated and I can look at the study myself, its useless.   I'm not going to trust a study on homosexuality which is filtered through the eyes of christian right-wing sites.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Larkinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have provided is YOUR opinion. No proof, no evidence. But do keep claiming otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've provided a concrete unassailable analogy to race, which you haven't even bothered to address.
> 
> Really...either argue the point, or shut the fuck up.   Nobody wants to hear you bitching about this shit over and over again.   If you want to address my claims, go for it.  But repeating "omg your wrong, have no substance, blah blah blah" over and over again is really annoying.
Click to expand...


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> Just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. This is one of those comments I was telling you about that won't fly in court. The fact that people believe marriage is tantamount to separate but equal doesn't make it true.
> 
> Lots of people believe in martians. It doesn't mean there are martians.
> 
> Now do you understand what faulty logic REALLY looks like?



It isn't faulty logic, however. And Larkinn actually did a very good job explaining why.

I do understand what faulty logic looks like... yours.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Then you don't have very good critical reading skills.   I specifically never stated my position on it because I don't think there is an answer out there now, and I don't really care.   Its a non-issue to me.   Homosexuality is acceptable, and should be accepted, whether its biological or not.
> 
> 
> 
> No but because someone believes it makes it not a lie.   She didn't say it was  true because people believed it, she said that made it not a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> Until its translated and I can look at the study myself, its useless.   I'm not going to trust a study on homosexuality which is filtered through the eyes of christian right-wing sites.




I can see it's really a non-issue to you. That's made evident by the way you fly into the fray to contest the very idea that it might be a choice.

"No but because someone believes it makes it not a lie."
That is one of the most asinine comments I've heard in a while. It's STILL A LIE, EVEN IF PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.

Go to the gay sites for references to the Spanish study. It's all over. Maybe it will be more palatable filtered through them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've provided a concrete unassailable analogy to race, which you haven't even bothered to address.
> 
> Really...either argue the point, or shut the fuck up.   Nobody wants to hear you bitching about this shit over and over again.   If you want to address my claims, go for it.  But repeating "omg your wrong, have no substance, blah blah blah" over and over again is really annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have provided YOUR opinion, nothing more. Your the one BITCHING.  OVER and OVER, so YOU shut the hell up, Mr Mensa.
> 
> Using your logic one can argue that murderers are discriminated against, that Pologymists are discriminated against, hell that any type or kind of minority situation is "discriminated" against.
> 
> It amounts to nothing more than your PERSONAL Opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> It isn't faulty logic, however. And Larkinn actually did a very good job explaining why.
> 
> I do understand what faulty logic looks like... yours.



I suggest you prosecute before you defend. Otherwise, you're going to have a lot of criminals really mad at you when you get creamed in court.


----------



## AllieBaba

This is better than tv!


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> I can see it's really a non-issue to you. That's made evident by the way you fly into the fray to contest the very idea that it might be a choice.



I'm aware of the significance that others put on the issue.   



> "No but because someone believes it makes it not a lie."
> That is one of the most asinine comments I've heard in a while. It's STILL A LIE, EVEN IF PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.



It is NOT a lie to claim something is true if you believe it EVEN if it is factually wrong.   This is true in both fact and law, if you know anything about Perjury or intent you know this is true.



> Go to the gay sites for references to the Spanish study. It's all over. Maybe it will be more palatable filtered through them.



Lmao...its all over?  Ignoring all the other studies which say it has no effect, or positive effects?...its "all over".   Mmm...you don't have a bias at all, no you don't.   

By the way...I know a LOT of kids with homosexual parents.   Most of them are the same as any other kid.   The most harm I've ever seen come to a kid of gay parents is from other homophobic individuals.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Larkinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have provided YOUR opinion, nothing more. Your the one BITCHING.  OVER and OVER, so YOU shut the hell up, Mr Mensa.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we had moved on from that topic until YOU decided to come in here making the same old accusations which you don't even know what they mean.  What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using your logic one can argue that murderers are discriminated against, that Pologymists are discriminated against, hell that any type or kind of minority situation is "discriminated" against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have laws against discriminating against people on the basis of sex.   Its seen to be a bad thing.   This is not the case discriminating against people who kill others.   Hence this was pretty much the worst analogy ever.  Care to try again?
> 
> Now...notice how I didn't just say "that is sooooooo ignorant omg"?   THAT is what you need to do to refute my point.   Give an example of why they are different.   Or, as I said before, shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amounts to nothing more than your PERSONAL Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you are too stupid to refute.
Click to expand...


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> I'm aware of the significance that others put on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> It is NOT a lie to claim something is true if you believe it EVEN if it is factually wrong.   This is true in both fact and law, if you know anything about Perjury or intent you know this is true.
> 
> 
> 
> Lmao...its all over?  Ignoring all the other studies which say it has no effect, or positive effects?...its "all over".   Mmm...you don't have a bias at all, no you don't.
> 
> By the way...I know a LOT of kids with homosexual parents.   Most of them are the same as any other kid.   The most harm I've ever seen come to a kid of gay parents is from other homophobic individuals.




Perjury is INTENTIONALLY telling a lie. Lying on the stand can get a pass if a person isn't aware they're lying (that would be someone who's mentally ill). That doesn't mean it's not a lie. It just means they're stupid, or incompetent.

But whether or not people believe a lie or not doesn't affect whether it's actually a lie to begin with. A lie is a lie.

So you know a lot of gays. Good for you. But your opinion about your circle of friends a scientific study does not make.

And when I said "it's all over" I meant it's all over the gay sites.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually we had moved on from that topic until YOU decided to come in here making the same old accusations which you don't even know what they mean.  What a surprise.
> 
> 
> 
> We have laws against discriminating against people on the basis of sex.   Its seen to be a bad thing.   This is not the case discriminating against people who kill others.   Hence this was pretty much the worst analogy ever.  Care to try again?
> 
> Now...notice how I didn't just say "that is sooooooo ignorant omg"?   THAT is what you need to do to refute my point.   Give an example of why they are different.   Or, as I said before, shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> Which you are too stupid to refute.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Provide ONE case of a Court ruling marriage is discrimination against sex. Failing that it remains NOTHING but your ignorant opinion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Perjury is INTENTIONALLY telling a lie. Lying on the stand can get a pass if a person isn't aware they're lying (that would be someone who's mentally ill). That doesn't mean it's not a lie. It just means they're stupid, or incompetent.



Or, wrong.   There is a reason complaints have in them "to the best of my knowledge".  



> But whether or not people believe a lie or not doesn't affect whether it's actually a lie to begin with. A lie is a lie.



*shrug* this is merely a definitional difference and not really important.



> So you know a lot of gays. Good for you. But your opinion about your circle of friends a scientific study does not make.



True it doesn't, but it does mean I have a fair bit of ancedotal evidence.  There are also factors which you can't get at in a study.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide ONE case of a Court ruling marriage is discrimination against sex. Failing that it remains NOTHING but your ignorant opinion.



A court ruling doesn't make it fact.   And again you just make baseless assertions about ignorance with nothing to back it up.   Yes its an opinion.  But guess what, its one that you are too stupid to refute, and too dishonest to acknowledge.   So instead you come up with this bullshit.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Or, wrong.   There is a reason complaints have in them "to the best of my knowledge".
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug* this is merely a definitional difference and not really important.
> 
> 
> 
> True it doesn't, but it does mean I have a fair bit of ancedotal evidence.  There are also factors which you can't get at in a study.




Well, if it's merely a definitinoal difference and not really important, I wonder why you stuck at it?

Anectdotal evidence means nothing if the control group is contaminated.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> A court ruling doesn't make it fact.   And again you just make baseless assertions about ignorance with nothing to back it up.   Yes its an opinion.  But guess what, its one that you are too stupid to refute, and too dishonest to acknowledge.   So instead you come up with this bullshit.



I do not need to REFUTE an opinion, nor can I prove you wrong, since you believe it without facts. As you pointed out it is against the law to discriminate based on sex, so provide a court case backing your assertion it is sexual discrimination. None of the Judges that have ruled for Homosexual marriage have made that claim, instead ruling that the State Constitution does not preclude it.

It is ignorant for the very fact that it would be illegal if true, there would in fact be court cases to cite. You have none.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Well, if it's merely a definitinoal difference and not really important, I wonder why you stuck at it?



Because it was interesting until it became clear that we were arguing over 2 valid conceptions of the same word.   



> Anectdotal evidence means nothing if the control group is contaminated.



It still means something, it is still evidence if not entirely scientific.


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> I do not need to REFUTE an opinion, nor can I prove you wrong, since you believe it without facts.



Opinions can, and usually are, believed with facts.   Evolution is, in a sense, an opinion.   But yet there are tons of facts supporting it.   

Besides that, my opinion isn't arrived at from thin air.   I showed exactly how I came by that opinion using logical reasoning, which you haven't bothered to address.   Show the logic is bad, the analogy is flawed, do something besides scream and whine and bitch for once.



> As you pointed out it is against the law to discriminate based on sex, so provide a court case backing your assertion it is sexual discrimination.



And it took how many years for the court to overturn Plessy?   These things don't exactly happen overnight.   



> None of the Judges that have ruled for Homosexual marriage have made that claim, instead ruling that the State Constitution does not preclude it.



Umm, no the Judges that have ruled for Homosexual marriage has said that the State Constitution mandates it generally.   That is when its been judges forcing it on the state.



> It is ignorant for the very fact that it would be illegal if true, there would in fact be court cases to cite. You have none.



Because the courts are perfect, right?


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, there are quite a few baseless opinions out there.

But just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. Gosh, we've been here before. Do you have short term memory loss, Sir Mensa?


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, there are quite a few baseless opinions out there.



Yes there are.   Hence the difference between "can, and usually are" and always.   



> But just because somebody believes it doesn't make it true. Gosh, we've been here before. Do you have short term memory loss, Sir Mensa?



Just because something is based on facts doesn't make it true either.   Gosh, no we haven't been here before.   Do you have a problem understanding simple logic?...oh wait, yeah we've been here.


----------



## Shogun

To Jillian and Larkin for pretty much mopping up the floor in here.


Busting her for quoting studies that don't even say what was suggested?  Asking to prove god, despite belief, when being asked to do the same with homosexuality?

Well played..


BRAVO!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> There's more proof against it being hardwired than there is for it, and I've listed several prestigious sources which agree. I'm a little unclear on the whole, "gayness is hardwired" is NOT an opinion but fact, while "gayness is not hardwired" backed up by science is opinion.
> 
> Christian discrimination in schools. Back in a flash.
> Here:
> School asks student to replace Bible reading with book about witches
> Rusty Pugh
> OneNewsNow.com
> September 6, 2007
> 
> In one Pennsylvania public school, reading from the Bible is forbidden -- but reading about witches and Halloween is encouraged.
> 
> Wesley Busch is a kindergarten student at Culbertson Elementary School in Newton Square, Pennsylvania -- and all he wanted to do was have his mother read aloud from his favorite book, the Bible. The book reading was part of a classroom assignment called "All About Me," the purpose of which was to provide students an opportunity to identify individual interests and learn about each other through the use of items such as stuffed animals, posters, books and other mediums.
> 
> Jeremy Tedesco, legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), says the school district had a big problem with Wesley's favorite book. "When Wesley told his mom 'I want you to read the Bible, that's my favorite book,' the school said no -- even though they let every other book reading go forward," the attorney explains. "And even though they told Mrs. Busch 'no, you can't read the Bible,' [they said] 'but here, read this book on witches and Halloween instead,'" says Tedesco.
> 
> In May, a federal court sided with the school and the case is now on appeal. Tedesco says *public school officials need to understand that Christian students cannot be treated as second-class citizens.*
> "The lower court's decision said that it was okay to restrict the Bible. But the bottom line is that Christian students and their parents aren't second-class citizens at school, and shouldn't be discriminated against based on their religious speech that they want to engage in when they're invited to engage in private expression," he says.
> 
> *According to ADF, although reading from the Bible was forbidden the teacher allowed another parent to discuss the Jewish religious holidays of Passover and Hanukkah with the class.*
> 
> All Original Content Copyright 2006-2007
> 
> And the *Chicago Sun-Times *ran a story about a school in Illinois that tried to eradicate any reference/symbol of Christmas because it was offensive to Muslims.
> 
> *"Earlier this month, the district's top official called on principals to tone down holiday celebrations after complaints the activities offend some Muslim families."*
> 
> http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/587655,CST-NWS-oaklawn04.article
> 
> They changed their tune. But if there hadn't been a huge outcry, they would have just done it.






THIS is what you call being fed to lions?  HOLY SHIT!  It's JUST LIKE being drug behind a truck and strung up to a fence post!  Shadrac, Meshak and Abendigo didn't go through SHIT compared to this!

 


I would have let the kid's mother read his bible similarly to letting the jewish kid read his book...  But to call this an example of PERSICUTION is so fucking rediculous that it's obvious that you would take any effort to acknowledge anything but jesus as hatefulness and trigger the martyr routine.

if only Mat Shepherd were merely told not to read The Advocate in class, eh?


----------



## Doug

I suspect Matt Shepard went looking for rough trade, and found it. 

One of the facts about homosexuality is that it involves throwing off various social restraints, starting with choice of sexual partner, but not ending there. 

That's why a lot of people don't want to start treating it as just another "choice". Choose it, and all the other boundary-breaking behaviors that seem to go along with it, if you want to, but don't make us "celebrate" it.


----------



## Shogun

You suspect he was looking for a rough trade?


care to elaborate on that?


----------



## Doug

I don't have the original articles I read this in, but I will try to find them. They pointed out that he went into a lowlife trailer-trash bar. 

Now if this were true, why did he do that? 

By the way, I absolutely would agree that propositioning rednecks does not deserve the death penalty -- or even a beating. His murderers should have been strapped in the electric chair and fried.

But if what I read was true, it tells you something about the derangement of at least a part of the "homosexual community".


----------



## Shogun

you might as well have just said that rape victims are partly to blame because they wore a sexy dress.

or that emmet till was partly to blame for looking at a white woman.


----------



## Doug

Yes, no one is responsible for their own behavior, if they are a member of the Left's  preferred victim classes.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> Yes, no one is responsible for their own behavior, if they are a member of the Left's  preferred victim classes.




Are you suggesting that rape victims are responsible for being raped according to what they choose to wear? 

Perhaps I misunderstood you there.. Did you just suggest that Emmet Till Should have been more responsible for looking at a white woman?


you are blaming victims.  I don't care if some gay dude blows you a kiss and bats his eyes at you in your favorite good ole boy country bar - raping a gal dressed like a hooker, lynching a black boy for looking at a white woman and a gay dude in a goat-roping bar is no excuse for criminal behaviour.

and tossing out the "lefty this lefty that" routine wont make your answer any less transparently despicable.


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> I suspect Matt Shepard went looking for rough trade, and found it.
> 
> One of the facts about homosexuality is that it involves throwing off various social restraints, starting with choice of sexual partner, but not ending there.
> 
> That's why a lot of people don't want to start treating it as just another "choice". Choose it, and all the other boundary-breaking behaviors that seem to go along with it, if you want to, but don't make us "celebrate" it.



When I read things like that, my stomach turns. Matthew Shepard was savagely beaten by a couple of animals whose manhood got threatened by a gay guy.  And being gay is NOT a choice. You couldn't make yourself lust after a man any more than I could force myself to lust after a woman. Nor can you force yourself to lust after someone who doesn't do it for you. Given that our sexuality is a basic part of who we are, short of becoming celibate (which no one should have to do) we are who we are... for whatever the reasons.

We *are* responsible for our actions. We are responsible *NOT* to victimize someone else. One of the first things battered women have to learn in order to go on with their lives is that no... you didn't get beaten because dinner was late to the table. There is nothing you can do, short of violence, to make someone act violently toward you. If they act violently that's on THEM... not the victim.


----------



## Doug

Well, let's see what I actually said:



> By the way, I absolutely would agree that propositioning rednecks does not deserve the death penalty -- or even a beating. His murderers should have been strapped in the electric chair and fried.



Now if a some woman had a desire for risky sex which drove her to walk naked through Central Park in New York City at midnight, and she were raped and murdered (by white stockbrokers, I hasten to add), would she have "deserved" it? No, absolutely not.

And if some poor homosexual's twisted desire to have rough sex with some rednecks led him to lowlife bar, and he was beaten to death, would he have "deserved" it? See my answer above.

And having said that, would sensible people draw any conclusions about the kind of perverse sexual desires, and the "non-judgemental" people who champion them, that led the victims to take such risks? Yes, they would. But lefty (oops, said it again) ideologues are incapble of seeing that. They are on the hunt for victims, and "rights".


----------



## Shogun

*you didn't get beaten because dinner was late to the table.*



Apparently, some of us tend to think that having dinner on the table at the correct time would have been the responsible thing to do in order to keep from being beaten...


Doug's answer took me by surprise, I must admit.  Usually, his posts are a leaf from a different tree.  I was kinda surprised to see him run to the "lefty this lefty that" routine.  You can tell that he knows how stupid his logic is by how far he goes to try to convey that he doesn't believe the victims DESERVE it, necessarily, even if he believes they are partly to blame.

Notice the difference in the tone of words he uses when softly tiptoeing around the RAPE example and damn near blatantly throwing blame on a gay dude who DARED walk into a goat roping bar.


So, Doug.  Did Emmet Till deserve it too or should he have been more responsible with his line of vision?  Do battered women need to just learn to have dinner ready on time?  Is that responsibility?


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> *you didn't get beaten because dinner was late to the table.*
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, some of us tend to think that having dinner on the table at the correct time would have been the responsible thing to do in order to keep from being beaten...
> 
> 
> Doug's answer took me by surprise, I must admit.  Usually, his posts are a leaf from a different tree.  I was kinda surprised to see him run to the "lefty this lefty that" routine.



I was kind of surprised at that myself. For some reason the whole concept that homosexuals are entitled to what everyone else is seems to be too much for some people to take. No matter how smart and reasonable they usually are.


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> I was kind of surprised at that myself. For some reason the whole concept that homosexuals are entitled to what everyone else is seems to be too much for some people to take. No matter how smart and reasonable they usually are.



oh I know.


I can imagine the same sentiment at the trial for Till's killers by whitey wondering why those uppety ******* couldn't have been more responsible with looking at a white woman.  Didn't they know how the white south would react to a black boy taking in the image of a white girl?


----------



## Doug

It's tricky, isn't it? If we had some real raving feminists here, they would now be telling us that any man who whistles at any woman deserves whatever bad things happen to him. 

And they would jump on me for saying, once again, that although everyone should have the right to behave foolishly, we should also have the right to call certain behavior foolish. 

And then to look more closely at the twisted compulsions which might have driven foolish behavior. 

Whistling at a pretty girl is no big deal, it's normal behavior in fact -- sorry, raving feminists -- which cannot be said for one male looking for rough sex from other males, especially from non homosexual males from the lower classes -- that's ... OH GOD, I FEEL JUDGMENTALISM COMING ... abnormal, and sad.

So, if boys at the local school whistle at the girls, I won't get upset. 

But if someone wants the right to come to that school to tell the boys that actually, everything is permitted so long as it is consensual, and that they really should loosen up and throw off those restricting old-fashioned  inhibitions they have and try to develop any buried desires they might find to be tied up and whipped and sodomized by other boys, I will vote against.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Yes there are.   Hence the difference between "can, and usually are" and always.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because something is based on facts doesn't make it true either.   Gosh, no we haven't been here before.   Do you have a problem understanding simple logic?...oh wait, yeah we've been here.




No, we haven't be here because I never said anything like that. My logic is fine, thank you.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> To Jillian and Larkin for pretty much mopping up the floor in here.
> 
> 
> Busting her for quoting studies that don't even say what was suggested?  Asking to prove god, despite belief, when being asked to do the same with homosexuality?
> 
> Well played..
> 
> 
> BRAVO!



Read the studies, and you'll come to the same conclusion that every egghead at the universities, including geneticists, has come to.

Try actually researching stuff instead of just going on things you hear from your heroes, who didn't even know the studies were out there before they started popping off.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> THIS is what you call being fed to lions?  HOLY SHIT!  It's JUST LIKE being drug behind a truck and strung up to a fence post!  Shadrac, Meshak and Abendigo didn't go through SHIT compared to this!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would have let the kid's mother read his bible similarly to letting the jewish kid read his book...  But to call this an example of PERSICUTION is so fucking rediculous that it's obvious that you would take any effort to acknowledge anything but jesus as hatefulness and trigger the martyr routine.
> 
> if only Mat Shepherd were merely told not to read The Advocate in class, eh?



Let's say discrimination, then. If you really want to quibble.


----------



## AllieBaba

Doug said:


> I suspect Matt Shepard went looking for rough trade, and found it.
> 
> One of the facts about homosexuality is that it involves throwing off various social restraints, starting with choice of sexual partner, but not ending there.
> 
> That's why a lot of people don't want to start treating it as just another "choice". Choose it, and all the other boundary-breaking behaviors that seem to go along with it, if you want to, but don't make us "celebrate" it.



That's exactly the point I was making and the correlation I was pointing out to allowing a homosexual agenda to be taught in public schools, but not religious ones.

Allow one, allow the other. Otherwise, keep it at home.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> When I read things like that, my stomach turns. Matthew Shepard was savagely beaten by a couple of animals whose manhood got threatened by a gay guy.  And being gay is NOT a choice. You couldn't make yourself lust after a man any more than I could force myself to lust after a woman. Nor can you force yourself to lust after someone who doesn't do it for you. Given that our sexuality is a basic part of who we are, short of becoming celibate (which no one should have to do) we are who we are... for whatever the reasons.
> 
> We *are* responsible for our actions. We are responsible *NOT* to victimize someone else. One of the first things battered women have to learn in order to go on with their lives is that no... you didn't get beaten because dinner was late to the table. There is nothing you can do, short of violence, to make someone act violently toward you. If they act violently that's on THEM... not the victim.




This is where I part ways seriously with liberals. You, Jillian, don't know any better than anybody else what people were thinking or what their motives were. And you can say being gay is not a choice, but that doesn't make it so. In fact, there are huge segments of the gay population who get up in arms about this. They insist it IS a choice, and that should have nothing to do with anything. 
People can program themselves to lust after dogs. So your comment about not being able to make yourself be attracted to the same sex is a fluff statement, also with no basis in fact or even reality.
We do have control over who we are. How you can say that those guys are accountable for their behavior, but because that kid was gay, he is not, obviously causes some logistical problems.
He went into a rough bar, in a town where everybody knew he was gay. That was a BAAAAD choice on his part. But not illegal.
They killed him. That was a BAAAD choice on their part, which is also illegal.

But spare me the "poor little gay peeps, they can't control themselves, they're all angels" bit. It's juvenile. Just as it's juvenile that you keep re-iterating over and over that being gay is not a choice when nobody else in the learned community is saying that. Which you know.


----------



## jillian

Actually, having had the enlightening experience of sitting in with a group of women who were incarcerated at Bedford Hills because they killed their batterers, and having known some of the finest battered women's activists that one could hope to meet (and luckily never having been victimized myself) I DO know that no one is responsible for another's unjustified violence toward them any more that Jews were responsible for the pogroms or the Holocaust; any more than blacks were responsible for the violence of the KKK'ers and their "patriotic" lynchings.

Or do you hate gays so much that you think they deserve the death penalty?


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> That's exactly the point I was making and the correlation I was pointing out to allowing a homosexual agenda to be taught in public schools, but not religious ones.
> 
> Allow one, allow the other. Otherwise, keep it at home.



Riiiiiight...stay in the closet... or at least go to an airport restroom, huh?

Why don't YOU closet YOUR behavior? Or have you never flirted with men?


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, having had the experience of being battered myself, also having the experience of working with battered women as a reporter, a volunteer, human services worker, and addictions counselor, I would say you're full of crap. I never said (in fact, I pretty much said exactly the opposite) that the poor kid was to blame for being killed. I said he made a bad choice. Which he did.

And you're off the mark about my hatred, as well. I've had many very good gay friends, starting with one of my closest friends in grade through high school, and ending with two of my roommates when I got older. I don't hate gays, never said I did. That's your own hatred of anyone with a different opinion (and armed with better facts) than your own shining through.

And it shines for everyone to see.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, having had the experience of being battered myself, also having the experience of working with battered women as a reporter, a volunteer, human services worker, and addictions counselor, I would say you're full of crap. I never said (in fact, I pretty much said exactly the opposite) that the poor kid was to blame for being killed. I said he made a bad choice. Which he did.
> 
> And you're off the mark about my hatred, as well. I've had many very good gay friends, starting with one of my closest friends in grade through high school, and ending with two of my roommates when I got older. I don't hate gays, never said I did. That's your own hatred of anyone with a different opinion (and armed with better facts) than your own shining through.
> 
> And it shines for everyone to see.




Gee... you're just wonderful. The only choice he made was approaching a man who interested him.

Go ask your "friend" if he would have chosen to be gay or hetero... for someone who claims such a love of gays, you have absolutely no understanding of them. You must go for the Sen. Craig-type gays... the ones that are married to their beards and pretend to be hetero so you don't have to look at them and acknowledge that they're alive.

I absolutely hate prejudice and fear. They're dangerous.

As for hating people who disagree with me. Not in the least. I just hate ignorance. Some of my best family members are conservative. And, if you weren't such a putz, you'd see I'm not exactly off the scales to the left. But... putting people in little boxes and being smug and self-aggrandizing seems to be your modus operandi. Then you get all huffy puffy when it's handed back to you in spades and you're shown to be full of it. 

I'm sorry you were battered, by the way. No one deserves that.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> Gee... you're just wonderful. The only choice he made was approaching a man who interested him.
> 
> Go ask your "friend" if he would have chosen to be gay or hetero... for someone who claims such a love of gays, you have absolutely no understanding of them. You must go for the Sen. Craig-type gays... the ones that are married to their beards and pretend to be hetero so you don't have to look at them and acknowledge that they're alive.
> 
> I absolutely hate prejudice and fear. They're dangerous.
> 
> As for hating people who disagree with me. Not in the least. I just hate ignorance. Some of my best family members are conservative. And, if you weren't such a putz, you'd see I'm not exactly off the scales to the left. But... putting people in little boxes and being smug and self-aggrandizing seems to be your modus operandi. Then you get all huffy puffy when it's handed back to you in spades and you're shown to be full of it.
> 
> I'm sorry you were battered, by the way. No one deserves that.



You're a self-righteous twit. Since there's nothing in that post to respond to, I won't.

Except...the hatred is obvious. But it's not hatred of ignorance. It's the hatred of anyone who challenges your own high opinion of yourself.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Read the studies, and you'll come to the same conclusion that every egghead at the universities, including geneticists, has come to.
> 
> Try actually researching stuff instead of just going on things you hear from your heroes, who didn't even know the studies were out there before they started popping off.



considering your narrow application of logic and the refusal to consider that which just doesn't fit into your schema (the concept of ethnocentrism) I'm not sure you are any kind of authority in suggesting to others that they research stuff.  

In case you haven't noticed IM the one giving you examples instead of name dropping some phantom study that may or may not even say what you keep suggesting.

Perhaps you should reconsider your expertise in what everybody will come to in their conclusions?


I didn't mean to scare you off by quoting the OT, by the way.. I thought you were big girl enough to handle quotes from the bible.. See, I can admit when Im wrong!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Let's say discrimination, then. If you really want to quibble.



Way to tone down the rhetoric.

Too bad it took me spanking your hand before you thought to lay off the martyr routine.

Indeed, give me another jewel like "out of the closet christians"..  that one was rich!


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> considering your narrow application of logic and the refusal to consider that which just doesn't fit into your schema (the concept of ethnocentrism) I'm not sure you are any kind of authority in suggesting to others that they research stuff.
> 
> In case you haven't noticed IM the one giving you examples instead of name dropping some phantom study that may or may not even say what you keep suggesting.
> 
> Perhaps you should reconsider your expertise in what everybody will come to in their conclusions?
> 
> 
> I didn't mean to scare you off by quoting the OT, by the way.. I thought you were big girl enough to handle quotes from the bible.. See, I can admit when Im wrong!



If you only knew how stupid you sound challenging studies you haven't even read. Because, as I told Jillian, if you had actually read them, you would have come to the same conclusion that every high thinker in the US and Canada (and now Spain) has come to.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> This is where I part ways seriously with liberals. You, Jillian, don't know any better than anybody else what people were thinking or what their motives were. And you can say being gay is not a choice, but that doesn't make it so. *In fact, there are huge segments of the gay population who get up in arms about this. They insist it IS a choice*, and that should have nothing to do with anything.
> People can program themselves to lust after dogs. So your comment about not being able to make yourself be attracted to the same sex is a fluff statement, also with no basis in fact or even reality.
> We do have control over who we are. How you can say that those guys are accountable for their behavior, but because that kid was gay, he is not, obviously causes some logistical problems.
> He went into a rough bar, in a town where everybody knew he was gay. That was a BAAAAD choice on his part. But not illegal.
> They killed him. That was a BAAAD choice on their part, which is also illegal.
> 
> *But spare me the "poor little gay peeps*, they can't control themselves, they're all angels" bit. It's juvenile. Just as it's juvenile that you keep re-iterating over and over that being gay is not a choice when nobody else in the learned community is saying that. Which you know.




Would you care to post your source or is this another fabricated phantom of an example?


Also, your empathy towards the VICTIM obviously depends on the victims sexuality.  I'm betting that you would not expect the same cold sentiment if you were the one raped and beaten because of what you wore to wherever you decided to go.  Indeed, very CHRISTIAN-like.  You are a living, breathing chic tract testimony, lemme tellya.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> If you only knew how stupid you sound challenging studies you haven't even read. Because, as I told Jillian, if you had actually read them, you would have come to the same conclusion that every high thinker in the US and Canada (and now Spain) has come to.



If you only knew how stupid you look when name dropping some phantom study instead of posting a source and then having your debate opposition remind you that what you are trying to quote isn't even suggesting what you claim...

Indeed, if only.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> Would you care to post your source or is this another fabricated phantom of an example?
> 
> 
> Also, your empathy towards the VICTIM obviously depends on the victims sexuality.  I'm betting that you would not expect the same cold sentiment if you were the one raped and beaten because of what you wore to wherever you decided to go.  Indeed, very CHRISTIAN-like.  You are a living, breathing chic tract testimony, lemme tellya.



You're trying to read my mind. Jillian made the same mistake. I absolutely have sympathy for any victim of abuse, and certainly understand the semantics of abuse.

But I don't think being a victim PRECLUDES someone from making bad choices. Rather, bad choices can lead to victimization. Which is something we try to teach victims in counseling.


----------



## jillian

AllieBaba said:


> You're a self-righteous twit. Since there's nothing in that post to respond to, I won't.
> 
> Except...the hatred is obvious. But it's not hatred of ignorance. It's the hatred of anyone who challenges your own high opinion of yourself.



lol... get over yourself, girl. I know you have no answers and can't justify your hatred, but you really need to get a grip.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, having had the experience of being battered myself, also having the experience of working with battered women as a reporter, a volunteer, human services worker, and addictions counselor, I would say you're full of crap. I never said (in fact, I pretty much said exactly the opposite) that the poor kid was to blame for being killed. I said he made a bad choice. Which he did.
> 
> And you're off the mark about my hatred, as well. I've had many very good gay friends, starting with one of my closest friends in grade through high school, and ending with two of my roommates when I got older. I don't hate gays, never said I did. That's your own hatred of anyone with a different opinion (and armed with better facts) than your own shining through.
> 
> And it shines for everyone to see.



I guess then, according to your logic, you didn't make a good choice when you pissed off your abuser then, eh?


or, does that only apply to the gay folk?


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> If you only knew how stupid you look when name dropping some phantom study instead of posting a source and then having your debate opposition remind you that what you are trying to quote isn't even suggesting what you claim...
> 
> Indeed, if only.



pssssssst... we did check her phantom studies. they're real enough... they just don't say or mean what she says they do. that's why she's so cranky. But she likes thinking it's everyone else who's stupid and can't read or comprehend.


----------



## AllieBaba

If I look stupid saying things like that, keep in mind...you've said the same. Something to think of when you go to court. If you ever make it there.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> You're trying to read my mind. Jillian made the same mistake. I absolutely have sympathy for any victim of abuse, and certainly understand the semantics of abuse.
> 
> But I don't think being a victim PRECLUDES someone from making bad choices. Rather, bad choices can lead to victimization. Which is something we try to teach victims in counseling.



So, again, tell me what mistake YOU made when prompting YOUR abuse?

I'll wait.


----------



## Shogun

jillian said:


> pssssssst... we did check her phantom studies. they're real enough... they just don't say or mean what she says they do. that's why she's so cranky. But she likes thinking it's everyone else who's stupid and can't read or comprehend.



Oh I know.. thats why I applauded you and Larkin.  It seems like they all come into the boards swinging, doesn't it?  EVERYONE is the expert until having to post their sources and evidence.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> If I look stupid saying things like that, keep in mind...you've said the same. Something to think of when you go to court. If you ever make it there.




ooohhhh. and INSULT.. 

oh my.. I haven't seen a desperate person being thrashed run to THOSE before!


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> I guess then, according to your logic, you didn't make a good choice when you pissed off your abuser then, eh?
> 
> 
> or, does that only apply to the gay folk?



Lol. You're obviously a real sensitive guy.
BTW, I made a truckload of bad choices, or I wouldn't have been with the SOB to begin with. That's the point, Einstein.

And Jillian isn't posting right now because she's busy sending me insulting private messages which are too juvenile for her to put up here.

Quite a cart and pony show.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Lol. You're obviously a real sensitive guy.
> BTW, I made a truckload of bad choices, or I wouldn't have been with the SOB to begin with. That's the point, Einstein.
> 
> And Jillian isn't posting right now because she's busy sending me insulting private messages which are too juvenile for her to put up here.
> 
> Quite a cart and pony show.



So, then you take the blame for choosing to be with a guy that turned out to be an abuser, eh?


I hope to god you are not in the counselling field...


----------



## jillian

Shogun said:


> So, then you take the blame for choosing to be with a guy that turned out to be an abuser, eh?
> 
> 
> I hope to god you are not in the counselling field...



Me, too... 

But she's also a liar. Didn't think it was insulting to tell someone that if they don't care that they got negged, then they shouldn't be writing to me about it and whining ;o)

Normally, pm's are private, but the genius decided to make a show of it


----------



## AllieBaba

Here's a link to The Advocate, with messages from gays who state they are gay by choice.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_July_17/ai_76577630/pg_7


----------



## jillian

More lies from Ali-baby...

The link is two letters in The Advocate (one must question WHY she's saved them, but there ya go...) 

One says nurture... one says nature. D'uh!



> Advocate, The,  July 17, 2001  by Dahir Mubarak
> << Page 1  Continued from page 6.  Previous | Next
> 
> My mother died when I was 8 months old. My father remarried when I was i year old. His new wife did not want him to have much to do with his first children. I had five older brothers and three older sisters. My brothers did not want to have much to do with me. My three sisters adored me, so I spent most of my time with them. The sisters painted my deceased mother as being almost a saint. I think I naturally identified with my sisters' values and the values of my mother, which they told me about in detail. This included their sexual orientation.
> 
> We all inherit certain physical characteristics from our parents and we can inherit certain abstract characteristics such as temperament. I do not think that these genetically inherited qualities lead to homosexuality.
> 
> J.D., via the Internet
> 
> GOD
> 
> I personally believe I am gay because God made me such. I believe it is a gift and that he has a special reason for creating me as a lesbian. It doesn't matter if I was created this way biologically or if circumstances in my life molded me; this is who I am meant to be. I am proud to be a lesbian and at peace.
> 
> D.S., Poland, Ohio
> 
> I embrace the gift God gave me. I believe God chose each and every gay, lesbian, bi, and transgendered individual to teach others about love, tolerance, and acceptance. So I remind all my gay brothers and sisters: Don't worry. God did not make a mistake. He has a plan and a reason for your existence.
> 
> A.G., Oxnard, Calif.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_2001_July_17/ai_76577630/pg_7


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> \
> And they would jump on me for saying, once again, that although everyone should have the right to behave foolishly, we should also have the right to call certain behavior foolish.



Walking into a sleazy bar is foolish?   Umm there are plenty of dive bars around where I live and generally I don't associate going in them with a risk of being killed.   



> And then to look more closely at the twisted compulsions which might have driven foolish behavior.



And now you are assuming its "twisted".



> Whistling at a pretty girl is no big deal, it's normal behavior in fact -- sorry, raving feminists -- which cannot be said for one male looking for rough sex from other males, especially from non homosexual males from the lower classes -- that's ... OH GOD, I FEEL JUDGMENTALISM COMING ... abnormal, and sad.



Ahh normal, the key bullshit word used to justify homophobia.   How surprising.   And you have NO idea what kind of sex Shephard was looking for.



> But if someone wants the right to come to that school to tell the boys that actually, everything is permitted so long as it is consensual, and that they really should loosen up and throw off those restricting old-fashioned  inhibitions they have and try to develop any buried desires they might find to be tied up and whipped and sodomized by other boys, I will vote against.



So its ok to objectify someone (which does harm), but not ok to do non-harmful things?   Really awesome standard of morality there doug.


----------



## doniston

jillian said:


> Me, too...
> 
> But she's also a liar. Didn't think it was insulting to tell someone that if they don't care that they got negged, then they shouldn't be writing to me about it and whining ;o)
> 
> Normally, pm's are private, but the genius decided to make a show of it



 NORMALLY?  what Normally?  These are not the normal PMs. in fact, in umpteen years of posting, this is first Forum I have run into which has a rep point system, either Negative or Positive.   

 It would seem that I have been complaining about the same thing.  Great Minds...........!.


----------



## Shogun

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 



I tellya.. If I had the answer to the nature v nurture question i'd be the next pavlov.  


Ya gotta watch this new batch, Jillian.. They get wrapped up in their confused misunderstanding of concepts that they refuse to acknowledge at the first sign that it chaffes with their formed opinion.  

not that one stinking letter written to a mag means anything broadly. 

Hell, There are gays who feel shamed enough to attempt to deny themselves for the sake of some "turn your son back to being strait with god and boot camp" program too...  What, exactly does that say about the population of homosexuals though?  nothing.

I had hopes for this one too.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> People can program themselves to lust after dogs.



You know this how exactly?



> We do have control over who we are.



Really?   So tell me what I can do to become a gay black man.



> How you can say that those guys are accountable for their behavior, but because that kid was gay, he is not, obviously causes some logistical problems.



He is accountable for going into a rough bar.   There is nothing wrong with that.   Blaming him for going into a rough bar is idiotic.   



> He went into a rough bar, in a town where everybody knew he was gay. That was a BAAAAD choice on his part. But not illegal.
> They killed him. That was a BAAAD choice on their part, which is also illegal.



The problem is that the solution here is NOT to restrict where gays can and cannot go, but to educate people NOT to do things like kill gays, and teach tolerance and acceptance.   



> But spare me the "poor little gay peeps, they can't control themselves, they're all angels" bit. It's juvenile. Just as it's juvenile that you keep re-iterating over and over that being gay is not a choice when nobody else in the learned community is saying that. Which you know.



*sigh* we've gone over this child.   There is no evidence for your proposition.  



> That's exactly the point I was making and the correlation I was pointing out to allowing a homosexual agenda to be taught in public schools, but not religious ones.
> 
> Allow one, allow the other. Otherwise, keep it at home.



Except that teaching the "homosexual agenda" as it is so amusingly called, will teach people tolerance so they don't go out and kill the Shephards of the world.   Teaching people the Bible is not only unconstitutional, but is likely to do the opposite.


----------



## Larkinn

As for Doug...

You and your ilk have NO right to complain about gays being outside the norm.  You and assholes like you ostracize them, make them feel unwelcome from society, abuse them, taunt them, and generally treat them like shit.   And then you blame them when they don't feel the need to follow societies other conventions?   If you want them to follow other conventions, then accept them as part of society.   Until you do that, fuck off.


----------



## Doug

To the Politically-Correct, the only behavior that is to be "judged" is anything that might injure the feelings of one of their favored client victim groups.

Here's a test: does someone have the right to say that he believes Negroes are genetically inferior to whites? Yes. Does a Black person who is offended by this have the right to kick the person who made this statement to death? No.

But the person with the racialist theories is still under an obligation to use his common sense. He should stay out of bars that are frequented by Black people, or, if he finds himself in one, he should keep his opinions to himself.

Does a male have the right to solicit a strange male for sex? Yes, provided he uses his common sense: put an ad in the appropriate newspaper; go to a gay  bar. Or go to a place where the men are not guaranteed to be violently-inclined homophobes, and send out the usual signals.

Now, I  don't _know_ what that poor kid did. Maybe he was just thirsty and happened to see a bar and went in, and was recognized by one of the low-lifes there. In which case he was just a bit foolish.

But if he did go into a redneck bar looking for rough trade, then he was either  suicidally-unwise, or driven by some sort of terrible and unnatural compulsion.

Perhaps he had been encouraged in this foolish behavior by the sort of "non-judgmental" folks who see all human behaviors as equally good, so long as they are challenging tradition or authority.

Anyway, back to Emmett Till. Have you considered that there is another aspect to this case? 

I think there may be something to this conservative commentary on the case written some time ago but relevant to the issue of unwanted sexual advances made in public:



> And what of the wolf-whistle, Till's "gesture of adolescent bravado"? We are rightly aghast that a whistle could be cause for murder but we must also accept that Emmett Till and JW Millam [one of his white murderers] had something in common. They both understood that the whistle was no small tweet of hubba-hubba or melodious approval for a well-turned ankle. Given the deteriorated situation ... it was a deliberate insult just short of physical assault, a last reminder to Carolyn Bryant that this black boy, Till, had in mind to possess her.
> 
> ... the insult implied in Emmett Till's whistle, the depersonalized challenge of "I can have you" with or without the racial aspect.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> You know this how exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   So tell me what I can do to become a gay black man.
> 
> 
> 
> He is accountable for going into a rough bar.   There is nothing wrong with that.   Blaming him for going into a rough bar is idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that the solution here is NOT to restrict where gays can and cannot go, but to educate people NOT to do things like kill gays, and teach tolerance and acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> *sigh* we've gone over this child.   There is no evidence for your proposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Except that teaching the "homosexual agenda" as it is so amusingly called, will teach people tolerance so they don't go out and kill the Shephards of the world.   Teaching people the Bible is not only unconstitutional, but is likely to do the opposite.



I never blamed him for anything. Use those critical reading skills, bucko. Neither did I say anything about restricting anything. Simply making an observation.

And there was no proposition. That, also, is in your head.

And you're right. Teaching a homosexual agenda teaches tolerance and that it's ok to be gay. Just as teaching a Christian agenda will teach tolerance and that it's okay to be Christian.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> To the Politically-Correct, the only behavior that is to be "judged" is anything that might injure the feelings of one of their favored client victim groups.
> 
> Here's a test: does someone have the right to say that he believes Negroes are genetically inferior to whites? Yes. Does a Black person who is offended by this have the right to kick the person who made this statement to death? No.
> 
> But the person with the racialist theories is still under an obligation to use his common sense. He should stay out of bars that are frequented by Black people, or, if he finds himself in one, he should keep his opinions to himself.



And if he is killed for those opinions we should NOT be blaming him for having those opinions or daring to go out in the wrong part of town, we should be blaming the killers.



> Does a male have the right to solicit a strange male for sex? Yes, provided he uses his common sense: put an ad in the appropriate newspaper; go to a gay  bar. Or go to a place where the men are not guaranteed to be violently-inclined homophobes, and send out the usual signals.



The men are not "guaranteed" to be violently-inclined homophobes.   That is retarded.



> But if he did go into a redneck bar looking for rough trade, then he was either  suicidally-unwise, or driven by some sort of terrible and unnatural compulsion.



Or perhaps thought that decent rules of society governed, even in redneck bars.   I know...terrible to think that we live in a society where we might not get murdered.



> Perhaps he had been encouraged in this foolish behavior by the sort of "non-judgmental" folks who see all human behaviors as equally good, so long as they are challenging tradition or authority.



And which are these folks who see all human beaviors as equally good?   Tell me who thinks that saving an old woman from drowning is equally good as raping a small child?


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> I never blamed him for anything. Use those critical reading skills, bucko. Neither did I say anything about restricting anything. Simply making an observation.



And I was simply making obersvations about how blaming him for that is idiotic.



> And there was no proposition. That, also, is in your head.



Really?   You didn't assert that homosexuality is a choice?  Thats all in my head?



> And you're right. Teaching a homosexual agenda teaches tolerance and that it's ok to be gay. Just as teaching a Christian agenda will teach tolerance and that it's okay to be Christian.



Gee...I wonder which one its more important to teach tolerance for.   On one hand we have homosexuals (get killed for being gay), and the other hand we have Christians...what was the terribly egregious discriminatory practice you pointed out?   Oh yes...he can't engage in reading the Bible in school.   Wow...those two things really are comparable.


----------



## mattskramer

GunnyL said:


> And when the behavior of the vast majority is "influenced" (read: having it shoved down their throats) via tyranny of the minority, the majority rebels.  All such legislation does is foster resentment and hatred.



Oh no!  Should I buy a bullet-proof vest!  Stuff isnt being shoved down your throat than is stuff being shoved down my throat.  Get over it.  You totally misinterpreted my point.  Ill spell it out for you.  Legislation does not make one think that something is right. It is legal for blacks to get married to whites and for whites to get married to blacks.  Yet, some people still think that interracial marriage is wrong and should be outlawed.  You alleged that homosexuals want people to think that gay marriage is right and that legislation will cause people to think that it is right.  Well, I would disagree with those homosexuals.  Legislation does not change peoples hearts.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> And I was simply making obersvations about how blaming him for that is idiotic.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?   You didn't assert that homosexuality is a choice?  Thats all in my head?
> 
> 
> 
> Gee...I wonder which one its more important to teach tolerance for.   On one hand we have homosexuals (get killed for being gay), and the other hand we have Christians...what was the terribly egregious discriminatory practice you pointed out?   Oh yes...he can't engage in reading the Bible in school.   Wow...those two things really are comparable.



Who blamed him? Not me. So I fail to understand why you would make that statement to me. Moron.

I did assert homosexuality is a choice. Is that a proposition? Maybe you meant preposition, though it isn't that, either, Mr. Mensa. It's a comment apropos of nothing, and with no point. But thanks for sharing.

Christians are killed everyday, too. I guess since they aren't killed in your neighborhood or under your nose, that makes it okay to deny them the same so-called "tolerance" you would allow homosexual nazis who want to indoctrinate our children in schools.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Who blamed him? Not me. So I fail to understand why you would make that statement to me. Moron.



Not everything I say to you is directly negating previous statements you've made.  



> I did assert homosexuality is a choice. Is that a proposition? Maybe you meant preposition, though it isn't that, either, Mr. Mensa. It's a comment apropos of nothing, and with no point. But thanks for sharing.



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

prop·o·si·tion      /&#716;pr&#594;p&#601;&#712;z&#618;&#643;&#601;n/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prop-uh-zish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
noun
1.	the act of offering or suggesting something to be considered, accepted, adopted, or done.
2.	a plan or scheme proposed.
3.	an offer of terms for a transaction, as in business.
4.	a thing, matter, or person considered as something to be dealt with or encountered: Keeping diplomatic channels open is a serious proposition.
*5.	anything stated or affirmed for discussion or illustration.  *

Yes its a proposition.   If I were you I'd look things up before trying to correct me.   



> Christians are killed everyday, too.



I'd like a link to these individuals who are being killed because of their Christianity.   



> I guess since they aren't killed in your neighborhood or under your nose, that makes it okay to deny them the same so-called "tolerance" you would allow homosexual nazis who want to indoctrinate our children in schools.



Oops.   Godwins law.  You lose, have a nice day.


----------



## AllieBaba

Actually, I don't think it works as a proposition. I didn't present it for illustration or for discussion, even, I presented it as a fact. Which I think takes it out of the proposition field. I didn't propose they are gay by choice, I said they were gay by choice. That may be one and the same, but I don't think it is. But I'll go ahead and let you have that point if it makes you happy.

I'll find you some dead Christians.
http://www.westernrecorder.org/wr/wrsite.nsf/stories/200310-Hyde1
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/09/a_montville_church_is_mourning.html
http://archives.zinester.com/76029/136481.html
http://konkanicatholics.blogspot.com/2006/01/indian-catholic-missionaries-killed-in.html
http://www.persecutionblog.com/
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58076

You don't really think Christians aren't killed for their beliefs, do you?


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Actually, I don't think it works as a proposition.



It does.



> I didn't present it for illustration or for discussion, even, I presented it as a fact.



You presented it as an assertion, which does NOT take it out of the proposition field.



> I'll find you some dead Christians.
> http://www.westernrecorder.org/wr/wrsite.nsf/stories/200310-Hyde1
> http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/09/a_montville_church_is_mourning.html
> http://archives.zinester.com/76029/136481.html
> http://konkanicatholics.blogspot.com/2006/01/indian-catholic-missionaries-killed-in.html
> http://www.persecutionblog.com/
> http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58076
> 
> You don't really think Christians aren't killed for their beliefs, do you?



Perhaps you missed the border but it says US message board.   We are talking about the United States here, not other countries.


----------



## Doug

Suppose I walk into a certain lesbian bar in San Francisco, go up to the biggest bull-dyke I see, and then turn to and proposition her lover, telling her all she needs is a good  **** from a real man.

Am I in any way, in any sense, responsible for what might then happen to me? (And for the sweet souls who think that I would only be firmly but gently escorted to the door ... God help you!)


----------



## Diuretic

Doug said:


> Suppose I walk into a certain lesbian bar in San Francisco, go up to the biggest bull-dyke I see, and then turn to and proposition her lover, telling her all she needs is a good  **** from a real man.
> 
> Am I in any way, in any sense, responsible for what might then happen to me? (And for the sweet souls who think that I would only be firmly but gently escorted to the door ... God help you!)



No kidding.  I was on a job once and had to spend a number of hours in a pub frequented not just by gay men but lesbians and other assorted bohemian types, it was quite fun actually.  But unfortunately the girlfriend of one of my (straight) victim's girlfriends took a shine to me and jeez if looks could kill (from her lesbian partner) I'd have been on the bar-room floor in big trouble.  My partner (working partner) thought it was a hoot.  I was less than comfortable with the attention from both the ladies (and I ain't no oil painting so I have no idea what got into the other sheila's head).

Anyway, this thread turned into a bloodfest didn't it?


----------



## Doug

*Diuretic:* As usual, you are the voice of sweet reason. (How the hell can you be an Aussie!?) This is not the first thread where a potential good argument was cut off at the knees by people flinging dung at each other.

Anyway, speaking of lesbian bars, there was this Texas cowhand, on a very remote ranch in West Texas, who never watched the news nor read a newspaper or even left his boss's ranch.

Well, one day his boss asked him to take the pickup and drive all the way into Fort Worth to get a part for the combine harvester. Since it would take him most of the day to get there, the boss gave him money to get a hotel room for the night, and come back with the part the next day.

He made the journey, picked up the part, and then checked into his hotel. After having dinner in the hotel dining room, he wondered what to do. Picking up a "Guide to Fort Worth Night Life"  he noticed that near his hotel there was a "Gay Bar".

"Huh," he said to himself. "A bar where they're all happy and cheerful. I reckon I ought to check that place out."

So he made his way to the establishment in question, and went in. To his surprise, it was full of women. Not another man in sight. "Whoa," he said to himself. "I guess this could make a man pretty happy and gay. I'll just mosy over to the bar and settle in."

Which he did. The other patrons looked at him quizzically, but ... used to the occasional country simpleton who wandered in and finally got the idea and left ... they just ignored him. 

But finally, one woman's curiousity got the better of her, and she came over and sat next to the cowboy. "Howdy," he said. "Hello," she replied. "I just was curious about you, Mister ... why you're here and all. I mean, what are you?"

"Why, I'm a cowboy," he replied. 

"A cowboy?" she asked, thinking maybe this was some new sexual identity. "What's a cowboy? What's a cowboy do?"

"Well, ma'am, what a cowboy does ... what I do ... is deal with cows all day. Hell, when I get up in the morning, I'm thinking about cows. And all day, I'm worrying about cows. And when I go to sleep at night, why I even dream about cows.  And now, ma'am, can I ask, what are you?"

"Me?" she smiled. "Well, cowboy ... I'm a lesbian."

"A what?" 

"A lesbian."

"A les-bee-ann? What the heck's that?"

She laughed and said, "Well, it means that  when I get up in the morning, I'm thinking about women. And all day, I'm worrying about women. And when I go to sleep at night, why I even dream about women."

"Oh," said the cowboy, puzzled. "I see, I guess."

He left the bar soon after and went back to his hotel and went to sleep. Next day he drove home.

"Well, Bill," said his boss, on his arrival. "I see you survived the Big Bad City. Did you learn any new tricks there?"

"Well, boss," replied his employee, "I did learn one thing. You know, if you hadda asked me what I was, for all my grown-up life, I would have answered you, 'I'm a cowboy'. But not now." 

"No?" said his boss ... "What are you then if you ain't a cowboy?"

"I'm a lesbian!"


----------



## Diuretic

Did he stay at the Stockyards Hotel in Cowtown?  I had the room next to the room that Bonnie and Clyde used!


----------



## Doug

That was the one! And did you visit  "Sappho's Lair" too? One of my favorite drinking spots when passing through -- they are tolerant of the occasional man (I guess they assume I'm gay) and the atmosphere is a lot less seedy than at most bars.


----------



## Diuretic

Doug said:


> That was the one! And did you visit  "Sappho's Lair" too? One of my favorite drinking spots when passing through -- they are tolerant of the occasional man (I guess they assume I'm gay) and the atmosphere is a lot less seedy than at most bars.



It wasn't offered   I was offered the rodeo but I gave it a miss (I do ride horses but I'm stuffed if I'll get on a lunatic Bos Indicus bull, jumping and pig-rooting).  But then I was a guest of the Forth Worth Police Officers Association and CLEAT (Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas) so I think they may have thought it might have been a bit risque.  But I've been to quite a number of gay and lesbian establishments (duty requirements) and found them to be very pleasant indeed.  I must say I enjoyed the bar at the Stockyards Hotel though, those western saddles instead of bar stools!! Damn stirrup irons


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> Anyway, back to Emmett Till. Have you considered that there is another aspect to this case?
> 
> I think there may be something to this conservative commentary on the case written some time ago but relevant to the issue of unwanted sexual advances made in public:



No Doug.  I don't care if if the kid walked into the store and blatantly asked the woman to suck his cock.  His WORDS are no excuse for retributive lynching.  He didn't touch her, didn't RAPE her, didn't stick his finger up her ass.  If the ADOLESCENT BOY from Chicago didn't comprehend the stain of racism in the south then this is NOT a fault of his.  It's a fault of the SOUTH and the white people who make excuses for racist reactions to behaviour acceptable according to skin color.  

Trying to parse some retarded "but, the block boy whistled and, lemme tellya, it was a lascivious tune" excuse to rationalize the racism is pretty lame.  If your kid were beaten and killed for whistling at a woman in a latino neighborhood in L.A. I garenfuckingtee you wouldn't be reaching for such lame shit.  this isn't about being PC.  This is about being HUMAN.  You may not like gays like the south didn't like blacks but you both reach for the same excuses at the same hint of the same supposed behavioural threat.



also, I notice Allie didn't want to tell us what SHE did wrong to invoke the wrath of an abusive man...  I guess the rules change when it's your turn to walk that mile.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> No Doug.  I don't care if if the kid walked into the store and blatantly asked the woman to suck his cock.  His WORDS are no excuse for retributive lynching.  He didn't touch her, didn't RAPE her, didn't stick his finger up her ass.  If the ADOLESCENT BOY from Chicago didn't comprehend the stain of racism in the south then this is NOT a fault of his.  It's a fault of the SOUTH and the white people who make excuses for racist reactions to behaviour acceptable according to skin color.
> 
> Trying to parse some retarded "but, the block boy whistled and, lemme tellya, it was a lascivious tune" excuse to rationalize the racism is pretty lame.  If your kid were beaten and killed for whistling at a woman in a latino neighborhood in L.A. I garenfuckingtee you wouldn't be reaching for such lame shit.  this isn't about being PC.  This is about being HUMAN.  You may not like gays like the south didn't like blacks but you both reach for the same excuses at the same hint of the same supposed behavioural threat.
> 
> 
> 
> also, I notice Allie didn't want to tell us what SHE did wrong to invoke the wrath of an abusive man...  I guess the rules change when it's your turn to walk that mile.



I love the tirade which then ends with the claim that Allie must have caused the "wrath of an abusive man", pretty much negates your entire rant.


----------



## Shogun

re read the thread, RGS....

I asked that question because she insists that victims share responsibility for acting stupid.  Thus, by her own admissions I asked that question.  


I'll wait for you to read up...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> re read the thread, RGS....
> 
> I asked that question because she insists that victims share responsibility for acting stupid.  Thus, by her own admissions I asked that question.
> 
> 
> I'll wait for you to read up...



I do not need to. The fact is that men and women batter spouses and significant others for reasons not related to being provoked. That is a medical fact.

As to whether or not it was this guys fault, you have one part right, it does not excuse what happened in the slightest, BUT it could be why it happened none the less.

Or do you routinely advice people to go to establishments that serve people that do not like the individual for what ever reason and BAIT the patrons? It is a valid question, what would happen if ,as asked already, a guy goes to a lesbian bar and baits them? Would you recommend that course of action?


----------



## Doug

*Shogun:* I would never, ever, ever advise a white boy to exercise his liberal-supported "right" to go into a Black or Latino neighborhood and come on, in any way, to the women there. I hope I would have taught him enough about the joys of multicultural diversity.

Just as I would not advise pious Christians to exercise their God-given right to spread the "Good News" about Jesus in Iraq right now.

If, despite my wise advice, the white boy or pious Christian went ahead and exercised their "rights" ... I would be sad, even violently angry, depending on my feelings towards the deceased. 

If I didn't know them well, though, I might be tempted to nominate them for posthumous Darwin Awards.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> I do not need to. The fact is that men and women batter spouses and significant others for reasons not related to being provoked. That is a medical fact.
> 
> As to whether or not it was this guys fault, you have one part right, it does not excuse what happened in the slightest, BUT it could be why it happened none the less.
> 
> Or do you routinely advice people to go to establishments that serve people that do not like the individual for what ever reason and BAIT the patrons? It is a valid question, what would happen if ,as asked already, a guy goes to a lesbian bar and baits them? Would you recommend that course of action?



I sure as hell wouldn't make excuses for the lesbians if they whupped his ass and drug him outback and shot him in the head, dude.  No amount of provoking qualifies the violence. 

This is why you really should go re read the thread before pouncing here.  If she insists that Till, Shepherd etc SHARE the responsibility for poor behaviour in their respective situations then it is fair to ask her what, exactly, were HER errors in HER situation.  

I don't care if you are overly sensitive to being baited.  This is still a free country where speech is protected and reacting violently is not.  I don't care if a gay man sits next to you at the bar and bats is eyes and blows you kisses, RGS.. you STILL don't have the right to react violently.  And, if you do, the gay man doesn't share responsibility for YOUR inability to control yourself and seek a non-violent path.  shepherds killers COULD have asked the bar owner to evict him from the bar if he was such a distraction instead of deciding to torture and kill him.  Tills killers COULD have asked for a restraining order if they hadn't decided that a black kid looking at their white girl was just too much for their racist egos to handle.  Hell, dude... WE BAIT EACH OTHER ON THIS BOARD ALL DAMN DAY LONG.  Tell me, to what degree of shit talking should I wonder if you are going to come hunting me down?  I hope your answer is NONE because that is the correct answer here, there and everywhere.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> I sure as hell wouldn't make excuses for the lesbians if they whupped his ass and drug him outback and shot him in the head, dude.  No amount of provoking qualifies the violence.
> 
> This is why you really should go re read the thread before pouncing here.  If she insists that Till, Shepherd etc SHARE the responsibility for poor behaviour in their respective situations then it is fair to ask her what, exactly, were HER errors in HER situation.
> 
> I don't care if you are overly sensitive to being baited.  This is still a free country where speech is protected and reacting violently is not.  I don't care if a gay man sits next to you at the bar and bats is eyes and blows you kisses, RGS.. you STILL don't have the right to react violently.  And, if you do, the gay man doesn't share responsibility for YOUR inability to control yourself and seek a non-violent path.  shepherds killers COULD have asked the bar owner to evict him from the bar if he was such a distraction instead of deciding to torture and kill him.  Tills killers COULD have asked for a restraining order if they hadn't decided that a black kid looking at their white girl was just too much for their racist egos to handle.  Hell, dude... WE BAIT EACH OTHER ON THIS BOARD ALL DAMN DAY LONG.  Tell me, to what degree of shit talking should I wonder if you are going to come hunting me down?  I hope your answer is NONE because that is the correct answer here, there and everywhere.



Totally irrelevant to the issue.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> *Shogun:* I would never, ever, ever advise a white boy to exercise his liberal-supported "right" to go into a Black or Latino neighborhood and come on, in any way, to the women there. I hope I would have taught him enough about the joys of multicultural diversity.
> 
> Just as I would not advise pious Christians to exercise their God-given right to spread the "Good News" about Jesus in Iraq right now.
> 
> If, despite my wise advice, the white boy or pious Christian went ahead and exercised their "rights" ... I would be sad, even violently angry, depending on my feelings towards the deceased.
> 
> If I didn't know them well, though, I might be tempted to nominate them for posthumous Darwin Awards.




The fact remains, regardless of where you want to draw your lines of segregation, that being provoked is not an excuse for violent behaviour.  Only liberals support the right of individuals to exercise their liberty to enter public places despite race?  WE'll, you got me there!

Good grief, you act as if a white boy going into a latino area and having a latina girlfriend is a fucking capital crime!  It's not.  Nor is it a reason to excuse a violent reaction.  Lessons in multiculturalism?  Yea, that's a hellofa lesson as long as everyone stays in their own little area, eh?


Since you brought up christianity in Iraq... 

Whose fault would it be if muslims killed a missionary in Iraq?  The missionary for being stupid enough to enter the lions den or the iraqis for reacting violently towards being BAITED?


MY answer is the muslims.  What's yours?


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Totally irrelevant to the issue.



If you want to be obtuse to the point of ignorance then so be it.

Ill pass wasting my time.


If you want to actually read the thread and find out what mile marker we are on then catch up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> If you want to be obtuse to the point of ignorance then so be it.
> 
> Ill pass wasting my time.
> 
> 
> If you want to actually read the thread and find out what mile marker we are on then catch up.



Already know, a claim was made that perhaps these people went somewhere and acted in a way they shouldn't have, not as an excuse for the results or the murderers that killed them, but as a point that this world actually works that way.

So it is simple, would you advice people in similar situations to act in a manner that may result in their justice being putting their murderers in prison?


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Already know, a claim was made that perhaps these people went somewhere and acted in a way they shouldn't have, not as an excuse for the results or the murderers that killed them, but as a point that this world actually works that way.
> 
> So it is simple, would you advice people in similar situations to act in a manner that may result in their justice being putting their murderers in prison?



funny how we can shrug and say "thats how the world works" when we identify with the crowd who reacted poorly.  Is this concept broadly applicable?  'Cause I can think of a few other scenerios that such logic might be a tight fit for you.

*So it is simple, would you advice people in similar situations to act in a manner that may result in their justice being putting their murderers in prison?*


I would advise people to remember that this is America and that victims are not the cause of their attackers violence regardless HOW short the dress was, how many times he winked at a man, or how many dinners Allie didnt get to the table on time.  

Your sentence is not the clearest written either.  YOU may shy away from a certain neighborhood because you think this is how the world works but your decision to walk your dog in gangland doesn';t excuse gangland for your murder.  And no, it's not your fault for being stupid enough to enter gangland.  Neither is it the rapee's fault for wearing a short skirt, nor is it sheppherds fault for blowing kisses or Till's fault for whistling at a while woman.

It's too bad that your attitude is not "the world doesn't make excuses for criminal behaviour based on the actions of the victim"....  *Funny, I thought the right were the ones insisting that it's the left who eternally makes excuses for criminal behaviour....  *


and yes, you would be better served in this thread if you actually took the time to read it and find out who is saying what and for what reasons.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> funny how we can shrug and say "thats how the world works" when we identify with the crowd who reacted poorly.  Is this concept broadly applicable?  'Cause I can think of a few other scenerios that such logic might be a tight fit for you.
> 
> *So it is simple, would you advice people in similar situations to act in a manner that may result in their justice being putting their murderers in prison?*
> 
> 
> I would advise people to remember that this is America and that victims are not the cause of their attackers violence regardless HOW short the dress was, how many times he winked at a man, or how many dinners Allie didnt get to the table on time.
> 
> Your sentence is not the clearest written either.  YOU may shy away from a certain neighborhood because you think this is how the world works but your decision to walk your dog in gangland doesn';t excuse gangland for your murder.  And no, it's not your fault for being stupid enough to enter gangland.  Neither is it the rapee's fault for wearing a short skirt, nor is it sheppherds fault for blowing kisses or Till's fault for whistling at a while woman.
> 
> It's too bad that your attitude is not "the world doesn't make excuses for criminal behaviour based on the actions of the victim"....  *Funny, I thought the right were the ones insisting that it's the left who eternally makes excuses for criminal behaviour....  *
> 
> 
> and yes, you would be better served in this thread if you actually took the time to read it and find out who is saying what and for what reasons.



Your tirade is old, and once again, NO ONE made an EXCUSE for the murders or the fact that sometimes rights and laws have to be ignored if one wants to stay alive or unharmed.

Further your attempt to claim because someone notes the obvious that somehow means they identify with the killers is baseless. You do not know any of the people that have tried to educate you on real world conditions but you do not mind making ignorant claims about what they believe and who they admire or associate with.

It really is simple. One can note that someones actions could have exasperated a condition or that their actions could have brought them to the attention of people that they really shouldn't have been associating with. Be so kind now to QUOTE where anyone has actually said it EXCUSES the illegal activity. That it lessens the murder or provides an excuse for the murderers.

I have another question for you... Suppose your in a bank and a person is robbing it. That is illegal. Would it be wise to walk towards them and explain to them their actions are illegal and that you want them to surrender and to then attempt to take the gun away from them? If you were then shot and killed, would it be unreasonable for others to note your actions exasperated the condition? Especially if NO ONE else was shot?

Would noting it be some how making an excuse for your murder or making excuses for the murderer? Would it indicate you identified with robbers and murderers for noting it?


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> re read the thread, RGS....
> 
> I asked that question because she insists that victims share responsibility for acting stupid.  Thus, by her own admissions I asked that question.
> 
> 
> I'll wait for you to read up...



Where did I say that? Please provide a link. (I think this is one of the examples of someone taking words and putting any meaning they want with them...because they think they know what you REALLY meant).

Once again, I never said, and never would say any victim shares responsibility. All I did was say he made a bad choice. Everyone makes bad choices.

I propose you get some help.

I also find it amusing that for two nights now, after I've posted off and on for hours and then finally turned off the computer, you allege that I'm no longer posting because I've been somehow defeated in some way. I understand how important this is to you, but honestly, I just go to bed. I'm not a meth freak, so I can't jitter over the computer 24-7, as some can.


----------



## 007

And after it's all said and done, even after some moron queer hits on a bully in a straight bar and gets his ass beat to death, the queers still have an agenda, and things like the butt boy getting his head beat in just creates more fervor for them to push their sick agenda.

And nice going AllieBaba. You stood off the attacks and usual mouthy smart ass sass of four liberals beating up on you. It just goes to show, armed with sound reasoning and facts, an argument can never be lost, and that's why conservatives kick the shit out of liberals all the time in debates. Liberals argue their "feelings," while conservatives argue the "facts."


----------



## AllieBaba

What makes me sick is the way they use the poor kid, and set others up for the exact same sort of victimization.


----------



## 007

AllieBaba said:


> What makes me sick is the way they use the poor kid, and set others up for the exact same sort of victimization.



Again, their whole argument is based on "feelings." No "facts." Just keep doing what you're doing. You're kicking their asses. I can see it, and so can everybody else. When they get all indignant and mouthy, they're losing, and that's what they're doing.


----------



## AllieBaba

I've met very, very few who weren't indignant and mouthy. It's the only way they can hide the shortage of facts in the long, boring tirades.


----------



## Shogun

And your desperation to instigate shit is obvious.

I notice you didn't answer my hypothetical about the christian missionary in a muslim land. Did you even read it?

Here, take your pick from the two who insist that victims share responsibility with their attackers for their own poor choices:




Doug said:


> *I suspect Matt Shepard went looking for rough trade, and found it. *
> One of the facts about homosexuality is that it involves throwing off various social restraints, starting with choice of sexual partner, but not ending there.
> That's why a lot of people don't want to start treating it as just another "choice". *Choose it, and all the other boundary-breaking behaviors that seem to go along with it, if you want to, but don't make us "celebrate" it.*





Doug said:


> I don't have the original articles I read this in, but I will try to find them. *They pointed out that he went into a lowlife trailer-trash bar.
> Now if this were true, why did he do that? *
> By the way, I absolutely would agree that propositioning rednecks does not deserve the death penalty -- or even a beating. His murderers should have been strapped in the electric chair and fried.
> *But if what I read was true, it tells you something about the derangement of at least a part of the "homosexual community"*.





Doug said:


> *Yes, no one is responsible for their own behavior, if they are a member of the Left's  preferred victim classes.*





Doug said:


> *To the Politically-Correct, the only behavior that is to be "judged" is anything that might injure the feelings of one of their favored client victim groups.*
> Here's a test: does someone have the right to say that he believes Negroes are genetically inferior to whites? Yes. Does a Black person who is offended by this have the right to kick the person who made this statement to death? No.
> But the person with the racialist theories is still under an obligation to use his common sense. *He should stay out of bars that are frequented by Black people, or, if he finds himself in one, he should keep his opinions to himself.*
> Does a male have the right to solicit a strange male for sex? Yes, provided he uses his common sense: put an ad in the appropriate newspaper; go to a gay  bar. *Or go to a place where the men are not guaranteed to be violently-inclined homophobes, and send out the usual signals.*
> Now, I  don't _know_ what that poor kid did. Maybe he was just thirsty and happened to see a bar and went in, and was recognized by one of the low-lifes there. I*n which case he was just a bit foolish.*
> *But if he did go into a redneck bar looking for rough trade, then he was either  suicidally-unwise, or driven by some sort of terrible and unnatural compulsion*.
> Perhaps he had been encouraged in this foolish behavior by the sort of "non-judgmental" folks who see all human behaviors as equally good, so long as they are challenging tradition or authority.
> *Anyway, back to Emmett Till. Have you considered that there is another aspect to this case?
> I think there may be something to this conservative commentary on the case written some time ago but relevant to the issue of unwanted sexual advances made in public:*





Doug said:


> *Suppose I walk into a certain lesbian bar in San Francisco, go up to the biggest bull-dyke I see, and then turn to and proposition her lover, telling her all she needs is a good  **** from a real man.
> Am I in any way, in any sense, responsible for what might then happen to me? (And for the sweet souls who think that I would only be firmly but gently escorted to the door ... God help you!)*




++




AllieBaba said:


> *Actually, having had the experience of being battered myself, also having the experience of working with battered women as a reporter, a volunteer, human services worker, and addictions counselor, I would say you're full of crap*. I never said (in fact, I pretty much said exactly the opposite) that the poor kid was to blame for being killed. *I said he made a bad choice. Which he did.*






AllieBaba said:


> You're trying to read my mind. Jillian made the same mistake. *I absolutely have sympathy for any victim of abuse, and certainly understand the semantics of abuse.
> But I don't think being a victim PRECLUDES someone from making bad choices. Rather, bad choices can lead to victimization. Which is something we try to teach victims in counseling.*






AllieBaba said:


> Lol. You're obviously a real sensitive guy.
> *BTW, I made a truckload of bad choices, or I wouldn't have been with the SOB to begin with.* That's the point, Einstein.
> nd Jillian isn't posting right now because she's busy sending me insulting private messages which are too juvenile for her to put up here.
> Quite a cart and pony show.










AND, just to show you WHY you should read the fucking thread before trying to pounce on someone...



AllieBaba said:


> You're trying to read my mind. Jillian made the same mistake. *I absolutely have sympathy for any victim of abuse, and certainly understand the semantics of abuse.
> But I don't think being a victim PRECLUDES someone from making bad choices. Rather, bad choices can lead to victimization. Which is something we try to teach victims in counseling.*






RetiredGySgt said:


> *I love the tirade which then ends with the claim that Allie must have caused the "wrath of an abusive man", pretty much negates your entire rant.*





RetiredGySgt said:


> *I do not need to. The fact is that men and women batter spouses and significant others for reasons not related to being provoked. That is a medical fact.*
> As to whether or not it was this guys fault, you have one part right, *it does not excuse what happened in the slightest, BUT* it could be why it happened none the less.
> Or do you routinely advice people to go to establishments that serve people that do not like the individual for what ever reason and BAIT the patrons? It is a valid question, what would happen if ,as asked already, a guy goes to a lesbian bar and baits them? Would you recommend that course of action?





Indeed,  IM the one insisting that the victim (allie) CAUSED the wrath of an abusive man, arent I?  It probably is NOT the case that I asked her what HER poor choices were that made her partly responsible for the violence by her attacker in accordance with the same logic SHE applied to shepherd..  *At the same time, RGS, who is talking about UNPROVOKED AGGRESSION here?  Certainly not Doug.  Certainly not Allie.  Certainly not me.  But don't let reading the thread get into the way of knowing that. That IS the reason for pointing out BAD DECISIONS and the allusion to VICTIM RESPONSIBILITY, yes?*



Make sure to tell me how justified are muslims who kill christian missionaries, dude.. 

and try reading the fucking thread next time.


----------



## AllieBaba

Bad choices can and do lead to victimization. That's not the same as saying he's to blame for being victimized.

 

What you're essentially saying, is a victim should never have to look back over their lives and say to themselves, "Now what can  I do different to reduce my chance of having that happen again?" Why do you want to keep victims from learning how to look out for themselves????

But it's not laying blame, you nitwit.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> The fact remains, regardless of where you want to draw your lines of segregation, that being provoked is not an excuse for violent behaviour.  Only liberals support the right of individuals to exercise their liberty to enter public places despite race?  WE'll, you got me there!
> 
> Good grief, you act as if a white boy going into a latino area and having a latina girlfriend is a fucking capital crime!  It's not.  Nor is it a reason to excuse a violent reaction.  Lessons in multiculturalism?  Yea, that's a hellofa lesson as long as everyone stays in their own little area, eh?
> 
> 
> Since you brought up christianity in Iraq...
> 
> Whose fault would it be if muslims killed a missionary in Iraq?  The missionary for being stupid enough to enter the lions den or the iraqis for reacting violently towards being BAITED?
> 
> 
> MY answer is the muslims.  What's yours?



Why do you keep arguing a point that was never made?
THe person to blame is the person who commits the crime. As I've said about 500 times now.

This is the liberal blame game. You guys feel so guilty all the time, you get all wrapped up in it, and try to force others to jump in.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Where did I say that? Please provide a link. (I think this is one of the examples of someone taking words and putting any meaning they want with them...because they think they know what you REALLY meant).
> Once again, I never said, and never would say any victim shares responsibility. All I did was say he made a bad choice. Everyone makes bad choices.
> I propose you get some help.
> I also find it amusing that for two nights now, after I've posted off and on for hours and then finally turned off the computer, you allege that I'm no longer posting because I've been somehow defeated in some way. I understand how important this is to you, but honestly, I just go to bed. I'm not a meth freak, so I can't jitter over the computer 24-7, as some can.





See your quotes above.  Bad choices ARE shared responsibility if you look to make excuses for criminal behaviour based on the actions of the victim.



Attribution of Blame toward Rape Victims.
Public reactions to rape affect victims in a variety of ways and have implications for psychological services and legal adjudication of rape defendants. To investigate reactions to rape, 144 undergraduates were randomly assigned to a 2 (male versus female subjects) x 2 (victim with versus without rape history) x 3 (high versus medium versus low level of victim provocation) between subject design. After reading a fictional police report that manipulated rape history and victim provocation, participants completed a nine-item Rape Questionnaire concerning perceptions of the victim and assailant. The results indicated sex by provocativeness interaction and main effects for all three independent variables. Subjects attributed increasing amounts of blame to the victim as her level of provocativeness intensified. Victims with a rape history were blamed more than were victims without a rape history. Subject sex was found to influence attributions of blame. Males, more than females, appeared to ascribe to victim's acceptance of blame in proportion to her degree of provocativeness prior to the attack. Females tended to be more empathic toward victims and more accusatory of the assailant than were males. Implications of these sex differences may be significant for the rape victim. To the extent that service providers of each gender differentially ascribe to views about rape, the victim may encounter more initial acceptance from females. (NB)
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPorta...Search_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED279953


Women still held to blame for rape
Many people believe that flirting or wearing revealing clothes is an invitation to sexual predators
MORE than a third of people believe that a woman is totally or partially responsible for being raped if she has behaved in a flirtatious manner, a survey has found.

The poll of more than 1,000 men and women suggests that the vast strides towards equal rights for women in the public spheres of work, pay and reproductive health have not been matched by advances in the more private field of sexual behaviour.

Womens rights groups said that they were astounded and saddened by the findings, which appear to reflect widespread misconceptions that women are sexually available and that some men simply cannot help themselves. 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article592339.ece


Victim blaming
Victim blaming is holding the victims of a crime or an accident to be in whole or in part responsible for what has happened to them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming


Blaming the Victim
 Many of us heard from our parents, "Boys will be boys, so girls must take care"--the message being that we can avoid unwanted male attention if only we are careful enough. If anything goes wrong, it must be our fault. Blaming the victim releases the man who commits violence from the responsibility for what he has done. Friends or family may blame the victim in order to feel safe themselves: "She got raped because she walked alone after midnight. I'd never do that, so rape won't happen to me."

WOMEN ARE NOT GUILTY FOR VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY MEN ON OUR BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT. THIS VIOLENCE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF MEN'S GREATER POWER AND THEIR MISUSE OF THAT POWER.
http://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/viol_blame.html




*Indeed, so what was Shepherds mistake?  NOt living in the fucking closet like a good fag?  What was Till's mistake? Being an uppity ****** and not knowing his place in the south?  What was Allie's mistake?  THAT was my point in asking her this question.
*


enjoy.


----------



## Shogun

Pale Rider said:


> And after it's all said and done, even after some moron queer hits on a bully in a straight bar and gets his ass beat to death, the queers still have an agenda, and things like the butt boy getting his head beat in just creates more fervor for them to push their sick agenda.
> 
> And nice going AllieBaba. You stood off the attacks and usual mouthy smart ass sass of four liberals beating up on you. It just goes to show, armed with sound reasoning and facts, an argument can never be lost, and that's why conservatives kick the shit out of liberals all the time in debates. Liberals argue their "feelings," while conservatives argue the "facts."



yea, Allie...

I'd take those laurals too from an obvious gay hating homophobe.
Be PROUD of your common brethren!  It sure is true that it takes FEELINGS to hold criminal behaviour against the criminal and not the victim..

Hell, if this were a black man selling crack ole Cock Rider would have an entirely different take on making excuses for criminal behaviour..

The irony of his selective application probably isn't hilarious.


----------



## Shogun

Pale Rider said:


> Again, their whole argument is based on "feelings." No "facts." Just keep doing what you're doing. You're kicking their asses. I can see it, and so can everybody else. When they get all indignant and mouthy, they're losing, and that's what they're doing.



hehehe..

much in the same way ole fred phelps saw how tim mcveigh was changing the nation!

HAHAHAHA!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> I've met very, very few who weren't indignant and mouthy. It's the only way they can hide the shortage of facts in the long, boring tirades.



I can't help it if reading is painful for you.  Some things are just not available in 12 page picture books that are easier for you to comprehend....


Indeed, were you talking about FACTS like your ADVOCATE example or like the Study the Jillian busted you for not comprehending?


----------



## AllieBaba

Do you do anything besides spend lots of time making imaginary arguments?

I'll say it again slowly. Being a victim does NOT preclude someone from making mistakes.
Making a mistake does not assign blame. Anyone who hangs out in a nasty bar with obnoxious drunks is making a bad choice. It doesn't mean they're to blame if something horrible happens to them. It just ups the chances that it will.

Do you understand yet? Is English not your first language?

And congrats. You are the 10 billionth liberal to rely on the old, "if they don't agree with you, call them racist, homophobic, or just accuse them of things they haven't done" tactic. But most do it better.

I especially like this:
"Bad choices ARE shared responsibility if you look to make excuses for criminal behaviour based on the actions of the victim."
That's what you believe, not me. And I wasn't looking to make excuses for criminal behavior, that's just something you have thrown in there because you think you can read people's minds. Never mind what the words mean...you know what I REALLY meant, right?


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Bad choices can and do lead to victimization. That's not the same as saying he's to blame for being victimized.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're essentially saying, is a victim should never have to look back over their lives and say to themselves, "Now what can  I do different to reduce my chance of having that happen again?" Why do you want to keep victims from learning how to look out for themselves????
> 
> But it's not laying blame, you nitwit.




HA!

oooook.  Just like telling a rape victim that she should have made a better choice about evening wear is also not blaming the victim.


Are you having another moment of jargon denial?  This concept isn't new and it certainly isn't something that you can generalize as a liberal opinion.  

YES, matt shepherd should ahve been able to leave the bar, escorted out my the manager or not, without having to wonder if his LIFE will end because of his benign actions in this free country.

YES, Emmet Till should not have had to lower his eyes and not look at, or whistle to, a white woman just because the south was a bastion of racists.

YES, you should not ahve to pick apart your own behaviour when trying to understand why YOUR ABUSER reacted violently.

YES, a woman can wear the sluttiest, most whorish attire she has smack dab in the middle of cat calling construction workers who havent been laid in ten years without having to worry about provoking rape.

YES, a christian missionary SHOULD be able to spread his opinion on dogma without having to fear that doing such will cause a muslim to decapitate him...

*
However, Im betting jacks, joes and domineos that the only one that you, Doug, RGS or cock rider agrees with is the last one...*


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Why do you keep arguing a point that was never made?
> THe person to blame is the person who commits the crime. As I've said about 500 times now.
> 
> This is the liberal blame game. You guys feel so guilty all the time, you get all wrapped up in it, and try to force others to jump in.



Hey, I posted your quotes like you asked.


I guess if you can deny the concept of ethnocentrism then this should be a piece of cake.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Do you do anything besides spend lots of time making imaginary arguments?
> 
> I'll say it again slowly. Being a victim does NOT preclude someone from making mistakes.
> Making a mistake does not assign blame. Anyone who hangs out in a nasty bar with obnoxious drunks is making a bad choice. It doesn't mean they're to blame if something horrible happens to them. It just ups the chances that it will.
> 
> Do you understand yet? Is English not your first language?





hehehe.. yea.. I guess it's easy to belive that since Im betting you skipped right over the numerous evidence I've posted which defines your exact behaviour as blaming the victim.

suuuure... Tell me what kind of a MISTAKE it was to whistle at a whte woman... blowing kisses at a redneck...  and letting christians have missions in muslim nations...

After all.. if you can understand their criminal REACTION to a particular stimuli then, certainly, you, uh, are not validating said reaction... Because OBVIOUSLY the victim could have just made better choices!  Wore a prudish dress!  Looked at the ground in the presence of a white woman like a good BOY.  You know.. Have that dinner on the table, hot and tasty, at the correct time....


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> hehehe.. yea.. I guess it's easy to belive that since Im betting you skipped right over the numerous evidence I've posted which defines your exact behaviour as blaming the victim.
> 
> suuuure... Tell me what kind of a MISTAKE it was to whistle at a whte woman... blowing kisses at a redneck...  and letting christians have missions in muslim nations...
> 
> After all.. if you can understand their criminal REACTION to a particular stimuli then, certainly, you, uh, are not validating said reaction... Because OBVIOUSLY the victim could have just made better choices!  Wore a prudish dress!  Looked at the ground in the presence of a white woman like a good BOY.  You know.. Have that dinner on the table, hot and tasty, at the correct time....



You're deluded, friend. And it's a shame. 

I'll bet you don't vote. Do you? 
I'll also bet you're a felon.

That's my evidence that you're a pontificating blabbermouth. It's along the same lines as your own "evidence". Actually, I think it's more accurate, and much more factual.


----------



## roomy

Well, well, well, I find myself in almost total agreement with shogun, something I thought impossible, yes, I am waiting for a pig to fly past the window.My only criticism is his deliberate confusion of the statements of other posters in the thread, but I am not about to quibble.


----------



## AllieBaba

You think recognizing poor choices is the same as blaming a victim for his murder?

That sort of leaves out any safety plan for survivors, don't you think?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

NO ONE has claimed ( well maybe the racist Pale Rider) that the murderers were justified, their crimes lessened by, or that it excuses their actions any, by noting poor choices by people ( and we do mean poor, not accidental).

As to the Christian in Muslim lands.... umm ya it would be their fault in a lot of them since they live or went to a country that gives them less rights, less legal rights, less legal protection. Now the people that live there have little choice, but I bet you dollars to donuts that the people living in those countries know full well not to provoke an incident, no matter how right they may be. Any Christian that preaches the faith in those kind of places should know they place their life in peril. No it does not excuse the murder of them by Muslims, it does though reflect on poor choices.

I tell ya what Shogun, assuming your white, go to an all black run down section of some city infested with gangs, and then start telling people your rights to be there. Be sure to have a lot of money and flash it around and wear expensive jewelry. Hey wait a minute, do that in any neighborhood controlled by gangs no matter the color of their skin. Do it on bums row.

Go to Central Park in New York City in the middle of the night and wander through all the dark unlit sections, it is after all your right to be there isn't it? Again flash your money and wear lots of expensive looking jewelry and clothing.

Exersize your rights and then if your still alive let us know how well that worked out.


----------



## AllieBaba

Provided the halfway house he lives in will allow him to stray so far.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> You're deluded, friend. And it's a shame.
> 
> I'll bet you don't vote. Do you?
> I'll also bet you're a felon.
> 
> That's my evidence that you're a pontificating blabbermouth. It's along the same lines as your own "evidence". Actually, I think it's more accurate, and much more factual.




I guess it's a good thing you are not the voice at the end of any psychic hotlines.  If those guesses convey your ability as a cognitive creature then I feel sorry for whoever gets to dress and feed you.

THATS your 'evidence"?  I guess it's no real shocker why you reject concepts like ethnocentrism.  

ps, what you THINK and what is truth seems to be leagues apart.  Perhaps you should practice reading this weekend.. you know, start with a little nancy drew and work your way up to books with more words than pictures?


Indeed, I would ask you to explain how you've come to the determination that I don't vote (despite posting on a politics messageboard) and am a felon...  

....but that would probably take more of your fuzzy logic and half-understood jargon so...


If you don't like it when your words come back and bite you in the ass then perhaps you shouldn't ask for evidence....  'cause, unlike you, I have no problem backing up my assertions with more than half assed googled letters to the Advocate and misunderstood studies.


----------



## Doug

Let me see if I understand *Shogun's* position. 

I think part of the confusion here is that *Shogun*, like other liberals, believes that no form of consensual behavior is in any sense to be criticized, judged, etc. If it feels good, do it, so long as it's between consenting adults.

Some of us don't agree with that. But that is really a separate (though related) issue from: what should our attitude be to people who have bad things happen to them, where they were doing something that they knew might evoke those bad things?

We have a few words available to us: "blame", "responsibility", "fault" .. but these carry all sorts of other connotations, so I would like to see if we can agree on anything without using these words at all.

Suppose a friend of yours tells you he (or she) is going to try to climb Mount Everest, without extra oxygen. (It can be done, but the death rate is not low.) They have a family, and children.

They are a good person. But they have this very strong compulsion to climb Mount Everest. Perhaps they hope to write a book about it, and project themselves into the public eye. They know the dangers.

In the course of their attempt, they die ... say from an avalanche. They leave behind grieving children, now deprived of a parent.

At the same time, another friend of yours, also with children,  is killed in an automobile accident that is entirely caused by the carelessness of the other driver.

Now, do you feel in any way different about these two people? Is your grief and sadness about the death of the first person -- the Everest climber -- mixed, in any way, with some other feeling which is not present toward the second person?

If so, could you explain what that extra feeling, or thought, is?

This thought experiment is directed towards *Shogun* in particular, but everyone else is invited to respond.

Once we have determined this, we can carry on, and replace melting piles of avalanche-prone snow as the immediate cause of death, with human beings.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> You think recognizing poor choices is the same as blaming a victim for his murder?
> 
> That sort of leaves out any safety plan for survivors, don't you think?




Then, praytell..


What exactly would you say to a rape victim coneying your point?  Le'ts see you spell it out.  Pretend RGS is a rape victim after wearing an ultra slutty whorish outfit and going out drinking and got raped and show me how you would tell a VICTIM about their POOR CHOICES.

Again, I hope you are not a councellor. 


and no.  there is about as much safety plan for predicting rape as there is predicting wich house gets robbed.  But, I guess anyone who moved in to a crime ridden area just made their own mistake...  right?


Why won't you tell me how christian missionaries could avoid being killed by muslims by just making better choices, allie?  


HMMMM?


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Provided the halfway house he lives in will allow him to stray so far.





I realize that I am probably turning you on with all this abusive language but do you really have to project what you look for in a man to this board?


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO ONE has claimed ( well maybe the racist Pale Rider) that the murderers were justified, their crimes lessened by, or that it excuses their actions any, by noting poor choices by people ( and we do mean poor, not accidental).
> 
> As to the Christian in Muslim lands.... *umm ya it would be their fault in a lot of them since they live or went to a country that gives them less rights, less legal rights, less legal protection*. Now the people that live there have little choice, but I bet you dollars to donuts that the people living in those countries know full well not to provoke an incident, no matter how right they may be. *Any Christian that preaches the faith in those kind of places should know they place their life in peril. No it does not excuse the murder of them by Muslims, it does though reflect on poor choices.*
> 
> I tell ya what Shogun, assuming your white, go to an all black run down section of some city infested with gangs, and then start telling people your rights to be there. Be sure to have a lot of money and flash it around and wear expensive jewelry. Hey wait a minute, do that in any neighborhood controlled by gangs no matter the color of their skin. Do it on bums row.
> 
> Go to Central Park in New York City in the middle of the night and wander through all the dark unlit sections, it is after all your right to be there isn't it? Again flash your money and wear lots of expensive looking jewelry and clothing.
> 
> Exersize your rights and then if your still alive let us know how well that worked out.





Ahh.. I see.. So, in this modern America you are comfortable drawing your own lines of segregation?  Your own gangland map?  someone who wanders into central park should have KNOWN better?  A hooker skirt wearing woman should have KNOWN BETTER?

and, this is the richest, a CHRISTIAN DEAD IN A MUSLIM NATION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER?

I should keep that quote handy, gunny... Im sure it will come in handy the next time your side is railing against muslims in palestine and iraq.  I hope no one in your family ever gets raped, dude.  I'd hate to be in your shoes as you try to explain to your neice why she should have made better choices about what to wear.  Indeed, Emmet Till sure did make a poor choice in DARING to whistle at a white girl.  Yes.  Obviously, that is as pertinent in the violence equation as racism.  SURE, dude.  sure.

I hope you four take some time to read about how blaming the victim perpetuates the cycle.  


and, don't mind me laughing when I see you demonize a muslim for reacting in the M.E. since you seem to thoroughly believe that the victim should have made better choices.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> I guess it's a good thing you are not the voice at the end of any psychic hotlines.  If those guesses convey your ability as a cognitive creature then I feel sorry for whoever gets to dress and feed you.
> 
> THATS your 'evidence"?  I guess it's no real shocker why you reject concepts like ethnocentrism.
> 
> ps, what you THINK and what is truth seems to be leagues apart.  Perhaps you should practice reading this weekend.. you know, start with a little nancy drew and work your way up to books with more words than pictures?
> 
> 
> Indeed, I would ask you to explain how you've come to the determination that I don't vote (despite posting on a politics messageboard) and am a felon...
> 
> ....but that would probably take more of your fuzzy logic and half-understood jargon so...
> 
> 
> If you don't like it when your words come back and bite you in the ass then perhaps you shouldn't ask for evidence....  'cause, unlike you, I have no problem backing up my assertions with more than half assed googled letters to the Advocate and misunderstood studies.



She was using your psychic ability to read minds and determine what people are and did or associate with.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Then, praytell..
> 
> 
> What exactly would you say to a rape victim coneying your point?  Le'ts see you spell it out.  Pretend RGS is a rape victim after wearing an ultra slutty whorish outfit and going out drinking and got raped and show me how you would tell a VICTIM about their POOR CHOICES.
> 
> Again, I hope you are not a councellor.
> 
> 
> and no.  there is about as much safety plan for predicting rape as there is predicting wich house gets robbed.  But, I guess anyone who moved in to a crime ridden area just made their own mistake...  right?
> 
> 
> Why won't you tell me how christian missionaries could avoid being killed by muslims by just making better choices, allie?
> 
> 
> HMMMM?



Christian Missionaries can avoid being killed by Muslims by NOT preaching in that area. Pretty damn simple really. Unless your now going to provide us with statistical evidence that missionaries in non Muslim areas are in serious danger of being killed BY MUSLIMS.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Ahh.. I see.. So, in this modern America you are comfortable drawing your own lines of segregation?  Your own gangland map?  someone who wanders into central park should have KNOWN better?  A hooker skirt wearing woman should have KNOWN BETTER?
> 
> and, this is the richest, a CHRISTIAN DEAD IN A MUSLIM NATION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER?
> 
> I should keep that quote handy, gunny... Im sure it will come in handy the next time your side is railing against muslims in palestine and iraq.  I hope no one in your family ever gets raped, dude.  I'd hate to be in your shoes as you try to explain to your neice why she should have made better choices about what to wear.  Indeed, Emmet Till sure did make a poor choice in DARING to whistle at a white girl.  Yes.  Obviously, that is as pertinent in the violence equation as racism.  SURE, dude.  sure.
> 
> I hope you four take some time to read about how blaming the victim perpetuates the cycle.
> 
> 
> and, don't mind me laughing when I see you demonize a muslim for reacting in the M.E. since you seem to thoroughly believe that the victim should have made better choices.



Still waiting for your evidence anyone has made excuses for murderers, suggested they be treated differently for the actions of their victims, etc etc... perhaps you just forgot those questions?


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> Let me see if I understand *Shogun's* position.
> 
> I think part of the confusion here is that *Shogun*, like other liberals, believes that no form of consensual behavior is in any sense to be criticized, judged, etc. If it feels good, do it, so long as it's between consenting adults.
> 
> Some of us don't agree with that. But that is really a separate (though related) issue from: what should our attitude be to people who have bad things happen to them, where they were doing something that they knew might evoke those bad things?
> 
> We have a few words available to us: "blame", "responsibility", "fault" .. but these carry all sorts of other connotations, so I would like to see if we can agree on anything without using these words at all.
> 
> Suppose a friend of yours tells you he (or she) is going to try to climb Mount Everest, without extra oxygen. (It can be done, but the death rate is not low.) They have a family, and children.
> 
> They are a good person. But they have this very strong compulsion to climb Mount Everest. Perhaps they hope to write a book about it, and project themselves into the public eye. They know the dangers.
> 
> In the course of their attempt, they die ... say from an avalanche. They leave behind grieving children, now deprived of a parent.
> 
> At the same time, another friend of yours, also with children,  is killed in an automobile accident that is entirely caused by the carelessness of the other driver.
> 
> Now, do you feel in any way different about these two people? Is your grief and sadness about the death of the first person -- the Everest climber -- mixed, in any way, with some other feeling which is not present toward the second person?
> 
> If so, could you explain what that extra feeling, or thought, is?
> 
> This thought experiment is directed towards *Shogun* in particular, but everyone else is invited to respond.
> 
> Once we have determined this, we can carry on, and replace melting piles of avalanche-prone snow as the immediate cause of death, with human beings.



Maybe this will help... it's from a battered woman's handbook put together by people far wiser than I on this issue:



> You are not alone.
> You are not to blame.
> You do not deserve to be abused.





> Every woman is at risk for becoming a victim of domestic violence (6).
> Domestic violence happens regardless of socio-economic status, race, ethnicity, age, education, employment status, physical ableness, marital status, or childhood history.



http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/about_dv/fss/intro.html

No one deserves to have acts of violence perpetrated on them. And no victim is partially responsible for the violence of others. I have every right to wear a low cut dress that comes up to the top of my thighs if I choose to. Rape/abuse/hate-generated crimes are all the decision of the violent to commit.... they are responsible for their actions.


----------



## Doug

This is a fast-moving thread and the half-page signature option means just a few posts can be quickly eat up a whole page. 

I call your attention to the next-but-last post on page 24, which proposes a thought experiment that might bring some clarity.


----------



## Shogun

are you REALLY trying to compare a mountain with the criminal actions of a criminal?

really?  When did the mountain choose to kill a climber?  How, exactly, does one hold a mountain accountable?  Where is the criminal element again?

So, by that logic then do you REALLY blame the pals for killing jews who made the poor choice of carving out an israel from muslim land?  Should THEY have made a better choice?

Better yet, what better choice should the Challenger astronauts have made?  

and how in the WORLD can you think it is logical to compare environmental hazards with criminal behaviour?

WOW.  

Ill ask you then... 

*Tell me exactly how you would breach the subject of telling your freshly RAPED wife what a better choice of clothes to wear next time...*



Clarity?  the only thing that is clear is the length some of you people will go to rationalize the same shit that white mississippi was rationalizing with Till.


----------



## Shogun

This thread, RGS?


Hey, I hope you are having a great week even though this is how you chose to end your workweek!


----------



## Doug

*Shogun* and *Jillian*: You are confusing two different things: sensitivity in talking to people who have been traumatized, and the content of what we might say to them, perhaps at another time, about their own behavior.

If a young woman were to be so foolish as to dress as Jillian asserts she has the right to, and to hitchhike across town, say through an area where white stockbrokers live, late at night, and met her likely fate ... were she to survive, of course the first thing I would say to her would not be "Hmmm... perhaps you shouldn't have dressed like that, nor hitchhiked, and especially at night."

But if I were talking to her about the wisdom of her act at a different time -- say, before she did it -- I would say: anyone whose only advice to you is that you have the "right" to dress that way in any time and place you choose, is an ... well, I fear *Jillian's* anger, so I shall say, such a person is mistaken.

I do not understand why no one from the "do whatever you please, when you please", kamikaze camp  wants to at least discuss seriously the example I raised.

Quite right, that the snow bears no moral responsibility for killing the people who risk their lives climbing. This is why I chose that example. It allows us to dispense with one part of the problem, and look at the other: the person who, knowing that their behavior is going to be risky, does it anyway, and dies.

What is our attitude to them, besides sadness at their death, and sympathy for their surviving friends and relatives?

What liberals -- or at least the kind of liberal we are arguing with here -- hate to even think about is personal responsiblity. 

Everyone should be able to do whatever they feel like, and the world consists only of victims with rights, and their oppressors. 

Since in the real world there is likely to be a high death or injury toll among members of the chosen victim-group who actual follow this suicidal advice, of course we need to continually expand the power of the state to protect them. Thus the concept of "hate crimes" and even "assaultive speech".

Our liberal friends do not want to admit of the concept of personal responsibility even in my artificial case where all other issues have been removed. 

Why? 

Because to let under the tent the camel's nose of the concept of personal responsibility in our imperfect world would then allow us to discuss the issue without demagogic emoting, thus depriving them of their best weapon, and perhaps even of their reflexive method of arriving at their opinions. (Anger be damned.)

We might then even take up the question raised by the Emmett Till case, as exemplified by my conservative quotation, where the issue of racist victimization was mixed in an unsettling way with the issue of the oppression of women.


----------



## mattskramer

Doug said:


> *Shogun* and *Jillian*: You are confusing two different things: sensitivity in talking to people who have been traumatized, and the content of what we might say to them, perhaps at another time, about their own behavior.
> 
> If a young woman were to be so foolish as to dress as Jillian asserts she has the right to, and to hitchhike across town, say through an area where white stockbrokers live, late at night, and met her likely fate ... were she to survive, of course the first thing I would say to her would not be "Hmmm... perhaps you shouldn't have dressed like that, nor hitchhiked, and especially at night."
> 
> But if I were talking to her about the wisdom of her act at a different time -- say, before she did it -- I would say: anyone whose only advice to you is that you have the "right" to dress that way in any time and place you choose, is an ... well, I fear *Jillian's* anger, so I shall say, such a person is mistaken.
> 
> I do not understand why no one from the "do whatever you please, when you please", kamikaze camp  wants to at least discuss seriously the example I raised.
> 
> Quite right, that the snow bears no moral responsibility for killing the people who risk their lives climbing. This is why I chose that example. It allows us to dispense with one part of the problem, and look at the other: the person who, knowing that their behavior is going to be risky, does it anyway, and dies.
> 
> What is our attitude to them, besides sadness at their death, and sympathy for their surviving friends and relatives?
> 
> What liberals -- or at least the kind of liberal we are arguing with here -- hate to even think about is personal responsiblity.
> 
> Everyone should be able to do whatever they feel like, and the world consists only of victims with rights, and their oppressors.
> 
> Since in the real world there is likely to be a high death or injury toll among members of the chosen victim-group who actual follow this suicidal advice, of course we need to continually expand the power of the state to protect them. Thus the concept of "hate crimes" and even "assaultive speech".
> 
> Our liberal friends do not want to admit of the concept of personal responsibility even in my artificial case where all other issues have been removed.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because to let under the tent the camel's nose of the concept of personal responsibility in our imperfect world would then allow us to discuss the issue without demagogic emoting, thus depriving them of their best weapon, and perhaps even of their reflexive method of arriving at their opinions. (Anger be damned.)
> 
> We might then even take up the question raised by the Emmett Till case, as exemplified by my conservative quotation, where the issue of racist victimization was mixed in an unsettling way with the issue of the oppression of women.



This thread moves so quickly and I have been so busy that I might miss a post or two but I would like to reply to the quite above.  I lean toward Libertarianism.  For the most part, I think that consenting informed adults should be free to do as they please as long as they dont interfere with the freedoms of others.  I also believe in responsibility, as people should be held accountable for the things that they do to other people.  If a woman wants to hitchhike while scantily dressed, she should be free to do so.  If the gets assaulted, it is the assailants fault.  She is the victim.  Snow is an inanimate object. It does not know what it does.  Human beings are held to a much higher standard.  If I saw such a woman who had been assaulted, first I would help her seek restitution and punishment from those who attacked her.  Then I would advise her to be more careful about her activities.


----------



## Shogun

So then I take it you would tell your freshly raped wife that it was, in part, her fault for dressing how she did and being where she was?


that attitude is as despicable as your comparison of a mountain and a rapist is fallacious.  The SOLE responsibility in making the decision to hike up a mountain falls on the mountain climber himself since the mountain makes no choice about killing.  A RAPE VICTIM DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME PREROGATIVE.  The very fact that you take this route to rationalize away the your criticism of the victim conveys clearly that you do, in whatever iota part, blame the victim for criminal behaviour acted upon them.  In essence, NO CRIME can become seperate from the "poor choices" of the victim if you know where to point a finger.  

Get shot while your bank is robbed?  I guess you were too stupid to bank in a good neighborhood.

Get murdered on your way home?  I guess you should have taken another route.

Get Raped on prom night?  Stop wearing DRESSES in public!

Get beat and killed by some rednecks who don't like fags in their bar?  Of COURSE he was asking for it!

Just tell me that you think Emmet Till should have kept his eyes on the floor like a good BOY and be done with it.  That WAS, it seems, his bad choice, right?

Again, what bad choice did those astronauts make again?  Oh, it doesn't make sense to blame inanimate objects with no criminal liability for their deaths NOW, eh?


Hell, it's probably just a bunch of feel good emotional lefties who would tell a rape victim that she didn't cause her attack anyway, right?


----------



## Shogun

mattskramer said:


> This thread moves so quickly and I have been so busy that I might miss a post or two but I would like to reply to the quite above.  I lean toward Libertarianism.  For the most part, I think that consenting informed adults should be free to do as they please as long as they dont interfere with the freedoms of others.  I also believe in responsibility, as people should be held accountable for the things that they do to other people.  If a woman wants to hitchhike while scantily dressed, she should be free to do so.  If the gets assaulted, it is the assailants fault.  She is the victim.  Snow is an inanimate object. It does not know what it does.  Human beings are held to a much higher standard.  If I saw such a woman who had been assaulted, first I would help her seek restitution and punishment from those who attacked her.  Then I would advise her to be more careful about her activities.




But would you hold even the slightest blame against her for choosing to wear what she did wherever she was at when she were raped?


Thats the crux of this.  My counterparts seem to thing, to a degree, mat shepherd was ASKING for trouble by not staying out of goat roping bars.  If this logic were true then every man who has ever hit on a chick in a bar would have a good chance of being drug outside and pulled behind a truck for miles and it would have been, apparently, partly their own fault.


I contend that this is utter bullshit and no illogical mountain analogy makes this the fault of liberals.


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> So then I take it you would tell your freshly raped wife that it was, in part, her fault for dressing how she did and being where she was?
> 
> 
> that attitude is as despicable as your comparison of a mountain and a rapist is fallacious.  The SOLE responsibility in making the decision to hike up a mountain falls on the mountain climber himself since the mountain makes no choice about killing.  A RAPE VICTIM DOESN'T HAVE THAT SAME PREROGATIVE.  The very fact that you take this route to rationalize away the your criticism of the victim conveys clearly that you do, in whatever iota part, blame the victim for criminal behaviour acted upon them.  In essence, NO CRIME can become seperate from the "poor choices" of the victim if you know where to point a finger.
> 
> Get shot while your bank is robbed?  I guess you were too stupid to bank in a good neighborhood.
> 
> Get murdered on your way home?  I guess you should have taken another route.
> 
> Get Raped on prom night?  Stop wearing DRESSES in public!
> 
> Get beat and killed by some rednecks who don't like fags in their bar?  Of COURSE he was asking for it!
> 
> Just tell me that you think Emmet Till should have kept his eyes on the floor like a good BOY and be done with it.  That WAS, it seems, his bad choice, right?
> 
> Again, what bad choice did those astronauts make again?  Oh, it doesn't make sense to blame inanimate objects with no criminal liability for their deaths NOW, eh?
> 
> 
> Hell, it's probably just a bunch of feel good emotional lefties who would tell a rape victim that she didn't cause her attack anyway, right?


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> But would you hold even the slightest blame against her for choosing to wear what she did wherever she was at when she were raped?
> 
> 
> Thats the crux of this.  My counterparts seem to thing, to a degree, mat shepherd was ASKING for trouble by not staying out of goat roping bars.  If this logic were true then every man who has ever hit on a chick in a bar would have a good chance of being drug outside and pulled behind a truck for miles and it would have been, apparently, partly their own fault.
> 
> 
> I contend that this is utter bullshit and no illogical mountain analogy makes this the fault of liberals.



Perhaps she can hold a tiny microscopic portion of the blame  a very small portion.  After all, one skinny white skinhead cant expect to get away with shouting racial slurs at the top of his lungs in a deserted back alley in Harlem at 2:00 in the morning.  Still, in the rape example, the womans responsibility for getting raped is slim-to-none.


----------



## 007

Shogun said:


> yea, Allie...
> 
> I'd take those laurals too from an obvious gay hating homophobe.
> Be PROUD of your common brethren!  It sure is true that it takes FEELINGS to hold criminal behaviour against the criminal and not the victim..
> 
> Hell, if this were a black man selling crack ole Cock Rider would have an entirely different take on making excuses for criminal behaviour..
> 
> The irony of his selective application probably isn't hilarious.



Ya know... you won't suck me into your long, drawn out, worthless tirades of psychobabble. It's not worth it. You don't listen.

But I will tell you this "once, I DON'T HATE QUEERS, HOWEVER, I DO FIND THEIR LIFESTYLE AND SEXUAL ACTIONS FULLY DISGUSTING AND PERVERTED." And that is the "NORMAL" reaction for "NORMAL" people, which is, by the way, the vast majority of people on earth. So you throwing around your buzz words you read out of your liberal response handbook doesn't mean shit son. It's old and stale, and doesn't work on me. Try and be original for once, and address the truth. I know that's hard for you liberals who base all your arguments on your "FEELINGS," but try understanding FACT for once. If you can't see and understand facts, then this argument is perpetual and senseless with the likes of you, jillie, the old pervert penis man doni, the incest boy mattskramer, and the rest of you homo enablers and apologists.


----------



## Doug

Well, since the liberals here refuse to discuss my example, let me try another tack.

Let's think operationally.

A pretty young woman is dressed in provocative clothing -- *Jillian'*s description will do.

It is close to midnight.

She is at your apartment, where you,as a good liberal, have been instructing her on her rights. (No sarcasm here -- you really have.)

She decides to go home. She has no car, no money for a taxi, nor do you.

She says, "Hey, no problem. I'll hitchhike. As you just said, I have a right to dress as I please and go anywhere I want in public, at any time."

Your response?


----------



## mattskramer

Doug said:


> Well, since the liberals here refuse to discuss my example, let me try another tack.
> 
> Let's think operationally.
> 
> A pretty young woman is dressed in provocative clothing -- *Jillian'*s description will do.
> 
> It is close to midnight.
> 
> She is at your apartment, where you,as a good liberal, have been instructing her on her rights. (No sarcasm here -- you really have.)
> 
> She decides to go home. She has no car, no money for a taxi, nor do you.
> 
> She says, "Hey, no problem. I'll hitchhike. As you just said, I have a right to dress as I please and go anywhere I want in public, at any time."
> 
> Your response?



I dont know where you are going with this but I will respond:
While you are basically free to do as you like including the risky activity of hitchhiking, I think that you would be safer if I were to drive you home.


----------



## Shogun

Pale Rider said:


> Ya know... you won't suck me into your long, drawn out, worthless tirades of psychobabble. It's not worth it. You don't listen.
> 
> But I will tell you this "once, I DON'T HATE QUEERS, HOWEVER, I DO FIND THEIR LIFESTYLE AND SEXUAL ACTIONS FULLY DISGUSTING AND PERVERTED." And that is the "NORMAL" reaction for "NORMAL" people, which is, by the way, the vast majority of people on earth. So you throwing around your buzz words you read out of your liberal response handbook doesn't mean shit son. It's old and stale, and doesn't work on me. Try and be original for once, and address the truth. I know that's hard for you liberals who base all your arguments on your "FEELINGS," but try understanding FACT for once. If you can't see and understand facts, then this argument is perpetual and senseless with the likes of you, jillie, the penis man doni, the incest boy mattskramer, and the rest of you homo enablers and apologists.







if by Liberal Handbook you mean APA standards then I'm sure I'll live knowing that a person like you is dubious of my sources.


You are no better in your attitude, acknowledged as hatred or not, as George wallace standing on the steps of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> Well, since the liberals here refuse to discuss my example, let me try another tack.
> Let's think operationally.
> A pretty young woman is dressed in provocative clothing -- *Jillian'*s description will do.
> It is close to midnight.
> She is at your apartment, where you,as a good liberal, have been instructing her on her rights. (No sarcasm here -- you really have.)
> She decides to go home. She has no car, no money for a taxi, nor do you.
> She says, "Hey, no problem. I'll hitchhike. As you just said, I have a right to dress as I please and go anywhere I want in public, at any time."
> Your response?




What the hell would my response as a gentleman have to do with predicting the potential of RAPE according to her dress?  Is the only reason you drive someone home because you don't want them to get raped?  Damn, dude.  You are reaching far and wide today.  Usually you have a better game than this.


----------



## Doug

*Shogun:* She doesn't want you to drive her home. It would pollute the planet. Or something.

She would prefer to hitchhike. Don't question her about her motives, they're none of your business. Maybe she doesn't like you. Maybe she likes you too much and doesn't want to be tempted. Who knows?

She wants to hitchhike. After all, she and her 6 foot6   Marine boyfriend hitchhiked last month, in broad daylight, on the main street, both of them wrapped in their heavy winter coats. But now it's spring, and she is dressed appropriately. 

What do you say?

*Mattskramer* has made the sensible reply: "Don't!" 

I think I probably speak for all conservatives here in saying that we would agree: "Don't do it!" (Okay, maybe I don't speak for that large proportion of conservatives who  are rapists and murderers.) But the rest of us cry, "No, no! Don't do it!"

And the liberal advice would be ...

Over to you.


----------



## Shogun

I let her do what she wants.

and then, if she gets raped, I blame the rapist for criminal behaviour instead of her for her dress and decision to walk.  So, by your own hypothetical, she still says she doesn't want a ride are you going to FORCE her into your car?  See, this is where your examples crumble.  




Oh, and RGS!

Dude.. I'm a little disapointed that you didn't call me out so I'll post it anyway:

Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality

What Is Sexual Orientation?
Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is
easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the
psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for
feminine and masculine behavior).
Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive
homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional,
and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation
are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept.
Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree
that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and
biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable
recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role
in a person's sexuality.
It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the
reasons may be different for different people.
*Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in
early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our
feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
changed.*
Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may
seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups
to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not
changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health
professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek
psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into
therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their
clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show
several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations
with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly
documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the
standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to
patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's
opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right
to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an
illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific
research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or
social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals
and society had biased information.
In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the
resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea
that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research
and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years
later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma
of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no
developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence,
psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a
parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than
heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest
children.
Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process
of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out" has been found to be
strongly related to psychological adjustment;the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the
better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.
Why Is the "Coming Out" Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?
For some gay and bisexual people the "coming out" process is difficult; for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay
and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is
different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian,
or bisexual orientation in childhood or adolescence, which is not uncommon. And depending on their
families and their communities, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about
homosexuality.
Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of bias and stereotypes. They
may also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have
to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known.
Unfortunately, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are
heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid-1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who
took part in the study, and more than one-fourthof all gay men who participated, had been the victim of a
hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults,
half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression, ranging
from name-calling to physical violence.
What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals
Experience?
Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and
bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or
co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are
prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation.
Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination are very important, just as they are for any other
minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual
orientation as a "hate crime," and ten U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering
and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access
to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not
make someone gay or straight.
Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
No. This is a common myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their
sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be
prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
(c) Copyright 2004 American Psychological Association
Documents from apahelpcenter.org may be reprinted in their entirety with credit given to the American
Psychological Association. Any exceptions to this, including requests to excerpt or paraphrase documents
from apahelpcenter.org, must be presented in writing to helping@apa.org and will be considered on a
case-by-case basis. Permission for exceptions will be given on a one-time-only basis and must be sought for
each additional use of the document.

http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31



So much for Allie's retarded claim about studies and scientific consensus, eh?


I apologize for the formatting but I guess that just means you'll have to follow the link and see what a viable source looks like...


----------



## Doug

*Shogun:* You raise a good question. She decides to hitchhike home. I strongly advise her not to do so. She rejects my advice. What do I do? It's a good question. I'll think about it -- I suppose the "friends don't let friends drive drunk" advice is relevant somehow. Forcing her into my car? Probably not even physically possible. I might just have to shake my head and say, "Well, you're mad, but do what you like. Can I have details of next of kin?"

But am I correct in saying that when she tells you she is going to hitchhike home, dressed provocatively, at midnight, through a dangerous area ... you would say nothing? 

You say you would "let her do what she wants". But you don't say what you would advise.

Would you really not warn her that she is taking a huge risk, rights or no rights?

Really?


----------



## Shogun

I would try to convince her to let me take her home or call a cab. Not because I assume she will be raped because that won't even cross my mind.  Who can predict rape but the RAPIST?  I would offer her any means that I can think of out of consideration for lack of transportation.  however, she is still an autonomous American and capable of making her own decisions.  COULD it be the case that my insistence would circumvent a rape?  sure, who knows.  Does this decision guarantee anyone will get raped? not at all.  There is no causal relationship between her decision to walk home dressed like a slut and weather or not a rapist is out prowling the street and CERTAINLY not between the decisions of a man who has by that time ALREADY made his choice to rape and her decision on what to wear.

But, lets say she insists on walking no matter what you say.  You won't force her into your car or a taxi.  You can't change her mind.  She's dressed like a slut and will walk through central park at 3am on saturday...

Lets say she DOES get raped.  

Are you going to tell her that you told her so?  Did you predict the possibility of the rape?  Do her choices to walk make her at all responsible for getting raped?  Is it risky?  Sure, i'm not going to be stubborn about that.  Sure, it's not as safe as walking into a church on Sunday BUT her decision to make her choice is, in no way, reflective of the motives of her RAPIST.  Likewise, sure Matt may have been better suited for The Manhole in SanFran rather than the bar he went to.. BUT.  and I'll even factor in that he flirted openly with two strait dudes (who played the ball game to get him into the truck, btw)...  THAT in no way makes him responsible for getting killed than any other horny man on any other horny Saturday night hitting on any other woman in any other bar.  Is it fair to suggest that you provoked a woman into killiing you because you flirted with her at a bar?  Likewise.



Have a great weekend, Doug.  I have not been agreeing with you in this thread and have noticed the padded gauntlets youve been swinging at liberals but your posts are better than some of the other riffraff from your team.  

peace


----------



## Doug

Thank you, *Shogun*, and the same to you. (But I think it is very judgemental and hurtful to call people "riff-raff". That's the kind of thing we wicked conservatives do, of course, but I expect better from your side.)


----------



## mattskramer

Doug said:


> Thank you, *Shogun*, and the same to you. (But I think it is very judgemental and hurtful to call people "riff-raff". That's the kind of thing we wicked conservatives do, of course, but I expect better from your side.)



I would ask her to not hitchhike but I cant force her to not hitchhike.  It is not right to make decisions for people or to force people to do what we think that they should do.  Again, Id simply recommend that the not hitchhike.


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> I let her do what she wants.
> 
> and then, if she gets raped, I blame the rapist for criminal behaviour instead of her for her dress and decision to walk.  So, by your own hypothetical, she still says she doesn't want a ride are you going to FORCE her into your car?  See, this is where your examples crumble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, and RGS!
> 
> Dude.. I'm a little disapointed that you didn't call me out so I'll post it anyway:
> 
> Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality
> 
> What Is Sexual Orientation?
> Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, sexual, or affectional attraction toward others. It is
> easily distinguished from other components of sexuality including biological sex, gender identity (the
> psychological sense of being male or female), and the social gender role (adherence to cultural norms for
> feminine and masculine behavior).
> Sexual orientation exists along a continuum that ranges from exclusive heterosexuality to exclusive
> homosexuality and includes various forms of bisexuality. Bisexual persons can experience sexual, emotional,
> and affectional attraction to both their own sex and the opposite sex. Persons with a homosexual orientation
> are sometimes referred to as gay (both men and women) or as lesbian (women only).
> Sexual orientation is different from sexual behavior because it refers to feelings and self-concept.
> Individuals may or may not express their sexual orientation in their behaviors.
> What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
> There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree
> that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and
> biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable
> recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role
> in a person's sexuality.
> It's important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation, and the
> reasons may be different for different people.
> *Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?
> No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. For most people, sexual orientation emerges in
> early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our
> feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily
> changed.*
> Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?
> No; even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may
> seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, often coerced by family members or religious groups
> to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not
> changeable. However, not all gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who seek assistance from a mental health
> professional want to change their sexual orientation. Gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may seek
> psychological help with the coming out process or for strategies to deal with prejudice, but most go into
> therapy for the same reasons and life issues that bring straight people to mental health professionals.
> What About So-Called "Conversion Therapies"?
> Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their
> clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports, however. show
> several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of these claims come from organizations
> with an ideological perspective that condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly
> documented; for example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported over time, as would be the
> standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention.
> The American Psychological Association is concerned about such therapies and their potential harm to
> patients. In 1997, the Association's Council of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming psychology's
> opposition to homophobia in treatment and spelling out a client's right to unbiased treatment and
> self-determination. Any person who enters into therapy to deal with issues of sexual orientation has a right
> to expect that such therapy will take place in a professionally neutral environment, without any social bias.
> Is Homosexuality a Mental Illness or Emotional Problem?
> No. Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an
> illness, a mental disorder, or an emotional problem. More than 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific
> research has shown that homosexuality, in and itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or
> social problems. Homosexuality was once thought to be a mental illness because mental health professionals
> and society had biased information.
> In the past, the studies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people involved only those in therapy, thus biasing the
> resulting conclusions. When researchers examined data about such people who were not in therapy, the idea
> that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue.
> In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association confirmed the importance of the new, better-designed research
> and removed homosexuality from the official manual that lists mental and emotional disorders. Two years
> later, the American Psychological Association passed a resolution supporting this removal.
> For more than 25 years, both associations have urged all mental health professionals to help dispel the stigma
> of mental illness that some people still associate with homosexual orientation.
> Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
> Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no
> developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence,
> psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a
> parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
> Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than
> heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest
> children.
> Why Do Some Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Tell People About Their Sexual Orientation?
> Because sharing that aspect of themselves with others is important to their mental health. In fact, the process
> of identity development for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals called "coming out" has been found to be
> strongly related to psychological adjustment;the more positive the gay, lesbian, or bisexual identity, the
> better one's mental health and the higher one's self-esteem.
> Why Is the "Coming Out" Process Difficult for Some Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People?
> For some gay and bisexual people the "coming out" process is difficult; for others it is not. Often lesbian, gay
> and bisexual people feel afraid, different, and alone when they first realize that their sexual orientation is
> different from the community norm. This is particularly true for people becoming aware of their gay, lesbian,
> or bisexual orientation in childhood or adolescence, which is not uncommon. And depending on their
> families and their communities, they may have to struggle against prejudice and misinformation about
> homosexuality.
> Children and adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of bias and stereotypes. They
> may also fear being rejected by family, friends, co-workers, and religious institutions. Some gay people have
> to worry about losing their jobs or being harassed at school if their sexual orientation became well known.
> Unfortunately, gay, lesbian, and bisexual people are at a higher risk for physical assault and violence than are
> heterosexuals. Studies done in California in the mid-1990s showed that nearly one-fifth of all lesbians who
> took part in the study, and more than one-fourthof all gay men who participated, had been the victim of a
> hate crime based on their sexual orientation. In another California study of approximately 500 young adults,
> half of all the young men participating in the study admitted to some form of anti-gay aggression, ranging
> from name-calling to physical violence.
> What Can Be Done to Overcome the Prejudice and Discrimination that Gay Men, Lesbians, and Bisexuals
> Experience?
> Research has found that the people who have the most positive attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and
> bisexuals are those who say they know one or more gay, lesbian or bisexual person well, often as a friend or
> co-worker. For this reason, psychologists believe that negative attitudes toward gay people as a group are
> prejudices that are not grounded in actual experience but are based on stereotypes and misinformation.
> Furthermore, protection against violence and discrimination are very important, just as they are for any other
> minority groups. Some states include violence against an individual on the basis of his or her sexual
> orientation as a "hate crime," and ten U.S. states have laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual
> orientation.
> Why Is it Important for Society to be Better Educated About Homosexuality?
> Educating all people about sexual orientation and homosexuality is likely to diminish anti-gay prejudice.
> Accurate information about homosexuality is especially important to young people who are first discovering
> and seeking to understand their sexuality,whether homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. Fears that access
> to such information will make more people gay have no validity; information about homosexuality does not
> make someone gay or straight.
> Are All Gay and Bisexual Men HIV Infected?
> No. This is a common myth. In reality, the risk of exposure to HIV is related to a person's behavior, not their
> sexual orientation. What's important to remember about HIV/AIDS is that contracting the disease can be
> prevented by using safe sex practices and by not using drugs.
> (c) Copyright 2004 American Psychological Association
> Documents from apahelpcenter.org may be reprinted in their entirety with credit given to the American
> Psychological Association. Any exceptions to this, including requests to excerpt or paraphrase documents
> from apahelpcenter.org, must be presented in writing to helping@apa.org and will be considered on a
> case-by-case basis. Permission for exceptions will be given on a one-time-only basis and must be sought for
> each additional use of the document.
> 
> http://apahelpcenter.org/articles/pdf.php?id=31
> 
> 
> 
> So much for Allie's retarded claim about studies and scientific consensus, eh?
> 
> 
> I apologize for the formatting but I guess that just means you'll have to follow the link and see what a viable source looks like...



Wow.  I guess that I disagree with the APA.  While I think that homosexuals should be free to be homosexuals and I even think that civil unions should be recognized at the federal level, I think that sexual orientation can be changed.   If someone is given enough of a desire to change, if he is given enough reprogramming and is exposed to a long and painful wide variety of treatments, he can be conditioned to change.  It would be a long and arduous process but preferences and desires can be conditioned and changed, but why?  I dont think that homosexuals need to change.


----------



## 007

Shogun said:


> if by Liberal Handbook you mean APA standards then I'm sure I'll live knowing that a person like you is dubious of my sources.


No that's not what I mean, and you know it. But the APA is a liberal organization, and they have proven themselves to be partisan in their efforts to further the homosexual agenda. 




Shogun said:


> You are no better in your attitude, acknowledged as hatred or not, as George wallace standing on the steps of Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama.


You know what I do like? I like the fact that you, meaning ALL you queer enabler liberals here, HAVE to listen to me. You also HAVE to be exposed as the name calling, smart ass, holier than thou, know it all, enlightened, THINK you're smarter than everybody else, MINORITY! Yes... YOU are the MINORITY, and I LOVE IT! That's eats you up inside KNOWING I'm right and you're WRONG. You argue the most RIDICULOUS points simply because how you FEEL, and you ignore facts with absolute totality. It's fun to watch you liberals melt down into your name calling. It's also easy to get you there. You invariably lose most arguments on this board within the first ten posts. From there on out it's name calling, smart ass, buzz words and psychobabble spin. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA..... how's it feel... LOSER?! HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!


----------



## AllieBaba

Doug said:


> *Shogun* and *Jillian*: You are confusing two different things: sensitivity in talking to people who have been traumatized, and the content of what we might say to them, perhaps at another time, about their own behavior.
> 
> If a young woman were to be so foolish as to dress as Jillian asserts she has the right to, and to hitchhike across town, say through an area where white stockbrokers live, late at night, and met her likely fate ... were she to survive, of course the first thing I would say to her would not be "Hmmm... perhaps you shouldn't have dressed like that, nor hitchhiked, and especially at night."
> 
> But if I were talking to her about the wisdom of her act at a different time -- say, before she did it -- I would say: anyone whose only advice to you is that you have the "right" to dress that way in any time and place you choose, is an ... well, I fear *Jillian's* anger, so I shall say, such a person is mistaken.
> 
> I do not understand why no one from the "do whatever you please, when you please", kamikaze camp  wants to at least discuss seriously the example I raised.
> 
> Quite right, that the snow bears no moral responsibility for killing the people who risk their lives climbing. This is why I chose that example. It allows us to dispense with one part of the problem, and look at the other: the person who, knowing that their behavior is going to be risky, does it anyway, and dies.
> 
> What is our attitude to them, besides sadness at their death, and sympathy for their surviving friends and relatives?
> 
> What liberals -- or at least the kind of liberal we are arguing with here -- hate to even think about is personal responsiblity.
> 
> Everyone should be able to do whatever they feel like, and the world consists only of victims with rights, and their oppressors.
> 
> Since in the real world there is likely to be a high death or injury toll among members of the chosen victim-group who actual follow this suicidal advice, of course we need to continually expand the power of the state to protect them. Thus the concept of "hate crimes" and even "assaultive speech".
> 
> Our liberal friends do not want to admit of the concept of personal responsibility even in my artificial case where all other issues have been removed.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because to let under the tent the camel's nose of the concept of personal responsibility in our imperfect world would then allow us to discuss the issue without demagogic emoting, thus depriving them of their best weapon, and perhaps even of their reflexive method of arriving at their opinions. (Anger be damned.)
> 
> We might then even take up the question raised by the Emmett Till case, as exemplified by my conservative quotation, where the issue of racist victimization was mixed in an unsettling way with the issue of the oppression of women.



Very good.
The only change I would make is that when you talk to a person who has made some bad choices, and subsequently been victimized, you don't say, "maybe you shouldn't have..." you say "What choices can you make in the future that might improve your chances of staying safe?"

And that's not an excuse for the scum who victimize people. It's good advice for people who don't want to be victimized any more.


----------



## AllieBaba

Using the hypothesis that a victim should never be obligated to look out for his/her own safety, then the mother of a 4-year-old who lets her new boyfriend watch her baby, is absolutely not in any way responsible when her bf kills the baby in a drunken rage.

Or the meth-addicted mother, who allows her children, ages 5, 10 and 12, wander the street, is in no way responsible when those kids are raped and victimized repeatedly by the predators lurking around.

Neither wanted their kids to get hurt, and ultimately, the people who did the harm are the bad guys.

But they made really bad choices which increased the probability of such a thing happening.

It's the same with adults who are making bad choices for themselves. It doesn't mean they're the ones to blame when they get hurt. But if they make different choices, the chances of them getting hurt go way, way down.


----------



## doniston

Pale Rider said:


> Ya know... you won't suck me into your long, drawn out, worthless tirades of psychobabble. It's not worth it. You don't listen.
> 
> But I will tell you this "once, I DON'T HATE QUEERS, HOWEVER, I DO FIND THEIR LIFESTYLE AND SEXUAL ACTIONS FULLY DISGUSTING AND PERVERTED." And that is the "NORMAL" reaction for "NORMAL" people, which is, by the way, the vast majority of people on earth. So you throwing around your buzz words you read out of your liberal response handbook doesn't mean shit son. It's old and stale, and doesn't work on me. Try and be original for once, and address the truth. I know that's hard for you liberals who base all your arguments on your "FEELINGS," but try understanding FACT for once. If you can't see and understand facts, then this argument is perpetual and senseless with the likes of you, jillie, the old pervert penis man doni, the incest boy mattskramer, and the rest of you homo enablers and apologists.


For a closeted homophobe who obviously isn't sure of his own sexuality  You sure have your speil down pat.   I wonder who wrote it for you.


----------



## Doug

I don't know what our liberal friends would say about this thread, but I believe a real hard-core Leftist would not be quite happy with what anyone has said so far.

The liberals have argued, following the general liberal line on these things, that someone whose unwise behavior leads to their victimization by violent criminals must not be in any way blamed, criticized, chided ... or, almost, even advised before the fact ... with regard to that unwise behavior. You've got your rights, dammit, and you shouldn't let the nature of the real world hinder you in your full and heedless exercise of them!

This seemed a bit strange to me. I don't think that in practice liberals would act very different from conservatives here. We would all say, "Don't Do It!" And if they did it, and lived, we would, I hope, be very very tactful about our earlier warning. *AlliBaba* puts it very well -- I suspect she's speaking as a professional here.

Then it occurred to me ... wait a minute, the liberals are blaming the criminals. Now I can see how blame and condemnation of the criminals is utterly natural for liberals in the Matt Shepard case: they were white, homophobes, etc. Obviously guilty.

But in our hypothetical midnight-hitchhiker case ... what if the rapist (or rapists) were Black or Hispanic???

Would they really be worthy of the same unrestrained utter condemnation that liberals poured -- quite justifiably -- onto Matt Shepard's killlers?

Don't we always hear from the Left that crime among non-whites is caused by poverty and racism and the legacy of past racism and George Bush and big corporations, etc. etc. etc?

Doesn't the concept of personal responsibility, if we are going to see the world from a consistently-Leftist standpoint, have to be withdrawn from the poor racially-oppressed rapists, too?

Of course the Left has a history of admiring and supporting Black rapists, so long as they come up with a good story about how white racism made them do it. But I am not talking about this prediliction. 

I'm just questioning if it is not the case that the general Leftist world view, which blames the successful element of society for society's failures, and the law-abiding for crime, has been fully applied in the examples we have discussed.


----------



## AllieBaba

Or if the criminal is a homosexual that has been victimized his whole life, then goes on a murderous rampage, killing, let's say, a minister.

I think I know whose side they'd be on then.


----------



## mattskramer

Doug said:


> Then it occurred to me ... wait a minute, the liberals are blaming the criminals. Now I can see how blame and condemnation of the criminals is utterly natural for liberals in the Matt Shepard case: they were white, homophobes, etc. Obviously guilty.



Ive been called a liberal.  I cant speak for all liberals, but I think that in general, liberals would condemn the criminals because  they murdered someone.



> But in our hypothetical midnight-hitchhiker case ... what if the rapist (or rapists) were Black or Hispanic???
> 
> Would they really be worthy of the same unrestrained utter condemnation that liberals poured -- quite justifiably -- onto Matt Shepard's killlers?



I think that they would hold the same condemnation even if the rapist were Black or White or Hispanic or European or American. 



> Don't we always hear from the Left that crime among non-whites is caused by poverty and racism and the legacy of past racism and George Bush and big corporations, etc. etc. etc?



Sure, in some cases by some people of the extreme left.



> Of course the Left has a history of admiring and supporting Black rapists, so long as they come up with a good story about how white racism made them do it. But I am not talking about this prediliction.



I almost fell out of my chair when I read these.  Please give me a clear precise specific example of there the left of center admired and supported a Black rapist who was clearly guilty of his crime.


----------



## Doug

I don't know how old you are, Matt. I am 64, and lived through the Sixties. I was pretty heavily involved in the Left then, and was in California for several years while the Black Panthers were being idolized by the Left.

One of their main leaders was one Eldridge Cleaver, whom the Peace and Freedom Party (they're still around, I think) nominated as their Presidential candidate. He wrote a book -- Soul on Ice -- which all the PC school teachers adopted as required reading for the kiddies as an example of great literature. (Later, when Cleaver became a rightwinger, this book mysteriously lost its designation as a classic and disappeared from the California curriculum.)

Anyhow, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article.



> In the book, Cleaver infamously acknowledges the rape of several white women, which he defended as "an insurrectionary act". He also admitted that he began his career as a rapist by "practicing on black girls in the ghetto." He maintains that his felonious acts have nothing to do with the views expressed in the book. Cleaver was released from prison in 1966, after which he joined the Oakland-based Black Panther Party, serving as Minister of Information (spokesperson).
> 
> He was a Presidential candidate in 1968 on the ticket of the Peace and Freedom Party.



Full article  here .

There are a number of other examples of how the Left has seen rape as "an insurrectionary act" in Susan Brownmiller's[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Against-Our-Will-Women-Rape/dp/0449908208/ref=sr_1_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192236687&sr=8-1] *Against Our Will*[/ame], which I think is one of the dozen or so Marxist/leftist/feminist books which ought to be on every political person's reading list.

I'll bet you didn't know that the Left has opposed votes for women either, did you?


----------



## mattskramer

Doug said:


> I don't know how old you are, Matt. I am 64, and lived through the Sixties. I was pretty heavily involved in the Left then, and was in California for several years while the Black Panthers were being idolized by the Left.
> 
> One of their main leaders was one Eldridge Cleaver, whom the Peace and Freedom Party (they're still around, I think) nominated as their Presidential candidate. He wrote a book -- Soul on Ice -- which all the PC school teachers adopted as required reading for the kiddies as an example of great literature. (Later, when Cleaver became a rightwinger, this book mysteriously lost its designation as a classic and disappeared from the California curriculum.)
> 
> Anyhow, here's an excerpt from the Wiki article.
> 
> 
> 
> Full article  here .
> 
> There are a number of other examples of how the Left has seen rape as "an insurrectionary act" in Susan Brownmiller's *Against Our Will*, which I think is one of the dozen or so Marxist/leftist/feminist books which ought to be on every political person's reading list.
> 
> I'll bet you didn't know that the Left has opposed votes for women either, did you?



Okay. I consider that as ancient history.  Also, the Black Panthers does not strike me as a slightly-left-of-center group.  It constitutes the far loony left.  Some people at that far end of  political spectrum might idealize rapists.   

Perhaps you should objectively and concretely define the left.  Does David Duke constitute your typical conservative?


----------



## Doug

No, I would not call David Duke a conservative.

However I would say that he is "on the Right".

And I grant you that there is a difference between liberals and those further Left -- which is why I was careful not to say that "liberals" have idolized rapists.

But it is not so simple. Liberals are easily influenced by the far Left, as many examples will show. Just look at the rapturous reception people like Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn get on those bastions of American liberalism, our college campuses. Note how many Schools of Education use Zinn's history textbook.

Another example: Hillary Clinton is not a pro-Communist. Yet she was probably going to appoint a pro-Communist as the Secretary of Education in the first Clinton Administration.

And: the Panthers were and are idolized by many liberals, especially academics. The standard history of them produced for schools is a complete whitewash of their activities. 

In general, as Irving Kristol pointed out long ago, liberals are incapable of opposing any movement supported by large numbers of poor people.


----------



## Shogun

Way to wiggle out from under the standard of the APA with a whole fistful of generalized shit talk, guys!


BRAVO!

 



Doug, you can lambaste "the left" as some spooky boogeyman while Allie cheer leads from the sidelines but, last I heard, abstract rhetoric and generalized shit talking doesn't trump evidence.


I posted evidence from the APA despite Allie's instance that the general scientific consensus is in your court.  It's not...  But, I bet a few more generalizations about the big evil left will work as well for the RIFF RAFF, yes?


Hey, when in doubt just insist that it's some big liberal conspiracy to acknowledge that the earth revolves around the sun....



ps, if Allie is the professional in this conversation I bet she has a real high suicide rate among her former clients.  I had a real good laugh about this thread with my sociology professor girlfriend last night...  I guess this kind of thread takes the mystery out of how people like ole phelps sticks to his opinion despite reality.  He probably has a long list of evil LIBERAL organizations too.  I bet he agrees that the APA is just a liberal think tank.


----------



## Doug

Is homosexuality -- persistent sexual desire for people of your own sex -- a choice?

I doubt very much that it is. I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day.

No one has yet identified a "gay gene". It is simply false to assert that we know that "homosexuality is genetic". And it is equally false to assert that we know that it is not genetic.

We know little about the human genome yet -- it has been mapped, but by and large the function of each stretch of DNA we call a gene remains a mystery.

In any case, a personal characteristic may have biological roots, without those roots being directly genetic. I may have been overtaken by new developments here, but when I last read up on this subject, no one had identified a gene for "handedness", or for  autism, even though there is a good deal of evidence that genes are in some way involved in the latter condition.

There is some good evidence that many human preferences and behaviors have some sort of genetic, or at least biological, roots. The most compelling evidence for this comes fromstudies of identical twins separated at birth. But even here, we must be  cautious .

I do not understand people who say that homosexuality is a "choice". I did not "choose" to be heterosexual, and I could not "choose" to be homosexual.

Those who argue that it is a choice seem to assimilate it to other sexual behavior which they find objectionable, such as adultery. But adultery is a powerful temptation for every married (normal) person  -- committing it, or resisting committing it, is indeed a choice. (Although sometimes a painful one. ) What is not a choice is the initial attraction to an interesting and attractive person who seems to return the interest.  

What arguably _is_ a "choice" is _behavior_. Given enough social pressure and rewards and threats, someone who is homosexual can be prevented from acting out their sexual orientation, and even of imitating the other orientation. (And probably vice-versa.) But that is quite a different thing.

Assuming that homosexuality is biologically rooted -- either directly via gene expression, or via some subtle interaction of genes and the foetal biochemical environment in the womb, or by some other biological path -- then we can be pretty confident that in the future, we will be able to detect whether a fetus is going to develop into a homosexual person. We may even be able to directly control its sexual orientation.

Now, given that, despite a lot of liberal piety, few parents would want a homosexual child, we can then predict that the number of homosexuals, like the number of autistic or Down's Syndrome children, will rapidly decline, either through abortion, or through some more subtle medical intervention.

*Shogun*: I would like to debate with you, but you don't give me much to work with. Why not take something I have said, that you disagree with, and give your reasons for disagreeing with it? Then we can have a potentially enlightening argument. 

A suggestion: why not ask your girlfriend to contribute to the thread, either via you, or by registering directly. The perspective of a sociology professor would be very interesting here.


----------



## Shogun

Well, see Doug, when your rebuttal amounts to "I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day." and "liberal this, liberal that" then you don't really have much to debate against beyond your OPINION.  Obviously, that means more to you than the entire Psychological consensus so there really is no point to take you seriously.

It's just like how Jillian bitchslapped Allie with the very same study Allie name dropped.  What's the point?

Like I said, I posted evidence.  You post rhetorical opinions and blame anything that doesn't fall within your cookie cutter schema on liberals..


Sorry if that's just enough to illicit a major effort on my part.


----------



## Doug

*Shogun:* I suspect you don't know much about academia, and academic politics, and the enormous power of Political Correctness within American academia today, which is made up at its senior levels from the generation of the 60s -- despite that professorial girlfriend.

I can give you many examples of it, if you wish, or better I can direct you to some good books: check out Mary Lefkowitz' experiences with an Afro-centric charlatan  spouting utter nonsense at a talk on her campus, and how all of the professors there (save her), who knew better, were afraid to challenge him.

For one thing, the so-called social "sciences," including psychology, are not sciences at all. I give far more credence to consensus views among real scientists -- physicists and chemists for example -- than I do to the so-called social sciences.

The latter are collections of empirical facts, established with varying levels of reliability, some of which are interesting; case studies; some theories which are generally at such a high level of abstraction, on the one hand; or so very low-level, on the other, as to be of little real value in understanding human behavior. Get your girl friend to lend you C.Wright Mills' [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Sociological-Imagination-C-Wright-Mills/dp/0195133730/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192309269&sr=8-1]*The Sociological Imagination*[/ame] for some hilarious exposes of the hollowness of sociology in particular. It was written about fifty years ago but still retains its force.

Which does not mean that people working in these fields do not do useful studies. They do, or some of them do. It's just that you should not naively take what some group (often a very small group) acting as their professional association pronounces on a controversial subject as "scientific opinion". 

To be honest, I have not followed the nature-of-homosexuality argument in this thread closely enough to even have an opinion on the APA's judgement.

As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.

Now, as for the genetics, etc. As I said in the post above, the verdict is not yet in. We are making tremendous progress in this area, and I suspect that within a generation or two, the question will be closed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

mattskramer said:


> Ive been called a liberal.  I cant speak for all liberals, but I think that in general, liberals would condemn the criminals because  they murdered someone.
> 
> And you would be wrong, I can think of several well know BLACK men that murdered cops in cold blood and are the darlings of the left.
> 
> I think that they would hold the same condemnation even if the rapist were Black or White or Hispanic or European or American.
> 
> You would be wrong, they can and do make excuses for the "right" people.
> 
> Sure, in some cases by some people of the extreme left.
> 
> 
> 
> I almost fell out of my chair when I read these.  Please give me a clear precise specific example of there the left of center admired and supported a Black rapist who was clearly guilty of his crime.



Is murder good enough for you? That guy in Pennsylvania that murdered a cop for no other reason then he pulled over his brother for a traffic stop. The left has championed his cause for YEARS now, insisting he be let go cause he a) somehow didn't do it OR B) is a changed man now and was forced by circumstance to kill the cop. Even though the trial was cut and dry and it is obvious he murdered the cop for no reason at all.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Well, see Doug, when your rebuttal amounts to "I wouldn't pay much attention to what the APA or any other so-called "professonal" association says. Their views are heavily conditioned by the political atmosphere of the day." and "liberal this, liberal that" then you don't really have much to debate against beyond your OPINION.  Obviously, that means more to you than the entire Psychological consensus so there really is no point to take you seriously.
> 
> It's just like how Jillian bitchslapped Allie with the very same study Allie name dropped.  What's the point?
> 
> Like I said, I posted evidence.  You post rhetorical opinions and blame anything that doesn't fall within your cookie cutter schema on liberals..
> 
> 
> Sorry if that's just enough to illicit a major effort on my part.



Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Is murder good enough for you? That guy in Pennsylvania that murdered a cop for no other reason then he pulled over his brother for a traffic stop. The left has championed his cause for YEARS now, insisting he be let go cause he a) somehow didn't do it OR B) is a changed man now and was forced by circumstance to kill the cop. Even though the trial was cut and dry and it is obvious he murdered the cop for no reason at all.



Where is your main line Democrat cheering the murder of a cop?  Nope.  Im right.  Except for a few people on the far loony left, people understand that murder is wrong  no matter the race, sex, or nationality of the murderer.


----------



## Doug

Liberals don't exactly cheer the murder of cops. But a lot of them do cover up for their murderers.


----------



## Doug

I guess I should  document  that claim.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.




Is this another accusation that I'll be calling you out on?  I've pounced on more liberals from my side than Ive seen you pounce on conservatives.

Ask mainman and jilian and roomy or Donnie how quiet I am with those on my team.

OR, toss out another easily disproved accusation instead....

Hell, the LAST time you tried to call me out in this thread i came right back at you with more evidence than "rhetorical" Doug and "Cheerleader" Allie has posted this entire fucking thread.  Do i see YOU busing their balls for making fallacious claims about name dropped studies or insisting on the opinion of the scientific community?

NO?

If you can't handle Larkin then ask for help.  It's not my responsibility to help you keep pace with him.  But to suggest that I sit back silent for the sake of a team jersey is BEYOND retarded.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> Liberals don't exactly cheer the murder of cops. But a lot of them do cover up for their murderers.





Doug, it's silly shit like this that deflates your credibility when pointing fingers at my posts.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> *Shogun:* I suspect you don't know much about academia, and academic politics, and the enormous power of Political Correctness within American academia today, which is made up at its senior levels from the generation of the 60s -- despite that professorial girlfriend.
> 
> I can give you many examples of it, if you wish, or better I can direct you to some good books: check out Mary Lefkowitz' experiences with an Afro-centric charlatan  spouting utter nonsense at a talk on her campus, and how all of the professors there (save her), who knew better, were afraid to challenge him.
> 
> For one thing, the so-called social "sciences," including psychology, are not sciences at all. I give far more credence to consensus views among real scientists -- physicists and chemists for example -- than I do to the so-called social sciences.
> 
> The latter are collections of empirical facts, established with varying levels of reliability, some of which are interesting; case studies; some theories which are generally at such a high level of abstraction, on the one hand; or so very low-level, on the other, as to be of little real value in understanding human behavior. Get your girl friend to lend you C.Wright Mills' *The Sociological Imagination* for some hilarious exposes of the hollowness of sociology in particular. It was written about fifty years ago but still retains its force.
> 
> Which does not mean that people working in these fields do not do useful studies. They do, or some of them do. It's just that you should not naively take what some group (often a very small group) acting as their professional association pronounces on a controversial subject as "scientific opinion".
> 
> To be honest, I have not followed the nature-of-homosexuality argument in this thread closely enough to even have an opinion on the APA's judgement.
> 
> As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.
> 
> Now, as for the genetics, etc. As I said in the post above, the verdict is not yet in. We are making tremendous progress in this area, and I suspect that within a generation or two, the question will be closed.




I fully understand the difference between the hard and soft sciences.  However, accusing the APA standard of being a liberal conspiracy is a joke.  Not only that, but I posted that EVIDENCE to counter Allie's claim about scientific consensus.  You know.. EVIDENCE..  the cornerstone of SCIENCE?  You might as well write off all modern medicine if you are going to look at the history of the practice.  Do you avoid doctors also because, at one time, medicine believed in leaches and four humours of the body?  This is a simple matter of tossing up a strawman just because you don't like what the evidence clearly conveys.  Dont like what you hear on the news?  well, THEY MUST BE A BUNCH OF LIBERALS!  Dont like that the scientific community is not ready to throng and pitchfork gays back into their closet?  IT MUST BE A LIBERAL CONSPIRACY!  

Indeed, perhaps it will be easier to take you seriously if you put more effort in citing your courses rather than hoping that some hypothetical will prove your point..  Hypotheticals that I'm not already busy unraveling, that is.  


But. i'm glad you are finally around to admitting that:

*As for the "innateness" or whatever of homosexuality. A minute's thought should show anyone that it is not a choice, and therefore has deep roots which compel people to react independently of their volition. A gay man may wish he were not homosexual. But he cannot choose not to be a homosexual.*


*
Innateness or whatever*?  Is that academic jargon?


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> Well, since the liberals here refuse to discuss my example, let me try another tack.
> 
> Let's think operationally.
> 
> A pretty young woman is dressed in provocative clothing -- *Jillian'*s description will do.
> 
> It is close to midnight.
> 
> She is at your apartment, where you,as a good liberal, have been instructing her on her rights. (No sarcasm here -- you really have.)
> 
> She decides to go home. She has no car, no money for a taxi, nor do you.
> 
> She says, "Hey, no problem. I'll hitchhike. As you just said, I have a right to dress as I please and go anywhere I want in public, at any time."
> 
> Your response?



My response is that you're adding something which makes your analogy false. The act of hitchhiking, or walking through gang territory, or climbing a mountain is dangerous FOR EVERYONE.... whether it's you, me, or the president of the united states.

A gay man flirting, a woman wearing a revealing dress, is not, in and of itself dangerous behavior.... nor should it be something which elicits a violent response. There is no assumption of the risk, as it were. Adding the dangerous behavior to it, is simply a way of obfuscating the fact that the victim who is beaten because he or she is gay or the woman who gets raped or the woman who got her husband's dinner late to table DID NOTHING WRONG.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> Way to wiggle out from under the standard of the APA with a whole fistful of generalized shit talk, guys!
> 
> 
> BRAVO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug, you can lambaste "the left" as some spooky boogeyman while Allie cheer leads from the sidelines but, last I heard, abstract rhetoric and generalized shit talking doesn't trump evidence.



Well you seem to think it does.


----------



## AllieBaba

mattskramer said:


> Where is your main line Democrat cheering the murder of a cop?  Nope.  Im right.  Except for a few people on the far loony left, people understand that murder is wrong  no matter the race, sex, or nationality of the murderer.



Then please explain the justification the left keeps coming up with for terrorists killing us, so long as it's in a country other than our own. Based upon the theory that we shouldn't be there (and there are a variety of "theres") and therefore deserve it.


----------



## AllieBaba

jillian said:


> My response is that you're adding something which makes your analogy false. The act of hitchhiking, or walking through gang territory, or climbing a mountain is dangerous FOR EVERYONE.... whether it's you, me, or the president of the united states.
> 
> A gay man flirting, a woman wearing a revealing dress, is not, in and of itself dangerous behavior.... nor should it be something which elicits a violent response. There is no assumption of the risk, as it were. Adding the dangerous behavior to it, is simply a way of obfuscating the fact that the victim who is beaten because he or she is gay or the woman who gets raped or the woman who got her husband's dinner late to table DID NOTHING WRONG.




I believe I tried, repeatedly, to point out I was stating everyone makes bad choices, and hanging out in a rough bar is a bad choice for anyone.
Thanks for your support.


----------



## Larkinn

> And you would be wrong, I can think of several well know BLACK men that murdered cops in cold blood and are the darlings of the left.



Murderers are not "darlings of the left".   Those that the left support they do so because they think that the accused are NOT murderers or that they have been treated unfairly.   I know...its crazy to think that just because someone commits a crime they should retain some civil liberties, but some of us think that.   



> You would be wrong, they can and do make excuses for the "right" people.



Because we all know how good of a judge you are about people on the left, right?   



> Yet you do not mind when certain Liberals on this board post nothing but personal opinion and play games with words and their meanings. Selective indeed.



Not everyone plays the "word games" card all the time.   Some people have the ability to comprehend and make decent counter-arguments.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Then please explain the justification the left keeps coming up with for terrorists killing us, so long as it's in a country other than our own. Based upon the theory that we shouldn't be there (and there are a variety of "theres") and therefore deserve it.



The left does NOT say that the US deserves terrorist attacks.   That is just an outright lie.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Well you seem to think it does.



go dig up some evidence to post, crackbaby.  


You know... Like the APA evidence I posted that pretty much calls you on your ignorant bald faced lie about the consensus of the scientific community.


Don't let m evidence from the APA stop you from posting your own evidence though.  I can't wait to see what Bob Jones University has to say about homosexuality!


----------



## Doug

*Jillian:* You have, characteristically, putyour finger on the critical point of my analogy.

Hitchhiking through a dangerous area at night is indeed ... dangerous. It is, I promise you -- but I know you know this -- more dangerous for a pretty young woman than it would be for an ugly old man. (So you take my car, and I'll hitchhike.)

But the world is not divided into situations which are, on the one hand, dangerous, and where you must use your common sense in exercising your "rights", and situations which are not, on the other hand, and where you may exercise them freely and if anything happens to you, it is just bad luck.

There is a spectrum. On one end, my hitchhiking territory at night. On the other, the Harvard campus during daytime. Somewhere in the middle -- for a gay man, especially -- are lowlife bars where the trailer trash are drinking and snorting (or shooting or whatever you do with it) crystal meths.

On the Harvard campus, you can pretty much do as you please. As you  move away from it, on my spectrum, you had better increasingly add some common sense and caution to the mental module that governs your behavior.

There is climbing Everest without oxygen, and there is taking a walk in your local park, and there are an infinite number of situations in between.

In fact, I am sure that everyone taking part in this thread would have given young Matt the same advice: don't go to that bar and come on to the men there.

What we are really arguing about is how we feel about the reaction of the men in that bar. While their violent reaction is condemned by everyone here (I hope!), the liberals want us to feel that a man making a sexual advance to another man is perfectly normal -- what's to get angry or disgusted about? The conservatives don't feel that way. There is really nothing to argue here.

So let me turn the situation around and raise this point: when women are subject to unwanted sexual overtures by strange men in public, are they justified in getting angry or feeling disgusted?

If a man went into a bar and came up to a woman he didn't know, and invited her to an act of sexual congress, and she punched him in the nose -- how would we react? 

I'm afraid I would say, "Didn't see nuthin', Officer -- I think he fell over and broke his nose on the floor."


----------



## Doug

*Shogun*: I don't recognize anything that I have argued in your characterizations of my positions, so there is nothing I can say in reply.

However, I would like to make you a bit more skeptical about people with credentials in general, and academics in particular. 

So perhaps later I will post some interesting information on Margaret Mead and academic anthropologists; and also something on Freudianism, a load of nonsense which was taken very seriously by many so-called professionals, and still is by some.


----------



## Shogun

I don't subscribe to freud and many behaviourists in the psych field don't either.


Allie stated that the general consensus sys that homosexuality is a choice.


I posted otherwise.

Hell, YOU AGREED WITH THE APA about homosexuality NOT being a choice!  I'm sure that ruffled Allie's feathers but, hey, evidence and scientific standards go a long way...


I'm well aware of the phrenology in my disciplines background.  Im just not trying to toss out the baby with the bathwater when it chaffes my political ideology.  Again, consider the history of Medicine in general and remind me how people once insisted that tree bark was witch craft.

If you want I can dig up your quote about how the APA is just a liberal organization...


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> *Jillian:* You have, characteristically, putyour finger on the critical point of my analogy.
> 
> Hitchhiking through a dangerous area at night is indeed ... dangerous. It is, I promise you -- but I know you know this -- more dangerous for a pretty young woman than it would be for an ugly old man. (So you take my car, and I'll hitchhike.)
> 
> But the world is not divided into situations which are, on the one hand, dangerous, and where you must use your common sense in exercising your "rights", and situations which are not, on the other hand, and where you may exercise them freely and if anything happens to you, it is just bad luck.
> 
> There is a spectrum. On one end, my hitchhiking territory at night. On the other, the Harvard campus during daytime. Somewhere in the middle -- for a gay man, especially -- are lowlife bars where the trailer trash are drinking and snorting (or shooting or whatever you do with it) crystal meths.
> 
> On the Harvard campus, you can pretty much do as you please. As you  move away from it, on my spectrum, you had better increasingly add some common sense and caution to the mental module that governs your behavior.
> 
> There is climbing Everest without oxygen, and there is taking a walk in your local park, and there are an infinite number of situations in between.
> 
> In fact, I am sure that everyone taking part in this thread would have given young Matt the same advice: don't go to that bar and come on to the men there.
> 
> What we are really arguing about is how we feel about the reaction of the men in that bar. While their violent reaction is condemned by everyone here (I hope!), the liberals want us to feel that a man making a sexual advance to another man is perfectly normal -- what's to get angry or disgusted about? The conservatives don't feel that way. There is really nothing to argue here.
> 
> So let me turn the situation around and raise this point: when women are subject to unwanted sexual overtures by strange men in public, are they justified in getting angry or feeling disgusted?
> 
> If a man went into a bar and came up to a woman he didn't know, and invited her to an act of sexual congress, and she punched him in the nose -- how would we react?
> 
> I'm afraid I would say, "Didn't see nuthin', Officer -- I think he fell over and broke his nose on the floor."



If a man makes an unwanted overture toward me, I would say "no thank you" or make a joke about it and find someone else to talk to. I wouldn't blow his head off or get my husband to beat the bejeesus out of him. Hence, the reaction to an advance, wanted or not, is fully within the control of the advancee.

You can't justify it by saying, "well, he was gay, so that was more offensive". My brother was once hit on at a club by Malcolm Forbes... so what? He made it clear he wasn't interested, finished his drink, had an interesting conversation with one of the richest men in the world and went his own way. He didn't beat him until he was dead.


----------



## Doug

*Jillian:* Of course. This is how civilized people behave. But the Matts of the world must learn that there are plenty of less-than-civilized people out there.

And, note that "hitting on" someone covers a wide range of territory.

You can initiate very mild flirting with someone, as you are getting to know them, and see what signals you get bounced back, and then turn up the temperature from there if it is warranted. This is how it should be done, according to me. 

Or you can loudly ask a woman you have never seen before, (assuming the male as initiator her)in public,  in a crude way, if she would like to ... 

Now in the latter case, I wouldn't support the lady in question pulling out a .38 from her purse and blowing the offender's head off. But, I think she is fully justified in having some reaction other than politely declining with a good-natured grin.

Have you ever read Susan Brownmiller's *Against Our Will*? (Huge irony here, an old rightwing man recommending a founding work of modern femininism to a liberal woman, but it's really must reading ... not so much for women, but certainly for men.) The wolfwhistle question is discussed there in a way that changed my thinking on the subject.


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> *Jillian:* Of course. This is how civilized people behave. But the Matts of the world must learn that there are plenty of less-than-civilized people out there.
> 
> And, note that "hitting on" someone covers a wide range of territory.
> 
> You can initiate very mild flirting with someone, as you are getting to know them, and see what signals you get bounced back, and then turn up the temperature from there if it is warranted. This is how it should be done, according to me.
> 
> Or you can loudly ask a woman you have never seen before, (assuming the male as initiator her)in public,  in a crude way, if she would like to ...
> 
> Now in the latter case, I wouldn't support the lady in question pulling out a .38 from her purse and blowing the offender's head off. But, I think she is fully justified in having some reaction other than politely declining with a good-natured grin.
> 
> Have you ever read Susan Brownmiller's *Against Our Will*? (Huge irony here, an old rightwing man recommending a founding work of modern femininism to a liberal woman, but it's really must reading ... not so much for women, but certainly for men.) The wolfwhistle question is discussed there in a way that changed my thinking on the subject.



First, I don't think the answer is expecting civilized people to expect less. I think it is in punishing, to the fullest extent possible, those who are uncivilized... like the people who victimized Matthew Shepard or rape women, or abuse children, etc.

I think for the people Matthew Shepard came in contact with, just the knowledge that Shepard wasgay would have dehumanized him in their eyes. I don't think the result would be any different. Plus, you're presuming that there was any more than "light flirting" in the approach.

The wolfwhistle... well, it can be uncomfortable. It can certainly be demeaning. And I think most women have heard plenty of that sort of thing... but my response really is big deal.. so we hear a few "hey, baby" or "mira, chiciqita linda", or whatever.... how we respond is far more telling than the approach. And maybe there is an element of keeping distance or maintaining one's safety in responding with a distant smile and a quick retreat... .but the fact is, even there, no one deserves to be victimized. To bring it to the hetero world, I've never understood why men get into fights with men who did nothing more than flirt with the woman they're with... (and I'm not talking aout a persistent thing...). It just never made sense to me... I guess I always said, "well, you can't blame them for trying". If the behavior persists past the "no thank you", whole other ball game.

I haven't read the Susan Brownmiller book. But will give it a look-see.


----------



## Doug

*Jillian :*  Trying to understand "why men get into fights with men who did nothing more than flirt with the woman they're with" is actually a very useful exercise. You've again hit on a key point and perhaps a difference between Left and right.

But ... I hesitate to reply. Because right on page 1 of my  *Men's Field Manual for Tactics and Strategy in the War Between the Sexes (FM100-1), * it says in bold type: DO NOT LET THEM KNOW THEIR OWN POWER OVER US.

But what the hell, your side never believes it anyway, so here I go:

The answer is basically simple: we fight because 

-- *(1)* there is some genetically-shaped impulse in us which shapes our behavior in the my-mate-is-being-propositioned situation, and this gene or gene-complex has alleles which range over a variety of strengths, and 

--- *(2)* in the past, males who had the stronger alleles, i.e. who kept other males away from their women more successfully, had more descendants than those males who didn't object very strongly. It's the same reason there are so few slow gazelles, or slow lions.

And women's choices played a big role in this: look into your heart and ask how you would respond if your husband was not jealous at all, and responded to other male come-ons to you (which among the intelligentsia are usually more subtle than wolf-whistles) with indifference. Your female ancestors chose the strong guys over the nicer guys, and it was a wise decision on their part. The same "Whut you lookin' at?" belligerence was better at protecting the cubs in a Hobbsean world.



> What but the wolf's tooth whittled so fine The fleet limbs of the antelope? What but fear winged the birds, and hunger Jeweled with such eyes the great goshawk's head? Violence has been the sire of all the world's values...



This also explains the difference in male and female sexuality, and also even the differences in what makes them jealous.

One of the most powerful memories I have of a certain ex-wife, IQ 160 plus, a university graduate at 18, an intellectual's intellectual, was her response to a very mild apparent flirtation-signal directed towards me by another woman. She said , "I'll scratch her eyes out!"

Women are jealous, then, for sure, but there is a difference. 

I will go out on a limb here, and assert: women fear losing their male permanently, more than they fear that he will be on rare occasions unfaithful. Whereas men react much more violently to the possibility of even a single infidelity.

And there are obvious biological reasons for this, which it would make this post too long to go into here, but anyone interested can read up on  Evolutionary Psychology. (A demurral here: I think the EP people may sometimes go too far in trying to explain all human behavior as evolutionary adaptations. But they are clearly on to something.)

But to put it in a nutshell: one single wayward liaison on the part of a female can leave the male raising a cuckoo's egg. A similar extra-marital encounter on the part of the male, provided it goes nowhere, does not threaten your ability to raise your descendants. You _know_ that your children are yours. He doesn't know with the same certainty that they are his (and some studies of biological as opposed to legal fatherhood have shown that he actually has reason to worry. Widespread DNA testing is going to cause social havoc).

These same reasons explain why the amount of porn produced  for males far outweighs the amount of  porn produced for females, roughly in the ratio of their respective lifetime gamete production counts (400 for you, umpty-zillion for us). And also in respect of its subtlety.

And it's why any reasonable-looking female, if she wants to, can get almost any normal male running around in front of her with one wing on the ground.

And why we have, therefore -- given the potentiallity of permanent warfare among the males in colonies of the human chimpanzee -- seen the evolution of a whole raft of social institutions, laws and customs, to try to curb this powerful male impulse and divert it into channels where it can be constructive.

(Another book suggestion here, to balance my previous feminist one: Steven Rhoads' [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Taking-Differences-Seriously-Steven-Rhoads/dp/159403091X/ref=sr_1_1/103-9655811-7155832?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192439258&sr=1-1] *Taking Sex Differences Seriously*[/ame]. Please feel free to retaliate.)

It's why Dr Johnson said, "Nature having given woman so much power, the law wisely allows her but little." (Or something similar.) (Of course his observation is now obsolete, which is why, if civilization survives so long, women will be the dominant sex within a few generations: you will have the power of both the law _and_ Nature on your side.)

And why Socrates is supposed to have said, having reached the age of sexual indifference, "At last I have been set free from a cruel and insane master."

This powerful drive, expressed in different ways among male and female, provides the theme for half if not more of the world's great literature. (And its awful literature too.)

And now we come to the political bit.

In the last few decades, in the West, we have seen the progressive dismantling of these laws, customs and institutions. This makes us conservatives uneasy.

Of course, few conservatives base their unease at things like growing single-parenthood and casual sex among young people and the dismantling of various sexual taboos, on Darwinism. (A [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Darwinian-Conservatism-Societas-S/dp/0907845991/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-9655811-7155832] few[/ame] do, but we are regarded with suspicion by the rest of the tribe, and probably with good reason. Even a conservative-friendly  rationalism is probably insufficient to sustain a good society. Nonetheless the hostility of many conservatives toward Darwinism is ironic, given that it supports a conservative approach to society.)

Rationalist liberals of the educated middle classes look at the religious and just-plain-prejudice driven arguments of many conservatives defending traditional morality, and laugh, or get indignant.

And indeed there is something there to laugh at, especially the delicious hypocrisy of many male conservatives. (I personally got intense enjoyment out of all the Republican Congressmen standing up to piously denounce Bill Clinton, knowing what an aphrodesiac male power is, as Henry Kissinger observed, and knowing all the opportunties that a Congressman has for testing the efficacy of that aphrodesiac .. It was noble, how they put the interests of their Party, as they saw it, above the interests of their Sex.)

But the hypocrisy is necessary. A society based on Pure Reason will not last.

We are now dismantling anything that cannot be defended in terms other than,  Does it cause displeasure to a non-consenting adult? If not, have at it! A dangerous experiment.

And I know that all these changes are subtly intertwined with that great and historic advance in human progress out of the slime, the emancipation of women, and are driven not by some homosexual or communist conspiracy, but by the prosperity and increasing individual autonomy that the free market has brought us. Hoist by our own petard!

So we conservatives grumble and look fearfully into the future, and shake our heads at each new set of statistics documenting what we see as progressive social decay, and at each new advance of the "If it feels good, do it!" philosophy, but we know we cannot do much to even slow the tide, much less stop or reverse it.


----------



## Shogun

So, if Dude A kicks the shit out of Dude B because Dude B was flirting with Dude A's girlfriend/wife isn't it true that it will be DUDE A that gets charged since flirting is neither a crime nor an excuse for a violent reaction?


Do we make excuses for said violent outburst and blame such on the flirtation of Dude B?


----------



## Doug

We do whatever is appropriate to the kicker, and advise the kicked to learn some Darwinian theory. 

Explain to him the paradox that the _less_ he knows about Darwinian theory (on matters having to do with s-e-x in particular), the _more_ likely it is he will be nominated for a Darwin Award.

How is it that so many liberals are partial to the idea that we have to understand the motivations of suicide bombers to commit their  heinous deeds, while not condoning the deed (said motivations presumably being protests over poverty and global warming) -- and yet are so resistant to the idea that we also have to understand the motivations of normal male primates of the human species, whose emotions and reflex reactions are not buried under a good deal of suppressive training or cultivated into socially-acceptable expressions?


----------



## Shogun

hehehe... you said darwinian theory.


I doubt if i'd make as much of an excuse for the violence here than I would when copkillers react and kill cops.  Should we require lessons on evolution in the police academy?


UNDERSTANDING the root cause is not FORGIVING the behaviour.  Besides, are you REALLY comparing manifest destiny and the creation of israel to wearing a slutty dress around guys who may be potential rapists?


really?


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> We do whatever is appropriate to the kicker, and advise the kicked to learn some Darwinian theory.
> 
> Explain to him the paradox that the _less_ he knows about Darwinian theory (on matters having to do with s-e-x in particular), the _more_ likely it is he will be nominated for a Darwin Award.
> 
> How is it that so many liberals are partial to the idea that we have to understand the motivations of suicide bombers to commit their  heinous deeds, while not condoning the deed (said motivations presumably being protests over poverty and global warming) -- and yet are so resistant to the idea that we also have to understand the motivations of normal male primates of the human species, whose emotions and reflex reactions are not buried under a good deal of suppressive training or cultivated into socially-acceptable expressions?



Last I checked we didn't base our laws, or our morals, on Social Darwinism.


----------



## Doug

Shogun said:


> hehehe... you said darwinian theory.
> 
> I doubt if i'd make as much of an excuse for the violence here than I would when copkillers react and kill cops.  Should we require lessons on evolution in the police academy?
> 
> UNDERSTANDING the root cause is not FORGIVING the behaviour.  Besides, are you REALLY comparing manifest destiny and the creation of israel to wearing a slutty dress around guys who may be potential rapists?
> 
> really?


Shogun: the only thing I even understand from your post is the unexceptional statement that "UNDERSTANDING the root cause is not FORGIVING the behaviour". "Root cause" is somewhat problematic, but let us agree that wicked behavior has causes -- it is not a quantum mechanical phenomenon -- and we had better take the various "causes" which are likely to be animating people into account when we mix with them.

Policemen aready have a pretty good idea of the effects of Darwinian selection on human behavior, without having to have understood anything about kin-selection or genetic drift.

As for the manifest destiny and Israel stuff ... what is that all about? Is this some reference to a previous argument in which I did not take part? If so, I pass. About which I know nothing, thereof I must remain silent.


----------



## Doug

Larkinn said:


> Last I checked we didn't base our laws, or our morals, on Social Darwinism.



So? What I was talking about had nothing whatsoever to do with Social Darwinism. That's a completely different concept.

I was referring to Evolutionary Psychology (the current polite name for Sociobiology, whose academic originators drew down on themselves the wrath of the totalitarian left -- so the name was changed, as a kind of protective coloration).

This discipline purports to explain, in evolutionary terms, some powerful universals of human behavior, which the Left likes to put down to capitalist cultural conditioning which will be overcome through proper social engineering.

Hey ... I thought we _conservatives_ were supposed to be the poorly-educated rednecks around here, the garage mechanics trying to argue with the clever college graduates. Has the world turned upside down?


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> So? What I was talking about had nothing whatsoever to do with Social Darwinism. That's a completely different concept.



No, actually Evolutionary Psychology and Social Darwinism are very closely related.   



> I was referring to Evolutionary Psychology (the current polite name for Sociobiology, whose academic originators drew down on themselves the wrath of the totalitarian left -- so the name was changed, as a kind of protective coloration).



Incorrect.   Evolutionary Psychology is not concerned with the same question as sociobiology is.   Sociobiology attempts to figure out which parts of human actions are controlled by either nature or nurture.   Evolutionary Psch is concerned with  attempting to explain traits through genetics i.e. nature, and not only that it comes from nature, but where exactly it comes from.   Your tendency to blame everything on the left seems to have atrophied your perspective.



> This discipline purports to explain, in evolutionary terms, some powerful universals of human behavior, which the Left likes to put down to capitalist cultural conditioning which will be overcome through proper social engineering.



Amazing.   Acadamia is a field of the left, and science shouldn't be trusted because it is infiltrated by the left, but yet, in your mind, Evolutionary Psych is attempting to refute some things that the "left likes to put down to capitalist cultural conditioning".   Amazing even further that Evolutionary Psych is dependent on evolution and so is even more liberal than many fields of acadamia.

Care to reconcile that internal contradiction, Doug?   Perhaps by discontinuing your idiotic generalizations?   Somehow I doubt it.   You seem to hold onto them as reinforcing your ideas as if without them you would have no real basis for your beliefs.  



> Hey ... I thought we _conservatives_ were supposed to be the poorly-educated rednecks around here, the garage mechanics trying to argue with the clever college graduates. Has the world turned upside down?



Well whether its because you are conservative or not, I have no idea, but you do seem to be poorly educated.


----------



## Doug

*Larkinn:* I am a conservative,and I am indeed very poorly educated. The more I read about history and society, the more I find out how little I know. This is one of the things that makes me a conservative, since I know that this ignorance is not mine alone, but that of all men.

To take your points one by one:

*(1) *On EP and Social Darwinism. You claim that they are closely related, but do not explain how. Could you elaborate on that?

*(2) *I think you are splitting hairs on the differences between Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Here is what Wiki has to say about it:



> Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines that *attempts to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the behaviors may have*. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, but also draws from ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archeology, population genetics and other disciplines. *Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology*.
> 
> Sociobiology has become one of the greatest scientific controversies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, especially in the context of explaining human behavior. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centers on *sociobiology's contention that genes play a central role in human behavio*r and that *variation in traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by variation in peoples' biology and is not necessarily a product of the person's social environment*. Many sociobiologists, however, cite a complex relationship between nature and nurture. *In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist branch of sociobiology with less controversial focuses*.



Of course, any sane person will say that human behavior is not entirely and completely the result of simple evolutionarily-derived biological reflexes. No one in the world thinks that the social environment in which a child is raised has abolutely no effect on him whatsoever. This is not even a strawman.

*(3)* And you say





> :Amazing. Acadamia is a field of the left, and science shouldn't be trusted because it is infiltrated by the left, but yet, in your mind, Evolutionary Psych is attempting to refute some things that the "left likes to put down to capitalist cultural conditioning". Amazing even further that Evolutionary Psych is dependent on evolution and so is even more liberal than many fields of acadamia.



Hmm... I am now going to make a generous offer, and I will let *Jillian*, who is on your side of the barricades but whom I know to be an honest person, adjudicate: If you can find any statement by me which says, or implies, that "science is not to be trusted because it is infiltrated by the left" I will donate $100 to the leftist cause of your choice. Perhaps you were talkin about the so-called "social sciences"? Here I indeed recommend a large grain of salt in considering what they have to say. But they are not sciences, any more than "food science" or "military science" is.


I suspect you know nothing  about this, but in the 1990s there was a huge fight between "postmodern" leftists who were into  "critical theory" and who began to write a lot of nonsense about (real) science and its supposed lack  of objectivity, how it reflected male viewpoints and its capitalist origins. They were utterly destroyed, so far as I am concerned, by some real scientists, many of whom were liberals. Their demolition is great fun to read, and I may start a thread on it, to help induce in some of our younger and more credulous posters a healthy skepticism about academia, which, outside of the real sciences, and mathematics, is just as faddish and subjective as your average New Age conclave.

You seem to have a very simple model: academia is liberal and good, so nothing that supports the worldview of conservatism can come out of it. In particular, it is a "contradiction" to find support for the conservative way of thinking, in certain results claimed by an academic discipline.

Have you never noticed the heavy reliance of conservatism on the field of economics? 

This is a very strange view: you seem to have taken the view attributed to (but not held by) David Horowitz, tripled its potency, and turned it upside down.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> Shogun: the only thing I even understand from your post is the unexceptional statement that "UNDERSTANDING the root cause is not FORGIVING the behaviour". "Root cause" is somewhat problematic, but let us agree that wicked behavior has causes -- it is not a quantum mechanical phenomenon -- and we had better take the various "causes" which are likely to be animating people into account when we mix with them.
> 
> Policemen aready have a pretty good idea of the effects of Darwinian selection on human behavior, without having to have understood anything about kin-selection or genetic drift.
> 
> As for the manifest destiny and Israel stuff ... what is that all about? Is this some reference to a previous argument in which I did not take part? If so, I pass. About which I know nothing, thereof I must remain silent.





since cops have a pretty good idea do you tell their widows that they should have made a less stupid career choice?  


Have you posted anything resembling evidence today yet?


----------



## Doug

What would you count as evidence? And evidence for what?

Your other comment is a _non sequitur_, so I cannot answer.


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> since cops have a pretty good idea do you tell their widows that they should have made a less stupid career choice?
> 
> 
> Have you posted anything resembling evidence today yet?



I think that we can agree that this is a relative issue in that people make choices and take changes.  Some activities are more dangerous and riskier than are other activities.  There are good neighborhoods, okay neighborhoods, and bad neighborhoods.  There are safe jobs, risky jobs, and very dangerous jobs.  Ultimately, it is the criminal to blame.  Did you see the movie The Accused?  

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

_The story is about a working-class woman (played by Foster) labeled as promiscuous because she was a woman who had more than one sexual partner. One night in a bar, she is viciously gang-raped by several drunk bar patrons. A district attorney (played by McGillis) is assigned to the rape case. The trial that ensues argues the point that no matter how much sexual tension and teasing that had previously occurred during the night of the rape, the drunk patrons were guilty of the crime because it wasn't consensual, not only for actually perpetrating the rape but also for encouraging it.

It is one of the first Hollywood films to deal with rape in a direct manner._
Did foster ask to be raped?


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> What would you count as evidence? And evidence for what?
> 
> Your other comment is a _non sequitur_, so I cannot answer.



thats awfully convenient.

Come on, doug.. SURELY, if you can attribute even a minor bit of responsibility onto rape victims and gay dudes because of their choices then, SURELY, you also reserve the same for the widows of dead cops who, like you said, are fully aware of the nature of their employment, eh



I was just fucking with you about the evidence schtick.  Hope your day is going well.


----------



## Shogun

*Ultimately, it is the criminal to blame.*

thats really all Im going for here.  Weather it be for the sake of a gay kid, rape victim, black kid from chicago, cops, etc.  I find it reprehensible to rationalize what happened to matt shepherd just because the kid was gay.


----------



## Diuretic

Doug said:


> So? What I was talking about had nothing whatsoever to do with Social Darwinism. That's a completely different concept.
> 
> I was referring to Evolutionary Psychology (the current polite name for Sociobiology, whose academic originators drew down on themselves the wrath of the totalitarian left -- so the name was changed, as a kind of protective coloration).
> 
> This discipline purports to explain, in evolutionary terms, some powerful universals of human behavior, which the Left likes to put down to capitalist cultural conditioning which will be overcome through proper social engineering.
> 
> Hey ... I thought we _conservatives_ were supposed to be the poorly-educated rednecks around here, the garage mechanics trying to argue with the clever college graduates. Has the world turned upside down?



Interesting.  I remember it as sociobiology and I think Dawkins was one ofthem?  There was an American academic, at Harvard I think, can't remember his name at the moment.  I remember the firestorm too.  A book, from memory "Not in our Genes"? Somebody Rose from the OU in the UK??  I started to read it but then thought it was just too ideological and gave up.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> *Larkinn:* I am a conservative,and I am indeed very poorly educated. The more I read about history and society, the more I find out how little I know. This is one of the things that makes me a conservative, since I know that this ignorance is not mine alone, but that of all men.



The belief that all men are ignorant has nothing to do with conservatism.   



> *(1) *On EP and Social Darwinism. You claim that they are closely related, but do not explain how. Could you elaborate on that?



EP is essentially the science of attempting to explain human actions via genetic or otherwise inherent non-environmental mechanisms.   Social Darwinism is essentially those with the best mechanisms will be most likely to survive, and attempts to explain, via those mechanisms, why people do survive and prosper.   



> *(2) *I think you are splitting hairs on the differences between Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Here is what Wiki has to say about it:



Wiki also says, which you conveniently left out, 



> Many sociobiologists, however, cite a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides * launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist branch of sociobiology with less controversial focuses.*



They are related, but as to your conspiracies about the name changing because of the "totalitarian left", well that is just in your overly partisan head.




> Of course, any sane person will say that human behavior is not entirely and completely the result of simple evolutionarily-derived biological reflexes.



There are plenty of people who don't believe that statement, and most are sane.   Merely because an idea is difficult for you to comprehend does not mean believers of said idea are insane.   



> No one in the world thinks that the social environment in which a child is raised has abolutely no effect on him whatsoever. This is not even a strawman.



Correct...but this idea is compatible with the previous idea that nobody sane believes.   Its not easy, but it may well be the case.



> Hmm... I am now going to make a generous offer, and I will let *Jillian*, who is on your side of the barricades but whom I know to be an honest person, adjudicate: If you can find any statement by me which says, or implies, that "science is not to be trusted because it is infiltrated by the left" I will donate $100 to the leftist cause of your choice. Perhaps you were talkin about the so-called "social sciences"? Here I indeed recommend a large grain of salt in considering what they have to say. But they are not sciences, any more than "food science" or "military science" is.



Psychology is not a science?   Please provide some evidence of this.   I hope you can acknowledge saying that the APA should not be trusted because of leftist bias without me having to dig up that quote.



> You seem to have a very simple model: academia is liberal and good, so nothing that supports the worldview of conservatism can come out of it.



Nothing I said implied this.   Where exactly did you pull this crap from?



> In particular, it is a "contradiction" to find support for the conservative way of thinking, in certain results claimed by an academic discipline.



Ah I see.   You took me describing your views and assumed I believed them.  Why would you think that?   I was describing a contradiction in YOUR beliefs, not mine.

I am not the one continuously making generalizations about academia as liberal.   I am not the one who constantly references the left as if they are some huge homogenous block.  

And don't assume that I think of conservatives the same way you think of liberals.   I dislike a great deal of conservative thought, but thats because I think it is incorrect or inhumane, not because its evil or "totalitarian" or being linked to it makes one a bad person.



> Have you never noticed the heavy reliance of conservatism on the field of economics?



I am well aware of the conservatism in academia regarding economics, particularly the Chicago school.


----------



## Diuretic

Shogun said:


> since cops have a pretty good idea do you tell their widows that they should have made a less stupid career choice?
> 
> 
> Have you posted anything resembling evidence today yet?



It's not really a stupid career choice (although the money could be better  ) but there are lot of other jobs more physically dangerous - mining for example.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Now do not read this story, it won't help your case any on how science is so sure about Homosexual orientation and how it comes about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071015/ap_on_sc/gay_genetics


----------



## Doug

Larkinn (and Shogun): I've got to go to bed now so I will answer most of your posts tomorrow.

Except for one thing.

Look at my post, #431. Here is a bit of it:



> (2) I think you are splitting hairs on the differences between Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology. Here is what Wiki has to say about it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociobiology is a synthesis of scientific disciplines that attempts to explain social behavior in all species by considering the evolutionary advantages the behaviors may have. It is often considered a branch of biology and sociology, but also draws from ethology, anthropology, evolution, zoology, archeology, population genetics and other disciplines. Within the study of human societies, sociobiology is closely related to the fields of human behavioral ecology and evolutionary psychology.
> 
> Sociobiology has become one of the greatest scientific controversies of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, especially in the context of explaining human behavior. Criticism, most notably made by Richard Lewontin and Stephen Jay Gould, centers on sociobiology's contention that genes play a central role in human behavior and that variation in traits such as aggressiveness can be explained by variation in peoples' biology and is not necessarily a product of the person's social environment. Many sociobiologists, however, cite a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist branch of sociobiology with less controversial focuses
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


In replying to it, you said:

"Wiki also says, which you conveniently left out, 



> Many sociobiologists, however, cite a complex relationship between nature and nurture. In response to the controversy, anthropologist John Tooby and psychologist Leda Cosmides launched evolutionary psychology as a centrist branch of sociobiology with less controversial focuses.



Lesson for the class: Find the part of the Wiki article that I "conveniently left out".

*Diuretic:* Some names, so you can Google if you want to: That Harvard sociobiologist, EO Wilson. Nobel prizewinner I think, specialist on ants. Physically attacked by leftist goons during a talk on campus, plus other indignities.

*Not in Our Genes*, etc. Richard Lewontin, a Marxist biologist -- a Maoist, or he used to be. And the late Stephen Gould, also a Marxist, but a very entertaining writer. The OU guy you are thinking of is probably Richard Rose.

If you are interested in this question, I can send you a lot of references, books, articles and links. It overlaps heavily with the race and IQ question, which is, however, something we conservatives should not touch with a ten-foot pool -- your side has more latitude.

Related and also of interest is the sex-and-cognition question: why are there few women mathematicians and physicists? If you want to survive in American academia, be very very careful if you suggest that it might actually have something to do with brain differences. Even mentioning this as a theoretical possibility cost the president of Harvard University his job -- and he was a well-known liberal, one of Clinton's men.

I don't think Dawkins is really closely allied, in practice, to the sociobiology/Evolutionary Psychology people, athough logically he should be.


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> *Jillian :*  Trying to understand "why men get into fights with men who did nothing more than flirt with the woman they're with" is actually a very useful exercise. You've again hit on a key point and perhaps a difference between Left and right.
> 
> But ... I hesitate to reply. Because right on page 1 of my  *Men's Field Manual for Tactics and Strategy in the War Between the Sexes (FM100-1), * it says in bold type: DO NOT LET THEM KNOW THEIR OWN POWER OVER US.
> 
> But what the hell, your side never believes it anyway, so here I go:
> 
> The answer is basically simple: we fight because
> 
> -- *(1)* there is some genetically-shaped impulse in us which shapes our behavior in the my-mate-is-being-propositioned situation, and this gene or gene-complex has alleles which range over a variety of strengths, and
> 
> --- *(2)* in the past, males who had the stronger alleles, i.e. who kept other males away from their women more successfully, had more descendants than those males who didn't object very strongly. It's the same reason there are so few slow gazelles, or slow lions.
> 
> And women's choices played a big role in this: look into your heart and ask how you would respond if your husband was not jealous at all, and responded to other male come-ons to you (which among the intelligentsia are usually more subtle than wolf-whistles) with indifference. Your female ancestors chose the strong guys over the nicer guys, and it was a wise decision on their part. The same "Whut you lookin' at?" belligerence was better at protecting the cubs in a Hobbsean world.
> 
> 
> 
> This also explains the difference in male and female sexuality, and also even the differences in what makes them jealous.
> 
> One of the most powerful memories I have of a certain ex-wife, IQ 160 plus, a university graduate at 18, an intellectual's intellectual, was her response to a very mild apparent flirtation-signal directed towards me by another woman. She said , "I'll scratch her eyes out!"
> 
> Women are jealous, then, for sure, but there is a difference.
> 
> I will go out on a limb here, and assert: women fear losing their male permanently, more than they fear that he will be on rare occasions unfaithful. Whereas men react much more violently to the possibility of even a single infidelity.
> 
> And there are obvious biological reasons for this, which it would make this post too long to go into here, but anyone interested can read up on  Evolutionary Psychology. (A demurral here: I think the EP people may sometimes go too far in trying to explain all human behavior as evolutionary adaptations. But they are clearly on to something.)
> 
> But to put it in a nutshell: one single wayward liaison on the part of a female can leave the male raising a cuckoo's egg. A similar extra-marital encounter on the part of the male, provided it goes nowhere, does not threaten your ability to raise your descendants. You _know_ that your children are yours. He doesn't know with the same certainty that they are his (and some studies of biological as opposed to legal fatherhood have shown that he actually has reason to worry. Widespread DNA testing is going to cause social havoc).
> 
> These same reasons explain why the amount of porn produced  for males far outweighs the amount of  porn produced for females, roughly in the ratio of their respective lifetime gamete production counts (400 for you, umpty-zillion for us). And also in respect of its subtlety.
> 
> And it's why any reasonable-looking female, if she wants to, can get almost any normal male running around in front of her with one wing on the ground.
> 
> And why we have, therefore -- given the potentiallity of permanent warfare among the males in colonies of the human chimpanzee -- seen the evolution of a whole raft of social institutions, laws and customs, to try to curb this powerful male impulse and divert it into channels where it can be constructive.
> 
> (Another book suggestion here, to balance my previous feminist one: Steven Rhoads'  *Taking Sex Differences Seriously*. Please feel free to retaliate.)
> 
> It's why Dr Johnson said, "Nature having given woman so much power, the law wisely allows her but little." (Or something similar.) (Of course his observation is now obsolete, which is why, if civilization survives so long, women will be the dominant sex within a few generations: you will have the power of both the law _and_ Nature on your side.)
> 
> And why Socrates is supposed to have said, having reached the age of sexual indifference, "At last I have been set free from a cruel and insane master."
> 
> This powerful drive, expressed in different ways among male and female, provides the theme for half if not more of the world's great literature. (And its awful literature too.)
> 
> And now we come to the political bit.
> 
> In the last few decades, in the West, we have seen the progressive dismantling of these laws, customs and institutions. This makes us conservatives uneasy.
> 
> Of course, few conservatives base their unease at things like growing single-parenthood and casual sex among young people and the dismantling of various sexual taboos, on Darwinism. (A  few do, but we are regarded with suspicion by the rest of the tribe, and probably with good reason. Even a conservative-friendly  rationalism is probably insufficient to sustain a good society. Nonetheless the hostility of many conservatives toward Darwinism is ironic, given that it supports a conservative approach to society.)
> 
> Rationalist liberals of the educated middle classes look at the religious and just-plain-prejudice driven arguments of many conservatives defending traditional morality, and laugh, or get indignant.
> 
> And indeed there is something there to laugh at, especially the delicious hypocrisy of many male conservatives. (I personally got intense enjoyment out of all the Republican Congressmen standing up to piously denounce Bill Clinton, knowing what an aphrodesiac male power is, as Henry Kissinger observed, and knowing all the opportunties that a Congressman has for testing the efficacy of that aphrodesiac .. It was noble, how they put the interests of their Party, as they saw it, above the interests of their Sex.)
> 
> But the hypocrisy is necessary. A society based on Pure Reason will not last.
> 
> We are now dismantling anything that cannot be defended in terms other than,  Does it cause displeasure to a non-consenting adult? If not, have at it! A dangerous experiment.
> 
> And I know that all these changes are subtly intertwined with that great and historic advance in human progress out of the slime, the emancipation of women, and are driven not by some homosexual or communist conspiracy, but by the prosperity and increasing individual autonomy that the free market has brought us. Hoist by our own petard!
> 
> So we conservatives grumble and look fearfully into the future, and shake our heads at each new set of statistics documenting what we see as progressive social decay, and at each new advance of the "If it feels good, do it!" philosophy, but we know we cannot do much to even slow the tide, much less stop or reverse it.



I see where you're coming from. I really do. But as sentient, supposedly civilized beings, I think we can be expected to rise above whatever stone-age impulses lie within. People who perpetrate acts of violence against others have done so voluntarily. If I smile at someone, that should no more make my husband punch him in the face than if I shake the rain off of an umbrella. And while I would be angry if he made a play for another woman, I can't imagine being violent toward her.

I don't think it's so much that "liberals" have a philosophy of "if it feels good, do it". I think it's more that we... well, I at least, feel people have to govern their own behavior. And if that behavior has no effect on me, it isn't my place to tell them how to comport themselves. I also am secure enough in my own mores and behaviors, not to be much troubled by people who live differently. I also think, perhaps, I might be much less apt to put people in the boxes of moral and immoral or maybe I see different things as immoral. Sexuality between two consenting adults is healthy. Porn, if tasteful, doesn't much trouble me either. It is immoral to steal, to cheat another in business, to be fundamentally dishonest and (to digress into partisan politics for a moment) to wage war for unsupportable reasons. But mostly, I don't want someone as fallible as anyone else making determinations about what my behavior or anyone else's behavior should be IF IT HAS NO EFFECT ON ANYONE ELSE. That does not mean that we, as a society shouldn't continue to prohibit acts which infringe on another's liberty.... stealing (which interferes in our freedom to freely possess our own property) murder (which deprives us of our life), etc. 

Finally, I have never seen sexuality as "a cruel and insane master"... rather, I think it is a normal part of who we are, to be appreciated, enjoyed and one of the gifts we are given by our maker, rather than some evil part of the human biology which should be suppressed.

Perhaps the difference between conservatism and liberalism is that we're optimists about human behavior


----------



## Diuretic

Bingo on the names, thanks Doug, that's those.  I thought Wilson was pretty interesting.  I can't critique anyone on the science of any of it but if it smells of ideology I'm turned off.


----------



## José

> Originally posted by *Doug*
> And why Socrates is supposed to have said, having reached the age of sexual indifference, "At last I have been set free from a cruel and insane master."





> Originally posted by *Jillian*
> Finally, I have never seen sexuality as "a cruel and insane master"... rather, I think it is a normal part of who we are, to be appreciated, enjoyed and one of the gifts we are given by our maker, rather than some evil part of the human biology which should be suppressed.



Forgive her ignorance, Doug.

As a woman, she doesn&#8217;t understand the burnings we feel in our lower parts.

No matter how many times we explain it to her.

She doesn&#8217;t understand it and probably never will.


----------



## Diuretic

Any Monty Python fans?



> Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
> Who was very rarely stable.
> Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
> Who could think you under the table.
> 
> David Hume could out-consume
> Schopenhauer and Hegel,
> 
> And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
> Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
> 
> There's nothing Nietszche couldn't teach ya
> 'Bout the raising of the wrist.
> Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
> 
> John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
> On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.
> 
> Plato, they say, could stick it away--
> Half a crate of whiskey every day.
> 
> Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
> Hobbes was fond of his dram,
> 
> And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart.
> 'I drink, therefore I am.'
> 
> Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
> A lovely little thinker,
> But a bugger when he's pissed.



Socrates obviously had brewer's droop


----------



## Doug

*Jillian:* Thank you for having the fortitude to read my dissertation-posts.

Yes, I believe that men and women have some fundamental, but subtle, differences in the way they think, the things that motivate them, and so on.

How much, in any given society, these are due to nature, and how much to nurture, is one of the most interesting questions of our time, given that the purely social constraints on women are rapidly dissolving: an inadvertent experiment in weakening one of two otherwise-intangled factors.

And I am sure you are right about the differences between liberals and conservatives, with regard to the unspoken world-view each group has.

A study of human history, especially that of the last five hundred years, provides unlimited material to support the views of both sides.

It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law. 

As for the alleged hedonism at the heart of liberal philosophy ... yes, I exaggerate. This was the view of the Sixties generation (ask me how I know), and I believe that they brought it, subconsciously, into the liberal movement, insofar as one can speak of a liberal movement. There it blended well with the old-fashioned liberal tendency to look to the state for remedies to social problems, which implies a diminished role for personal resonsibility.

But I know there are all kinds of liberals, and some have a fairly well work-out theory of community, and the responsibilities of individuals within it, for example. (But I notice that on this Board, nuances and acknowlegement of exceptions to the rule are not appreciated. So I shall stick to unfair, sweeping generalizations.)

And many conservatives would instinctively agree with your libertarian social philosophy: _An it hurt no one, do what thou wilt_. The arguments begin over where social harm, perhaps initially very subtle in effect, can result from what are logically individual choices. 

Thus the only argument I can see against legalizing drugs -- which I support -- is the one that says that it will, in fact, result in widespread misery as people find it much easier to acquire and use and then ab-use them -- and you can be sure the capitalist market will bring drugs to them at very low prices and packaged most attractively.

The libertarian focusses on the individual, in the privacy of her own home, making a rational choice as to how and to what extent to alter her consciousness by chemical means for a few hours. The non-libertarian looks at the big picture and the effect on society as a whole.  (My own guess is that it can't get much worse, and that legalization would have such enormous good effects in other fields -- destroying the financial base of drug gangs and removing a powerful source of judicial and police corruption -- that it is worth taking the risk.)

*Jos&#233;*: Perhaps you will reconsider your choice of words -- "burnings in our lower parts" -- (I have found that they don't like to hear that sort of language, at least not during the _initial_ stages of the chase.)  I personally prefer to explain it as "the intensity of our romantic ardor" or some such. " ... and we will some new pleasures prove ..." etc.

(Attention, teenage male lurkers: go  here  for some good lines. Warning: they must be _memorized_, not Googled for on your hand-held computer at the crucial moment, which will spoil the desired effect.)


----------



## jillian

Diuretic said:


> Any Monty Python fans?
> 
> 
> 
> Socrates obviously had brewer's droop



The Philosophers' Song?!?!?!?! RAFLMAO!!    

I still like the penguin on the telly.


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> *Jillian:* Thank you for having the fortitude to read my dissertation-posts.
> 
> Yes, I believe that men and women have some fundamental, but subtle, differences in the way they think, the things that motivate them, and so on.
> 
> How much, in any given society, these are due to nature, and how much to nurture, is one of the most interesting questions of our time, given that the purely social constraints on women are rapidly dissolving: an inadvertent experiment in weakening one of two otherwise-intangled factors.
> 
> And I am sure you are right about the differences between liberals and conservatives, with regard to the unspoken world-view each group has.
> 
> A study of human history, especially that of the last five hundred years, provides unlimited material to support the views of both sides.
> 
> It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law.
> 
> As for the alleged hedonism at the heart of liberal philosophy ... yes, I exaggerate. This was the view of the Sixties generation (ask me how I know), and I believe that they brought it, subconsciously, into the liberal movement, insofar as one can speak of a liberal movement. There it blended well with the old-fashioned liberal tendency to look to the state for remedies to social problems, which implies a diminished role for personal resonsibility.
> 
> But I know there are all kinds of liberals, and some have a fairly well work-out theory of community, and the responsibilities of individuals within it, for example. (But I notice that on this Board, nuances and acknowlegement of exceptions to the rule are not appreciated. So I shall stick to unfair, sweeping generalizations.)
> 
> And many conservatives would instinctively agree with your libertarian social philosophy: _An it hurt no one, do what thou wilt_. The arguments begin over where social harm, perhaps initially very subtle in effect, can result from what are logically individual choices.
> 
> Thus the only argument I can see against legalizing drugs -- which I support -- is the one that says that it will, in fact, result in widespread misery as people find it much easier to acquire and use and then ab-use them -- and you can be sure the capitalist market will bring drugs to them at very low prices and packaged most attractively.
> 
> The libertarian focusses on the individual, in the privacy of her own home, making a rational choice as to how and to what extent to alter her consciousness by chemical means for a few hours. The non-libertarian looks at the big picture and the effect on society as a whole.  (My own guess is that it can't get much worse, and that legalization would have such enormous good effects in other fields -- destroying the financial base of drug gangs and removing a powerful source of judicial and police corruption -- that it is worth taking the risk.)
> 
> *José*: Perhaps you will reconsider your choice of words -- "burnings in our lower parts" -- (I have found that they don't like to hear that sort of language, at least not during the _initial_ stages of the chase.)  I personally prefer to explain it as "the intensity of our romantic ardor" or some such. " ... and we will some new pleasures prove ..." etc.
> 
> (Attention, teenage male lurkers: go  here  for some good lines. Warning: they must be _memorized_, not Googled for on your hand-held computer at the crucial moment, which will spoil the desired effect.)



No problem... I enjoy the exchanges. 

I will answer your post later, but I have to get to work now.


----------



## Shogun

you know, Doug.. It seems you missed my post where I specifically stated that if I had the answer to the nature vs nurture question I'd be the next ivan pavlov.


----------



## Doug

*Shogun*: Join the club. I will go back and look over your posts, and *Larkinn's *too. 

But I sometimes get the feeling that there is a certain amount of ... shall we say, levity, in your posts. So I then fear that I am charging a giant you have appeared to put before me, which is actually a windmill. A sneaky liberal trick to wear us conservatives out!


----------



## Shogun

it's your constant liberal/conservative generalizations that turn me off.  I find that politics is not as much of a cookie cutter as you imply.  You may find levity in my posts because this is the internet and anyone taking this shit seriously needs to re-discover the sun.  However, for someone pointing a finger at my posts perhaps it's the quickness with which Ill post evidence that sets you afloat.  Sure, sure.. You seem to have a million and one hypotheticals but I don't think i'd get on a soapbox about the nature of anyone's posts if I were you.  

I find that some of the longer winded posters are not so much dazzling with brilliance but, rather, trying to baffle with bullshit.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> it's your constant liberal/conservative generalizations that turn me off.  I find that politics is not as much of a cookie cutter as you imply.  You may find levity in my posts because this is the internet and anyone taking this shit seriously needs to re-discover the sun.  However, for someone pointing a finger at my posts perhaps it's the quickness with which Ill post evidence that sets you afloat.  Sure, sure.. You seem to have a million and one hypotheticals but I don't think i'd get on a soapbox about the nature of anyone's posts if I were you.
> 
> I find that some of the longer winded posters are not so much dazzling with brilliance but, rather, trying to baffle with bullshit.



Is that what you really think, or are you just aping Jillian, again?


----------



## Shogun

I see that having your ass handed to you has created a grudge, eh?


hehehehe...



you run with that.


----------



## Doug

*Shogun:* You say: 





> it's your constant liberal/conservative generalizations that turn me off. I find that politics is not as much of a cookie cutter as you imply.


I do not expect you to read carefully through my Collected Works, but in fact I go to great lengths to try to distinguish, at a minimum, genuine liberals from the hard Left. I know that there are many currents within the Left -- it is nowhere near as diverse as the Right, but it is far from homogeneous. Only a fool would equate, for example, Todd Gitlin with Noam Chomsky. In fact, because I believe understanding all the differences within the Left is so important for being able to combat it, when I wrote my pamphlet on how to debate -- *The Right Way to Argue: How Conservatives Can Prevail in OnLine Debate* -- I devoted several paragraphs to this very topic. (Available for free, just PM me -- sorry, conservatives and sensible liberals only.)





> You may find levity in my posts because this is the internet and anyone taking this shit seriously needs to re-discover the sun.


 "The medium is the message", huh? I don't agree but I will grant that the anonymity the internet affords its users can tempt us to reveal our worst sides. And I'll also say that this Message Board seems to exacerbate that, for some reason.





> However, for someone pointing a finger at my posts perhaps it's the quickness with which Ill post evidence that sets you afloat


.I don't recall any examples of this -- I do remember that you had an exchange with someone about whether or not homosexuality had been shown to be genetic, but I was not involved in that argument. I know that homosexuality is not a "choice", and the question is actually irrelevant. 





> Sure, sure.. You seem to have a million and one hypotheticals but I don't think i'd get on a soapbox about the nature of anyone's posts if I were you.


I'm about the kindest, sweetest, most understanding-of-liberals conservative with whom you'll ever argue. If you get upset by any observations of mine about your posts, other than their content, you must be mighty thin-skinned indeed.

In any case, I strive to avoid personal exchanges with people, even if I think they are wicked. It's pointless. I'm here to argue about ideas, and I hope that everyone else is too.


----------



## Shogun

*B]Shogun:* You say: I do not expect you to read carefully through my Collected Works, but in fact I go to great lengths to try to distinguish, at a minimum, genuine liberals from the hard Left. I know that there are many currents within the Left -- it is nowhere near as diverse as the Right, but it is far from homogeneous. Only a fool would equate, for example, Todd Gitlin with Noam Chomsky. In fact, because I believe understanding all the differences within the Left is so important for being able to combat it, when I wrote my pamphlet on how to debate -- *The Right Way to Argue: How Conservatives Can Prevail in OnLine Debate* -- I devoted several paragraphs to this very topic. (Available for free, just PM me -- sorry, conservatives and sensible liberals only.)[/B]


Would you care to post your evidence that suggests "*it is nowhere near as diverse as the Right"* or, again, will I have to point out your total lack of anything beyhond hypothetical rhetoric?  I see you drop "liberals blah blah blah" all the time.  I can quote you, if you'd like.  Way to plug your stuff, by the way.  I hope it gives better advice than how i've seen you perform in this forum.



*
 "The medium is the message", huh? I don't agree but I will grant that the anonymity the internet affords its users can tempt us to reveal our worst sides. And I'll also say that this Message Board seems to exacerbate that, for some reason..
*

Indeed, perhaps your first clue should have been the nicknames and handles that everyone chooses for themselves.  If you lose sleep over what you read in a message board, whether you agree or not, you need to go rediscover life in general.  Did I say "The Medium is the Message"?  trying to dive a little deeper than is necessary, eh?  you know.. instead of dazzling with brilliance, baffling with bullshit?


*I don't recall any examples of this -- I do remember that you had an exchange with someone about whether or not homosexuality had been shown to be genetic, but I was not involved in that argument. I know that homosexuality is not a "choice", and the question is actually irrelevant.*

oh, NOW it's irrelevant.. Convenient that this seems to be the flow of the stream after I posted from the APA... of COURSE it's irrelevant because MOST people respnd to irrelevance with "b-b-but the APA is a liberal thinktank!" and "psychology is not physics!", eh?  My point being that since butting heads in that thread one of us tends to rely on posted evidence while the other tried to weave rhetorical non-sequiters from opinion into logic. Did you ever figure out why it becomes pointless to blame a scantily dressed woman hellbent on walking home if you force her into your own car?   


*
"I'm about the kindest, sweetest, most understanding-of-liberals conservative with whom you'll ever argue. If you get upset by any observations of mine about your posts, other than their content, you must be mighty thin-skinned indeed."*

Indeed, so too can I be a gentleman to my political counterparts.  I just have no stomach for the generalization.  But, since I am confident in my ability to repel shit then it looks like we are both kosher... as long as your integument has a healthy layer as well.  i don't get mad at these threads.. They make me laugh. 


*In any case, I strive to avoid personal exchanges with people, even if I think they are wicked. It's pointless. I'm here to argue about ideas, and I hope that everyone else is too.*

Well, that's well and good and all... until you toss out sweeping generalizations.  Don't worry.  Ill point them out to you every time I catch you  blaming liberals for this or assuming anything that doesn't fall in line with your opinion is a liberal think tank.  Feel free to generously post evidence and sources for your assertions.  Lord knows an ounce of evidence is worth a ton of speculation.


----------



## midcan5

Doug,

"It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law."

what the hell! No one but you thinks that? You ain't even close on the conservatives who are fighting those bad Islamic terrorists last I checked.

"The Right Way to Argue: How Conservatives Can Prevail in OnLine Debate -- I devoted several paragraphs to this very topic."

Doug, please post in writing, share it, and I, when I have time would love to do the sequel.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> I see that having your ass handed to you has created a grudge, eh?
> 
> 
> hehehehe...
> 
> 
> 
> you run with that.



Just because you say it, friend, doesn't make it so. You can't hand my ass to me if you don't bother to read the material provided. And saying it's irrelevant is, well, irrelevant, if you haven't read the material.

And no, I don't hold a grudge, despite the fact that your comments are base and insulting, besides being patently incorrect.


----------



## Shogun

patently incorrect?  Like how Jillian pointed out that you name dropped a study erroneously? HAHA!

Maybe I can just label it a conservative agenda since that seems to work for you after poking you with the reality of the APA standard...  Hell, even Doug bailed on you and admitted that homosexuality isn't a choice.  But you stick with your misunderstanding about a name dropped study you didn't think would come back to haunt you.  Being tenacious about this is only going to make is sweeter when I get tired of teasing you...


----------



## AllieBaba

The study I named was apropos and made my point. Which you don't know because you didn't look at it. Or bother to read the opinions of the true scientific community (not the psychology nuts) who state, one and all, that the studies don't back up the claims that homosexuality is caused by biology or genetics.

For the simple minded:
No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation


----------



## Doug

midcan5 said:


> Doug,
> 
> "It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law."
> 
> what the hell! No one but you thinks that? You ain't even close on the conservatives who are fighting those bad Islamic terrorists last I checked..


The conservative movement is very diverse -- there are indeed conservatives who see the whole world as Judeo-Christians vs Islam. There are those -- I suppose -- who believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, or could have been, and was almost ready to start turning out nuclear weapons n the assembly line. And then there are those upon whom many liberals put the blame for the whole Iraq war, the neo-conservatives.

Now the neo-conservatives have a well-worked out world view. It is not based on religious mysticism, nor on reflexive patriotism. (You may argue that their clandestine _motivation_ is concern for the welfare of Israel, or the desire to provide situations for maximizing corporate profits, or a lust for power, or a delight in watching human suffering -- but their official world view is not hard to find.)

Joshua Muravchik outlines it well in the latest issue of _Commentary_:



> ...  some kind of common neoconservative mentality endured beyond the cold war. What were its elements?
> 
> First, following Orwell, neoconservatives were moralists. Just as they despised Communism, they felt similarly toward Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milosevic and toward the acts of aggression committed by those dictators in, respectively, Kuwait and Bosnia. And just as they did not hesitate to enter negative moral judgments, neither did they hesitate to enter positive ones. In particular, they were strong admirers of the American experiencean admiration that arose not out of an unexamined patriotism (they had all started out as reformers or even as radical critics of American society) but out of the recognition that America had gone farther in the realization of liberal values than any other society in history. A corollary was the belief that America was a force for good in the world at large.
> 
> Second, in common with many liberals, neoconservatives were internationalists, and not only for moral reasons. Following Churchill, they believed that depredations tolerated in one place were likely to be repeated elsewhereand, conversely, that beneficent political or economic policies exercised their own domino effect for the good. Since Americas security could be affected by events far from home, it was wiser to confront troubles early even if afar than to wait for them to ripen and grow nearer.
> 
> Third, neoconservatives, like (in this case) most conservatives, trusted in the efficacy of military force. They doubted that economic sanctions or UN intervention or diplomacy, per se, constituted meaningful alternatives for confronting evil or any determined adversary.
> 
> To this list, I would add a fourth tenet: namely, *the belief in democracy both at home and abroad.*



Note: this is an excellent article on the history of neo-conservatism and I would urge everyone to read the full thing, found here:  The Past, Present and Future of NeoConservatism.

The "belief in democracy abroad" very definitely cut across the grain of traditional conservative thinking about what should govern American foreign policy, and the readiness of people in the Third World for liberal democratic regimes. But they were very optimistic about our reception in Iraq, some of them giving hostages to fortune with foolishly-optimistic projections for what would happen there.

And many mainstream conservatives, who were not full neo-cons, tended to go along with the belief that, in this case at least, we could spread democracy.

I appreciate that not many of this type of conservative appear on this Board. I told you we are a diverse movement. Maybe I can stand in for the real thing, since I am probably closest to the neo-cons of all the various trends within our conservative Tower of Babel.



> "The Right Way to Argue: How Conservatives Can Prevail in OnLine Debate -- I devoted several paragraphs to this very topic."
> 
> Doug, please post in writing, share it, and I, when I have time would love to do the sequel.



I don't really fancy putting it up for this Board to look at. There are too many posters of a fairly low intellectual level here and I don't have the time to swat at every tedious _non-sequitur_ and strawman mis-representation that a malicious scanning (I do not say reading) would generate. I suspect you know the people I mean. I'll send you a copy if you like. Almost all of my suggestions can be used equally by intelligent liberals, although I don't want them to be so used, since it will increase your political effectiveness. But what the hell, you can have it anyway.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> The study I named was apropos and made my point. Which you don't know because you didn't look at it. Or bother to read the opinions of the true scientific community (not the psychology nuts) who state, one and all, that the studies don't back up the claims that homosexuality is caused by biology or genetics.
> 
> For the simple minded:
> No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation



From your own article.



> *Overall, data appear to indicate that genetic factors may play some part in the development of sexual orientation,* even if only a modest part. Further work is needed to more precisely quantify any genetic contribution to sexuality and to elucidate its mechanism



By the way...the claim you made wasn't that there is "no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice" (which is also wrong...but you have a habit of that).   It was that homosexuality IS a choice.   Which geneticists and scientists definitely don't believe, that much is completely obvious.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> I'm about the kindest, sweetest, most understanding-of-liberals conservative with whom you'll ever argue. If you get upset by any observations of mine about your posts, other than their content, you must be mighty thin-skinned indeed.



If the "kindest, sweetest, most understanding of liberals" refers to the "totalitarian left" then what exactly do the meanest do?

Sorry Doug, you aren't understanding of liberals at all.   You generalize wayyyyy too much.

And PS...you were right about having posted that before.   My bad.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> The study I named was apropos and made my point. Which you don't know because you didn't look at it. Or bother to read the opinions of the true scientific community (not the psychology nuts) who state, one and all, that the studies don't back up the claims that homosexuality is caused by biology or genetics.
> 
> For the simple minded:
> No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation




*Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors*.[1] Although homosexuality does not appear to be adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint, because homosexual sex does not produce children, *there is evidence that it has existed in all times and in all known human cultures and civilizations.*[2]

Although a number of biological factors have been considered by scientists, such as prenatal hormones, chromosomes, polygenetic effects, brain structure and viral influences, *no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation.*

Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and *that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors. *However, in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, mutant alleles of the fruitless gene were found to cause male flies to court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males.


from your own source, sparky...


damn.. thats gotta sting!


But, continue insisting that you have a firm grasp on evidence!


----------



## Doug

Larkinn said:


> If the "kindest, sweetest, most understanding of liberals" refers to the "totalitarian left" then what exactly do the meanest do?
> 
> Sorry Doug, you aren't understanding of liberals at all.   You generalize wayyyyy too much.
> 
> And PS...you were right about having posted that before.   My bad.



No problem. And I salute your integrity in acknowledging the error, which is, of course, the kind of mistake everyone posting here including myself has probably made more than once.

And my quote has been mis-parsed: I meant understanding-of-liberals to refer to me, as a sweet and kind conservative who is understanding of liberals, i.e. who understands them. It works in my native language but does not translate so well into English.


----------



## Larkinn

Doug said:


> And my quote has been mis-parsed: I meant understanding-of-liberals to refer to me, as a sweet and kind conservative who is understanding of liberals, i.e. who understands them. It works in my native language but does not translate so well into English.



Maybe I am missing something, but it makes no sense at all to me.   And what is your native language?


----------



## Doug

*Larkinn:* You're not missing anything. It's just a clumsy construction, or at least, is in the wrong register for an internet debate.

It's similar to "the whisky-swilling barman" "the fast-running horse", so, "the liberal-understanding Doug" -- but with the order of the verb and object  reversed :"understanding-of-liberals Doug" -- see? I don't know what the grammatical construction is called in English -- maybe someone who knows English grammar better than I do can help -- a gerundal adjectival phrase?

I may be wrong, but I think that in the past tense, it, or a near-cousin, is a common construction in ancient Greek. Where we might say, "the sea, swarming with fishes" Homer would write (in Greek, obviously) "the fish-swarming sea"  (I have seen the translation, "the fish-infested sea" but that sounds like a poor choice of words to me). Or at least this construction is similar to mine.

Never mind. It didn't work.

My native language is Loglan.


----------



## Shogun

Loglan, eh?


----------



## Doug

Just teasing. My second language. I raised all my children to speak Loglan, though, as part of our homeschooling. They didn't learn English until they were about ten. They prefer to speak Loglan among themselves now. They think English is impossibly vague. They say it's like talking to people in doggy-speak: Good Boy! Fetch! etc.


----------



## Dr Grump

Hey

Where'd Allie go??


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Dr Grump said:


> Hey
> 
> Where'd Allie go??



Probably the same place you go when your not posting. Off to do something else. What? You think she lives on the board 24/7. That if she does not respond in 5 seconds to some post she has run away?


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> From your own article.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way...the claim you made wasn't that there is "no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice" (which is also wrong...but you have a habit of that).   It was that homosexuality IS a choice.   Which geneticists and scientists definitely don't believe, that much is completely obvious.



Did you miss the "seems to" and the other language that says if it plays any part (which they can't prove) it's a SMALL part.

It's a choice, padre. You're letting the ambiguous language of the left befuddle you. This is the crux of the matter:
"no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation."

Believe me, it's not for want of trying.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Did you miss the "seems to" and the other language that says if it plays any part (which they can't prove) it's a SMALL part.



Yes I saw it.   Please explain how that is compatible with your statement of "
No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice."   Obviously there is some evidence since the consensus seems to be that it, at minimum, plays a part in it.



> It's a choice, padre. You're letting the ambiguous language of the left befuddle you. This is the crux of the matter:
> "no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation."
> 
> Believe me, it's not for want of trying.



If no scientific consensus exists, then please explain to us all how you feel confident in arriving at a conclusion?


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Yes I saw it.   Please explain how that is compatible with your statement of "
> No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice."   Obviously there is some evidence since the consensus seems to be that it, at minimum, plays a part in it.
> 
> 
> 
> If no scientific consensus exists, then please explain to us all how you feel confident in arriving at a conclusion?



There's NO EVIDENCE, Larkinn. That's what all this mumbo jumbo says. It says, "although we want to be able to say homosexuality is caused by genetics, or biology, there's really nothing to prove it. Despite the millions spent on studies attempting to prove it. We THINK there might be a connection, but if there is, it's tiny and we just can't put our finger on it."


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> There's NO EVIDENCE, Larkinn. That's what all this mumbo jumbo says. It says, "although we want to be able to say homosexuality is caused by genetics, or biology, there's really nothing to prove it. Despite the millions spent on studies attempting to prove it. We THINK there might be a connection, but if there is, it's tiny and we just can't put our finger on it."



Mumbo jumbo?   Actually its quite clear what it says.   It says that it is likely partially caused by genes, although more research is needed.   Reading into their motives and other factors is purely speculative...no actually thats too kind.   You are making shit up, and badly.   Learn to read without a complete and obvious bias, and then come back to me.


----------



## doniston

Larkinn said:


> Yes I saw it.   Please explain how that is compatible with your statement of "
> No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice."   Obviously there is some evidence since the consensus seems to be that it, at minimum, plays a part in it.
> 
> 
> 
> If no scientific consensus exists, then please explain to us all how you feel confident in arriving at a conclusion?



I LIKE YOUR LAST QUESTION.  heh heh


----------



## Doug

Perhaps some clarity can be brought to this issue by asking:

*Is Sex a choice?*

Now, I would reckon that 99.99% of the straight people reading this will know that the sex drive -- the desire, on occasion (said occasions varying in frequency depending on the individual and the opportunity),  or,better, the *urge* to mate with a member of the opposite sex, is not something you can _choose_.

You've got it, starting from around the age of 12 or 13, and it obviously is biological in origin. You're here because a long tree of ancestors had that urge and acted on it. Those contemporaries of your ancestors who didn't have that urge, or, rather, didn't successfully express it, didn't leave descendants.

What _is_ a "choice" is whether or not you carry through on that urge.

Of course, it's not a choice made outside the pressures of that urge. I can choose to pick up the pen on my desk, or to leave it there. There is no temptation either way. But the choice of whether to initiate (or to respond to) the pursuit that will lead to mating is taken under the pressure of that powerful urge. (Expressed differently for men and women, I believe, and obviously distributed over all human beings in varying strengths.)

Now, homosexuality is just a particular expression -- deviation if you like -- of that urge. The homosexual experiences the urge to mate with his own sex.

He has a "choice", of course. He can remain celibate. This is not impossible to do, as members of celibate religious orders demonstrate (although even here, the force of that urge provides continual material for salacious newspapers.) 

But people who condemn homosexuality as immoral should ponder on the fact that they are asking these people to never have sex -- would _you_ be able to adhere to such a requirement?

We can argue about what causes the homosexual manifestation of the sexual urge. Psychiatrists -- some of them -- once thought that they had found it: a "CBI" mother: Close, Binding and Intimate. But plentiful counter-examples shot that theory down. Every possible other hypothesis has been examined: birth order, father-absence, you name it. No one has found the cause, yet.

At the moment, we do not know what "causes" homosexuality. In fact, we are only a little more knowledgeable about the sex drive in general. Neurology is still in the Middle Ages, developmental biology the same.


----------



## jillian

Doug said:


> *Jillian:* Thank you for having the fortitude to read my dissertation-posts.
> 
> Yes, I believe that men and women have some fundamental, but subtle, differences in the way they think, the things that motivate them, and so on.
> 
> How much, in any given society, these are due to nature, and how much to nurture, is one of the most interesting questions of our time, given that the purely social constraints on women are rapidly dissolving: an inadvertent experiment in weakening one of two otherwise-intangled factors.



I think you're correct. But I also think the dissolution of social restraints on women is a good thing. And but for the "radical feminists" of the '60's and on, women would still be forced to live lives that may not have been of their choosing. I think, ideally, feminism means having choices. I very much admire the women who stay home with their children. On the other hand, I was always taught that children grow up. They leave to live their own lives. So, ultimately, it's our responsibility to try to balance parenthood and whatever else it is that leaves us fulfilled.



> And I am sure you are right about the differences between liberals and conservatives, with regard to the unspoken world-view each group has.
> 
> A study of human history, especially that of the last five hundred years, provides unlimited material to support the views of both sides.



Agreed, once again. I think we should always strive, though, to move forward and try to make the world a better place than we found it.  Interestingly, I went to a Bar Mitzvah on Saturday night. The Torah passage the Bar Mitzvah boy read was about Noah and the flood. Afterwards, the Rabbi gave a bit of a sermon on it. What he said resonated for me. He asked, "If Noah saved the world, why isn't he one of our 'Jewish heroes'? Why don't we say 'G-d of Abraham, G-d of Isaac, G-d of Noah' in our prayers?" His answer was that it was because although Noah was righteous, he saved only his own skin and that of his family... he didn't show righteous indignation to G-d and fight against the rest of humanity being destroyed, as Moses did when G-d said he would destroy the Israelites for worshipping the golden calf. I think that, ultimately, is the difference between an extreme (and I mean close to anarchist) libertarian and a 'bleeding heart' liberal. The difference is that of "I'm saving myself, just don't get in the way" and "we need to save the world". Somewhere in between on a continuum, is where most of us lie.



> It's ironic that with respect to Iraq, the two groups have exchanged places: conservatives (at least some of them) optimistically believing that all hearts yearn for freedom, etc, liberals believing that Iraqis are incorrigibly committed to living in a world where family and tribe and brute force should trump the rule of law.



I think it's more that we think they don't want us there. They want safety and stability, but like anyone else, they don't want to be occupied. I think it also has to do with what we see as nefarious motivation for the commencement of the entire nightmare.



> As for the alleged hedonism at the heart of liberal philosophy ... yes, I exaggerate. This was the view of the Sixties generation (ask me how I know), and I believe that they brought it, subconsciously, into the liberal movement, insofar as one can speak of a liberal movement. There it blended well with the old-fashioned liberal tendency to look to the state for remedies to social problems, which implies a diminished role for personal resonsibility.



Again, I don't think that liberals are hedonistic any more than 'conservatives'. I think we think we don't belong butting into the business of others. Part of this is that we all think we're correct. But that doesn't necessarily mean we are. And your conservative view, since you're clearly a thinking and articulate and well-reasoned conservative, is no more or less likely of being correct than my (also thinking and articulate and well-reasoned) social liberalism (though I think I'm moderate where it's called for). Therefore, that being the case, why should one presume to impose their particular view on others. If one wants to belong to a church that doesn't accept gays, for example, that is their choice... campaigning against others' accepting them... well, that's where the line gets crossed. I hope I'm being clear.. .I know there are a lot of words here. 

I also think conservatives see the world as more Hobbesian.. government exists for security because people are dangerous and cruel and life is nasty, brutish and short... etc. People who like a bit more from their government see government as a more Lockeian (sp?) enterprise. So, again, it has to do with the respectively pessimistic and optimistic world views of both groups.



> But I know there are all kinds of liberals, and some have a fairly well work-out theory of community, and the responsibilities of individuals within it, for example. (But I notice that on this Board, nuances and acknowlegement of exceptions to the rule are not appreciated. So I shall stick to unfair, sweeping generalizations.)



Well, I, for one, really hate the generalizations, and I think I rise above them on most occassions, but if you must...



> And many conservatives would instinctively agree with your libertarian social philosophy: _An it hurt no one, do what thou wilt_. The arguments begin over where social harm, perhaps initially very subtle in effect, can result from what are logically individual choices.



And who decides what is "social harm" and what changes benefit society? You? Me? Some "leader"?



> Thus the only argument I can see against legalizing drugs -- which I support -- is the one that says that it will, in fact, result in widespread misery as people find it much easier to acquire and use and then ab-use them -- and you can be sure the capitalist market will bring drugs to them at very low prices and packaged most attractively.



But they're already being used. Perhaps sometimes we should look at what's pragmatic... The "war on drugs" has filled our prisons and cost us billions... with little to no result. So, if someone's to make a profit, I'd prefer it being government, which can maybe use the tax money to do good, than drug lords and street gangs. 



> The libertarian focusses on the individual, in the privacy of her own home, making a rational choice as to how and to what extent to alter her consciousness by chemical means for a few hours. The non-libertarian looks at the big picture and the effect on society as a whole.  (My own guess is that it can't get much worse, and that legalization would have such enormous good effects in other fields -- destroying the financial base of drug gangs and removing a powerful source of judicial and police corruption -- that it is worth taking the risk.



See above... we're agreed. But I think given that the libertarian view is also, govern your own behavior, this view suits both the libertarian and 'liberal' mindset. It is only the people who feel they have to be everyone else's moral compass who would be troubled.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> Mumbo jumbo?   Actually its quite clear what it says.   It says that it is likely partially caused by genes, although more research is needed.   Reading into their motives and other factors is purely speculative...no actually thats too kind.   You are making shit up, and badly.   Learn to read without a complete and obvious bias, and then come back to me.



Yeah. In other words, there's no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.

Gee, isn't that what I've been saying? Why yes, so it is! It's like, you're arguing with the fact that I'm saying it...but at the same time, agreeing with what I'm saying.

Crazy.


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> No, there's no evidence to support homosexuality is not a choice.


Nor is thereany proof that it is not always "simply a choice",  Of course ACTING in a homosexual manner is likely a choice.


----------



## roomy

doniston said:


> Nor is thereany proof that it is not always "simply a choice",  Of course ACTING in a homosexual manner is likely a choice.



I agree, why all the tight buttocked mincing, limp wrists and lispy high pitched voices?It's as if they are trying to create a gender, the trouble is, most gays aren't stereotypical and can't stand the flamboyant gays that give them a bad name.On the other hand some may say they are glad to be able to differentiate.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> There's NO EVIDENCE, Larkinn. That's what all this mumbo jumbo says. It says, "although we want to be able to say homosexuality is caused by genetics, or biology, there's really nothing to prove it. Despite the millions spent on studies attempting to prove it. We THINK there might be a connection, but if there is, it's tiny and we just can't put our finger on it."



I tellya.. it makes total sense how you could fuck up the first line of an eye exam with that kind of selective logic.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Did you miss the "seems to" and the other language that says if it plays any part (which they can't prove) it's a SMALL part.
> 
> It's a choice, padre. You're letting the ambiguous language of the left befuddle you. This is the crux of the matter:
> "no scientific consensus exists as to how biology influences sexual orientation."
> 
> Believe me, it's not for want of trying.




so.. NO consensus means that there IS a consensus that it's a choice?  You didn't read that whole article, did you?  

Here's to your education.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah. In other words, there's no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.
> 
> Gee, isn't that what I've been saying? Why yes, so it is! It's like, you're arguing with the fact that I'm saying it...but at the same time, agreeing with what I'm saying.
> 
> Crazy.






*Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.*


it's the VERY FIRST line of your own evidence.


----------



## doniston

roomy said:


> I agree, why all the tight buttocked mincing, limp wrists and lispy high pitched voices?It's as if they are trying to create a gender, the trouble is, most gays aren't stereotypical and can't stand the flamboyant gays that give them a bad name.On the other hand some may say they are glad to be able to differentiate.



No, unfortunately, I don't think we DO agree.  you are speaking of the wispy, lispy, efeminine, fairy type of gay person commonly referred to as a "Queer".  I think those are the ones who can't help it and homosexuality is an intrical part of them. 

 I was referring to those who act out homosexually during the sex acts themselves.  That is where choice comes in.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Yeah. In other words, there's no EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.
> 
> Gee, isn't that what I've been saying? Why yes, so it is! It's like, you're arguing with the fact that I'm saying it...but at the same time, agreeing with what I'm saying.
> 
> Crazy.



That they think that it is somewhat caused by genetics means that there is, at minimum, SOME evidence to support the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.   Please explain to me how one could come to the conclusion that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics if there is NO evidence that supports the conclusion that its caused by genetics?

Forget your logic skills...learn to fucking read first.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> That they think that it is somewhat caused by genetics means that there is, at minimum, SOME evidence to support the statement it's caused by genetics or biology.   Please explain to me how one could come to the conclusion that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics if there is NO evidence that supports the conclusion that its caused by genetics?
> 
> Forget your logic skills...learn to fucking read first.



Really? WHAT EVIDENCE?  They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"

There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Really? WHAT EVIDENCE?  They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"
> 
> There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.




*Most scientists* today *agree* that *sexual orientation is most likely the result of* a complex interaction of *environmental, cognitive* and *biological factors*.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!


----------



## Doug

I think that there is actually a sense in which both sides in this debate are right:

For some people, homosexuality is not a choice. They have strong, exclusively-homosexual attractions to their own sex as soon as the sex hormones cut in. The powerful and exclusive nature of their attaction, coupled with our inability, after a century or so of study, to find an obvious environmental cause, strongly suggests that their sexual orientation is has biological roots. (Maybe genetic, maybe something else.)

But for almost all other people, homosexuality is, in a sense, a choice.

Men, or women, put together in groups and deprived for a long time of any possibility of contact with the opposite sex, will turn to each other.

Not all will, perhaps. And thus here we can speak of "choice". 

Note that this is not "true" homosexuality, but rather homosexual behavior. Homosexual behavior was not uncommon in the ancient world, but "true", exclusive homosexuality was not even recognized as a phenomenon. The concept of someone "being" a homosexual stems from the 19th Century.

Men in this situation will instinctively seek out those other men who look, and/or act, the closest to women. Even where female-deprivation is not an issue, some men may find themselves tempted by young just-post-pubescent boys, who in many respects have female characteristics: hairlessness, innocence. This explains the occasional Boy Scout leader of otherwise impeccable heterosexual provenance who gets caught "interfering with" his charges. He probably has a dessicated domestic sexual life, and is also inhibited from seeking the usual consolations of men in that position.

So: for some people homosexuality is not a choice, and for some, it is.

If you think it isn't, then you are in the category of "possibly will behave in  a homosexual manner given the right situation".


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> Really? WHAT EVIDENCE?  They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"
> 
> There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.



LOOK ALLI"BABEL" YOU said it.  THERE IS NO EVIDENCE (either pro or con)  this means there is a concensus of "DOUBT" about it.  Actually. I happen to think there is reasonable evidence that there IS something genetic that causes some people to be profoundly gay.(but that is strictly my own opinion)


----------



## Shogun

Come on, Doug..   homosexuality was not caused by lonely gay cowboys or navy seamen on barrel duty.  Homosexual activity in prison does not make one homosexual out of prison.  The only CHOICE that could be relevant is teh CHOICE to remain celibate while in denial.  Hardly the same as CHOOSING to be gay.  None of us CHOSE our sexuality.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Really? WHAT EVIDENCE?  They haven't found any, you flipping moron. That's what they keep saying. "Despite the fact that we THINK there must be a connection, we just can't find a consistent one, darn it all!"
> 
> There's no evidence. You learn to read. That's what every single one of the studies says.



So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Larkinn said:


> So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?



Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?


----------



## mattskramer

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?



I think that it is a matter of choice  a choice that can be changed.  I dont understand why people consider it to be a big deal whether it is genetic or not.  We allow people to make dangerous choices.  We allow people to smoke and to drink.  We allow people to use their left hands.  

Speaking of the left-hand comparison, we dont have laws prohibiting its use in unusual activity.  If we did, there might be uproar by people who, for one reason or another, prefer to use their left hand.  

We draw the line on different things for different reasons.  We shift lines from time to time.  I think that we should shift the line when it comes to civil unions to allow for gay unions.  The notion that we should not give gays civil union status because they have a tendency to put on outlandish costumes and parade down the street is silly.


----------



## AllieBaba

Larkinn said:


> So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?



Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.

Thank you.

And, btw, the above comment is poorly structured and actually makes no sense at all, Mr. Intelligence.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.




*
Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors.*


 


indeed, biological factors SCREAMS choice, doesn't it?


----------



## AllieBaba

"Most likely".

That's not evidence, retard. If it is, it's evidence that there is no evidence.


----------



## Shogun

it IS the consensus though, is it not?

it IS the standard by which smarter people than you have concluded that it's not just "it's nothing more than a choice", eh?


and, the kicker, it WAS from your own evidence, right?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## AllieBaba

The consensus of whom? Wickipedia?

And regardless of whether or not it's the consensus, it's STILL NOT EVIDENCE of anything except people believing it.

The consensus is that we were planted on earth by aliens, in some quarters. That's not evidence that it's true.

Are you just pretending to be this stupid, or is this for real?


----------



## Larkinn

RetiredGySgt said:


> Provide the evidence. If these scientists have any, how hard can it be to list it?



The evidence exists, exists in studies that Allie somehow thinks proves her point.


----------



## Larkinn

AllieBaba said:


> Since you've provided no evidence, I will assume you are agreeing that there is none to support the theory that homosexuality is anything but choice.



Actually I have provided evidence...you just aren't intelligent enough to see that it is.



> And, btw, the above comment is poorly structured and actually makes no sense at all, Mr. Intelligence.





> View Post
> So your claim is that these scientists who state (from your own link) have no evidence that homosexuality is linked to genetics, but claim that there is a link (hence the partially caused by genetics), because they want it to be true, although there is no evidence for it?



Then I will rephrase it.   So your claim is that those scientists who state that homosexuality is partially caused by genetics have NO evidence that its the case?   Instead they claim that solely because of a desire for it(it being the link between homosexuality and genetics) to be the case, although there is no evidence for it?


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> The consensus of whom? Wickipedia?
> 
> And regardless of whether or not it's the consensus, it's STILL NOT EVIDENCE of anything except people believing it.
> 
> The consensus is that we were planted on earth by aliens, in some quarters. That's not evidence that it's true.
> 
> Are you just pretending to be this stupid, or is this for real?




Allie... read the sentence.

* Most scientists today agree*

that's a consensus among SCIENTISTS.


not among aborigines in the Australian outback, Allie


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Shogun said:


> Allie... read the sentence.
> 
> * Most scientists today agree*
> 
> that's a consensus among SCIENTISTS.
> 
> 
> not among aborigines in the Australian outback, Allie



A concensus absent ANY evidence. They believe it but can NOT prove it, nor can they even point to any evidence for the belief except, well it just has to be.


----------



## Shogun

RetiredGySgt said:


> A concensus absent ANY evidence. They believe it but can NOT prove it, nor can they even point to any evidence for the belief except, well it just has to be.




it's not absent ANY evidence.  hell, the first fucking paragraph specifically mentions the effect of manipulating genes if fruit flies.  THE ENTIRE FUCKING SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WOULD NOT STAND BY AND LET THIS BE LABELED A CONSENSUS IF IT WERE MERE OPINION.


Hell, look at how quickly intelligent design got kicked the fuck out of the science classroom..  Do you think that the APA would lie?  Of course you do.. the APA is a fucking liberal hedge fund, right?


But continue being dense.  I'm sure you pull the same bullshit when debating evolution and heliocentrism.





*Most scientists agree* that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and *that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction* of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors. *However, in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, mutant alleles of the fruitless gene were found to cause male flies to court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males.*



derrrrrr.. hooked on phonics worked for RGS!


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> The consensus of whom? Wickipedia?
> 
> And regardless of whether or not it's the consensus, it's STILL NOT EVIDENCE of anything except people believing it.
> 
> The consensus is that we were planted on earth by aliens, in some quarters. That's not evidence that it's true.
> 
> Are you just pretending to be this stupid, or is this for real?


he is not te stupid one, it is you.  he has proven that it is a consensus, you want him to prove it is an absolute.---they just don't know yet.


----------



## AllieBaba

Once again for the peanut gallery...

A consensus, whether it's of scientists, dogs, or praying mantises, does NOT equate science.

Do you get it yet? It means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Shogun

Allie.. 

you are digging a hole.


consensus
A	noun
	1 	consensus
 		agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole; "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
http://www.wordreference.com/definition/consensus


There is a consensus about plate tectonics too.  About LOTS of things really.

Now, you said that there was NO consensus and, clearly, there is.  You also said there was no evidence while, clearly, the third paragraph of your own posted evidence suggests that there is, at the very least, more than your claim that homosexuality is merely a choice.  Like it's a fucking social club or something.


----------



## Doug

Shogun said:


> Come on, Doug..   homosexuality was not caused by lonely gay cowboys or navy seamen on barrel duty.  Homosexual activity in prison does not make one homosexual out of prison.  The only CHOICE that could be relevant is teh CHOICE to remain celibate while in denial.  Hardly the same as CHOOSING to be gay.  None of us CHOSE our sexuality.



*Shogun:* You have, of course, the right not to read my posts. But then, you shouldn't comment on them, except perhaps to say that they are too long to read.


----------



## Dr Grump

AllieBaba said:


> Once again for the peanut gallery...
> 
> A consensus, whether it's of scientists, dogs, or praying mantises, does NOT equate science.
> 
> Do you get it yet? It means absolutely nothing.



Neither can you prove that choice is the only criterion....<shrug>...


----------



## AllieBaba

Dr Grump said:


> Neither can you prove that choice is the only criterion....<shrug>...




That doesn't matter. What matters is that an opinion cannot substitute for fact. No matter how much you want to believe it.

That's all.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> Allie..
> 
> you are digging a hole.
> 
> 
> consensus
> A	noun
> 1 	consensus
> agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole; "the lack of consensus reflected differences in theoretical positions"; "those rights and obligations are based on an unstated consensus"
> http://www.wordreference.com/definition/consensus
> 
> 
> There is a consensus about plate tectonics too.  About LOTS of things really.
> 
> Now, you said that there was NO consensus and, clearly, there is.  You also said there was no evidence while, clearly, the third paragraph of your own posted evidence suggests that there is, at the very least, more than your claim that homosexuality is merely a choice.  Like it's a fucking social club or something.



And a consensus does not equate proof or scientific evidence.


----------



## Shogun

Doug said:


> *Shogun:* You have, of course, the right not to read my posts. But then, you shouldn't comment on them, except perhaps to say that they are too long to read.



I guess, in turn, it's also true that you can ignore me when I reply to yours..  But then, I guess that would require tackling more than a dittohead..


----------



## Doug

I don't ignore any substantive points. But I am not interested in "nya-nya you're another" exchanges.

I don't know whether you can see this or not. So how about a test: you quickly skim our arguments, and find a place where you made a serious point, which I ignored. If I did ignore it, I promise to respond to it now. You may say, they are all serious points. But just pick one. Maybe we will both learn something.


----------



## roomy

doniston said:


> No, unfortunately, I don't think we DO agree.  you are speaking of the wispy, lispy, efeminine, fairy type of gay person commonly referred to as a "Queer".  I think those are the ones who can't help it and homosexuality is an intrical part of them.
> 
> I was referring to those who act out homosexually during the sex acts themselves.  That is where choice comes in.



Well if we don't agree, you must be wrong


----------



## Shogun

It's a Friday, Doug... I'm just not into taking homework assignments from you today.  Perhaps you can play first and show me how it's done?


----------



## Big_D

People do not choose to be gay.

The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone (search).

"It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University (search) in Ontario, Canada.  *Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.*


http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html


----------



## Shogun

hehehehe...


----------



## doniston

roomy said:


> Well if we don't agree, you must be wrong


Figures----with your mindset.


----------



## AllieBaba

Big_D said:


> People do not choose to be gay.
> 
> The homosexual men's brains responded more like those of women when the men sniffed a chemical from the male hormone testosterone (search).
> 
> "It is one more piece of evidence ... that is showing that sexual orientation is not all learned," said Sandra Witelson, an expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation at the Michael G. DeGroote School of Medicine at McMaster University (search) in Ontario, Canada.  *Witelson, who was not part of the research team, said the findings clearly show a biological involvement in sexual orientation.*
> 
> 
> http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html




An expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation..what does that mean? A gay surgeon????

The fact of the matter is, geneticists don't agree. And brains can and are modified by our choices. Children raised in high-stress environments have different brain structure and reactions than those raised in other environments.


----------



## Shogun

hey.. at least it's more EVIDENCE than your silly ass opinion and pittiful misunderstanding of posted sources...

Hell, even one of your OWn pieces of evidence gave the example of fruit flies...



still chaffing about that, I see.


----------



## AllieBaba

Not chafing at all, despite your incessant yammering. Because my posts stated exactly what I said they did...

there's no evidence to support a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. It is, in the end, a choice. And none of your nonsensical yapping will change that. Though I must admit, you've given it a good try. People who are more mentally challenged might actually believe you. It's because they get worn down by your idiotic, drawn-out and non-factual posts. Lemmings will believe what a really dedicated moron tells them because they're just too lazy to look things up.


----------



## Shogun

You are so dumb, allie... 


YOU post evidence.... which ADMITS the biologic factors... and then INSIST that there are no biologic factors and that homosexuality is merely a CHOICE... even though YOUR POSTED EVIDENCE implies otherwise.


yes, Allie.  you ARE a dumb one.


to think you have anything to do with the counseling field...  Id bet dollars to donuts that you work for a religious organization.  Human Services gave it away.  Your silly ass hatred of the APA is a dead give away.  

By this point, Allie, you are no different than Tom Cruz calling Matt Lauer glib.

think about it.


----------



## AllieBaba

No, it didn't admit biological factors, you idiot. Everything I've posted has stated there's little to no evidence for biological or genetic factors, but despite this fact, there are some who continue to claim there must be.

You're so easily misled. Read the stuff again until you truly comprehend it. This is what happens when you devote your life to bastardizing the language. You lose the ability to understand it.

And your bigotry is showing. I've never worked for a religious organization. And "human services" is not religious jargon, nitwit. It's your beloved big-government, politically correct, psychobabble jargon.


----------



## Shogun

*Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of an interaction of genetic, biological and environmental/cultural factors. However, in the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, mutant alleles of the fruitless gene were found to cause male flies to court and attempt to mate exclusively with other males.*


YOUR evidence, again.


Just read this to yourself over and over again until you get why you are showing your stupid side.


----------



## Big_D

AllieBaba said:


> An expert on brain anatomy and sexual orientation..what does that mean? A gay surgeon????
> 
> The fact of the matter is, geneticists don't agree. And brains can and are modified by our choices. Children raised in high-stress environments have different brain structure and reactions than those raised in other environments.



Is that one not good enough for you?  Here are some more.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn548

http://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/OldFiles/bulgarians/nih-upi.html

Also if you do think that being gay is a choice then answer me one thing.  *Why would a heterosexual want to engage in homosexual activities?* I personally do not think that there is anything bad about being gay, but if a guy is attracted to women why would he _choose_ to be attracted to and have relations with another man?  Obviously, you are heterosexual.  So therefore you would never be compelled to have relations with someone of your own gender.  Then, if everyone is born like you, why would they ever be attracted to someone of the same gender and form relations with them?


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> Is that one not good enough for you?  Here are some more.
> 
> http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn548
> 
> http://www-cgi.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/scotts/OldFiles/bulgarians/nih-upi.html
> 
> Also if you do think that being gay is a choice then answer me one thing.  *Why would a heterosexual want to engage in homosexual activities?* I personally do not think that there is anything bad about being gay, but if a guy is attracted to women why would he _choose_ to be attracted to and have relations with another man?  Obviously, you are heterosexual.  So therefore you would never be compelled to have relations with someone of your own gender.  Then, if everyone is born like you, why would they ever be attracted to someone of the same gender and form relations with them?



Brief curiosity, interest, bisexuality.  Finding one particular person of the same sex physically and sexually attractive.  Anyway, in my book, it just does not matter.


----------



## doniston

AllieBaba said:


> No, it didn't admit biological factors, you idiot. Everything I've posted has stated there's little to no evidence for biological or genetic factors, but despite this fact, there are some who continue to claim there must be.
> 
> You're so easily misled. Read the stuff again until you truly comprehend it. This is what happens when you devote your life to bastardizing the language. You lose the ability to understand it.
> 
> And your bigotry is showing. I've never worked for a religious organization. And "human services" is not religious jargon, nitwit. It's your beloved big-government, politically correct, psychobabble jargon.



Look bitch, (and I do beleive you are a female)

"Little to no evidence" is NOT "none"


----------



## Shogun

now Donnie...  

take it down a notch.


----------



## doniston

Shogun said:


> now Donnie...
> 
> take it down a notch.



SHE is the psychobabelist here.


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> Brief curiosity, interest, bisexuality.  Finding one particular person of the same sex physically and sexually attractive.  Anyway, in my book, it just does not matter.



THis makes no sense at all.  If a heterosexual found someone of the same sex attractive, then they wouldnt be a heterosexual at all, would they?  Also, if someone was briefly curious then they would only engage in a homosexual experience once.


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> THis makes no sense at all.  If a heterosexual found someone of the same sex attractive, then they wouldnt be a heterosexual at all, would they?  Also, if someone was briefly curious then they would only engage in a homosexual experience once.



Preference is not black-and-white.  Some days someone might like chocolate ice cream.  Later, he might like vanilla.  After some time has passed, he might get tired of vanilla and like chocolate.  Sometimes he might like both flavors.  How many ties must one experiment or be curious about homosexual behavior before he is declared a homosexual once, twice, three times in 10 years?  Why have the distinction at all?


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Preference is not black-and-white.  Some days someone might like chocolate ice cream.  Later, he might like vanilla.  After some time has passed, he might get tired of vanilla and like chocolate.  Sometimes he might like both flavors.  How many ties must one experiment or be curious about homosexual behavior before he is declared a homosexual once, twice, three times in 10 years?  Why have the distinction at all?



So you've moved from comparing sex to cigarettes to ice cream now aye? What part about sex is it that you don't understand? The part about men are intended by the very laws of this universe and nature to be solely with a woman? It's not a bowl of ice cream. It's written in stone nature. You're sick twisting and blurring of concrete laws is, well, SICK! You are part of the problem.


----------



## AllieBaba

mattskramer said:


> Preference is not black-and-white.  Some days someone might like chocolate ice cream.  Later, he might like vanilla.  After some time has passed, he might get tired of vanilla and like chocolate.  Sometimes he might like both flavors.  How many ties must one experiment or be curious about homosexual behavior before he is declared a homosexual once, twice, three times in 10 years?  Why have the distinction at all?



In other words, it's a choice.


----------



## Shogun

then choose to go gay, Allie...

show us how it's done.


----------



## AllieBaba

I choose not to.


----------



## Shogun

of course you do, Allie.


of course you do.


----------



## mattskramer

AllieBaba said:


> In other words, it's a choice.



I agree that it is a choice.  I might be a strong choice like trying to change from being left handed to being right handed but it is a choice in my opinion  With enough of a desire to change and enough conditioning, a heterosexual can become a homosexual (or at least bisexual) and a homosexual can become a heterosexual.


----------



## Shogun

yea.. I guess Gandhi did CHOOSE not to eat, you know...


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> So you've moved from comparing sex to cigarettes to ice cream now aye? What part about sex is it that you don't understand? The part about men are intended by the very laws of this universe and nature to be solely with a woman? It's not a bowl of ice cream. It's written in stone nature. You're sick twisting and blurring of concrete laws is, well, SICK! You are part of the problem.



Are you still resorting to the natural law and purpose fallacy?   As I already explained many times, nature merely shows you what is.  It does not show you what should be or what should not be.   Hurricanes are natural.  Cancer is natural (if you live long enough you will get cancer.)  Chemotherapy and radiation therapy is not natural.  The next time that you get cancer, just let nature take its course.   An encyclopedia was not intended to be a high-chair.  Yet, it can still be used as such.  Did god intend for the bridge of ones nose to be used to hold reading glasses?  Things do not have to be used for only those things for which it was supposedly intended.  I have a small toe.  I have yet to discover its intended porous.  Things can serve multiple purposes.  On one particularly cold day, I had no gloves, but I had an extra pair of socks.  I discovered that socks work pretty well at keeping your hands warm.  

It is understood that you should be careful when you use thing for their unintended purpose.  A child could fall off an encyclopedia used as a highchair.  Cold air could still seep through the socks.  Still, there is no law saying that you cant use things for which they were not intended.


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> yea.. I guess Gandhi did CHOOSE not to eat, you know...



He did choose to not eat.  What is your point?


----------



## Shogun

my point is that you could likewise choose to be asexual but that doesn't really have anything to do with orientation, does it?  

I'm glad the lefty example was brought up.  If one were forced to write with their Right hand while being a lefty... does this erase their proficiency with using their left hand?

Sure, Gandhi chose... but he was still hungry, eh?  Sure, gays can choose NOT to act upon their sexual orientation... but does that make them any less attracted to men?  Would you be able to choose to be attracted to men for a month even if you chose to be asexual?


----------



## AllieBaba

Thank you for deciding that homosexual behavior is a choice. As is all sexual behavior.

Sexual impulses are sexual impulses. There's no biology that determines what we are attracted to.


----------



## Shogun

*Sexual impulses are sexual impulses. There's no biology that determines what we are attracted to.
*

prove that assumption, dummy.


your opinion just isn't the consensus you seem to think it is.


Obviously, you didn't comprehend my post very well.


but it's funny to watch you claim that nothing in your biology made you heterosexual... Hey, maybe you can name drop some website and then totally scramble backward after someone clicks on your link and sees that it doesn't say anything REMOTELY close to what you claim!

I hear thats how all the smart kids prove their point!


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> my point is that you could likewise choose to be asexual but that doesn't really have anything to do with orientation, does it?
> 
> I'm glad the lefty example was brought up.  If one were forced to write with their Right hand while being a lefty... does this erase their proficiency with using their left hand?
> 
> Sure, Gandhi chose... but he was still hungry, eh?  Sure, gays can choose NOT to act upon their sexual orientation... but does that make them any less attracted to men?  Would you be able to choose to be attracted to men for a month even if you chose to be asexual?



I see your point but I think that with enough behavior modification, possible psychotic drug treatments and a menu of other things, you can even change not only ones actions but also their desires.  It would take a lot of time and trouble and discomfort.  It would be expensive It would figuratively be a great big pain, but I think that it can be done.  You can change ones preference for different ice creams.  How did the North Koreans convince POWs to change sides?  Chemical and psychological conditioning can work  but why go through all of that trouble.  As I see it, it is okay to be gay.  They dont need to be treated or reprogrammed.


----------



## Shogun

would you consider TREATMENTS the same as merely CHOOSING an orientation?

Sure, I can lobotomize someone and change their behaviour but.. is this really the same thing as an autonomous choice?


I say no.  

going further, I'd also say that even a lefty being socially forced to write with their right hand is still, by definition, a lefty because his ability does not decrease in the left with the increase of the right.  Similarly, Gandhi didn't get less hungry because he chose not to eat.  Likewise, gays choosing to be strait has a pretty laughable result on average because choosing not to act is not making a choice about orientation.


you don't have to justify your position either.  I don't smell the gay hating vitriol from you that others radiate like afrosheen on the couch cushion.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> *Sexual impulses are sexual impulses. There's no biology that determines what we are attracted to.
> *
> 
> prove that assumption, dummy.
> 
> 
> your opinion just isn't the consensus you seem to think it is.
> 
> 
> Obviously, you didn't comprehend my post very well.
> 
> 
> but it's funny to watch you claim that nothing in your biology made you heterosexual... Hey, maybe you can name drop some website and then totally scramble backward after someone clicks on your link and sees that it doesn't say anything REMOTELY close to what you claim!
> 
> I hear thats how all the smart kids prove their point!



Go ahead and make the scientific connection between biology and sexuality. I already proved ad nauseum that homosexuality is a choice. And you actually agreed with me. Briefly, before loping off into lala land again.


----------



## Shogun

You haven't proved shit.

Even your OWN sources admit the BIOLOGIC factor.


but go ahead and keep telling yourself different....  It's not like I haven't already stomped a mud hole in your ability to debate today...




like I said.. PROVE your lame fucking assertions this time.  I won't be taking sources from lame catholic sites either.


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> would you consider TREATMENTS the same as merely CHOOSING an orientation?
> 
> Sure, I can lobotomize someone and change their behaviour but.. is this really the same thing as an autonomous choice?
> 
> 
> I say no.
> 
> going further, I'd also say that even a lefty being socially forced to write with their right hand is still, by definition, a lefty because his ability does not decrease in the left with the increase of the right.  Similarly, Gandhi didn't get less hungry because he chose not to eat.  Likewise, gays choosing to be strait has a pretty laughable result on average because choosing not to act is not making a choice about orientation.
> 
> 
> you don't have to justify your position either.  I don't smell the gay hating vitriol from you that others radiate like afrosheen on the couch cushion.



I am not saying whether or not there might be a natural preference that one might be born with.  What I am saying is that with enough conditioning, even preferences that one might be born with can be overcome.   Provided he is not over the hill, if a left-handed person has his left hand tied behind his back and is forever more prevented from using it, and is forced to write often each day with his right hand, and perform other things only with his right hand forever more, I believe that the skill that he had with his left hand would slowly diminish due to lack of use and that the skill that he has with his right hand would steadily improve to the point at which his right hand may surpass his left hand.  

Consider the anorexics.  Im no doctor but I think that in such cases they have so conditioned themselves to prefer to be thin that they develop mental disorders and prefer to starve themselves. 

Yes.  I have sympathy for the gay people.  Outside of law and the Constitution which may need to be amended (Ill leave that to the legal scholars.)  I see no compelling reason why we should not at least have the federal government recognize civil unions for gay couples  so that they, as couples, can have the same benefits and responsibilities as married couples have.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> You haven't proved shit.
> 
> Even your OWN sources admit the BIOLOGIC factor.
> 
> 
> but go ahead and keep telling yourself different....  It's not like I haven't already stomped a mud hole in your ability to debate today...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I said.. PROVE your lame fucking assertions this time.  I won't be taking sources from lame catholic sites either.




The source was USA today, dumbass. And the bibliography was from all over the world.


----------



## Shogun

Cross-dominance

In modern times, *it is more common to find people considered ambidextrous who were originally left handed, and learned to be ambidextrous either deliberately or during childhood in institutions such as schools where right-handed habits are often emphasized. Also, since many everyday devices are designed to be only ergonomic for right handed people, many left handed people have no choice but to use the device with the right hand (a good example is a can opener). As a result, left handed people are much more likely to develop motor skills in their non-dominant hand than right handed people (who are not subjected to left-favouring devices).* Ambidexterity is often encouraged in activities requiring a great deal of skill in both hands, such as juggling, swimming, percussion or keyboard music, word processing, surgery, and combat[citation needed].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-dominance#Ambidexterity



im not following your anorexia example.  Even if they suffer from a disorder in which they choose not to eat like Gandhi they still have the biologic function of hunger.


----------



## AllieBaba

No shit? Then you're agreeing with me again. Even though they have the biological urge to have sex, they can choose how, where and with whom. Making homosexuality a choice.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> The source was USA today, dumbass. And the bibliography was from all over the world.





then link to it from USA TODAY, bitch.

But you can't can you?  I've googled the article already too and discovered, SUPRISE SUPRISE, that not only won't you find it at USA TODAY but it only really comes up at, timpani's please, CATHOLIC BLOGS....


see, this is why no one takes your shit seriously.


BUT, hell, feel free to prove me wrong and link it from the source instead of some lame fucking catholic website.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> No shit? Then you're agreeing with me again. Even though they have the biological urge to have sex, they can choose how, where and with whom. Making homosexuality a choice.





You are not a logical person, are you?  It;s funny to see you grasp this desperately for what you think proves your point.  Indeed, this is why people know how stupid you are.


Sexual orientation doesn't go away just because one chooses to be ASEXUAL.

Are CATHOLIC PRIESTS all of a sudden making a choice NOT TO BE HETERO when they abstain from sex?


of course not.


but you are stupid so I don't blame you for seeing the difference.



*Even though they have the biological urge to have sex* with a MAN


hey, thanks for agreeing that there IS a biologic aspect to orientation!


----------



## AllieBaba

Another irrational and rambling post which doesn't deserve an answer, as it is meaningless.

Make an argument or shut up, felon.


----------



## midcan5

AllieBaba said:


> No shit? Then you're agreeing with me again. Even though they have the biological urge to have sex, they can choose how, where and with whom. Making homosexuality a choice.



If they can do it you can do it. Please give it a try if you are so dead certain it is a choice. Start with a Google image search of 'beautiful women,' tell which woman turns you on. Be honest here and make the choice and let us know. Send link and I'll let you know if a heterosexual man agrees with your selection. You could find things out about yourself you never expected!


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Another irrational and rambling post which doesn't deserve an answer, as it is meaningless.
> 
> Make an argument or shut up, felon.



oh NOW it's libel, eh bitch?

Funny that you can't attack my criticism of your logic but you can ASSUME that I'm a felon.  yes, that probably doesn't speak VOLUMES about how stunted is your capacity to comprehend life around you.


Poor girl.. I really should stop picking on the locally mentally challenged.


----------



## Shogun

midcan5 said:


> If they can do it you can do it. Please give it a try if you are so dead certain it is a choice. Start with a Google image search of 'beautiful women,' tell which woman turns you on. Be honest here and make the choice and let us know. Send link and I'll let you know if a heterosexual man agrees with your selection. You could find things out about yourself you never expected!



Watch her squirm out from under proving her own assertions.. 


It's funny to see how desperate someone who is mentally paralyzed is to strut around like a thinker..


----------



## AllieBaba

I'm dead certain it's a choice. The science agrees, and I certainly am not obligated to do a sex side show for the entertainment of the lower levels of humanity.

And your "criticism", Shogun, is nothing more than spastic jerking and diversion tactics. I've addressed and overcome every single real objection you've thrown my way. The rest is just you suffering death throes, and I've treated it as such.

And the names are incidental. I just like to call you names. There's nothing scientific about it. It is telling you react so strongly. It's typical of someone who doesn't like facing the truth.


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> I'm dead certain it's a choice. The science agrees, and I certainly am not obligated to do a sex side show for the entertainment of the lower levels of humanity.
> 
> And your "criticism", Shogun, is nothing more than spastic jerking and diversion tactics. I've addressed and overcome every single real objection you've thrown my way. The rest is just you suffering death throes, and I've treated it as such.
> 
> And the names are incidental. I just like to call you names. There's nothing scientific about it. It is telling you react so strongly. It's typical of someone who doesn't like facing the truth.





Still insisting that the CONSENSUS of a BIOLOGIC function is a liberal myth, eh?  Even when it comes from your very own "evidence"?

No one cares what YOU are convinced of.. I'm sure a tour of your brain and the things that YOU are convinced of would be like touring the inside of a padded cell.  YOU have not provided page ONE of evidence that proves a choice.  Hell, i'm not even certain you know what's going on when you google something and post the first thing that comes up and HOPE that it says what you think.  You have an opinion which you can't support and insist that YOUR opinion is some scientific standard.  CLEARLY it's not.  

But, like waiting for the CDC evidence or anything from USA TODAY I'm sure I'll be waiting a while for you to discover what good evidence looks like.. Indeed, spare me you lecture.  I don't take lessons from foolish bitches who think they are winning from half a mile behind the rest of us.


Indeed, I'm partial to picking the scab of your ignorance too.  Feel free to keep playing.  it's fun to watch you walk into the wall of a dominant mind again and again and again and again and again and again and...


----------



## Shogun

ps..

your kind used to be dead certain that the world was flat and was the center of the universe too...


who cares what you are certain of?  Certainly NOT the scientific consensus!


----------



## AllieBaba

You're the one here denying the facts, not me. Not only are you denying the facts, you're lying as well.


----------



## Shogun

once again you are full of shit.


your pattern is becoming boring, Allie.



accusations don't equal proof, by the way.  You know, like how your OPINION does not equal a consensus just because you are too lazy to prove your own assertions..


well, then again, maybe you DON't know.


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> once again you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> your pattern is becoming boring, Allie.
> 
> 
> 
> accusations don't equal proof, by the way.  You know, like how your OPINION does not equal a consensus just because you are too lazy to prove your own assertions..
> 
> 
> well, then again, maybe you DON't know.




I know you pretty effectively hijacked the thread with idiotic posts and yammering about nothing. Ultimately, you've proved nothing except you have no argument to make.

And I know accusations don't equal proof, which is why your accusation that my information is somehow tainted is worthless.

I proved my assertion. You question the proof, there's not much I can do with that unless you come up with something substantial.


----------



## Shogun

TRUST ME... 


anyone who clicks on your links from today will know just how WORTHLESS they are.  Hell, Im not running from what you've posted... I HOPE people check out what you've tried to pass of as evidence today.  For real, I WANT them to see what kind of a nutty fruitcake you are.

and yes, since the burden of proof is on YOU it is YOUR responsibility to come up with something actually viable.  If I, as a prosecuting attorney, can't PROVE my case with the first example because it's obviously total bullshit then it is MY task to find something else.  It is NOT the defense that must UNPROVE your retarded opinion, Allie.  I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.  Google it.  Find out for yourself.  It's obvious that i've got you by the scruff of the neck and you are desperate to save face.  I've asked you multiple tiimes to PROVE your lame shit today and each time you reply with bullshit and call it gold.  And THEN assume that IM the one that has to prove it's shit rather than bullion.  Sorry.  Your pattern in faking evidence that you hope no one will call you on is clear enough that it's like a fucking batsignal above gotham in every thread you claim to have evidence in.  I'm not the only person to tell you this today.

deal with it or actually *gasp* post evidence that is worthwhile instead of shit from a catholic blog and totally misleading a link to  the CDC.


----------



## AllieBaba

Oh, you mean like the CDC link that you said I didn't provide, or the links to the prevent abuse sites, or the link which takes you to the Bibliography of the Statutory Rape article? Or the link that provides child sex laws for all the states?


----------



## AllieBaba

Shogun said:


> TRUST ME...
> 
> 
> anyone who clicks on your links from today will know just how WORTHLESS they are.  Hell, Im not running from what you've posted... I HOPE people check out what you've tried to pass of as evidence today.  For real, I WANT them to see what kind of a nutty fruitcake you are.
> 
> and yes, since the burden of proof is on YOU it is YOUR responsibility to come up with something actually viable.  If I, as a prosecuting attorney, can't PROVE my case with the first example because it's obviously total bullshit then it is MY task to find something else.  It is NOT the defense that must UNPROVE your retarded opinion, Allie.  I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.  Google it.  Find out for yourself.  It's obvious that i've got you by the scruff of the neck and you are desperate to save face.  I've asked you multiple tiimes to PROVE your lame shit today and each time you reply with bullshit and call it gold.  And THEN assume that IM the one that has to prove it's shit rather than bullion.  Sorry.  Your pattern in faking evidence that you hope no one will call you on is clear enough that it's like a fucking batsignal above gotham in every thread you claim to have evidence in.  I'm not the only person to tell you this today.
> 
> deal with it or actually *gasp* post evidence that is worthwhile instead of shit from a catholic blog and totally misleading a link to  the CDC.



No, it's my job to come up with evidence. I came up with evidence. If you don't like the evidence, you can continue to think your own warped way, but if you are going to challenge the evidence, I only have to defend it if you actually provide some evidence there's something wrong with it.

Let me see. So far, you've denied that I've provided any evidence, stated the evidence (that I didn't provide?) is no good because it was posted on a catholic website (despite the bibliography, which is anything but catholic) and finally, made vague accusations that other links (which remember, you said I didn't provide) probably have something wrong with them, though you haven't specified what.

So you're just trying to embark on a wild goose chase, meant to divert attention from the fact that you lost this argument a really long time ago.


----------



## Shogun

Ill tell you what.


post your evidence for peer review so that all the board posters can look at what you've got and what you think it says so that I can have a good belly laugh tomorrow...


OR, try to squirm.. I've already busted down the latest shit you try to pass of as evidence so I really don't have much more to prove about your lack of congitive function.


----------



## AllieBaba

Naw, I posted what I needed to, and as I said, if you have a problem with it, come up with something and I'll rebutt.

But asking for evidence, then more evidence, then more, then more, then more won't get you anywhere with me. I've already enabled you way more than I should have.


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> Preference is not black-and-white.  Some days someone might like chocolate ice cream.  Later, he might like vanilla.



Why would they "like" the people of their gender if they are only born to be attracted to the other?  If someone is only attracted to the opposite gender then why would someone continually have intercourse with someone of their own?  Wouldn't someone only have intercourse with someone whom they are attracted to?  Also, why would fox news, who obviously has a reputation of being to the right, make a claim that homosexuality is genetics?


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> Why would they "like" the people of their gender if they are only born to be attracted to the other?  If someone is only attracted to the opposite gender then why would someone continually have intercourse with someone of their own?  Wouldn't someone only have intercourse with someone whom they are attracted to?  Also, why would fox news, who obviously has a reputation of being to the right, make a claim that homosexuality is genetics?



People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex.  If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role.  While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them.  I didnt think that Id like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some.    Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men.  Perhaps there is a bisexual gene.  I dont know and I dont care.  In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is born gay one can change with enough mental and physical force.  I dont know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I dont care.


----------



## doniston

mattskramer said:


> People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex.  If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role.  While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them.  I didnt think that Id like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some.    Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men.  Perhaps there is a bisexual gene.  I dont know and I dont care.  In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is born gay one can change with enough mental and physical force.  I dont know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I dont care.


Other than beleiving that some are predestined to be gay, I definitely agree with you  ---In my position I would say "Who cares"???


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> People might be born with s weak predisposition to be attracted to people of the same sex or to the opposite sex.  If they are born with that predisposition or not, I think that environment, curiosity, and experimentation plays a role.  While a man might prefer relationships with other men, he might become bored and try a relationship with a woman and prefer them.  I didnt think that Id like Brussels sprouts until someone talked me into trying some.



Your brusel sprouts example is irrelevant to what we are talking about.  Someone cannot talk someone into being attracted to another.  



mattskramer said:


> Then, someone might try relationships with women for a while and conclude that he prefers sex with men.  Perhaps there is a bisexual gene.  I dont know and I dont care.  In a nutshell, I think that whether or not one is born gay one can change with enough mental and physical force.  I dont know if homosexuality is genetic or not and I dont care.



Why would a man conclude to have a relationship with someone of his own gender, when he knows that gay people get hassled a lot why would someone choose to be gay and put up with all the persecution that comes with it thats just suicidal ( socially speaking)?  I am not gay myself, but why would someone put themselves through the stress of coming out if they could be straight.  I can even remember a gay man saying once that he would go to church and pray to God to make him a heterosexual.  You also might be aware that a number of gay people go through electroshock therapy with the idea of making them a heterosexual.  So then why would these people take these methods if they could be like the rest?

Additionally, gay people are more like to have aids so why would they put themselves at extra risk and spend their whole life with someone of the same gender if they were merely 'curious'?  Thats just pointless. Nobody sacrifices a life of happiness out of curiosity.
If you are just looking for a male companion you can just find a friend i mean lots of people have male friends they just aren't sexually involved with them - so i don't get where you are coming from with the companionship bit


----------



## Shogun

AllieBaba said:


> Naw, I posted what I needed to, and as I said, if you have a problem with it, come up with something and I'll rebutt.
> 
> But asking for evidence, then more evidence, then more, then more, then more won't get you anywhere with me. I've already enabled you way more than I should have.





yeeaaaaa... I kinda figured that you would bow out when confronted with the bullshit "evidence" you post..


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> Your brusel sprouts example is irrelevant to what we are talking about.  Someone cannot talk someone into being attracted to another.


It is not irrelevant.  It is only a poor example because influence in convincing someone to try Brussels sprouts, might not need to be as strong as convincing one to try a homosexual relationship.   An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is. 


> Why would a man conclude to have a relationship with someone of his own gender, when he knows that gay people get hassled a lot why would someone choose to be gay and put up with all the persecution that comes with it thats just suicidal ( socially speaking)?  I am not gay myself, but why would someone put themselves through the stress of coming out if they could be straight.  I can even remember a gay man saying once that he would go to church and pray to God to make him a heterosexual.  You also might be aware that a number of gay people go through electroshock therapy with the idea of making them a heterosexual.  So then why would these people take these methods if they could be like the rest?


I think that the hassle and harassment has been exaggerated.  I am not saying that it does not exist but I think that it has been blown out of proportion to raise attention to it.  Gay couples can have private relationships and people would not realize that they are gay or having a homosexual affair.   People get harassed and hassled.  It is practically a part of life.  People just ignore the rude and insensitive remarks.  If it progresses to rare incidences of violence, regal recourse are contacted.  EST and prayer is not enough to change someone. 


> Additionally, gay people are more like to have aids so why would they put themselves at extra risk and spend their whole life with someone of the same gender if they were merely 'curious'?  Thats just pointless. Nobody sacrifices a life of happiness out of curiosity.


I am not saying that gay people are no all simply straight people curious about homosexual relationships.  Sometimes the love and desire that one has for another is so strong that he is willing to take chances.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is.



The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.  

I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it. 
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT. 
IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY
PERIOD. 

Now what I'd like to hear from are the men on this board who choose their boners. Cause when you can choose your boners, you can choose your sexuality.  And I don't mean the ability to get RID of a boner, you can do that with practice most times. But I'm talking about getting the boner, it's not a hoice, it happens. It IS that simple. It IS that crude. Boner? You like it. No boner? You don't like it. Good lord, how many times does this have ot be repeated. Jeez.


----------



## Shogun




----------



## mattskramer

CorpMediaSux said:


> The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.



I was briefly sexually attracted to a young man several years ago for some time.  Later, my interest seemed to subside.  Today, Im happily married to a woman and have no interest in having any homosexual relationship.

Anyway, there could be a decidedly gay person who tries to convince a straight person to try to be gay.  It is a possibility.   There is no explanation for it.  Ive even read that it happened.  I dont have a source right off hand.  

The logic makes perfect sense.  You are trying to make it black-and-white when it isnt.  The issue of why someone is gay or straight or changes preferences or tries to change preferences and fails is very nebulous. Perhaps it is genetic or perhaps it is environmental.  Perhaps it is a combination of genetics and environment.  Perhaps genetics plays such a small role that you can overcome it.  Some people can and some people cant.  Ive read about men who have thought that they were straight until they found men that they were attracted to for some unknown reason.  Ive read about gay men who went straight.  Perhaps genetic influences taper off after time for some people.  Perhaps they grow stronger.   There are so many possible variables and combinations of variables that might apply to small degrees or large degrees.   Each person has different life experiences. 



> I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it.  IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT.  IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY PERIOD.



If you are a guy and women can give you a boner and men can give you a boner, then you are bisexual. If you are a guy who sometimes does not get a bonder from a woman or a man for some time, you are simply not interested.


----------



## doniston

CorpMediaSux said:


> The logic behind your argument doesn't make sense. Who is the unusually attractive man you're talking about in your example. Is he the one who is "really" gay, since he is doing all this effort to seduced a heterosexual man into a relationship with him. How do you explain for that one. Is he only trying to convince this other guy because the other guy is ALSO incredibly attractive. So homosexuality is when otherwise straight men find ONE guy who overrides their natural sexuality and singularly focuses them? Complete and utter bollocks.
> 
> I hate to keep repeating this but people are so fricking thick that I keep having to say it.
> IF YOU ARE A GUY AND WOMEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE STRAIGHT.
> IF YOU ARE A GUY AND MEN GIVE YOU A BONER, YOU ARE GAY
> PERIOD.
> 
> Now what I'd like to hear from are the men on this board who choose their boners. Cause when you can choose your boners, you can choose your sexuality.  And I don't mean the ability to get RID of a boner, you can do that with practice most times. But I'm talking about getting the boner, it's not a hoice, it happens. It IS that simple. It IS that crude. Boner? You like it. No boner? You don't like it. Good lord, how many times does this have to be repeated. Jeez.


  OH, I think we all inderstand your point.  repeating is not necessary or fruitful.  I and others simply disagree with your position and think you are dead wrong.


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> It is not irrelevant.  It is only a poor example because influence in convincing someone to try Brussels sprouts, might not need to be as strong as convincing one to try a homosexual relationship.   An unusually attractive man can certainly convince someone to have a physical relationship with him depending on how convincing he is and how receptive the other person is.



It's irrelevant because someone cannot change their physical attraction to someone. Overtime someone can gain to like different foods.  



mattskramer said:


> I think that the hassle and harassment has been exaggerated.  I am not saying that it does not exist but I think that it has been blown out of proportion to raise attention to it.  Gay couples can have private relationships and people would not realize that they are gay or having a homosexual affair.   People get harassed and hassled.  It is practically a part of life.  People just ignore the rude and insensitive remarks.  If it progresses to rare incidences of violence, regal recourse are contacted.  EST and prayer is not enough to change someone.



You missed the point completely.  A lot of people do not want to be gay. They do not want to inform their parents that they are this way.  Like I said before they will go through extreme methods to try to fix their orientation (obviously failing).  So why would someone go through such if they are not born this way?



mattskramer said:


> I am not saying that gay people are no all simply straight people curious about homosexual relationships.  Sometimes the love and desire that one has for another is so strong that he is willing to take chances.



But why would they let themselves become this way?  As I am saying, being gay is negative in the American Society.  Calling someone gay is considered an insult.  A lot of the gay community  do not want to be how they are.  If they could change then why wouldn't they?


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> OH, I think we all inderstand your point. repeating is not necessary or fruitful. I and others simply disagree with your position and think you are dead wrong.



Than construct an argument that proves it.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> The logic makes perfect sense. You are trying to make it black-and-white when it isnt.



Sorry, in my effort to move away from the question of morality issues I became dogmatic. You are right to call me on it.  Here's the real deal.  People can fall on an infinite number of places on the sexuality continuum.  Fromm 100% homosexuality to 100% heterosexuality there are a number of spots. HOWEVER. None of them are CHOSEN.  My point, while crude, still remains the same. You don't choose what turns you on. Boners are not chosen, they happen. What stimulates them in each person is varied. That doesn't mean people "choose" their sexuality. 

What people do choose is whether or not to act on their attraction. That choice is unconnected to the actual boner. Any guy can tell you that they dont have sex or even get to make out everytime they pop one. Sexuality drives your boners. Personal choices guide your sexual ACTS. Being gay isnt about sexual ACTS. You can be gay and be celibate. It's about sexual attraction. And no matter how you slice it, there's no way to choose anything about it.


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> It's irrelevant because someone cannot change their physical attraction to someone. Overtime someone can gain to like different foods.



We simply disagree.  I think that if there is enough of a desire, people can change.  It may be a long, costly, painful arduous process but people can change.  Think of those people who like pornography to such an extent that it damages their marriage and career.  Those people change.  It may take group therapy; it may take expensive behavioral therapy.  If enough pleasure (even artificially induced) is linked to something (Example: masturbating to pornography), one will develop a liking to it.  If enough pain is linked to something else, one will come to dislike being associated with it.   Again, if you can somehow create a habitual link between something and pleasure, then you can come to like it.  It might take drug therapy too.

Read toward the bottom of http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/rogers_legacy.html
(Edited here for brevity and readability)

_Watson theorized that children have three basic emotional reactions: fear, rage, and love.  He wanted to prove that these three reactions could be artificially conditioned in children. Watson conducted a conditioning experiment with an eleven-month-old baby named Albert. The experiment conditioned Albert&#8217;s fear reaction to white, fury objects. 

At the beginning of the experiment Albert did not fear many objects, and he would often reach for the white rat.  &#8220;Watson applied two principles to the experiment: 1) emotional responses are conditioned to various stimuli as a result of pairings that occur between conditioned stimuli such as distinctive sounds, smell, sights, or love and anger, 2) emotional responses can spread to stimuli to which they have not been conditional, but that resemble the conditioned stimuli After only seven pairings of the white rat with a loud clanging noise, Albert had become very frightened of the rat.  When Albert was tested a few days after this occurrence, he was not only afraid of the rat, but also of a white rabbit, and a seal coat.  Prior to the experiment he had played comfortably with the aforementioned objects.  Albert&#8217;s fear of the other objects is referred to as &#8220;transfer&#8221; or &#8220;spread.&#8221;  Unfortunately, Albert remained conditioned to fear white, fury objects all of his life.  This kind of study would be unethical today.

Application of Watson&#8217;s theory results in rigid prescriptions for child rearing, and education, as well as for training and control in the military and industry.  Watson&#8217;s theory claims that people&#8217;s behavior can be controlled by manipulating stimulus and response events: &#8220;Don&#8217;t kiss and cuddle our children; shake their hands, and then arrange their environments so that the behaviors you desire will be brought under the control of the appropriate stimuli._ 

*I understand that Watson (in addition to Skinner and Pavlov) focused on behavior but I think that such conditioning can even be applied to fundamental desires.  I'd go further and suggest that basic desires (even heterosexual and homosexual desires) can similarly be conditioned.* 



> You missed the point completely.  A lot of people do not want to be gay. They do not want to inform their parents that they are this way.  Like I said before they will go through extreme methods to try to fix their orientation (obviously failing).  So why would someone go through such if they are not born this way?
> 
> But why would they let themselves become this way?  As I am saying, being gay is negative in the American Society.  Calling someone gay is considered an insult.  A lot of the gay community  do not want to be how they are.  If they could change then why wouldn't they?



I still contend that though homosexuality might be genetic, if one has a strong enough desire to not be homosexual, it is possible for him to change.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

We simply disagree. I think that if there is enough of a desire, people can change. It may be a long, costly, painful arduous process but people can change. Think of those people who like pornography to such an extent that it damages their marriage and career. Those people change. It may take group therapy; it may take expensive behavioral therapy. If enough pleasure (even artificially induced) is linked to something (Example: masturbating to pornography), one will develop a liking to it. If enough pain is linked to something else, one will come to dislike being associated with it. Again, if you can somehow create a habitual link between something and pleasure, then you can come to like it. It might take drug therapy too.

I have to admit, I'm a bit perplexed at what is behind your argument. Are you simply saying that it's possible to change human behaviour through conditioning. Well yes, that's been a scientific fact since Pavlov's dogs. If you create artificial pain and/or employ artificial drugs you can take most people's inclinations and change them.  

However, what you havent' really delved into is why these extreme treatments should be administered to homosexuals. We're not talking about sociopaths. Nothing about homosexuality physically harms another person.  What is the reason for so violently altering a persona's natural sexual orientation (whatever that might be).  The reason people are unhappy with their own homosexuality is from societal pressure, not anything inherent within being gay or lesbian.  And frankly, to those people I say, get over yourselves. It's 2007 and if you can't grow some balls, find a partner and live your life, well you're gonna be miserable no matter WHAT, because you are a person who lives for others happiness more than your own.


----------



## CorpMediaSux

> *MattsKramer*
> We simply disagree. I think that if there is enough of a desire, people can change. It may be a long, costly, painful arduous process but people can change. Think of those people who like pornography to such an extent that it damages their marriage and career. Those people change. It may take group therapy; it may take expensive behavioral therapy. If enough pleasure (even artificially induced) is linked to something (Example: masturbating to pornography), one will develop a liking to it. If enough pain is linked to something else, one will come to dislike being associated with it. Again, if you can somehow create a habitual link between something and pleasure, then you can come to like it. It might take drug therapy too.


I have to admit, I'm a bit perplexed at what is behind your argument. Are you simply saying that it's possible to change human behaviour through conditioning. Well yes, that's been a scientific fact since Pavlov's dogs. If you create artificial pain and/or employ artificial drugs you can take most people's inclinations and change them.  

However, what you havent' really delved into is why these extreme treatments should be administered to homosexuals. We're not talking about sociopaths. Nothing about homosexuality physically harms another person.  What is the reason for so violently altering a persona's natural sexual orientation (whatever that might be).  The reason people are unhappy with their own homosexuality is from societal pressure, not anything inherent within being gay or lesbian.  And frankly, to those people I say, get over yourselves. It's 2007 and if you can't grow some balls, find a partner and live your life, well you're gonna be miserable no matter WHAT, because you are a person who lives for others happiness more than your own.


----------



## Shogun

Matts...


would it be possible to make you crave dick with enough shock therapy, you think?  And, I don't mean just while the electrodes are plugged in.  I mean, do you think I could use classical conditioning to turn you from hetero to gay?  Where, ten years from now you'll still be craving dick after diving into the gay sub-culture?


I would say that the answer is no in regards to turning you gay just like the track record from "turn your gay son strait" programs from christians have a pattern of being unsuccessful.


Moreso, if I understand your logic, how do gay kids get produced from hetero parents in the first place then?  Don't strait parents provide positive reinforcement for hetero behaviour?  Strait parents don't punish boys for liking girls, right?


----------



## AllieBaba

People can change. People choose whether or not to continue to be attracted to their spouses every day of the year. People choose whether or not to be attracted to partners who have behaved in a manner which brings on a decision of whether or not to remain together. I know I've chosen to stop being attracted by certain people, when I still felt physical attraction, but knew I had to put the kabosh to it. And I did.

Everyone has, if they are of a certain age, at some point quashed an attraction they've had for another.

But the choice goes back further than that with homosexuality. It isn't about somehow discovering, "oops, I'm gay!" and then trying to deal with it. It's about deciding NOT to be homosexual in the first place. Or deciding to. Almost every single homosexual in the world has had that discussion with themselves at some point....the "Gee, I'm attracted to members of the same sex...where should I go with this?" In fact, I'd bet that almost every single person in the world has at some point pondered the possibility. And upon pondering, they make a decision. It's either, "OMG, I can't believe I thought that," or "Wow, I'm going to have to put that in a box and store it away" or "I just really really want to explore this further."

There's no genetic or biological code that forces anyone to make any of those choices.


----------



## doniston

CorpMediaSux said:


> Than construct an argument that proves it.


If you have been paying attention, you would recognize that there is no absolute proof either wayy.


----------



## mattskramer

Those Christian groups that try to get gays to go straight is tiddlywinks.  Im talking about true hard-core behavioral and emotional conditioning.  I think that it is possible to change.  How do Koreans get American soldiers to change sides?  How did Pavlov get his dog to salivate at the sound of a bell?  I think that homosexuals can become heterosexuals and vice versa.  

Some children from gay families remain straight.  Some gays come from straight parents.  Perhaps someone turns gay due to pleasant experiences when experimenting with homosexuality.  Perhaps someone really found a soul mate of the same sex.  How come some Democrats come from Republican families and how come some Republicans come from Democrat families.  Perhaps it just seems natural or right for them.  

I dont care and I dont think that it matters.  As to why people should change, I dont think that they should.  If someone is bothered that someone is gay, then it is a problem for the one who has a problem with the gay person.  It is not the gay persons problem. People really need to get a life.


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> We simply disagree.  I think that if there is enough of a desire, people can change.  It may be a long, costly, painful arduous process but people can change.  Think of those people who like pornography to such an extent that it damages their marriage and career.  Those people change.  It may take group therapy; it may take expensive behavioral therapy.  If enough pleasure (even artificially induced) is linked to something (Example: masturbating to pornography), one will develop a liking to it.  If enough pain is linked to something else, one will come to dislike being associated with it.   Again, if you can somehow create a habitual link between something and pleasure, then you can come to like it.  It might take drug therapy too.
> 
> Read toward the bottom of http://www.psychology.sbc.edu/rogers_legacy.html
> (Edited here for brevity and readability)
> 
> _Watson theorized that children have three basic emotional reactions: fear, rage, and love.  He wanted to prove that these three reactions could be artificially conditioned in children. Watson conducted a conditioning experiment with an eleven-month-old baby named Albert. The experiment conditioned Alberts fear reaction to white, fury objects.
> 
> At the beginning of the experiment Albert did not fear many objects, and he would often reach for the white rat.  Watson applied two principles to the experiment: 1) emotional responses are conditioned to various stimuli as a result of pairings that occur between conditioned stimuli such as distinctive sounds, smell, sights, or love and anger, 2) emotional responses can spread to stimuli to which they have not been conditional, but that resemble the conditioned stimuli After only seven pairings of the white rat with a loud clanging noise, Albert had become very frightened of the rat.  When Albert was tested a few days after this occurrence, he was not only afraid of the rat, but also of a white rabbit, and a seal coat.  Prior to the experiment he had played comfortably with the aforementioned objects.  Alberts fear of the other objects is referred to as transfer or spread.  Unfortunately, Albert remained conditioned to fear white, fury objects all of his life.  This kind of study would be unethical today.
> 
> Application of Watsons theory results in rigid prescriptions for child rearing, and education, as well as for training and control in the military and industry.  Watsons theory claims that peoples behavior can be controlled by manipulating stimulus and response events: Dont kiss and cuddle our children; shake their hands, and then arrange their environments so that the behaviors you desire will be brought under the control of the appropriate stimuli._
> 
> *I understand that Watson (in addition to Skinner and Pavlov) focused on behavior but I think that such conditioning can even be applied to fundamental desires.  I'd go further and suggest that basic desires (even heterosexual and homosexual desires) can similarly be conditioned.*
> 
> I still contend that though homosexuality might be genetic, if one has a strong enough desire to not be homosexual, it is possible for him to change.




If someone can change then why haven't more gays have done so?  Like I have said numerous times people will even take such extreme methods as electroshock therapy in order to change and have failed.  You don't think that these people have made an adequate attempt to become a heterosexual?  If someone is willing to punish themselves as they are here then I think that they have taken such steps in order to become the way the want and they still end up failing.  

http://www.beyondexgay.com/narratives/eric
Here is a link about a story of someone who made number attempts to become a heterosexual and failed.  He was actually so miserable being gay that he was thinking about suicide.  So if someone is so unhappy being gay that they are *kill themselves * wouldn't you think that they made a decent attempt to change?


----------



## mattskramer

Big_D said:


> If someone can change then why haven't more gays have done so?  Like I have said numerous times people will even take such extreme methods as electroshock therapy in order to change and have failed.  You don't think that these people have made an adequate attempt to become a heterosexual?  If someone is willing to punish themselves as they are here then I think that they have taken such steps in order to become the way the want and they still end up failing.



I already answered your question. They have not made a real decision.  They have not tried everything possible.  We simply disagree.  As I said before, I doubt that they should feel obligated to change.  It is okay to be gay as far as Im concerned.



> http://www.beyondexgay.com/narratives/eric
> 
> Here is a link about a story of someone who made number attempts to become a heterosexual and failed.  He was actually so miserable being gay that he was thinking about suicide.  So if someone is so unhappy being gay that they are *kill themselves * wouldn't you think that they made a decent attempt to change?



No.  I think that he was despondent and depressed but in answer to your question, he did not make a decent attempt to change.  I dont see where he took drug therapy.  I dont see where he tried long and hard enough to change.  I dont see any inpatient behavior therapy hospital that he attended.   I think that we are quibbling over an insignificant point in the homosexual issue.  It is okay to be gay.


----------



## Big_D

mattskramer said:


> I already answered your question. They have not made a real decision.  They have not tried everything possible.  We simply disagree.  As I said before, I doubt that they should feel obligated to change.  It is okay to be gay as far as I&#8217;m concerned.



How do you know that these people have not made a real attempt to change themselves?  You do not think that electing to have electric bolts run through your body a real decision?  What do you mean when you said they shouldn't obligated to change?  If we are all born alike then what is there to change to?



mattskramer said:


> No.  I think that he was despondent and depressed but in answer to your question, he did not make a decent attempt to change.  I don&#8217;t see where he took drug therapy.  I don&#8217;t see where he tried long and hard enough to change.  I don&#8217;t see any inpatient behavior therapy hospital that he attended.   I think that we are quibbling over an insignificant point in the &#8220;homosexual issue&#8221;.  It is okay to be gay.



What you are saying is not making sense.  First of all I have never heard of a drug that makes someone a heterosexual.  Next, if there is such a thing and it does work then it would only work for someone who had something that was with them at the time of their birth, right?  Also, if someone has made the decision to be gay, then why would they need any help at all?  http://books.google.com/books?id=Ob-53plFMgIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=%22i+wanted+to+be+straight%22&source=web&ots=9i1P-5wmI7&sig=qErfkxUeIqw0RYY9qyTI4VXqILU#PPA46,M1
Here is a link of someone who went to a  Psychiatric social worker to try to become straight and claimed that they didnt do anything.    

Here is another link that is from a man that is gay and wanted to be a heterosexual.  http://www.beyondexgay.com/Narratives/RickHe stated, "Prayer, fasting, inner healing, accountability groups, medication, and 12-step groups. Even a scary exorcism attempt with lots of shouting. Since none of it made any difference, I became pretty despondent and hopeless over time."  This guy did claim that he took medication in order to become a heterosexual.  Why is it again that these people choosing to be gay if it is making them so miserable?


----------



## mattskramer

I dont know if drug therapy, in combination with other therapies would work but it may be an option worth investigating, particularly before considering suicide.  I doubt that EST would work but it may also be a possibility.  I simply mean that it is okay to be gay.  It is okay to like whatever you like within reason as long as it doesnt interfere with the freedom of others.  Basically, within reason, do your own thing.  It is okay to be gay. 

Why do people remain alcoholics and some people break through and learn to not like beer.  My father liked to smoke.  He quit cold turkey and now hates the smell of cigarettes.  Why is it that some people try to free themselves of porn and some people continue to like it?  In my opinion, they have not made a true decision to change.  

People can change even if they were born gay and/or if they chose to be gay.  I am saying that it is possible to change in either case if one tries hard enough.  Just like a scientist was able to instill fear of white fur in a child and just as one was able to make a dog salivate at the sound of a bell, one can change from gay to straight and from straight to gay.  I will continue to contend that it is possible.


----------



## Shogun

then are you admitting that I could turn you gay, a clockwork orange style, with a little punishment and positive reinforcement?


Pavlov's dog's associated the sound of shoes walking down the hallway with being fed meat powder.  the dog's didn't choose to want to salivate any more than dogs WANT to stop shitting in the house when being punished using the same principals of pavlovian behaviour modification.

*Some children from gay families remain straight.  Some gays come from straight parents.  Perhaps someone turns gay due to pleasant experiences when experimenting with homosexuality.  Perhaps someone really found a soul mate of the same sex.  How come some Democrats come from Republican families and how come some Republicans come from Democrat families.  Perhaps it just seems natural or right for them.  *


but you don't address the issue in question:  if it is ONLY external influence that causes homosexual tendencies, per your assumption that homosexuality is a choice overcome by classical conditioning, THEN how do you account for all the gay people who are products of strict heteros?  Better yet, how come gay parents are not strictly pumping out GAY kids?  If "turn your son back inot a hetero with jebus" routines DONT WORK then give me some kind of estimate regarding the level of counciling necessary to turn one from gay to strait.  Yes, if I labotomize you I can change a very many things about your personality.  If I torture the shit out of you then, indeed, I can make you change a great many things.  If korea was able to sway the OPINION of an American soldier then what, exactly, does that suggest about a BEHAVIOUR at all?  So, I used to hate brocolli and now love the stuff.. How does changing an OPINION compare with changing a sexual orientation?  Could YOU take a month off from hetero and suck some dick?  What kind of stimuli would it take to turn you into a fire on the flightdeck?  
*
After all, Pavlov's dog didn't just *poof* all of a sudden START LIKING MEAT just because they associated a sound with being fed.*



ps... I was going to ask if someone farted in here but, now that I scroll back, I see that it was just Allie's Halitosis of the keyboard flaring up..


----------



## doniston

Shogun said:


> then are you admitting that I could turn you gay, a clockwork orange style, with a little punishment and positive reinforcement?
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE]  And then would he REALLY be straight?? or just deathly affraid of acting, or admitting he was still gay?


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> then are you admitting that I could turn you gay, a clockwork orange style, with a little punishment and positive reinforcement?


I think that it would be possible if I really wanted to be gay and if I made a true, no exception, decision to be gay.  It would not take a little punishment and positive reinforcement.  It would be constant (perhaps every hour of the day) hard work and it may take decades. 


> Pavlov's dog's associated the sound of shoes walking down the hallway with being fed meat powder.  the dog's didn't choose to want to salivate any more than dogs WANT to stop shitting in the house when being punished using the same principals of pavlovian behaviour modification.


True.  It became automatic for the dog.


> but you don't address the issue in question:  if it is ONLY external influence that causes homosexual tendencies, per your assumption that homosexuality is a choice overcome by classical conditioning, THEN how do you account for all the gay people who are products of strict heteros?  Better yet, how come gay parents are not strictly pumping out GAY kids?  If "turn your son back inot a hetero with jebus" routines DONT WORK then give me some kind of estimate regarding the level of counciling necessary to turn one from gay to strait.  Yes, if I labotomize you I can change a very many things about your personality.  If I torture the shit out of you then, indeed, I can make you change a great many things.  If korea was able to sway the OPINION of an American soldier then what, exactly, does that suggest about a BEHAVIOUR at all?  So, I used to hate brocolli and now love the stuff.. How does changing an OPINION compare with changing a sexual orientation?  Could YOU take a month off from hetero and suck some dick?  What kind of stimuli would it take to turn you into a fire on the flightdeck?


I doubt that I ever said that homosexuality is exclusively a choice.  If I did, I did not mean to do so.  There may be a genetic component.  The desire was changed in the American soldiers.  The desire was changed in the person who now likes broccoli.  I dont know how much it would take to change my sexual orientation. My point is not so much about what causes homosexuality (genetic or environmental).  Honestly, I dont know to what extent, if any, genetics and/or environment play a part.  My point is that I believe that one can change from a homosexual to a heterosexual and vice versa even if there is a genetic element to his sexual orientation.  Such elements can be overcome.  


> *After all, Pavlov's dog didn't just *poof* all of a sudden START LIKING MEAT just because they associated a sound with being fed.*


I agree.  It took time.


----------



## Shogun

it didn't take any time for the dog to love eating meat without being given the choice of such.

Pavlov's dogs didn't choose to be carnivorous because of an association with ringing bells.


im just saying...


----------



## mattskramer

Shogun said:


> it didn't take any time for the dog to love eating meat without being given the choice of such.
> 
> Pavlov's dogs didn't choose to be carnivorous because of an association with ringing bells.
> 
> 
> im just saying...



Hmmm. Okay. Good point. Provided the dogs biological chemistry permits it, perhaps, there could be a way for Pavlov to turn the dog into a vegetarian.  Perhaps some desires cant be changed.  I think that sexual preference can be changed.  How do some people who used to be habitual smokers actually come to dislike tobacco smoke?  How is it that some people who were addicted to porn no longer like it?  Also, what about those American POWs and people who used to hate broccoli?  Behavior can be changed.  I think that we agree with that.  I take it a step further and contend that deep desires can be changed.


----------



## Shogun

i'm pretty sure that sexual orientation, like handedness, is not merely a preference, like mustard as opposed to ketchup.


like I said, pavlov's dogs were carniverous from birth.  Lefties who were forced to write with their right hand didn't lose dexterity in their left hand.  Fine, YOU believe that sexual preference can be changed... but I guess I'd put a little more water in that bucket if you were to also say that you spent a year of your life loving up on men after making the same choice that, apparently, gays are capable of...


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> I was briefly sexually attracted to a young man several years ago for some time.  Later, my interest seemed to subside.  Today, Im happily married to a woman and have no interest in having any homosexual relationship.



So you had a temporary lapse in judgment and mental stability. Thank you for that prime example of almost succumbing to perverted thoughts, and perfectly demonstrating how it is a choice. A bad choice.


----------



## Shogun

retarded


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> So you had a temporary lapse in judgment and mental stability. Thank you for that prime example of almost succumbing to perverted thoughts, and perfectly demonstrating how it is a choice. A bad choice.



I would not call it a lapse in judgment.  We knew each other for quite a while.  I was very confident that he had no STD.   We liked each other a lot.  It was no more a lapse in judgment or bad choice than are those choices men make in one-night-stands, or smoking, or driving fast.  You weight the costs, benefits, and risks, and take your chances.


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> I would not call it a lapse in judgment.  We knew each other for quite a while.  I was very confident that he had no STD.   We liked each other a lot.  It was no more a lapse in judgment or bad choice than are those choices men make in one-night-stands, or smoking, or driving fast.  You weight the costs, benefits, and risks, and take your chances.



Aaaahh... yeah, it was, and then you came to your senses.


----------



## 007

Shogun said:


> retarded



You got something worth listening to, lets hear it. Otherwise keep it to yourself.... twit.


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> Aaaahh... yeah, it was, and then you came to your senses.



Or I chickened out or I just didnt want to receive anal sex. Oh well.  You werent there, so how do you know?  You dont.


----------



## 007

mattskramer said:


> Or I chickened out or I just didn&#8217;t want to receive anal sex. Oh well.  You weren&#8217;t there, so how do you know?  You don&#8217;t.



No, I wasn't there, but you described in detail what happened. Or did you forget that already? Do I need to go back and quote you?

You came close to having a homosexual episode, and in your own words you changed your mind, which clearly indicates a "choice." You KNEW it was wrong. You "chickened" out because the thought of having a dick shoved up your ass or down your throat was disgusting. Now we know you DO think it's sick, or you'd have done it. You've been exposed matts... YOU'RE A HOMOPHOBE... ROFLMAO!!!


----------



## mattskramer

Pale Rider said:


> No, I wasn't there, but you described in detail what happened. Or did you forget that already? Do I need to go back and quote you?
> 
> You came close to having a homosexual episode, and in your own words you changed your mind, which clearly indicates a "choice." You KNEW it was wrong. You "chickened" out because the thought of having a dick shoved up your ass or down your throat was disgusting. Now we know you DO think it's sick, or you'd have done it. You've been exposed matts... YOU'RE A HOMOPHOBE... ROFLMAO!!!



Just like when you implied that I support pedophilia, you throw stuff in that I didnt say.  You make fallacious leaps in logic.  Ill dissect your post, as if I need to, for those people following the thread. 

Is homosexual petting and mutual masturbation a homosexual episode?  If so, then we had one.  Is kissing a homosexual episode?   If so, then we had one.  I chose not to do much more but that does not mean that I did not know whether homosexual behavior was wrong or right.  Dont try to be a mind reader.  I might have chickened out because I didnt want our relationship to move any further in that direction.   I might have chickened out because I preferred to do other things. Just because I didnt do it does not mean that I didnt do it because I thought it was sick.  No.  Im not a homophobe.  I think that consenting adults should be allowed to do as they please with each other.  I also think that, at the very least, the government should recognize civil unions for gay couples.


----------



## Shogun

Pale Rider said:


> You got something worth listening to, lets hear it. Otherwise keep it to yourself.... twit.



eat shit.

pointing at a retarded post must have been worth enough to grab YOUR attention.

You can keep your advice to yourself on the short bus where it belongs.


----------

