# Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.

My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.

*So, what evidence makes you come to the conclusion that being gay is wrong or unnatural? If you could ask a gay guy something, what would it be?*

Anger, insults and religious dogma detract from the point of this thread. If you are angry and want to insult, please go to another thread where you are free to do so.

People *cannot* form a good/valid opinion until they look at evidence. If something is true, there will be evidence to indicate it is so. Using evidence is the hallmark of an intelligent person's perspective on an issue. Moving away from evidence indicates a lack of research, rigidity and is the highlight of a weak opinion.

A reasonable question/statement is one that uses evidence or research (eg. This study says this about homosexuality..., it is a fact pedophilia has gone up in this city as shown by this research..., etc...) or even just an observation (eg. Gay people cannot reproduce, so isn't it wrong?).

An unreasonable/illogical question is one that is insulting, deflective or a loaded question (eg. Do fags carry lube in their pockets all day?/Africa is a hellhole, so how can you say being gay is not bad?/ Do the perverted sexual deviants realize how they are destroying America's children?)

I want to hear from people who are genuinely interested in looking at the issue of homosexuality. If you know your opinion will never change because you "know" it is wrong, then this is not for you.

If no evidence is presented, I can conclude that no one that posted in this thread who opposes gay rights has any evidence to support their opinion.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> 
> My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.
> 
> ...



When did this start?

Gay rights?

I thought the beef was same-sex marriage.....not Gay rights????


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Degenerate.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Righties don't want to have a civil intellectual conversation/debate about this issue.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Why talk to a fag when we have you?


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Righties don't want to have a civil intellectual conversation/debate about this issue.



No offense, but the premise of the op is horseshit.

There shouldn't be any discussion of Gay Rights.

Rather a discussion of human rights.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Righties don't want to have a civil intellectual conversation/debate about this issue.
> ...



Well, I guess the main topic would be "Is being gay wrong and unnatural" before I even start with something like gay marriage or adoption equality etc...

I'm open to hearing any argument/evidence that supports someones's belief that gay people should not be allowed to marry/adopt/exist.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Why talk to a fag when we have you?



I am a fag. And a very happy faggot I am.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Why talk to a fag when we have you?
> ...



At least you don't breed.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Being Gay is wrong and unnatural........and that's why some swing that way. It's part of the allure. 

I'm not gonna argue about whether or not they shouldn't be allowed specific rights.....but I will argue against pandering to them for political reasons.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

I think wingnuts have less problem with lesbians than gay guys.  They must feel it threatens their "masculinity"...


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> I think wingnuts have less problem with lesbians than gay guys.  They must feel it threatens their "masculinity"...



Nope.

I think most lesbians are cuter.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



How do you know?  There is nothing preventing homosexuals from having children, one way or another...


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

But really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?

I don't mean that in an insulting way, I actually am curious to hear what you have to say.

I thought it would be nice to strip-out the drama/flame war/insults and actually discuss something like reasonable people.

People are always fighting about right this and left that, shouldn't it be helpful to not fight and have a conversation and be heard and responded to? I know I want to.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > I think wingnuts have less problem with lesbians than gay guys.  They must feel it threatens their "masculinity"...
> ...



Yeah, fags have a tough time with that one. I'm pissed because they tried to ruin rainbows and marriage. Give those sick-bastards civil unions and then let them shut the fuck up about it. Nothing is worse then listening to a bunch of grown men cry like faggots!


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

If I post in this thread, can I catch AIDS?


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Being Gay is wrong and unnatural........and that's why some swing that way. It's part of the allure.
> 
> I'm not gonna argue about whether or not they shouldn't be allowed specific rights.....but I will argue against pandering to them for political reasons.



Okay. As I said before, you are just stating a subjective belief. No evidence, no facts, no anything. If you can't support something you believe (especially when it actually effects a group of people and their lives) with facts, it has no place in a real conversation.

Again, you're free to think it is unnatural and wrong, but just saying that is not going to sway anyone who uses their brain.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Your avatar is quite appropriate.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> If I post in this thread, can I catch AIDS?



Possibly, but it will make you a better person.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Dude, don't respond to him. He wouldn't be writing in here if he wasn't trying to get attention, so don't give it to him.

But yeah, I am hoping someone will have an opinion with support.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



LOL, I bet your tribe (if you are even a member, are you also a Cherokee?) just loves your fag ass. Talk about a huge taboo among the Sioux, well the good ones anyway. Man I bet you used to get your ass beat if you grew up on the Res.


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> He wouldn't be writing in here if he wasn't trying to get attention,



Says the queen who starts a 'ask me why I'm gay' thread in the politics section.


----------



## blackhawk (May 29, 2012)

What is gay rights? how are they different from Hetrosexual rights?


----------



## occupied (May 29, 2012)

I have a question: did you think you were going to actually get anything other than horrible ignorance on this board? Objective dialog is something these people will go out of their way to destroy.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > He wouldn't be writing in here if he wasn't trying to get attention,
> ...



He just needs attention, you know like those weirdo paraders.


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

OK.. Serious question.

Are you a 'pitcher' or a 'catcher'?


----------



## del (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> 
> My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.
> 
> ...



do these jeans make my ass look fat?


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite... 

1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?

2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.

3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I'm straight as an arrow, but I respect and support the rights of others.  The country as a whole also seems to be reaching that conclusion.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Why talk to a fag when we have you?
> ...



Cool.  And guess what, nobody gives a fuck.

Call us when you want to discuss something that is relevant to more than, I dunno, 5% of the popualtion.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

del said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> ...



Nope, your ass makes your ass look fat.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



 Are you a tribal member?


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

del/sniperfire/bigfoot - I feel so much better about my beliefs reading your comments.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite...
> 
> 1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?
> 
> ...



Okay, thank you. These are good questions. Let me do a quick search through my info so I can answer the way I ask, with evidence and facts.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 29, 2012)

> But yeah, I am hoping someone will have an opinion with support.



That should prove interesting. 

The entire legal team and supporters of Proposition 8 couldnt come up with any evidence at trial.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> If I post in this thread, can I catch AIDS?



Only if you do it without a rubber.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I only discuss such things among family and friends.  In other words, it's none of your retarded business.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

These homos are always trying to push their degenerate lives onto others. I remember when it was good sport whipping these sissy. On the street I won't even talk to these scum bags.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> del/sniperfire/bigfoot - I feel so much better about my beliefs reading your comments.



Do you always require 3rd party affirmation for your _beliefs_?


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> del/sniperfire/bigfoot - I feel so much better about my beliefs reading your comments.




No.  That was just your gerbil rolling over.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

*MaxCha*, if you can wait until the babies stop playing, maybe you can have the serious discussion you wish to have.  I hope you can.


----------



## del (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> del/sniperfire/bigfoot - I feel so much better about my beliefs reading your comments.



i'll alert the media.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Ahh, ok. By the way my wife's blood quantum is 25% Sioux and 50% Chippewa. She is from your neck of the woods and a tribal member. She says from the way you post that she thinks you are a wanna-be Cherokee.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

This is what on gets when one starts a totally unserious thread.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> But really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?
> 
> I don't mean that in an insulting way, I actually am curious to hear what you have to say.
> 
> ...



If it gets you to shut up go ahead and get married.

Personally I think it's a mistake unless you're a Transsexual and want to be a wife instead of a husband. Married couples go through really rotten divorces and I wouldn't  want to wish that on anyone.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Good for her.  Is she also part gypsy?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Unfortunately Lakhota is 80% dumbfuck... he can't even spell _Lakota_.


----------



## del (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...






good one!


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite...
> ...



"a search thru my info"??? Is this the straight person crisis hotline manual that you're searching? Have to go take a vote? I'll sit here all tensed up til you figure it out..


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Lakhóta/Dahkóta/Nahkóta (Sioux) Literature


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Interesting.. whenever I Google _Lakhota_, it takes me to a gazillion sites regarding the _Lakota_.

Well, who gives a shit anyway.  I dub thee... _Lakhota_.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



I'm just telling you what she thinks. Now if you two are both tribal members, from the same tribe, that would be important. You know I have NEVER met a Native American who was embarrassed to talk about their tribal membership ~shrug~ and I know hundreds of those fine folks. And they all laugh at fags, everyone of them think that fags are lower then animals.


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



That is how the homo Indians spell Lakota.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

SimpleFart, you're just too dumb to play with.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> 
> My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.
> 
> ...



Just hold still while we cut your hair off.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...


As is yours. Still howling at the moon, I see. Wait for it now....


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Fuck you, retard.  Neg me and get it over with.


----------



## HUGGY (May 29, 2012)

*Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog *

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

I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.


OK...

HouseGimp...  How do you feel about your gay rights?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> ...



I'll get the whiskey... it will make it easier.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> SimpleFart, you're just too dumb to play with.



It's kind of hard to discuss anything rationally when we keep going into this Gay/Native-American nonsense IE Dances With Bikers.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > SimpleFart, you're just too dumb to play with.
> ...



I wonder if he and Gay Biker Sailor are the two from the Village People?


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> These homos are always trying to push their degenerate lives onto others. I remember when it was good sport whipping these sissy. On the street I won't even talk to these scum bags.



I'm sure they're heartbroken.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Gay Biker isn't that butch.........but he aspires to be.


----------



## Ernie S. (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Wow! A pre neg whine. You should have it by now.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Do all Jews whine as much as you?  Seriously, do they?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



Oh cool.. some Jew hate'n!!!


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



You mean to match some of your Native American and homosexual hate?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



When, at anytime do I ever say I hated _anyone_?


----------



## Toro (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Jew hate'n = Gay hate'n.


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



Do I?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2012)

Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.

There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...





> Quote: Originally Posted by Lakhota
> One should always shit, piss, spit, and jerk off toward Israel.



And spare me the "I meant Netenyahu" speech.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Toro said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



And broccoli hate'n = spinach hate'n...


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



That was my facetious retort to wingnuts who ridicule Muslims for praying toward Mecca.  However, don't let that ruin your anti-Semitism fantasy.


----------



## SniperFire (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



You are one to talk, Chief Packing Fudge.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Ok.... Conan's got me laughing my ass off....

Name of the day....

_Haywood Jublome_


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Yeah, mkay....  I never said any such thing and that post was a direct response to me... and when I called you on it you claimed you meant it to express your displeasure with Netanyahu...

Lying then or lying now?


----------



## del (May 29, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Ok.... Conan's got me laughing my ass off....
> 
> Name of the day....
> 
> _Haywood Jublome_



that was hilarious

























40 years ago


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite...
> 
> 1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?
> 
> ...



Ok, I researched my response to your first question and by the time I come back here to post (15mins), there are 4 new pages of comments i haven't read, so I'll try be brief. The longer answer I wrote out is below, but I'll address the next two questions quickly.

*2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.*

I think the desire for using the term marriage comes from the desire to be completely equal. I understand that gay people can marry people of the opposite sex like anyone else, but equal is a decent term because gay people (according to the APA) are not capable of being genuinely intimately attracted to someone of the opposite sex, so they can only fall in love and find a partner in someone of the same sex. I wouldn't mind if people said they were okay with equal protection under the law, but wished to have gay unions called something other than marriage. The problem is a) the word marriage is really the only commonly used word in the english language to refer to such a partnership b) few people against gay "unions" speak as rationally, and instead antagonize gay people, making any reasonable common ground difficult to reach and c) many gay people would argue that not being allowed to use the word "marriage" means gay relationships are considered less important than straight ones. I don't think its spiteful, but maybe not the best method of attaining rights when one can walk as opposed to run.
But I understand your point.

*3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..*

My dad said the same thing to me when he and I discussed gay marriage. Honestly, I cannot see the potential damage done to women. If courts were to discount the notion that women are less aggressive (and assuming they did this because gay people were getting married and divorced) and discount preference for women, wouldn't it then be replaced by a preference for who is deemed the less aggressive/better partner through their actions as opposed to assumption based on sex? I see that as a good thing, actually.



*1) Why is it that gay groups spend so much time advocating for "gay education" initiatives for children too young to watch Harry Potter?*

If you could direct me to some links that show a group advocating for an LGBT education in such children, I could more specifically respond and understand your concerns. I did a search myself though and was linked to this - http://fota.cdnetworks.net/truetolerance/curricula.pdf - which is a group condeming the actions of a gay group in promoting a  day of silence for opressed people (clearly the groups main focus is acceptance of homosexuality) as well as materials to normalize and stop discrimination of LGBT people. From the stuff Ive seen, this is certainly a more extreme gay group in terms of its desire for schools to have a transgender day of remembrance - (and it can be assumed that this is one of the more extreme groups out there as they are the target and focus of an article condeming such practices). I, personally, would not support, especially in the current political climate, having a transgender remembrance day, and I would bet money the majority of gay people feel similarly. Its an extreme group, but I know its actions will be reflected on all of us so Ill try answer for them.

Let us assume that being gay is natural (congruent with the statements of the American Psychological Association), and that it will always exist in a certain proportion of people (and hence, students). I understand and agree that homosexuality should be something students should be at least made aware of at some point in their education (should be included whenever the topic of human sexuality comes up, usually in middle school I think, as it is an aspect of human sexuality that will likely effect between 4 and 10 percent of the students).

All the organizations wishing to insert gay education into schools all (all the ones Ive seen) have the same goal of making students aware of homosexuality, and teaching them that it is not wrong to be gay (congruent with the APA and all other major psychological associations in the US). I believe it is fear mongering to think any of these groups have the goal of recruiting students and turning them gay (people cannot become gay, they are born gay, as says the APA).

So I see no harm in educating students about the truth of human sexuality, including the fact that a minority of people (4 to 10%) are born gay. The focus of sex education will still be sexual reproduction, and most students will be straight. 

No, ass sex should not be discussed in sex ed anymore than it already is, just the same as oral sex. Sex ed is about education and the science of reproduction, not how to get off. It never has been, and that wont change.

Gay people, by definition, occur in equal proportions throughout every race/background/social status, so therefore gay people are all different and have differing views. Some groups may wish to push things like transgender day, but their actions have no reflection on gay people as a whole.

If there was a gay group wishing to teach children about sex earlier than they already are, wishes to emphasize homosexuality more than heterosexuality or has anything other than the goal of education and acceptance, Id disagree with it. 

_____

If you have any links you want to show me, let me know and I'd like to see them so I can answer any concern you have more specifically.


----------



## rdean (May 29, 2012)

Ask that guy that used to work for the Romney campaign.  See what he says.  Oh wait, that's right, he's gone.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

Ask a gay guy huh? 

Does it irk you when you get poop on your prick?


----------



## BDBoop (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



And we're supposed to believe you just now stopped talking out your ass? Bitch, please.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Why talk to a fag when we have you?
> ...


How long have you been HIV+ ??


----------



## Missourian (May 29, 2012)

Nothing good comes of these kind of threads Max.

I'm happy that you are happy...so just be happy.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Ask a gay guy huh?
> 
> Does it irk you when you get poop on your prick?



LOL, your killing me!


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

How about that new sitcom "Leave it, it's Beaver".


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.
> 
> There are many things that are perfectly nature that aren't right. Violence, hate, lying, apathy, are all very natural emotions/behaviors, yet despite being natural, we would all agree that they are wrong.



Okay. Well I was trying to think of an objective way to categorize "wrong" and didn't try too hard as I thought people would pretty much get the idea.

And yes, violence, murder and some behaviors we humans have categorized as wrong (due to their harmful effects on other humans) are natural in that they exist in the animal world.

What's important there is the harm each of these things cause. Murder = death of another person. Violence = bodily harm to another person, possible physical injuries, unstable and unsafe in the community. These things are actions which people can resist.

Homosexuality, is not harmful (the point of this thread was to have someone show some evidence that it is, and that has not happened yet, and as is stated by the APA ) and is also not an action, but a trait and an identity. A gay person is gay whether or not they have a relationship with someone of the same sex. Can you just tell if someone is gay because you caught them having sex with someone of the same sex? I would bet you have been able to tell an individual is gay based on their personality and traits - even if you don't even know them. Even if they were dressed the same as you. Why is this? Because it is an aspect of who they are, not an action like murdering someone.

And so nature proves it is natural and exists in nature - so any argument that it is a choice is shown incorrect (along with a slew of other evidence which I will present if you wish). And since it is harmless, why not allow someone to live the way they were made by god if it is natural, unchangeable and harmless?


----------



## Missourian (May 29, 2012)

Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.

If you oppose the gay agenda,  fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

If everyone was gay would it be considered an extinction level event?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.
> 
> If you oppose the gay agenda,  fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.



People of all walks of life are the brunt of jokes daily. If one can not stand the heat, one should not bring it up. 

Personally I couldn't care less what they do but the material is too easy to pass up. Plus I find the lifestyle disgusting.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.
> 
> If you oppose the gay agenda,  fine...so do I...but to denigrate a person who is attempting a civil dialog is absolutely wrong.



I expected it would end up like this, but I was really interested to see if any of them had any evidence to support what they believe.

And no need to defend me, I honestly feel great seeing them get caught making poop/aids/gerbil/fag jokes because that's all they have.

When men likely twice my age spend more of their time than me looking at threads about gay people and trying with all their might to insult gay people, I realize how pathetic their lives must really be.


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

"Hey bro, guess what, I just spent more than an hour ripping on fags in a online forum!"

"Whoa bro, that's fucking awesome! You've got such an awesome life!"


----------



## Missourian (May 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Max is a person...he should be treated with respect.
> ...




"Do unto others...",  Brother.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


I catch shit daily on here from the loons. Probably why I dish it so much now. Not to mention I'm sick of hearing about all these stupid issues that don't belong in our political discourse. Don't you find it odd that liberals bitch regularly about the GOP "invading their bedrooms" yet they shove the shit in our face constantly. We probably get 5 or 6 gay threads every week. I'm worried about our countries future not someone's sex habbits. 

This thread is screaming "approve of me and what I do" 

Fuck that


----------



## Lakhota (May 29, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Yeah, but it all falls under *POLITICS.*


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

There is some funny stuff in here, this place is usually good for some laughs


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Thanx for the opportunity.. I'll bite...
> ...



Hope this is what you had in mind for the thread. Appreciate the dialogue. You really do need to see what the activists in your community are doing in your name and see if you agree with the tactics and demands. Nothing worse than getting represented by folks you don't trust or who don't represent your views.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...



Only because liberals keep shoving it in.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.
> ...



Harmless? I wouldn't claim that. It harms those involved and generations who will never be born because of such activity. And yes, having sex with a member of the opposite sex, undermines the argument that they have no control over what they do.

Let's for the sake of argument that it is natural. Christianity specifically teaches that human nature can be changed through the Atonement of Christ. We can be born again and through the grace of God, our sinful nature can be overcome and we can be reborn.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 29, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you realize that "wrong" and "Unnatural" are two different things, right? It seems from the context that you are conflating the two.
> ...



With Thousands of board posts under my belt, I don't have but a handful on this topic, but I question the whole "choice vs DNA" fight. I'm not schooled on this as much as environmental, scientific issues. So from a scientific point of view, I think there's TWO different facets of being "gay". One is the inate (probably DNA driven) characteristics of mannerism, temperment, expression, predilection for excellence at certain activities like "interior decorating" and a general EASINESS with same sex relationships. .... That one is definately NOT choice. But there is also desire and the sexual angle. This to me is more likely to be choice. Why? Because I've known a few BI-sexuals (one intimately) and that IS a choice. A clear choice. And on the desire and sexual angle there are SHADES and DEGREES of "being gay" as witnessed by those who "tried it and quit it" or the loyal hetereo wife or husband who would LOVE an occasional mixed threesome.. I think BOTH choice and biological determinism is at work...


----------



## g5000 (May 29, 2012)

I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth.  If you are opposed to same sex marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below.  It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most.  But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.

This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to same sex marriage.  The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about same sex marriage.

I have finally found a picture that scares them more than God.

Ready?


Here it is:








The federal joint tax rate.

I guarantee you that several hearts skipped a beat when they saw that.

Homos are not supposed to be protected by the law which permits married people to file the form which gets them a discount on their taxes.

It's right there in Leviticus.   

And Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, unless you are a homo.  Then you must not get a discount from Caesar.  He was dead serious about being the decider on taxes.  This is why the image above makes homophobes lose their ever loving minds when it comes to equal protection of the tax laws for fags.  God writes the earthly tax laws, not Man.  Everybody knows that!

It also freaks them out the chart doesn't say "Married Couples _With Kids_ Filing Jointly".  That's what they see in their minds, so they have to stab their eyes when shown the real image to avoid seeing the reality.

Poor bastards.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

Not to mention AIDS which is so far without a cure. They spread that awful disease without thought or concern unlike heterosexuals who at least try and combat the spread of the disease. Homos are such a filthy bunch that it hardly matters to them or their degenerate way of life. What a disgusting part of humanity that we have to see forced at us almost on a daily basis. There is no reason to give them special treatment, I would agree to give them mental counseling to try and solve the sickness in their heads but they seem to be content with killing each other and constantly prancing around trying to cause a scene such as this thread.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

g5000 said:


> I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth.  If you are opposed to gay marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below.  It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most.  But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.
> 
> This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to gay marriage.  The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about gay marriage.
> 
> ...



Funny, I never thought of that. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't give a shit about other people's taxes ~shrug~


----------



## MaxCha (May 29, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> With all the literary and artistic talent in the GBLT community -- I'm SURE they could creatively come up with a term. I've suggested "Pairrage". Simple, descriptive and something to be proud about...  Let's admit that marraige is "commonly used" but has a specific defination that shouldn't be messed with. I understand your desire to acheive equality under the law -- but not the insistence to mutate an ancient definition. With Pairrage, you'd have support of over 70% of the straight population.



Okay. I guess my topic was open-ended. I was hoping to find evidence that people who oppose gay marriage/rights/existence use. I understand your concern about how you feel the word marriage should be used, but that all boils down to personal opinion. Gay couples could say "Hey, we've decided to get pairred!" and I guess that's okay, but I don't see the harm it does to anyone in using the word marriage. Marriage, to me, is about love and commitment, and these factors are unaffected by the persons gender or the gender of their partner.


*3) Are you aware of the potential damage that could be done to Women's issues if "MARRAIGE" is redefined? For instance, if courts start discounting preference for the wife in custody. Or in spousal abuse cases where the wife is assumed to be the less aggressive, passive partner..*



flacaltenn said:


> If the courts start ruling on custody in gay marraiges, they will insist on a more gender neutral check-off list. This would (as you say) "be a good thing" for men, but NOT for women. Gender neutrality in all aspects of the law, however noble would be a huge shock to centuries of special legal consideration for women under the law. Personally I can't wait til the NOW organization gets a load of the blowback.



Again, it seems that considering a person's ability as a parent based on their ability and not their sex and the assumptions that brings is a good thing in every way. I don't think women's groups are too worried about not getting special priviledges that overlook their true parenting ability in the future as a result of gay relationships. This is more a hypothetical, and by any account a good product of same sex marriage.



flacaltenn said:


> Students as young as 7 or 8 are being exposed to sexual topics at the behest of local school boards who believe that in fairness, gay issues ought to be part of the curriculum at those young ages. Dozens of GBLT orgs pushing lesson plans (quite successfully) to fill the "need". See for instance -- K-12 Curricula and Lesson Plans | GLSEN: Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network
> 
> Much of the desire to start a student dialogue about gay issues disregards the basic fact that SEX needs to be discussed at inappropriately young ages. I'm surprised you're not aware that this "in your face" activism is a HUGE source of resentment and generates dangerous blowback again for the LGBT folks. My guess is that this issue alone alienates A LOT of potential supporters since they see this large effort to alter curriculum as "recruiting" kids at impressionable ages.



The link you left sent me to a site that proposes giving elementary school kids (K-4 and K-8) activities like "no-name calling week" and discussing how we should be kind to our classmates and not listen to bullies. I didn't see a single instance on that whole website (granted, I looked at lots of it but not every single page) where there was ANY discussion of sex. If I missed something, please link it to me.

I couldn't find any instance of sex ed being taught to 7 year olds. And if this is true as you say, then it was because of their school boards who "believe that in fairness, gay issues ought to be part of the curriculum at those young ages." I cannot find ANY gay group promoting teaching sex to younger children - only that they want information about the existence of LGBT people to be mentioned when it is discussed.

If someone can present a link that says gay groups want sex to be taught to 7 and 8 and 9 year old kids, then I'd love to see it. I don't know what the APA promotes, but they are not a gay group just because they believe homosexuality should be discussed in sex ed. They are an objective psychological organization, even if someone wants to call them a "gay group" because their research shows nothing is wrong with being gay.

And in the end, these are issues of policy. Not issues of whether homosexuality is unnatural or wrong or whatever word someone wants to use.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

g5000 said:


> I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth.  If you are opposed to gay marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below.  It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most.  But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.
> 
> This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to gay marriage.  The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about gay marriage.
> 
> ...



Doesn't scare me at all. Everyone should have lower taxes. So just call it Parraige and change the chart title to "Couples Filing Jointly" and add a definition of "Couples" in the tax code to include Parraige.. Done == now lets' fix racism........


----------



## eots (May 30, 2012)

maxcha said:


> but really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?
> 
> I don't mean that in an insulting way, i actually am curious to hear what you have to say.
> 
> ...



I think we should eliminate the state from marriage all together ..problem solved..then people can do as they will and have any kind of ceremony they choose...gay should be able to adopt but in the case of all things being equal between two prospective sets of parents priority should be given to  MALE /FEMALE couples


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Avatar4321 said:


> Harmless? I wouldn't claim that. It harms those involved and generations who will never be born because of such activity. And yes, having sex with a member of the opposite sex, undermines the argument that they have no control over what they do.
> 
> Let's for the sake of argument that it is natural. Christianity specifically teaches that human nature can be changed through the Atonement of Christ. We can be born again and through the grace of God, our sinful nature can be overcome and we can be reborn.



These are your opinions. And what the bible says has nothing to do with this thread, I just wanted people to use facts. Our country, our laws and our world is not dictated by the bible.

And having generations not being born is harming someone? First off, putting aside the fact that overpopulation is destroying our world, you must therefore see harm in contraception, masturbation, sterile people in relationships, childless couples etc...

And same sex relations has nothing to do with bad self control if it is their sexual orientation and there is no choice.

But once you put the bible in there, I realized there would be no evidence or facts coming from your end, only your personal assertions. You must also believe in slavery, legal punishment for masturbation,  punishment (and execution) for socializing or leaving the home on a Sunday without the express interest in worship or punishment for wearing a shirt with more than one type of fiber? Please, try not skip over my last sentence and instead answer me if you support those things the bible declares.

Or don't respond at all. If you have no facts, no evidence, then don't tell me your bible is right and everyone else's is wrong. Thats another issue entirely.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Ha. You say exactly the same thing my dad used to say to me. Frankly, I'm getting ready for bed. Bisexuality, or people who experiment, are not the same thing as homosexuality. Go to google scholar, the APA website, or any objective psychological website and read their statements and the results of their research. It will say the same thing I would.

And I hate interior decorating...and shopping. Just like some black dudes hate watermelons and grape soda...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> 
> My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.
> 
> ...



I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.


----------



## g5000 (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> 2) Why is it that gay organizations fixate on the "marriage" term instead of defining their OWN brand of coupling? Can we agree to identify a husband and a wife in that relationship? I would work my ass off for LEGAL PARITY -- but I'm not gonna INSIST that it be called marraige. That seems spiteful to me.



So you are a "separate but equal" kind of guy, eh?  How...1890 of you.

Your objection seems stupid to me.  Guess what we call the relationship between two people who were joined by a judge instead of a priest?

"Marriage" is not a holy term.  Sorry.  It isn't copyrighted.

This is about all the benefits and privileges given to married people by the STATE.

So you go to a church and get married.  You leave the church.  Then what?  What does it mean outside that church?

Not a damn thing.  

Until the STATE decides it means something.  And the STATE has decided you can be married WITHOUT A CHURCH CEREMONY.

The STATE defines what "marriage" means when it comes to the law's benefits and privileges.  It means a discount on your taxes.  It means Social Security death benefits.  It means a hundred other things.  

In. The. Law.

All those bennies you get from the STATE for being "married" can be taken away with a few strokes of a pen.  Just imagine that for one minute, and then you would know what gays are experiencing.  Just for being gay.

And here you are, thinking they are the ones being all spiteful and shit.  Irony!

The STATE decides to give you a discount on your taxes.  The STATE defines marriage out here in the real world.  So gives a flying fuck what term is used?  This issue is about TANGIBLE things.  Tax discounts, death benefits, insurance coverage, all that good stuff.

If you want to define marriage as between a man and a woman inside your church, no one is stopping you.


----------



## g5000 (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.



You probably think you are saying something clever, don't you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

g5000 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I oppose gay rights, women's rights, and all other rights that exclude anyone on any basis. Rights apply to everyone regardless of anything they are, or they apply to no one.
> ...



Actually, I think I am saying something blindingly obvious.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.

99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.

Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.
> 
> 99% older dudes saying fag and fudge packer, and 1% discussion of policy and arguments using personal opinions and/or the bible.
> 
> Guess I got the answer I wanted. And a good idea of the majority of people who oppose equal rights - pathetic idiots.



Degenerate faggot, go pack some shit.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > So, the result of 8 pages of comments is not one single piece of scientific evidence, research or objective facts to support that being gay is harmful, unnatural, destructive to society, anything.
> ...



Come on, Bigfoot, and jump out of the closet.  Based on your number of posts on this thread, you obviously have some personal issues that you should confront.  Just do it...


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



Oh I have had a blast with this thread tonight, non-stop laughter


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

But thanks for caring Cherokee.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Well, good for you - at the OP's expense.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Yeah, well I guess he will have to go have a good cry now.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



What made you like you are?


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Fine breeding and a good education.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Yeah, just keep believing that...


----------



## Bigfoot (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Lakhota said:
> ...



Will do pal


----------



## eots (May 30, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kYEr0xQZxY&feature=related]Legendary & Hysterical Anti-Gay Rant (Watch the Audience Reaction) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



HA - you sure showed the gays by spending five hours of your time on a work day insulting them on an online forum! How proud you must be as a middle aged man!


----------



## eots (May 30, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UWYtFCJm8Y]Catching the Gay - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ShackledNation (May 30, 2012)

This was said early, but gay rights don't matter, individual rights do. And all individuals have rights regardless of their sexuality. Using a label like gay rights gives the impression that they deserve something "extra", or that there is a difference between gay rights and straight rights. Or that somehow their rights are not covered under individual rights, or that they are somehow less human

If you ever want to convince anyone to accept gays, you cannot use terms like "gay rights". You must use terms like individual rights. For gays are individuals just like anyone else. Being gay does not change the rights they have by nature of being individuals.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> This was said early, but gay rights don't matter, individual rights do. And all individuals have rights regardless of their sexuality. Using a label like gay rights gives the impression that they deserve something "extra", or that there is a difference between gay rights and straight rights. Or that somehow their rights are not covered under individual rights, or that they are somehow less human
> 
> If you ever want to convince anyone to accept gays, you cannot use terms like "gay rights". You must use terms like individual rights. For gays are individuals just like anyone else. Being gay does not change the rights they have by nature of being individuals.



Yeah, it's probably just the terminology that's holding up marriage equality.


----------



## Lakhota (May 30, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Ask a gay guy huh?
> 
> Does it irk you when you get poop on your prick?



Award-winning post.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > This was said early, but gay rights don't matter, individual rights do. And all individuals have rights regardless of their sexuality. Using a label like gay rights gives the impression that they deserve something "extra", or that there is a difference between gay rights and straight rights. Or that somehow their rights are not covered under individual rights, or that they are somehow less human
> ...



I realize that idiots have problems with it, but it worked for me.


----------



## eots (May 30, 2012)

> Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog



SYRUP OR JELLY ?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItAzJD0o9NQ]Tossing The Salad In Jail - Life In American Prison - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bayoubill (May 30, 2012)

I don't care what you are...

but why should I be forced by the federal government to consider your sexuality in hiring you...?


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...



broccoli > spinach


----------



## mudwhistle (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> ShackledNation said:
> 
> 
> > This was said early, but gay rights don't matter, individual rights do. And all individuals have rights regardless of their sexuality. Using a label like gay rights gives the impression that they deserve something "extra", or that there is a difference between gay rights and straight rights. Or that somehow their rights are not covered under individual rights, or that they are somehow less human
> ...



Gays have the same right to get married as everyone else does. There are laws that set the standards one has to meet in order to obtain a marriage license and same standards apply to heteros. Everyone has to adhere to the same laws. 

Gays are asking for special exceptions. That is the issue, not that they don't have the same rights.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

The OP dictated the terms of the debate based on the premise the being a homo was rational and normal.

No, it is not normal.

Homosexuality is animalistic sub-human behavior.

That's why 99.99% of the cultures and societies throughout history have criminalized it as abnormal behavior, and in many cases, worthy of the death penalty.


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The OP dictated the terms of the debate based on the premise the being a homo was rational and normal.
> 
> No, it is not normal.
> 
> ...



And societies criminalized not being the right religion worthy of death too. 

Of course, I'd like to think we have moved beyond the 15th century.  Some, apparently, have not.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Seems to me, a lot of people breed who shouldn't be.   But that is their fundamental right, is it not?


----------



## SniperFire (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The OP dictated the terms of the debate based on the premise the being a homo was rational and normal.
> 
> No, it is not normal.
> 
> ...



And besides that, it is just gross!



eeeeeewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww


----------



## Toro (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



It appears that some posters here are a result of inter-species cross-breeding too.


----------



## Seawytch (May 30, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Why would you assume that? I'm gay and have two children of my own plus I had three for another gay couple. We do breed. 2 million children are living in same sex households according to the latest census. 

The great thing about when we "breed" is that it is carefully planned. No "oops" for us. We get to have as much fantastic sex as we want to and not worry about being pregnant. When we have children it's because we WANT them, not because we accidentally got pregnant.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> The OP dictated the terms of the debate based on the premise the being a homo was rational and normal.
> 
> No, it is not normal.
> 
> ...



Then...MOST....grew up.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Harmless? I wouldn't claim that. It harms those involved and generations who will never be born because of such activity. And yes, having sex with a member of the opposite sex, undermines the argument that they have no control over what they do.
> ...



Interesting, what facts do you have that homosexuality is normal?

Just not following your logic or why you believe that others opinions should be discounted.


----------



## AquaAthena (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> 
> My goal is to eliminate all superstition, pre-conceived beliefs, personal idea of what "common sense" is or fears from the argument and just tackle the issue using logic and reasoning and _evidence._ Again, religion and personal beliefs (which are discussed everywhere else) are not the point of this thread. Evidence and facts are.
> 
> ...


 
There is nothing I am curious about, regarding homosexuality. I DO think it is unnatural, as in contrary to nature, but not immoral. It is just the way some people turn out to be. I hate to see you, or anyone else, refer to homosexuals as faggots. It is derogatory, and doesn't follow that you automatically, are. That would be determined by your behavior, outside of your sexual preference, in my opinion.

I am in agreement with this portion of mudwhistle's post, regarding your OP:

"There shouldn't be any discussion of Gay Rights.

Rather a discussion of human rights."


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> But really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?



You want to call yourself married, go ahead.  Free speech.  What this Libertarian stands against is government defining personal relationships for anyone, gay or straight.  Further, government should give no "perks" for being married nor attempt to define the institution of marriage, which as been around a lot longer than our government.  If this were the case, government would have no ability to grant or withdraw your right to call yourself married.

If a private adoption agency prefers to give their kids to people meeting certain criteria, that's their right.  If you don't like it, start an adoption agency for gay couples only.

Regarding discrimination, you'll have to be more specific.  If you're looking for special class status, you'll not get my support.  If you're looking for government to not treat you differently than anyone else, you've got my undying support.  Equal justice, not social justice.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > The OP dictated the terms of the debate based on the premise the being a homo was rational and normal.
> ...


So acceptance of fagots = being an adult??


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

I don't think there the OP was wanting an honest dialog, I think he wanted everyone to just fold and accept. 

His very guidelines for the so called honest dialog did not allow for anyone's opinions except his own. 

I do have one question, and maybe I can get answer, many say they are born with a gay gene, I am not sure if it is true or not, but why do we not have the same tolerance for those born with a gene that causes alcoholism, drug addiction, sex addiction, schizophrenia, pedophilia, and even serial killer?

Much to be understood about human and human behavior.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

g5000 said:


> I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth.  If you are opposed to same sex marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below.  It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most.  But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.
> 
> This picture encapsulates everything behind the opposition to same sex marriage.  The unfortunate homophobes have been unable to articulate exactly what it is that bothers them so much about same sex marriage.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I needed to laugh hysterically. It's been a bit of a bitch, thus far today.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > I am about to show you one of the most frightening sights on Earth.  If you are opposed to same sex marriage, you may want to scroll past the picture below.  It is an image of the very thing that scares you the most.  But I believe we should confront our fears head-on.
> ...



Hope it gets better for you.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (May 30, 2012)

Live Free or Die

Give me Liberty or Give me Death


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > But really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?
> ...



What have YOU actively done to eliminate Government civil marriage?


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



Voted against the central planners who would give benefits some some people and/or businesses while penalizing others.  At the same time, I've supporting those politicians and policies (financially and with my vote) that support equal justice for all.

You?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Live Free or Die
> 
> Give me Liberty or Give me Death


Don't walk under a ladder.

Look both ways before crossing the street.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Kiki Cannoli said:
> 
> 
> > Live Free or Die
> ...



Queers are just as free as me. This is just another bullshit diversion from consequencial issues by the left.


----------



## Seawytch (May 30, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Are you legally married?


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



No, never was, never will.  I have no association with a church or synagogue and I stand against government involvement in personal relationships.  For me to marry, as we define it today, would be highly hypocritical.  I am not a hypocrite.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I have no problem with the federal aspects as long as all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are treated equally.

Interestingly enough, there was a Proposition Petition put out here in California about two years ago to eliminate all legal aspects pertaining to marriage.   Need I say, it did not get many signatures....certainly not enough to get on the ballot.


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> I have no problem with the federal aspects as long as all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are treated equally.



Impossible when it comes to marriage benefits.  There are all kinds of people who cannot benefit from marriage perks provided by the federal government but may still choose to form a partnership with another person:  Polygamists, Atheists, Libertarians, etc.  Bottom line, government has no need to know your personal relationships with the possible exception of immigration and the military.  Other than that, there should be no perks for married people, not even the right to ask who you choose to live your life with.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with the federal aspects as long as all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens are treated equally.
> ...



Then civil marriage needs to be eliminated across the board.   But, to me, that sounds very "cut off nose to spite face"-ish.


----------



## Kiki Cannoli (May 30, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Kiki Cannoli said:
> ...



Until 'queers' can claim a marital tax deduction, be next of kin at a hospital bed, enter a job interview without fear, and not be called 'queer' as a dimintive...i will continue to disagree.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Seconded.

Motion carried.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 30, 2012)

Kiki Cannoli said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I have often been at the bedside of very ill or dying family members. Not once was I asked for a marriage certificate. 

If you're treated unfairly on the job or possible job court is your recourse not congress. 

No one should have special tax breaks. 

Queer eye for the straight guy begs to differ. And that was on tv all the time.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> Interesting, what facts do you have that homosexuality is normal?
> 
> Just not following your logic or why you believe that others opinions should be discounted.



Okay. I guess I'll start with the APA (American Psychological Association) which is by far the largest and most influential mental health organization in the US, as well as being the largest in the world. Here is a link to dozens of peer reviewed articles that discuss homosexuality, as well as statements by the APA in regards to homosexuality. In short, they say that gay people are not "bad", their sexuality cannot be changed, they make effective citizens and gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples.

APA Policy Statements on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Concerns

Ditto to the other top five largest scientific mental health organizations in the US.

Heres the opening sentence in the largest ever research study to determine the origins of sexual orientation - ""It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

Let me know if you want more.


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



If two parties wish to enter into a contract which they define as marriage, that's fine.  The courts are there to handle disputes like any other contractual relationship.  What I stand against is government giving any special treatment (tax breaks, hospital visitation...whatever) to people that chose to enter into such a contract while penalizing those that have not.


----------



## Caroljo (May 30, 2012)

Lakhota said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



You BREED by having sex with the OPPOSITE sex.  How many women can get another woman pregnant?  Or a man with another man?  THAT's breeding dummy!

You breed to have children....


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Heres the opening sentence in the largest ever research study to determine the origins of sexual orientation - ""It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.


There is No homo gene. Period

If a homo gene was found the fudge packers would be celebrating it from the roof tops.

And it would be head line news on every media source in the world.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

Caroljo said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



One way or another, aka turkey basters are our friend.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

ShackledNation said:


> This was said early, but gay rights don't matter, individual rights do. And all individuals have rights regardless of their sexuality. Using a label like gay rights gives the impression that they deserve something "extra", or that there is a difference between gay rights and straight rights. Or that somehow their rights are not covered under individual rights, or that they are somehow less human
> 
> If you ever want to convince anyone to accept gays, you cannot use terms like "gay rights". You must use terms like individual rights. For gays are individuals just like anyone else. Being gay does not change the rights they have by nature of being individuals.



"Gay rights" is a term. No one is asking for special rights. There will be no rights that "only gays" have access too. Asking for the right to marry is not some special right. Just as gay people are free to participate in straight marriages (which would be against their instinctual sex drive and hence sexless) just as straight people could participate in a gay marriage (but they wouldn't for the same very reason - they wouldn't want to because they are incapable of feeling sexual attraction to someone of the same sex).

The definition of marriage before states started adding the clause "one man and one woman" in the last decade would be retained.

And allowing gay people to adopt kids and serve their country just like everybody else is not a special right, that's equality.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> One way or another, aka turkey basters are our friend.


So your a lezbo??     

No wonder you stick up for these perverts all of the time!!


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Heres the opening sentence in the largest ever research study to determine the origins of sexual orientation - ""It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
> ...



Seems you haven't done *any* research.

But oh well, it's not like you're anyone of importance!


----------



## Moonglow (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > One way or another, aka turkey basters are our friend.
> ...



you wish


----------



## Moonglow (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Heres the opening sentence in the largest ever research study to determine the origins of sexual orientation - ""It builds on previous studies that have consistently found evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, but our study is the first to look at exactly where those genes are located," says researcher Brian Mustanski, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
> ...



there is no stupid blow yourself up gene, yet Muslims yell from the roof tops when a Muslim blows himself up and kills innocent peole. between fudge packers and Muslims that commit suicide bombings, I'd rather hang around with those fudge packers. At least they aren't out to murder you because your not a crazy like one of them


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Seems you haven't done *any* research.
> 
> But oh well, it's not like you're anyone of importance!


And you are of how much importance??

OK, Mr/Miss/or It 

Please link me to any research that absolutely* proves *there is a gay gene that has been found by a reputable scientific/medical source?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 30, 2012)

> If two parties wish to enter into a contract which they define as marriage, that's fine. The courts are there to handle disputes like any other contractual relationship. What I stand against is government giving any special treatment (tax breaks, hospital visitation...whatever) to people that chose to enter into such a contract while penalizing those that have not.



The marriage contract is not only between two equal partners, but those partners also enter into a contract with the state: 



> The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.
> 
> http://www.alimonyreform.org/content/articles/How Did Government Get Involved in Marriage.pdf



It is therefore impossible for government to stay out of marriage, as it is a participant as well. And as we can see from the cited above, civil unions are in no way a substitute for an actual marriage contract; its not just about hospital visits.


----------



## flacaltenn (May 30, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Not sure if it's a tax break to raise the tax bracket on you when you choose to live together as a couple. After all, under the law of most states, you only own 1/2 of the stuff including what was recieved in wages.  Why should the BRACKET be determined by their JOINT wages?? 

Perhaps the best thing would be for EVERYONE to file singly.


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The marriage contract is not only between two equal partners, but those partners also enter into a contract with the state.



I understand that.  My point is that government need not define who can enter into such a contract.  

Two people can form a business relationship with a contractual partnership.  The government does not tell us that either of those people must be straight or gay or whatever.  That is how is should be for marriage.


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

flacaltenn said:


> Perhaps the best thing would be for EVERYONE to file singly.



Yes, agreed.  

Of course, I don't support the very idea of taxing a person's labor, but that's another topic for another day.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > One way or another, aka turkey basters are our friend.
> ...



Are people like you the Alternative?


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Exactly!

Like Eddie Izzard, talking about Italians being fascist.

"Er, okay - ciao!"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PmuHWPZSkY]Eddie Izzard about italians - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I LOVE his "flag" routine.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Seems you haven't done *any* research.
> ...



Umm, I just posted a comment with links to all the APA's statements a few minutes ago in this very thread. 

And did you read the above comment - 



> there is no stupid blow yourself up gene, yet Muslims yell from the roof tops when a Muslim blows himself up and kills innocent peole. between fudge packers and Muslims that commit suicide bombings, I'd rather hang around with those fudge packers. At least they aren't out to murder you because your not a crazy like one of them



Now tell me why you don't sound like as big of an asshole as that? Because as stupid and embarressing as I think it is to be a muslim, I haven't once insulted you for it, nor do I wish to forbid Islam in the US.

Think about it. And stop being a douche bag.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



That's a staple between my daughter and I. Actually, most any bit from that show is a permanent part of our conversations. "Like a boy being chased by sharky-sharkies!"

"Hanging Gardens of Babylon!"

Etc.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, what facts do you have that homosexuality is normal?
> ...



You should pick a better source.

Box Turtle Bulletin » Today In History: APA Removes Homosexuality from List of Mental Disorders

FYI, there is conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not genetic.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 30, 2012)

And in other news today a random person realized our country had REAL issues to work on.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



Not completely genetic...but kindly explain why if one identical twin is gay, there is about a 50% chance that the other one is.....even if they are raised apart.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> And in other news today a random person realized our country had REAL issues to work on.



Yeah, I'm gonna have to call bullshit. I don't even want to do anything that feels good 24/7. SO, logic would dictate that we cover a vast array of subjects rather than just getting crazy over that which renders us powerless.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



I don't have to explain anything. If it was genetic in origin both twins would be gay no matter what. That is conclusive proof that it isn't genetic, and ends any debate about it on that level.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Now tell me why you don't sound like as big of an asshole as that? Because as stupid and embarressing as I think it is to be a muslim, I haven't once insulted you for it, nor do I wish to forbid Islam in the US.


The opinion of a fudge packer / carpet muncher (don't know what kind of homo your are) about Islam or muslims doesn't mean squat to me.

The article you referenced basically says they *feel *there is evidence for a homo gene but they don't know exactly where it's located.

Not must substance there; just wishful thinking for the radical gay loons to grasp on to.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Not completely genetic...but kindly explain why if one identical twin is gay, there is about a 50% chance that the other one is.....even if they are raised apart.


I assume you have a     to back this claim up.


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Why talk to a fag when we have you?
> ...



So? I'm a happy PETITE human, and Bigfoot's avatar is fitting; this thread made me notice.  Accept genetic traits, there are few basic alterations available.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Not completely genetic...but kindly explain why if one identical twin is gay, there is about a 50% chance that the other one is.....even if they are raised apart.
> ...



She really doesn't. The twin studies vary on methodology way too much to use them to prove anything other than the fact that homosexuality is not genetic.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



50% is half of a chance. You only have 2 choices.....gay or not.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



compared to 2-10% for everyone else?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Not completely genetic...but kindly explain why if one identical twin is gay, there is about a 50% chance that the other one is.....even if they are raised apart.
> ...


Waiting................


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Unless you have a link to a study I haven't seen the sample size of twins raised apart isn't large enough to point of it as proof of anything.


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



It is genetic, though all humans are bi sexual to some degree, thus some environmental influences may steer a few one way or the other. Ending the ignorance about gay humans is a priority, I see gay Americans as the next "acceptable" group to hate. That scares me.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, what facts do you have that homosexuality is normal?
> ...



Never said anyone was bad, it also doesn't call it normal, nor does the study Quantum say its genetic, unlike drug and alcohol addictions.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Not completely genetic...but kindly explain why if one identical twin is gay, there is about a 50% chance that the other one is.....even if they are raised apart.
> ...



Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Gay Men in Twin Study - NYTimes.com


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Study after study, for decades now. Being gay is a normal variant, as is skin color, eye color, height and facial features; nothing abnormal.


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

The science:

NIH study links sexuality to genetic factor

It is a trait(.)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 30, 2012)

> Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog



The OP gets credit for making an honest effort, but there can be no objective dialogue when there is no objective evidence supporting a states desire to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



The Bailey Pillard study is one of the worst for methodology. There was no actually testing of the zygots, everything was based solely on answers to questions. It did not include any twins who were raised apart. It also self selected for participants who were open with their family by only advertising in publications that were friendly to homosexuals.

Like I said, you really don't have anything to back it up.


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> The science:
> 
> NIH study links sexuality to genetic factor
> 
> It is a trait(.)



I've seen studies both ways and it depends on the funding. I have heard drug, alcohol, sex addictions, pedophilia, serial killers, are all genetic traits, not sure what to believe.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 30, 2012)

Papageorgio said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Papageorgio said:
> ...



The APA also attempted to relable phedophiles as ill rather than criminals to lessen the stigma that paroled perverts have to deal with.


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog
> 
> 
> 
> The OP gets credit for making an honest effort, but there can be no objective dialogue when there is no objective evidence supporting a states desire to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.



Gee, Loving v. Virginia just keeps coming up..........................


----------



## Papageorgio (May 30, 2012)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Ask a Gay Guy - Objective Dialog
> 
> 
> 
> The OP gets credit for making an honest effort, but there can be no objective dialogue when there is no objective evidence supporting a states desire to deny same-sex couples equal protection of the law.



He wasn't wanting to make an honest effort, he wanted to push his point. His agenda is still the same, you could tell by his judgements.


----------



## bodecea (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Oh really?

Biology and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## mudwhistle (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Identical twins tend to relate to each other on a different level than the rest of us. 

They sometimes feel like they are one person. Of course the chances go up with them.


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Odd how gio can write of the genetic predisposition toward addiction, not everyone accepts alcohol & drug addiction have genetic links. Perhaps addicts just have low morals. And of course schizophrenia is caused by mean mothers......

For the hetero "choice" crowd: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?


----------



## Peach (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



There is no science that indicates sexual orientation is some kind of "rebellion":

Genetics Has A Role In Determining Sexual Orientation In Men, Further Evidence


----------



## eflatminor (May 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> For the hetero "choice" crowd: When did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual?



Cuz' I just can't look at another man's hairy ass and find love.  Can't do it.


----------



## Amelia (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Peach already mentioned this, but it bears repeating:  your logic would rule out genetics being a contributor to schizophrenia, etc.  


Do you reject the notion of genetic predisposition for other traits?   Is it always all or nothing for you?  If the genes are there then the trait is manifest and if it's not manifest then the genes were not there -- is that how you see it no matter what condition is being discussed?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If homosexuality was genetic every single pair of identical twins would be either straight/straight or gay/gay, they aren't. That means that it is not just like skin color, eye color, height, and facial features, all of which are clearly genetic and manifest identically in identical twins.

That does not mean I am saying being homosexual is abnormal, anymore than being a Hindu is abnormal.


----------



## Douger (May 30, 2012)

Nithe, wiwwy nithe thwead..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> The science:
> 
> NIH study links sexuality to genetic factor
> 
> It is a trait(.)



There is no gay gene.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Really, there is nothing at Wiki to contradict my criticism of the Bailey Pillard study.


----------



## Amelia (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...





I don't think identical twins are as identical as you think they are.  Height in particular comes to mind as a trait where variation can be expected.

Again, the notion of genetic predisposition is key.  A genetic predisposition doesn't guarantee a trait will be manifest.  It's just a contributor which other conditions could trigger or suppress.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Peach said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Summer of 1968, why do you ask?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It isn't my logic, it is science. If something is a genetic trait it will always manifest identically in identical twins because they have identical genetics. There are no identical twins where one is a blue eyed blonde girl and the other is a brown eyed black haired boy.

Not only does it not happen, it cannot happen.

I am not aware of any twin studies on schizophrenia, so I have no comment on it being genetic.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Identical twins have identical genes. Height can change as a result of one twin experiencing a childhood illness that affects development, but that would make homosexuality a side affect of a disease. which I am pretty sure is not your position.


----------



## Amelia (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




It could be the result of a disease.  Yet it wouldn't have to be for the general principle to apply.  Height can be different based on other things, including diet and physical activity.

Our genes do not guarantee the course of our physical development.  Many different things can cause different outcomes.  Identical twins can be very different from the womb.  And they can be affected differently by the people around them and other things in their environments. 

Hormones in the womb could affect the two developing fetuses differently. 

In any case, identical twins are not necessarily as identical as you have suggested and genetic predisposition is not black and white.


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You should pick a better source.
> 
> Box Turtle Bulletin » Today In History: APA Removes Homosexuality from List of Mental Disorders
> 
> FYI, there is conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not genetic.



Ok. If the largest psychological organization in the world is not a good source, then what is?

And the WHOLE POINT of this thread was for people like you to post the "conclusive data." 

Go on, leave a link. You didn't just make that up, did you?


----------



## MaxCha (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Now tell me why you don't sound like as big of an asshole as that? Because as stupid and embarressing as I think it is to be a muslim, I haven't once insulted you for it, nor do I wish to forbid Islam in the US.
> ...



Ok. I hope Allah doesn't strike me down far saying he's a faggot. hahaha

Worship a dish rag all you want, I won't try stop you. But if that's your evidence, then the dish rag doesn't do much except probably make good toilet paper.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Did you really give being homosexual a fair shake? No pun intended.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...




You SO wouldn't be the first.


----------



## eots (May 30, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



It's all done with smoke and mirrors. Or, how to create the illusion of a schizophrenic brain disease

Mary Boyle, University of East London

Reprinted from Clinical Psychology Issue 12. April 2002 pp 9-16

One of the more intriguing aspects of the "schizophrenia" literature is the discrepancy between the strength of the belief that "schizophrenia is a brain disease" and the availability of direct supporting evidence; even those who hold the belief admit that there is no direct evidence for it (e.g. Chua and McKenna, 1995; McGrath and Emerson, 1999; American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This raises the question of why the belief seems so reasonable and credible. Or, to put it another way, how is the presentation of "schizophrenia as a brain disease" managed in such a way that the absence of direct evidence will not be noticed or not seem important? These questions are important not least because the belief has profound implications for research and intervention. For example, the US National Institute for Mental Health's "next steps for schizophrenia research" focused - in this order- on genetics, neuroimaging, post-mortem studies, developmental neurobiology and clinical trials (Hyman, 2000). In line with this biological emphasis, drugs may be seen as the "natural" and inevitable treatment, with non-physical interventions being seen - to use Tarrier et al.'s ( 2000) own description of their CBT - as "adjunct" therapies. ("Adjunct" is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "a subordinate or incidental thing".)

http://www.critpsynet.freeuk.com/Boyle.htm

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGgsjXq7J6Y]Recovery: Schizophrenia & Mental Illness -- Psychology - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Sunni Man (May 30, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Still waiting.......................


----------



## sealybobo (May 30, 2012)

mudwhistle said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to start a dialog between people who, for lack of a better word, do not support gay rights with people who do.
> ...



You don't understand that its discrimination to allow straight couples to get married and enjoy all kinds of benefits and then deny gay couples all those same benefits?  Thats what this is all about, be honest.  But sooner or later and slowly but surely they are getting their way.  And I hope it kills you.


----------



## sealybobo (May 30, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Do you do any other positions other than missionary?  Ew!  People who do what you do are weird.  I don't think people who do it like you should be allowed to get married or join the military.  And I don't think you and your partner should get the tax breaks that go along with being married, nor should you be able to adopt.  Do you really do that shit?  With your spouse?  What the fuck is wrong with you?  Pervert!  People like you should be locked up.  Its not natural.  The bible even warns us about fornicators like you.  Fucking creep.  You should be put on a sex offenders list for doing what you do in the privacy of your own home, with your spouse.  And then you kiss your kids later with that mouth?  Wow!  Do you think that is NORMAL?  You do realize less than 10% of heteros do that, right?  So you are like a gay doing that kinky shit.  

At least according to me and my church.  We think people like you burn in hell and need to repent.  Sinner.


----------



## BDBoop (May 30, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



/falls over, sobbing


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You should pick a better source.
> ...



If you aren't confident enough in your own sexuality to declare it to be normal just because it is then no source is going to make a difference. If you are, you would be smart enough not to pick a source that declared homosexuality to be a mental defect just a few years ago because they might change their mind again.

As for the conclusive proof, read the studies that people have used to try to prove me wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I was 9, I didn't give anything a fair shake. That was, however, when I made up my mind.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Do you have any idea how stupid you are?


----------



## MaxCha (May 31, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> If you aren't confident enough in your own sexuality to declare it to be normal just because it is then no source is going to make a difference. If you are, you would be smart enough not to pick a source that declared homosexuality to be a mental defect just a few years ago because they might change their mind again.
> 
> As for the conclusive proof, read the studies that people have used to try to prove me wrong.



Yeah boooii, me posting a link to the APA means I'm not confident in my sexuality! Saying "I know being gay is normal and natural because I am gay" is not the point of this thread. I wanted to discuss it scientifically, to see if conservatives were motivated by anything more than hatred, fear and dogma.

And so what if the APA said it was a mental illness decades back? The dictionary and all encyclopedias a century back said negros and yellow people were sub human. People burned "witches" right here on US soil not too long ago. Wanna know why?

Because they were motivated by HATRED, FEAR and DOGMA and not science. Sound familiar?

And nice job at continuing to not present any evidence or facts. Just keep beating round the bush like the sheep always do...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > If you aren't confident enough in your own sexuality to declare it to be normal just because it is then no source is going to make a difference. If you are, you would be smart enough not to pick a source that declared homosexuality to be a mental defect just a few years ago because they might change their mind again.
> ...



You proved that the purpose of this thread isn't what you said it was. I actually tried to have an objective discussion about this and got attacked by all the idiots like you who think that people who disagree with you are motivated by hatred, fear, and dogma.

Since you don't even know enough about the science to actually cite a group that uses science, or even enough to know that I was referring to twin studies when I said that there is conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, you have no business trying to call other people on their understanding of science.

Simple fact, if sexual orientation is genetic all identical twins, having identical genetic material, would end up with the same sexual orientation. 

Simple fact, they don't.


----------



## MaxCha (May 31, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > But really, does anyone who is against gay people being given the right to marry/adopt/not be discriminated against have any evidence to support their opinion?
> ...



Okay. Didn't see this until now.

I understand what you're saying about marriage, but if we assume that being gay is something that a person cannot change (life experience and all the studies I have read make me 100% certain of this) then a segment of the population will never have the right to marry someone they love. What harm would come from letting them do so? Same sex marriage has been legal in some European countries for a decade and there have been no negative consequences that have surfaced (one Christian sight makes reference to a "higher divorce rate" but cites no study, and if you look up the divorce rate in the Netherlands a graph shows it has stayed almost exactly the same for the past 20 years).

And if a Christian adoption agency wishes to not allow gay couples, I guess I wouldn't argue against it. But the US has non-discriminatory policies that disallow organization from excluding people based upon ethnicity, religious background etc... I won't use a slippery slope fallacy and say "Who will they deny next! The blacks!!" but laws in the US cover a lot of ground, so then in theory couldn't a school refuse to allow gay people work soley because they're gay? Or a restaurant decide to not allow gay patrons? Laws are so broad, hence tricky.

One thing I do know is there are NO studies that have concluded that children of gay parents are any worse off mentally or physically than children of straight people. And many studies have been done with the hypothesis that the kids would be maladjusted. Check peer reviewed article sites like PsycInfo and search "homosexuality" and "parents."

And as to your last paragraph - I'd say "of course I don't want gays to have special rights" but I must realize that might not be obvious to some. I would reject any law that wishes to grant gays more rights, and would reject (if such a thing existed) any attempt to include gays in any kind of Affirmative Action type program. All I personally want is for people to just leave us alone and let us have the right to adopt or serve in the military like anyone else, as well as be rejected from such programs if found unfit - just like everybody else. But to deny these things to someone who is a fit parent or soldier only because they are gay, that is what I want to stop.

As for marriage, i'll leave that on the sideline for now. I can imagine what it might feel like to some people who have little experience or some misunderstandings about it. Even though I don't think gay marriage "forces" anything on anybody, I'll just leave that out of the conversation for now as it's all a matter of opinion.

Sorry that was real long..


----------



## MaxCha (May 31, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You proved that the purpose of this thread isn't what you said it was. I actually tried to have an objective discussion about this and got attacked by all the idiots like you who think that people who disagree with you are motivated by hatred, fear, and dogma.
> 
> Since you don't even know enough about the science to actually cite a group that uses science, or even enough to know that I was referring to twin studies when I said that there is conclusive evidence that homosexuality is not genetic, you have no business trying to call other people on their understanding of science.
> 
> ...



Yes, I agree you are correct as to how I behaved in the last few pages.

I am really not here to fight. Serious, I actually respect anybody's opinion that is stated without any anger, ridicule or religious texts.

If you have the time, please read through the first 8 pages of this thread and look to see if I tried to remain civil and responsive to the one or two people who actually asked me a question. Look at the other posts and tell me if practically every opposing view point was not calling me a fudge packing AIDS spreading degenerate faggot. 

I didn't engage in any arguing or name calling, I honestly tried my best to keep on topic and be respectful and answer every question presented.

Your first post on this thread wasn't a question, it was something about how you don't support the term gay rights but instead individual rights. I understand and agree if the term "gay rights" isn't further defined it may appear as if gays want something more than perfect equality. But I didn't think there was a question in your post that required an answer.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I didn't engage in any arguing or name calling, I honestly tried my best to keep on topic and be respectful and answer every question presented.


You are a blatant liar.    

http://www.usmessageboard.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5367972


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



I've already given two links.   Do you want them again?  Or can you be bothered to scroll back a few pages at most to see them?


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > If you aren't confident enough in your own sexuality to declare it to be normal just because it is then no source is going to make a difference. If you are, you would be smart enough not to pick a source that declared homosexuality to be a mental defect just a few years ago because they might change their mind again.
> ...



I read an interesting book, years ago, and I wish I could remember the title...but it was a collection of Medical articles from the late 1800s, primarily talking about how women were too weak or to emotional to do certain things.   One of my favorite was an article attempting to make the case that women's brains were too scattered to operate the newly invented typewriter and the sewing machine.

It was a hoot.


----------



## Sunni Man (May 31, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...


Never saw any links to support your bogus claim.

So yes, post them.


----------



## bodecea (May 31, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Sunni Man said:
> ...



Go back to posts #197 and #207 on this thread....the links are there for you.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2012)

I really don't get how what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes is anybody's business but theirs.

As for the religious aspect.  If having same sex relations is against your religion, have sex with someone of the opposite sex.  Follow your own religious principles but don't expect people out of your religious persuasion to follow you.

Some religions make no distinction between same sex or opposite sex relations.  The rules are the same for both.  Example?  The Buddhist tradition as taught by Thich Nhat Hanh.


"Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I vow to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct."
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts.html

And part of his commentary on the Third Precept on Sexual Misconduct:

A sexual relationship is an act of communion between body and spirit. This is a very important encounter, not to be done in a casual manner. You know that in your soul there are certain areas -- memories, pain, secrets -- that are private, that you would only share with the person you love and trust the most. You do not open your heart and show it to just anyone. In the imperial city, there is a zone you cannot approach called the forbidden city; only the king and his family are permitted to circulate there. There is a place like that in your soul that you do not allow anyone to approach except the one you trust and love the most. 

The same is true of our body. Our bodies have areas that we do not want anyone to touch or approach unless he or she is the one we respect, trust, and love the most. When we are approached casually or carelessly, with an attitude that is less than tender, we feel insulted in our body and soul. Someone who approaches us with respect, tenderness, and utmost care is offering us deep communication, deep communion. It is only in that case that we will not feel hurt, misused, or abused, even a little. This cannot be attained unless there is true love and commitment. Casual sex cannot be described as love. Love is deep, beautiful, and whole. 

True love contains respect. In my tradition, husband and wife are expected to respect each other like guests, and when you practice this kind of respect, your love and happiness will continue for a long time. In sexual relationships, respect is one of the most important elements. Sexual communion should be like a rite, a ritual performed in mindfulness with great respect, care, and love. If you are motivated by some desire, that is not love. Desire is not love. Love is something much more responsible. It has care in it. 

We have to restore the meaning of the word "love." We have been using it in a careless way. When we say, "I love hamburgers," we are not talking about love. We are talking about our appetite, our desire for hamburgers. We should not dramatize our speech and misuse words like that. We make words like "love" sick that way. We have to make an effort to heal our language by using words carefully. The word "love" is a beautiful word. We have to restore its meaning. 

"I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment." If the word "love" is understood in the deepest way, why do we need to say "long-term commitment"? If love is real, we do not need long or short-term commitments, or even a wedding ceremony. True love includes the sense of responsibility, accepting the other person as he is, with all his strengths and weaknesses. If we like only the best things in the person, that is not love. We have to accept his weaknesses and bring our patience, understanding, and energy to help him transform. Love is maitri, the capacity to bring joy and happiness, and karuna, the capacity to transform pain and suffering. This kind of love can only be good for people. It cannot be described as negative or destructive. It is safe. It guarantees everything. 

Should we cross out the phrase "long-term commitment" or change it to "short-term commitment"? "Short-term commitment" means that we can be together for a few days and after that the relationship will end. That cannot be described as love. If we have that kind of relationship with another person, we cannot say that the relationship comes out of love and care. The expression "long-term commitment" helps people understand the word love. In the context of real love, commitment can only be long-term. "I want to love you. I want to help you. I want to care for you. I want you to be happy. I want to work for happiness. But just for a few days." Does this make sense? 

You are afraid to make a commitment -- to the precepts, to your partner, to anything. You want freedom. But remember, you have to make a long-term commitment to love your son deeply and help him through the journey of life as long as you are alive. You cannot just say, "I don't love you anymore." When you have a good friend, you also make a long-term commitment. You need her. How much more so with someone who wants to share your life, your soul, and your body. The phrase "long-term commitment" cannot express the depth of love, but we have to say something so that people understand. 

A long-term commitment between two people is only a beginning. We also need the support of friends and other people. That is why, in our society, we have a wedding ceremony. The two families join together with other friends to witness the fact that you have come together to live as a couple. The priest and the marriage license are just symbols. What is important is that your commitment is witnessed by many friends and both of your families. Now you will be supported by them. A long-term commitment is stronger and more long-lasting if made in the context of a Sangha. 
http://dharma.ncf.ca/introduction/precepts/precept-3.html


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2012)

I haven't read ALL of the thread yet, I've read recent postings and then some from the beginning.  The topic went south, as it always does almost immediately.

I think it's all good.  Even the people who are prejudiced against gay and lesbian people and abhor out relationships still help the cause of marriage equality.  Due to the reaction to our civil rights cause, we have to organize and work all the harder.

The anti-gay movement and the civil marriage quality movement are mutually dependent on each other.

Every insult brings out a corresponding goodness from people who don't hate gay or lesbians.


----------



## MaxCha (May 31, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't engage in any arguing or name calling, I honestly tried my best to keep on topic and be respectful and answer every question presented.
> ...





MaxCha said:


> *Yes, I agree you are correct as to how I behaved in the last few pages*.
> 
> I am really not here to fight. Serious, I actually respect anybody's opinion that is stated without any anger, ridicule or religious texts.
> 
> ...



Any questions?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 31, 2012)

Is your HIV+ still under control??


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



Don't let Sunni Man trap you into a personal defense of any kind.  Keep the debate non-personal.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 31, 2012)

Sunni Man said:


> Is your HIV+ still under control??



I have two reactions to this post.  First of all, someone else's HIV status is none of your business. 

Second, even if someone is HIV+ it is not a death sentence, but a chronic illness that many people live long and relatively happy lives with.

If safe sex is practiced, there is no danger of anyone in a relationship with an HIV+ person to worry.

I suspect you're trying to flame bait this poster.  Same old same old.  How many years now have I watched you do this kind of thing?


----------



## Sunni Man (May 31, 2012)

Moi ??


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You proved that the purpose of this thread isn't what you said it was. I actually tried to have an objective discussion about this and got attacked by all the idiots like you who think that people who disagree with you are motivated by hatred, fear, and dogma.
> ...



I have a better idea than me reading through this whole thread and seeing if you tried to remain civil,. and then took your frustration out on me. Why don't you go look through some threads where I am involved with discussing something I believe in with people who attack me, and have no problem giving it right back to them, yet still manage to treat people that approach the subject with respect the way they treat me.

My first post didn't require an answer, it was, and is, a simple statement of position. Rights are not conditional upon the classification of the recipient, everyone has them or no one does. Like I told whoever tried to claim I was being clever, that is so obvious it should go without saying. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

Marriage is a state licensed activity that gives benefits to people based on their classification, therefore, it is not a right. If it were, single people could claim the same benefits. I therefore oppose marriage, as defined by the state, without reservation. 

My comment about picking a better source than the APA as proof of your assertion that homosexuality is based on two things. The first is that the APA is constantly changing their position based on political expediency. Homosexuality went from being deviant but acceptable behavior to being a mental disorder to being normal today, all without a shred of any science to back up their positions. The second is that psychology is not science in that you cannot accurately predict the reaction of an individual, and there is no way to reproduce results. It is a collection of observations and guesses.

As for the genetic thing, twin studies claim show a correlation between genetic factors and sexual preference. The problem is that twin studies also show that identical twins do not always have the same sexual preferences. People like to delude themselves and argue that the correlation proves causation but it doesn't. I can't explain the correlation, but I do know that genetics is not more a factor than environment. At this point the only thing science can tell us about our sexuality is we have no idea why people like blue.


----------



## MaxCha (May 31, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I have a better idea than me reading through this whole thread and seeing if you tried to remain civil,. and then took your frustration out on me. Why don't you go look through some threads where I am involved with discussing something I believe in with people who attack me, and have no problem giving it right back to them, yet still manage to treat people that approach the subject with respect the way they treat me.
> 
> My first post didn't require an answer, it was, and is, a simple statement of position. Rights are not conditional upon the classification of the recipient, everyone has them or no one does. Like I told whoever tried to claim I was being clever, that is so obvious it should go without saying. Unfortunately, it doesn't.
> 
> ...



Okay...but me reading other threads you have posted in has nothing to do with your assertion that I "proved that the purpose of this thread isn't what I said it was." Surprised you would make that conclusion without reading the majority of the thread you generalize.

And I didn't imply I took out my frustration on you. My responses to you weren't heated or angry. I meant that the purpose of the thread was derailed.

Anyways, with twin studies, the three major ones show the following correlation:

Kallman -    Identical  100%    Fraternal  12%     
Heston + Shields -    43%           14%
Bailey and Pillard -    52%         22%

Comparing twins shows a clear genetic pre-disposition. There are also MASSIVE variables that make studies on homosexuality difficult. For one, almost none use physiological indicators of arousal, so they rely on the honesty of subjects in regards to a very difficult and emotional question about their orientation. Closeted gay men will literally not admit their true orientation under any circumstances as they are so horridly repressed. Studies have been done (using arousal indicators) to show homophobic men are much more likely to be aroused by gay pornography (aka are gay).

But I'm getting tired of this thread. People who believe the opposite of me will not be convinced by anything other than life experience.


----------



## ekrem (May 31, 2012)

sealybobo said:


> You don't understand that its discrimination to allow straight couples to get married and enjoy all kinds of benefits and then deny gay couples all those same benefits?  Thats what this is all about, be honest.  But sooner or later and slowly but surely they are getting their way.  And I hope it kills you.



There's really something wrong if you have the need to marry another man.
Men don't marry man.


----------



## Dante (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> I really want to start a dialog...
> 
> *
> If you could ask a gay guy something, what would it be?*
> ...



Can you give head without teeth scraping?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 31, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I have a better idea than me reading through this whole thread and seeing if you tried to remain civil,. and then took your frustration out on me. Why don't you go look through some threads where I am involved with discussing something I believe in with people who attack me, and have no problem giving it right back to them, yet still manage to treat people that approach the subject with respect the way they treat me.
> ...



The only solid conclusion you can draw from twin studies is that sexual preference is not genetic, if it were the correlation between identical twins would be 100%.


----------



## Amelia (May 31, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




I know I can't possibly keep up with all the times you claim this, but I'll take the liberty of buzzing this from time to time.

Same argument as last night:

A. Identical twins are not as identical as you imply.
B. Genetic predispositions can be complicated.  Sometimes the trait is triggered, sometimes it isn't.



Until next time ......


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jun 1, 2012)

Amelia said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



Are you trying to argue that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and that some people are more like to catch being gay than others? If not, your point makes no sense at all.


----------



## Dante (Jun 4, 2012)

Dante said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > I really want to start a dialog...
> ...



boy, looks like somebody pissed on the gay parade at USMB...


----------



## Cenotaph (Jun 4, 2012)

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



I would answer your question, but... I have no experience in this field (virgin).


----------



## Dante (Jun 4, 2012)

Cenotaph said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > Dante said:
> ...



 a virgin? Madonna?


----------



## midcan5 (Jun 4, 2012)

Been there done that. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/health-and-lifestyle/50615-know-what-really-causes-homosexuality.html 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...s-are-being-denied-a-right-9.html#post5253151


----------

