# Let's take a look of what being gay can mean in Iran



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

DEATH




> According to Iranian human rights campaigners, over 4,000 lesbians and gay men have been executed since the Ayatollahs seized power in 1979. Altogether, an estimated 100,000 Iranians have been put to death over the last 26 years of clerical rule.






> Two gay teenagers were publicly executed in Iran on 19 July 2005 for the crime of homosexuality. The youths were hanged in Edalat (Justice) Square in the city of Mashhad, in north east Iran. They were sentenced to death by Court No. 19.
> Iran enforces Islamic Sharia law, which dictates the death penalty for gay sex.





Here is pic of the boys crying before they get hanged



















Thoughts


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

We all know Iranians hate gay people.  It's not new news.  It's sad and disgusting that they hate their fellow human beings so much that they'd kill them for being different.


----------



## Nienna (Sep 21, 2006)

How did they discover the homosexuality? Caught in the act?

Homosexuality is wrong, but this is a very sad story.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

Nienna said:


> How did they discover the homosexuality? Caught in the act?
> 
> Homosexuality is wrong, but this is a very sad story.


Odds are neighbors or even family may have saw them and reported them.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Odds are neighbors or even family may have saw them and reported them.



...which means there's at least a solid chance the boys were innocent of anything sexually perverted.  

Very sad, if the account is true.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> ...which means there's at least a solid chance the boys were innocent of anything sexually perverted.
> 
> Very sad, if the account is true.



even if they were gay it's not good


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> ...which means there's at least a solid chance the boys were innocent of anything sexually perverted.
> 
> Very sad, if the account is true.


From what I can remember, they had had sex and were involved.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> even if they were gay it's not good



Good point.



Kagom said:


> From what I can remember, they had had sex and were involved.



Speculation still - but regardless, when people sin, you help them find a way out of their sin - NOT kill them.



:-/


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> Speculation still - but regardless, when people sin, you help them find a way out of their sin - NOT kill them.
> 
> 
> 
> :-/


They weren't doing anything wrong, really.  But this is life.  People hate other people for not being within their ideals and some kill over it.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> They weren't doing anything wrong, really.  But this is life.  People hate other people for not being within their ideals and some kill over it.



If you are a Muslim, you know homosexual behaviour is sinful.  Yet, you bow to your urges and lusts and committ homosexual behaviour.  Now you're found out, and killed for your Sin.   The difference between Christianity and Islam is, when a CHRISTIAN engages in Homosexual activity, and is found out, they are given support, treatement, prayer, encouragement to STOP their sinful behaviour.

Get it?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> If you are a Muslim, you know homosexual behaviour is sinful.  Yet, you bow to your urges and lusts and committ homosexual behaviour.  Now you're found out, and killed for your Sin.   The difference between Christianity and Islam is, when a CHRISTIAN engages in Homosexual activity, and is found out, they are given support, treatement, prayer, encouragement to STOP their sinful behaviour.
> 
> Get it?


Phsyical death vs. pseudopsychological bullshit.

It's a lose/lose situation, but I'd take the pseudopsychological bullshit.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



no i mean even if they were killed for being gay it's not good-


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Phsyical death vs. pseudopsychological bullshit.
> 
> It's a lose/lose situation, but I'd take the pseudopsychological bullshit.



I'm not sure how helping somebody turn from an emotionally and physically destructive livestyle is pseudopsychological bullshit...but whatever.

YOU know better than God, don't ya?  hehe.

:-/

God doesn't want us having sex - me and you - mostly because a) it'd fuck with our minds b) it'd lead to severe physical consequence c) It doesnt' pass God's 'common-sense' test.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> If you are a Muslim, you know homosexual behaviour is sinful.  Yet, you bow to your urges and lusts and committ homosexual behaviour.  Now you're found out, and killed for your Sin.   The difference between Christianity and Islam is, when a CHRISTIAN engages in Homosexual activity, and is found out, they are given support, treatement, prayer, encouragement to STOP their sinful behaviour.
> 
> Get it?



there is nothing wrong w/ being gay


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> there is nothing wrong w/ being gay



There's lots wrong with it from a biological standpoint - but from a 'religious' standpoint, it's sinful in most every major religion.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> There's lots wrong with it from a biological standpoint - but from a 'religious' standpoint, it's sinful in most every major religion.



there are man and women who even after tons of treatment STILL can't procreate, and Religion ,the major 3 were violent and i don't really pay attention to texts that are 4,555 yrs old


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> there are man and women who even after tons of treatment STILL can't procreate,



You'll excuse me please if I wonder what the hell that has to do with the topic at hand. 



> and Religion ,the major 3 were violent and i don't really pay attention to texts that are 4,555 yrs old



Well, toots, you posted this in the RELIGION/ETHICS forum.  YOU don't pay attention to religion - that's fine.  I guess this thread is a warning to Muslims they sure as hell better pay attention to THEIRS, at least when living in a Country run by Islamic Law.


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> You'll excuse me please if I wonder what the hell that has to do with the topic at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, toots, you posted this in the RELIGION/ETHICS forum.  YOU don't pay attention to religion - that's fine.  I guess this thread is a warning to Muslims they sure as hell better pay attention to THEIRS, at least when living in a Country run by Islamic Law.



You brought the issue that bein gay goes against "nature" b/c they can't have kids right?


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> You brought the issue that bein gay goes against "nature" b/c they can't have kids right?



I beg to differ.  I made NO mention of procreation.  Read through again maybe?


----------



## Jennifer.Bush (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> I beg to differ.  I made NO mention of procreation.  Read through again maybe?



u said this


> There's lots wrong with it from a biological standpoint


----------



## Nienna (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> There's lots wrong with it from a biological standpoint - but from a 'religious' standpoint, it's sinful in most every major religion.



Tried to rep you.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> u said this



I remember writing that - why did you add onto the statement, accusing me of saying it was because 'they cant procreate'?

Biologically homosexuality IS 'wrong' for lack of a better term.  If you don't know why male and female parts were created the way and position they exist, then I'm not sure I can explain it to you.  Our sexual organs were created to work in concert.  What's your problem with that statement?  Do you disagree? Do you think the rectum was MADE/Created/Evoloved with the expectation to receive 'input'?


----------



## KarlMarx (Sep 21, 2006)

I've said it before on this message board and I'll say it again.

If I were a gay man, I'd be fully in back of the President and support the war on terror and urge other gays to do the same. I wouldn't be too worried about the rights of terrorists, reading them the Moranda rights and so on. I'd want to see the bad guys lose and us win.

The reason should be very obvious. If the Islamofascists win this war, the first people they'll be coming after are the gays.

Gay people have a fundamental interest in the War On Terror, whether they realize it or not and whether they want to admit it. I'm certain that many of them feel excluded in certain areas of this country, but they still have the protection of the law, access to the political process and the fundamental rights that the rest of us enjoy.

If the followers of the Crescent Moon win this one, they and the rest of us can look forward to being treated the same way as those boys.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> If I were a gay man, I'd be fully in back of the President



Punny.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> I'm not sure how helping somebody turn from an emotionally and physically destructive livestyle is pseudopsychological bullshit...but whatever.
> 
> YOU know better than God, don't ya?  hehe.
> 
> ...


I don't have a religion, dmp.  And it doesn't fuck with my mind at all and I've yet to experience sever physical consequences.

And the lies and deceit involved are pseudopsychological bullshit.

We can only agree to disagree on this subject.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> I've said it before on this message board and I'll say it again.
> 
> If I were a gay man, I'd be fully in back of the President and support the war on terror and urge other gays to do the same. I wouldn't be too worried about the rights of terrorists, reading them the Moranda rights and so on. I'd want to see the bad guys lose and us win.
> 
> ...



I have to disagree with this, simply because it would be basically impossible for the United States / their allies to 'lose' this 'war' in a traditional sense. If we (and by we I mean U.S and allies) 'lose' this war, we don't lose territory. Our government won't be taken over. There will not be a mandatory curfew.

But maybe I'm looking at what you are saying the wrong way - even if we 'win' this war and kill every single terrorist, it will most likely not save one homosexual from being killed in Iran / Iraq / other countries that practice Sharia law. Unless we can make other nations understand the benefits of the separation of church & state (a.k.a removing Sharia law) then it will not help gays. Going and killing terrorists is probably not going to stop people from believing in Sharia law.

Now let me also say this: I think the 'war on terror' isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think it has been poorly outlined and poorly orchestrated, but I don't think the general reasoning behind it (well, some of it) is bad. If I was in charge, would I have done things differently? Yes. Would things be better? I can't say.

And in regards to removing terrorists' rights and whatnot, I think that is a reprehensible idea because it sets a bad precedent - suspending all of a person's rights, no matter what they have done, allows for horrible things to be committed in the name of democracy and freedom. Should they lose some rights? Probably. If you commit a crime, you may lose certain rights. But that doesn't mean you should lose _all_ of your rights.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I don't have a religion, dmp.  And it doesn't fuck with my mind at all and I've yet to experience sever physical consequences.
> 
> And the lies and deceit involved are pseudopsychological bullshit.
> 
> We can only agree to disagree on this subject.



The lies and deceit spready by homophiles? About, without evidence, you are BORN to be gay?  About how you are Compelled beyond your ability to resist? About how your life expentancy is reduced by what? 30 years?  About the higher instance of domestic violence? 

:-/


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> The lies and deceit spready by homophiles? About, without evidence, you are BORN to be gay?  About how you are Compelled beyond your ability to resist? About how your life expentancy is reduced by what? 30 years?  About the higher instance of domestic violence?
> 
> :-/



I just love how that went from things said by 'homophiles' to things said by 'homophobes.' Nice.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> The lies and deceit spready by homophiles? About, without evidence, you are BORN to be gay?  About how you are Compelled beyond your ability to resist? About how your life expentancy is reduced by what? 30 years?  About the higher instance of domestic violence?
> 
> :-/


I've been in 4 relationships and I've yet to go through domestic violence.  I'm going to be old, dmp.  I have that feeling, though I dread that thought.  It's hard to explain this, especially for me.  And yes, I was born gay, thank you.


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I've been in 4 relationships and I've yet to go through domestic violence.  I'm going to be old, dmp.  I have that feeling, though I dread that thought.  It's hard to explain this, especially for me.  And yes, I was born gay, thank you.





Borne 'Gay' please look up the true definition of "Gay"...probably most people were...since it means 'Happy'..As for homosexual....Not! unless ya were borne a hermaphrodite...are you?


side note: and yes I spelled born...borne...just looks more sophisticated...or silly depending on ones point of view...lol


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> Borne 'Gay' please look up the true definition of "Gay"...probably most people were...since it means 'Happy'..As for homosexual....Not! unless ya were borne a hermaphrodite...are you?


Aside from the old timey definition of "gay", that was completely devoid of logic.


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Aside from the old timey definition of "gay", that was completely devoid of logic.





that was the point...cause' ya are devoid of logic...ya think below the zipper as dmp pointed out to you!:blah2:


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> that was the point...cause' ya are devoid of logic...ya think below the zipper as dmp pointed out to you!:blah2:


You aren't making any points.  It's an inborn thing, not something that magically comes and goes when it wants.


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> You aren't making any points.  It's an inborn thing, not something that magically comes and goes when it wants.





make points..whatever that means...just called ya on your BS...I could care less what you and yours do in private...just keep it there...less Islam will find and punish ya severly...you do not help the fight on terrorism from the radical Islam philosophy spilling your preference to the world...ya put me and mine in jeporady...get it?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> make points..whatever that means...just called ya on your BS...I could care less what you and yours do in private...just keep it there...less Islam will find and punish ya severly...you do not help the fight on terrorism from the radical Islam philosphy spilling your preference to the world...ya put me and mine in jeporady...get it?


You've called me on nothing.

I'm quite aware what radical Islam does.  And I don't forsee Islam gaining a stronghold in America any time soon, or just call me optimistic.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> make points..whatever that means...just called ya on your BS...I could care less what you and yours do in private...just keep it there...less Islam will find and punish ya severly...you do not help the fight on terrorism from the radical Islam philosophy spilling your preference to the world...ya put me and mine in jeporady...get it?



How does someone admitting they are homosexual help or hurt 'you and yours' anyway? How is it negatively effecting the 'war on terrorism'?


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> You've called me on nothing.
> 
> I'm quite aware what radical Islam does.  And I don't forsee Islam gaining a stronghold in America any time soon, or just call me optimistic.





If and when the time comes...don't expect me to come between you and the beheading...I warned ya...and now my conscience is clear...ya did it to yourself...end of story! Carry on and party hardy...I will not clean up your mess...that is what you must do from now on!


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Reneer said:


> How does someone admitting they are homosexual help or hurt 'you and yours' anyway? How is it negatively effecting the 'war on terrorism'?





it to you... well ya are a lost cause' and must learn to reap what you sow...I won't be there for ya...along with alot of combat vets who are fed up with your BS!


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> If and when the time comes...don't expect me to come between you and the beheading...I warned ya...and now my conscience is clear...ya did it to yourself...end of story! Carry on and party hardy...I will not clean up your mess...that is what you must do from now on!


I doubt that I'll come into such a situation, my good sir.  And that's quite Christian of you too.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> it to you... well ya are a lost cause' and must learn to reap what you sow...I won't be there for ya...along with alot of combat vets who are fed up with your BS!



Uh huh. You know, I'm kinda glad you've written yourself out of my life. Thanks. And I'll bet there are a lot of combat vets who wouldn't give a damn if I 'understood' or not, but would simply be content with the fact that I support them and the military.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> And yes, I was born gay, thank you.




You say that to comfort yourself.  You say that to help you sleep at night.  You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men.  NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'.  Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life.  You fail yourself; sell yourself short.  My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> You say that to comfort yourself.  You say that to help you sleep at night.  You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men.  NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'.  Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life.  You fail yourself; sell yourself short.  My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.


No, I tell myself that my mother was a good mother to help me sleep better at night.  I tell myself that not everyone in the world is devoid of intelligence and logic so I can sleep better at night.  But  I know most of it's bullshit.

No, really, I don't do any of that.

Yes, sexual desires happen later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we're born with them.  It's a human characteristic and apart of our make-up.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> You say that to comfort yourself.  You say that to help you sleep at night.  You know good and well you were NOT born with the desire to have sex with other men.  NOBODY is born with a 'desire to have sex'.  Sexual desires and thoughts happen MUCH later in life.  You fail yourself; sell yourself short.  My heart REALLY goes out to you, however.



I just love it when people can mind-read over the Internet. :

And actually, people are born with the potential 'desire to have sex.' It just isn't (usually) biologically activated until puberty. And then it is all up to how the human brain developed as to how the person feels about any particular gender.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> ...... I was born gay......


 So your parents were gay? How does that work?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

glockmail said:


> So your parents were gay? How does that work?


My parents' sexuality has nothing to do with whether I'm gay or not.  It may have been things she did while she was carrying me in the womb that affected me or chance in biology.  I'm not saying that just because you're born gay necessitates it's genetics.


----------



## archangel (Sep 21, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Uh huh. You know, I'm kinda glad you've written yourself out of my life. Thanks. And I'll bet there are a lot of combat vets who wouldn't give a damn if I 'understood' or not, but would simply be content with the fact that I support them and the military.





your life anymore than you were in mine...and you support combat vets...How? or any vet for that matter...when was the last time ya cried when your bud was hit in front of you...or dug a foxhole outta fear...or tried to comfort your loved ones that what you were doing was your choice...and for them not to blame 'Uncle Sam' for your decision...talk is cheap and very shallow...I am done for the night!


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

archangel said:


> your life anymore than you were in mine...and you support combat vets...How? or any vet for that matter...when was the last time ya cried when your bud was hit in front of you...or dug a foxhole outta fear...or tried to comfort your loved ones that what you were doing was your choice...and for them not to blame 'Uncle Sam' for your decision...talk is cheap and very shallow...I am done for the night!



Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who can't understand what he's getting at. 

I had a Vietnam vet as a high-school teacher. Aside from that I've had no direct contact with combat vets. I can't be in the military (medical condition) so I'm not going to on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. And I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to get at - except to somehow try to show that I'm not _really_ supporting combat vets.

But you know what? I do support them, both economically and in my thoughts and actions.


----------



## KarlMarx (Sep 21, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I have to disagree with this, simply because it would be basically impossible for the United States / their allies to 'lose' this 'war' in a traditional sense. If we (and by we I mean U.S and allies) 'lose' this war, we don't lose territory. Our government won't be taken over. There will not be a mandatory curfew.


After 9/11, the idea of traditional warfare is out of the window. Look at Europe, where a large number of Muslims live, you will see that Muslims are causing a lot of problems. The cities in France didn't suddenly catch on fire this spring, those fires were started by disgruntled Muslim youth. The violence in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear ambitions exist because many Muslims see this struggle in the way you seem to deny. This is a war and one that stretches back over 1,000 years.



> But maybe I'm looking at what you are saying the wrong way - even if we 'win' this war and kill every single terrorist, it will most likely not save one homosexual from being killed in Iran / Iraq / other countries that practice Sharia law. Unless we can make other nations understand the benefits of the separation of church & state (a.k.a removing Sharia law) then it will not help gays. Going and killing terrorists is probably not going to stop people from believing in Sharia law.


I wasn't referring to other countries, but our own. The "benefit" of separation of church and state is more of an opinion than a fact. Our constitution doesn't have a separation of church and state clause. That was a construct of a liberal judiciary. The verbiage in the First Amendment prohibits the founding of a state sponsored church, as in the Church of England, not the prohibition of the public practice of religion (the prohibition which IS in the First Amendment).



> Now let me also say this: I think the 'war on terror' isn't necessarily a bad idea. I think it has been poorly outlined and poorly orchestrated, but I don't think the general reasoning behind it (well, some of it) is bad. If I was in charge, would I have done things differently? Yes. Would things be better? I can't say.


Yes, I'd take a different approach, too. For one thing, I would have been a lot more aggressive in Iraq. Invading Syria and taking military action against Iran would be high on my list too. And... I would be pressing charges against the NYT reporters that spilled the beans on those classified wiretaps...



> And in regards to removing terrorists' rights and whatnot, I think that is a reprehensible idea because it sets a bad precedent - suspending all of a person's rights, no matter what they have done, allows for horrible things to be committed in the name of democracy and freedom. Should they lose some rights? Probably. If you commit a crime, you may lose certain rights. But that doesn't mean you should lose _all_ of your rights.



I'd like to know which rights you're referring to? The Writ of Habeas Corpus? The right to be judged by your peers? The right to a speedy trial? The right to appeal?

This talk about "terrorist's rights" is a joke, just like the need for "diversity" (which is totally unnecessary given that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects people based on race, national origin, creed, sex and so forth). The Geneva Convention already covers many of the issues voiced by advocates for such legislation. We should not be treating foreign combatants as citizens of this country. We simply have to observe the Geneva Convention, but only those parts that were ratified by our own Senate. The Constitution is very clear about that. Knowing how these things go, eventually prisoners of war will not only be able to vote in our elections, but will be eligible for Social Security benefits, too.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> After 9/11, the idea of traditional warfare is out of the window. Look at Europe, where a large number of Muslims live, you will see that Muslims are causing a lot of problems. The cities in France didn't suddenly catch on fire this spring, those fires were started by disgruntled Muslim youth. The violence in the Middle East and Iran's nuclear ambitions exist because many Muslims see this struggle in the way you seem to deny. This is a war and one that stretches back over 1,000 years.



I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?



KarlMarx said:


> I wasn't referring to other countries, but our own. The "benefit" of separation of church and state is more of an opinion than a fact. Our constitution doesn't have a separation of church and state clause. That was a construct of a liberal judiciary. The verbiage in the First Amendment prohibits the founding of a state sponsored church, as in the Church of England, not the prohibition of the public practice of religion (the prohibition which IS in the First Amendment).



I love how you ignored the gist of that paragraph and honed in on the idea of separation of church & state. Sharia law is Islamic law. The 'war on terror' is not going to convince nations that are under Sharia law to give it up for something more secular. That's all I was saying. You can leave your diatribe on the separation of church and state for another thread.



KarlMarx said:


> Yes, I'd take a different approach, too. For one thing, I would have been a lot more aggressive in Iraq. Invading Syria and taking military action against Iran would be high on my list too. And... I would be pressing charges against the NYT reporters that spilled the beans on those classified wiretaps...



So calling out the government when they practice illegal wiretapping should be illegal now. They had a system designed specifically to make wiretapping legal. And they didn't use it.



KarlMarx said:


> I'd like to know which rights you're referring to? The Writ of Habeas Corpus? The right to be judged by your peers? The right to a speedy trial? The right to appeal?
> 
> This talk about "terrorist's rights" is a joke, just like the need for "diversity" (which is totally unnecessary given that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 already protects people based on race, national origin, creed, sex and so forth). The Geneva Convention already covers many of the issues voiced by advocates for such legislation. We should not be treating foreign combatants as citizens of this country. We simply have to observe the Geneva Convention, but only those parts that were ratified by our own Senate. The Constitution is very clear about that. Knowing how these things go, eventually prisoners of war will not only be able to vote in our elections, but will be eligible for Social Security benefits, too.



When I wrote that I was thinking about domestic terrorists who are U.S. citizens. Sorry for not making that clear. And I was referring to all those rights you listed, but I was applying them only to U.S. citizens who are considered terrorists.

But in regards to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has ratified them, with some reservations.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> ....It may have been things she did while she was carrying me in the womb that affected me or chance in biology....


  What could that possibly be? Any studies or evidence?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 21, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?....


 Because that popolation immigrated before oil was discovered in the ME. Once they became rich, the arab power elitists decided that they should control the world.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Because that popolation immigrated before oil was discovered in the ME. Once they became rich, the arab power elitists decided that they should control the world.



Oil was discovered in the ME on May 25, 1908. That's almost 100 years ago. Arabs settled in Dearborn to work in the Detroit auto industry, which was roughly starting to get off the ground by 1910+ (Ford was incorporated in 1903.) So mind rethinking that statement of yours?

And, also, what does that have to do with the riots in France anyway?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

glockmail said:


> What could that possibly be? Any studies or evidence?


Hasn't Reneer given you studies?  Haven't you been given evidence before?  And yes, I am avoiding the question, but not because you've stumped me.  I just seem to remember someone actually answering this question of yours before in another thread.


----------



## KarlMarx (Sep 21, 2006)

> I live in Michigan. We have Dearborn. The Arab population in Dearborn is over 30%. Mind telling me why Dearborn isn't burning to the ground?


Dearborn is a town, Europe is a continent. More Muslims live in Europe than in Dearborn. When you have a population that exhibits characteristic "X" 90% of the time, you don't disregard it for the sake of the 10%. That's like saying, some people who smoke don't develop lung cancer or heart disease, therefore, the idea that smoking is bad for you must not be true.



> I love how you ignored the gist of that paragraph and honed in on the idea of separation of church & state. Sharia law is Islamic law. The 'war on terror' is not going to convince nations that are under Sharia law to give it up for something more secular. That's all I was saying. You can leave your diatribe on the separation of church and state for another thread.


Getting snippy, aren't we? I realize what Sharia is. The war on terror is not supposed to convince nations to give up Sharia, it's supposed to dismantle the threat to our national security. One way to do that is to spread democracy to the Middle East.



> So calling out the government when they practice illegal wiretapping should be illegal now. They had a system designed specifically to make wiretapping legal. And they didn't use it.


For your information, those wiretaps were NOT illegal. Bush is not the first president, nor will he be the last, to authorize warantless wiretaps and surveillance. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The president is head of the armed forces and has the duty to defend the country per Article II Section II of the Constitution. That gives him the right to conduct warrantless surveillance against agents of foreign powers so long as the primary intent of that surveillance is not criminal prosecution. That is how the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and many other spies were outted. You confuse the limitation imposed by the Fourth Amendment regarding criminal cases with surveillance against agents of foreign powers (who are not covered by the Fourth Amendment). 




> But in regards to the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. has ratified them, with some reservations.



from Article II Section II of the US Constitution (Powers of the President)

*He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;*

The United States position on the Geneva Convention was, to my knowledge, ratified by the Senate sometime long ago. Under the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, not all sections were agreed to. That is how the Constitution works.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> Dearborn is a town, Europe is a continent. More Muslims live in Europe than in Dearborn. When you have a population that exhibits characteristic "X" 90% of the time, you don't disregard it for the sake of the 10%. That's like saying, some people who smoke don't develop lung cancer or heart disease, therefore, the idea that smoking is bad for you must not be true.



But you are ignoring what happened in France. And I highly doubt that 90% of the Muslim population that exhibit characteristic X live outside of Dearborn / New York City. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that simply because they are Muslim they will exhibit characteristic X, and you are not taking into account other variables such as society and whatnot. Which would help explain why Dearborn / NYC isn't burning.



KarlMarx said:


> Getting snippy, aren't we? I realize what Sharia is. The war on terror is not supposed to convince nations to give up Sharia, it's supposed to dismantle the threat to our national security. One way to do that is to spread democracy to the Middle East.



If it is only supposed to be dismantling the threat to our national security, then I think it's doing a poor job of it.



KarlMarx said:


> For your information, those wiretaps were NOT illegal. Bush is not the first president, nor will he be the last, to authorize warantless wiretaps and surveillance. Read the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. The president is head of the armed forces and has the duty to defend the country per Article II Section II of the Constitution. That gives him the right to conduct warrantless surveillance against agents of foreign powers so long as the primary intent of that surveillance is not criminal prosecution. That is how the Rosenbergs, Alger Hiss, and many other spies were outted. You confuse the limitation imposed by the Fourth Amendment regarding criminal cases with surveillance against agents of foreign powers (who are not covered by the Fourth Amendment).



So how do you know if an individual that is being wiretapped is an 'agent of a foreign power'? Terrorists by their very nature typically aren't in the employ of a foreign government.



KarlMarx said:


> from Article II Section II of the US Constitution (Powers of the President)
> 
> *He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;*
> 
> The United States position on the Geneva Convention was, to my knowledge, ratified by the Senate sometime long ago. Under the advice and consent of 2/3 of the Senate, not all sections were agreed to. That is how the Constitution works.



See here about which parts of the Geneva Conventions were ratified by the U.S. Congress.


----------



## KarlMarx (Sep 21, 2006)

Reneer said:


> But you are ignoring what happened in France. And I highly doubt that 90% of the Muslim population that exhibit characteristic X live outside of Dearborn / New York City. Also, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that simply because they are Muslim they will exhibit characteristic X, and you are not taking into account other variables such as society and whatnot. Which would help explain why Dearborn / NYC isn't burning.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, terrorists ARE in the employ of a foreign POWER, that doesn't necessarily mean a government. And terrorists are sponsored by governments, e.g. Iran and Syria, not to mention North Korea and China...

Also, let me say this, that if we had allowed the media, and every politician in Congress to have a say in how we ran our wars, we'd all be speaking German now....


----------



## Reneer (Sep 21, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> Actually, terrorists ARE in the employ of a foreign POWER, that doesn't necessarily mean a government. And terrorists are sponsored by governments, e.g. Iran and Syria, not to mention North Korea and China...



You're correct, however, again, how do you know that they are in the employ / affiliated with a foreign power? And those wiretaps may not have been illegal, but they certainly are now (for the time being, at least.) And it has been acknowleged that the wiretaps violated FISA. 



KarlMarx said:


> Also, let me say this, that if we had allowed the media, and every politician in Congress to have a say in how we ran our wars, we'd all be speaking German now....



Uh huh. Heaven forbid we actually use the federalist system we have to, you know, run the government like it's supposed to do.


----------



## dmp (Sep 21, 2006)

Kagom said:


> No, I tell myself that my mother was a good mother to help me sleep better at night.  I tell myself that not everyone in the world is devoid of intelligence and logic so I can sleep better at night.  But  I know most of it's bullshit.
> 
> No, really, I don't do any of that.
> 
> Yes, sexual desires happen later in life, but that doesn't change the fact that we're born with them.  It's a human characteristic and apart of our make-up.




You are REALLY hurting inside.  :-/


----------



## Kagom (Sep 21, 2006)

dmp said:


> You are REALLY hurting inside.  :-/


I tell you, it's that damn Mexican food.  Too spicy for my stomach nowadays :/


----------



## glockmail (Sep 22, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Oil was discovered in the ME on May 25, 1908. That's almost 100 years ago. Arabs settled in Dearborn to work in the Detroit auto industry, which was roughly starting to get off the ground by 1910+ (Ford was incorporated in 1903.) So mind rethinking that statement of yours?
> 
> And, also, what does that have to do with the riots in France anyway?



I'm sure you are correct on the dates, but you missed the point completely. Since the exploitation of the ME oil resource didn't start until well after Ford built cars to actually use the stuff, then for several decades while we used our own, and then finally figured out how to get the ME oil to market via larger and larger tankers, it wasn't until the 50's or so the the ME kings became gazillionaires. So prior to the money and power, Arab immigrants weren't much different than most other immigrants, who simply desired to become part of the American Fabric. This is different than the Arab immigrants of today, many of which seek to destroy America, as well as France and all western society. And the difference is due to money and lust for power.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 22, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Hasn't Reneer given you studies?  Haven't you been given evidence before?  And yes, I am avoiding the question, but not because you've stumped me.  I just seem to remember someone actually answering this question of yours before in another thread.


 No, I haven't been involved in this discussion before. Perhaps your friend could point me in the right direction. Curious, though, that you use something to justify your position, but don't feel the need to have the back-up for it available. The appearance is that of someone with an indefensible position.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 22, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I'm sure you are correct on the dates, but you missed the point completely. Since the exploitation of the ME oil resource didn't start until well after Ford built cars to actually use the stuff, then for several decades while we used our own, and then finally figured out how to get the ME oil to market via larger and larger tankers, it wasn't until the 50's or so the the ME kings became gazillionaires. So prior to the money and power, Arab immigrants weren't much different than most other immigrants, who simply desired to become part of the American Fabric. This is different than the Arab immigrants of today, many of which seek to destroy America, as well as France and all western society. And the difference is due to money and lust for power.



You're correct on the timeline, but I think you are 100% incorrect about the immigrants. Why? Arabs are still immigrating to America. I don't see New York / Dearborn burning. See here for a timeline. You'll note that the most recent 4th wave began after 1965. Oil tankers were well in use by then. So why hasn't there been numerous uprisings in Dearborn and New York City, if by your assertion all prior 1965 Arab immigrants simply want to destroy America?



glockmail said:


> No, I haven't been involved in this discussion before. Perhaps your friend could point me in the right direction. Curious, though, that you use something to justify your position, but don't feel the need to have the back-up for it available. The appearance is that of someone with an indefensible position.



See here,  here (twin study),   here, and here.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 22, 2006)

Reneer said:


> ..... So why hasn't there been numerous uprisings in Dearborn and New York City, if by your assertion all prior 1965 Arab immigrants simply want to destroy America?
> 
> ......


  I didn't say "all", I said "many". That was rather obvious.

1. Why would you attempt to misrepresent my position?
2. When the "destroy" crowd gets to a critical mass, then they will attack. This MO is written in the Koran, or a Hadith, whatever. This will take time in the US. It is happening now in France, as they are the "canary" of Europe, as I have stated earlier. Unless we react to it in Europe they will eventually try it here.
3. Are you denying that this is Islam's goal?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 22, 2006)

glockmail said:


> No, I haven't been involved in this discussion before. Perhaps your friend could point me in the right direction. Curious, though, that you use something to justify your position, but don't feel the need to have the back-up for it available. The appearance is that of someone with an indefensible position.


I could easily get sources if I wanted to, but as I've said prior, I believe that someone had given you sources on the same or a similar issue and that I shouldn't have to work more than necessary.  It's called laziness.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 22, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I didn't say "all", I said "many". That was rather obvious.
> 
> 1. Why would you attempt to misrepresent my position?



My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. You asserted that many 'new' immigrants want to destroy America, not all.



glockmail said:


> 2. When the "destroy" crowd gets to a critical mass, then they will attack. This MO is written in the Koran, or a Hadith, whatever. This will take time in the US. It is happening now in France, as they are the "canary" of Europe, as I have stated earlier. Unless we react to it in Europe they will eventually try it here.



I highly disagree with this. There are major cultural differences between the United States and Europe, particularly France. France's economic policies are quite different from the U.S - 25% of people under 25 in France are unemployed. There are roughly 39,746,734 people between the ages of 15 and 65 living in France. Let's say that 5 million of them are under 25. That leaves us with roughly one million two hundred fifty thousand (1,250,000) people out of work. You also have to remember that France is roughly twice the size of Colorado, so the population density is pretty high. There are many others reasons why there was a riot in France amongst young Muslims - they are socially forced into suburbs of Paris, which are basically projects. They don't have jobs and can't find new ones because of France's labor laws. It isn't _simply because_ they are Muslim that they rioted.



glockmail said:


> 3. Are you denying that this is Islam's goal?



Yes, I am denying that that is mainstream Islam's goal. However, the radical Islam fundamentalists do get away with it because the rest of Islam isn't trying to ouster them. And if it was Islam's overall goal, why aren't the Paris suburbs still burning? See here for some alternate reasons to why the riots in France started in the first place.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 22, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I could easily get sources if I wanted to, but as I've said prior, I believe that someone had given you sources on the same or a similar issue and that I shouldn't have to work more than necessary.  It's called laziness.


  I think you should reconsider laziness as how you respond to important issues, especially atheism. Life is short, and eternity is forever.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 22, 2006)

Reneer said:


> .....
> 
> I highly disagree with this. There are major cultural differences between the United States and Europe, particularly France. France's economic policies are quite different from the U.S - 25% of people under 25 in France are unemployed. There are roughly 39,746,734 people between the ages of 15 and 65 living in France. Let's say that 5 million of them are under 25. That leaves us with roughly one million two hundred fifty thousand (1,250,000) people out of work. You also have to remember that France is roughly twice the size of Colorado, so the population density is pretty high. There are many others reasons why there was a riot in France amongst young Muslims - they are socially forced into suburbs of Paris, which are basically projects. They don't have jobs and can't find new ones because of France's labor laws. It isn't _simply because_ they are Muslim that they rioted.
> 
> ...



1. I never said the issue was simple. France is the "canary" because of French society- the economic issues that you raised are among the most important. But the fact is that France is an indicator of problems to come in Europe. And then there is Sudan and a few other places that radical Muslums are doing similar or worse things, like genocide.

2. This is about the third time that you have attempted to put words in my mouth. The written words of the Koran or Hadith state that the goal is to take over the world by force if necessary. That is the stated goal. I agree that most "moderate" Muslims have no intention of this. But likewise I have no faith in the moderates to contain the radicals once critical mass is met. After all, they have been unable to contain the radicals in the Middle East, even with US help.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 22, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. I never said the issue was simple. France is the "canary" because of French society- the economic issues that you raised are among the most important. But the fact is that France is an indicator of problems to come in Europe. And then there is Sudan and a few other places that radical Muslums are doing similar or worse things, like genocide.



My only question would be how you know that France is an indicator of problems in Europe.



glockmail said:


> 2. This is about the third time that you have attempted to put words in my mouth. The written words of the Koran or Hadith state that the goal is to take over the world by force if necessary. That is the stated goal. I agree that most "moderate" Muslims have no intention of this. But likewise I have no faith in the moderates to contain the radicals once critical mass is met. After all, they have been unable to contain the radicals in the Middle East, even with US help.



I acknowledged and apologized for the other times that I accidentally misinterpreted your words, but this time I do not see how I am 'putting words into your mouth' by denying that Islam's goal is to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. I may be misinformed as to the Koran - I haven't read it - but there are a lot of things said in the Bible that Christians and Jews don't practice (both in the new and old Testaments, respectively.) Simply because it is in a holy book doesn't mean it is practiced. Simply because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they want to kill Americans or even convert them to Islam.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 22, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I think you should reconsider laziness as how you respond to important issues, especially atheism. Life is short, and eternity is forever.


I do consider laziness when I respond to important issues.  About 90% of the time, I don't because I have a point to make if it hasn't been made already.  If it has been, then that's where the other 10% pops in.

I'm not an atheist, glock.  I'm a deist.  Different things.

Yes, life is short, but I believe in reincarnation.


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I do consider laziness when I respond to important issues.  About 90% of the time, I don't because I have a point to make if it hasn't been made already.  If it has been, then that's where the other 10% pops in.
> 
> I'm not an atheist, glock.  I'm a deist.  Different things.
> 
> *Yes, life is short, but I believe in reincarnation.*




and here is where your ego lies...I have never met a person who was reincarnated...but hey if you have please tell all of us how it happens and what they must do to correct their pasts mistakes...this should be interesting!
I cannot for the life of me see why God would send us back...unless y'all believe in pergortory(here correct the sp if it helps!)...as is in Christain belief...one must stay in limbo until they correct past mistakes....Do Buddhist believe this also? I think this is their whole concept on life...could be wrong though!


----------



## Kagom (Sep 22, 2006)

archangel said:


> [/B]
> 
> and here is where your ego lies...I have never met a person who was reincarnated...but hey if you have please tell all of us how it happens and what they must do to correct their past mistakes...this should be interesting!
> I cannot for the life of me see why God would send us back...unless y'all believe in Purgatory(spelling corrected!)...as is in Christain belief...one must stay in limbo until they correct past mistakes....Do Buddhist believe this also? I think this is their whole concept on life...could be wrong though!


I will admit I have a hard time explaining my belief in reincarnation, but it goes along the lines of letting us experience life differently each time.  Nothing to do with mistakes.

Why would a god reincarnate us?  I can't answer for any single deity that may (or may not) exist.  I only speculate.  But I do believe we don't retain knowledge from our former lives, which is why you've "never met someone who has been reincarnated."


----------



## archangel (Sep 22, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I will admit I have a hard time explaining my belief in reincarnation, but it goes along the lines of letting us experience life differently each time.  Nothing to do with mistakes.
> 
> Why would a god reincarnate us?  I can't answer for any single deity that may (or may not) exist.  I only speculate.  But I do believe we don't retain knowledge from our former lives, which is why you've "never met someone who has been reincarnated."





Then what pray tell would be the point of reincarnation? If it is not to correct past mistakes!..Ya can't have your proverbial cake and eat it too!...and for not remembering ones past...why not...after all according to known science...we are nothing more than electronic energy...kinda sorta like a pc mother board...does it die with the body?...we are getting to the nitty gritty now! Have fun with this kag...it is time to start dinner...this body needs food...albeit is is nothing more than electronic energy...or so y'all say!


----------



## Kagom (Sep 22, 2006)

archangel said:


> Then what pray tell would be the point of reincarnation? If it is not to correct past mistakes!..Ya can't have your proverbial cake and eat it too!...and for not remembering ones past...why not...after all according to known science...we are nothing more than electronic energy...kinda sorta like a pc mother board...does it die with the body?...we are getting to the nitty gritty now! Have fun with this kag...it is time to start dinner...this body needs food...albeit is is nothing more than electronic energy...or so y'all say!


Like I said, I can't completely explain my beliefs.  I can try though.

The point?  Does there really have to be a point?  Deities, by religious standards, have feelings and thoughts of their own and can experience loneliness.  So instead of leaving the body to completely decay as well as the spirit, it recycles so the deity will never have to be alone.

You can't retain information in your brain through a type of transubstantiation.  It'd be physically impossible.  And the deity may not want us to remember for whatever reasons we're incapable of comprehending.

Yes, we are electronic energy, at least our physical selves are.  Spirit is noncorpreal and is not tangible.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> My only question would be how you know that France is an indicator of problems in Europe.
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledged and apologized for the other times that I accidentally misinterpreted your words, but this time I do not see how I am 'putting words into your mouth' by denying that Islam's goal is to convert all non-Muslims to Islam. I may be misinformed as to the Koran - I haven't read it - but there are a lot of things said in the Bible that Christians and Jews don't practice (both in the new and old Testaments, respectively.) Simply because it is in a holy book doesn't mean it is practiced. Simply because someone is Muslim doesn't mean they want to kill Americans or even convert them to Islam.



1. Because historically, at least for the last 9 or 10 decades, it ahs always been this way, becuase France is weak and tirants and bullys always go after the weak first.
2. You are confusing the stated goal of Islam (the religion) with what you percieve as the intentions of moderate Muslims (the people). What's the deal with that?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I do consider laziness when I respond to important issues.  About 90% of the time, I don't because I have a point to make if it hasn't been made already.  If it has been, then that's where the other 10% pops in.
> 
> I'm not an atheist, glock.  I'm a deist.  Different things.
> 
> Yes, life is short, but I believe in reincarnation.


  What do you suppose your deity will send you back as?


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

glockmail said:


> What do you suppose your deity will send you back as?



A gay lizard, of course.


----------



## Nienna (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I tell you, it's that damn Mexican food.  Too spicy for my stomach nowadays :/



You're too young to be upset by Mexican food. But here's something for you, Honey...


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

glockmail said:


> What do you suppose your deity will send you back as?


Who knows.  That's something up to the deity to decide.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

Nienna said:


> You're too young to be upset by Mexican food. But here's something for you, Honey...


I know I"m too young and that's what's sad.  My body's messing up too early.  Quite frankly, I blame the genetics on both sides of my family


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I know I"m too young and that's what's sad.  My body's messing up too early.  Quite frankly, I blame the genetics on both sides of my family



Y'know, it would just be WAY too easy  ......


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Jennifer.Bush said:


> there are man and women who even after tons of treatment STILL can't procreate, and Religion ,the major 3 were violent and i don't really pay attention to texts that are 4,555 yrs old




sooooooooo, if a text were written accurately and truthfully, somehow, just by sitting around for a few thousand years, the info in it becomes false"

Oh, and for your information, at the time the 3 major religions were violent, the ENTIRE WORLD was violent. Imperialism was the norm. SLavery was legal. Difference is the Christians help bring us to a more civilized less destructive society here in the States, and some other spots in the world.

Lastly, if you think thats bad, you should see what they do to women who are merely ACCUSED of commiting adultery.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. Because historically, at least for the last 9 or 10 decades, it ahs always been this way, becuase France is weak and tirants and bullys always go after the weak first.
> 2. You are confusing the stated goal of Islam (the religion) with what you percieve as the intentions of moderate Muslims (the people). What's the deal with that?



1. Simply because France is 'weak' does not mean that it is an indicator for the rest of Europe, unless you also consider the rest of Europe to be 'weak' like you consider France to be.
2. ... because people don't always practice what is in their religious books? I don't see many Jews or Christians following the rules laid out in Leviticus today. The books may not change, but the rules and guidelines that people follow do. Yes there are some passages in the Koran that advocate the conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam - but if the people who practice Islam don't choose to follow those passages, then it doesn't matter if the passages are even in the book at all. People who follow radical Islam are choosing to follow these passages, while many in Islam do not follow them, but the radicals exist only because the moderates allow them to do so.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> 1. Simply because France is 'weak' does not mean that it is an indicator for the rest of Europe, unless you also consider the rest of Europe to be 'weak' like you consider France to be.
> 
> Well, yeah, pretty much.
> 
> 2. ... because people don't always practice what is in their religious books? I don't see many Jews or Christians following the rules laid out in Leviticus today. The books may not change, but the rules and guidelines that people follow do. Yes there are some passages in the Koran that advocate the conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam - but if the people who practice Islam don't choose to follow those passages, then it doesn't matter if the passages are even in the book at all. People who follow radical Islam are choosing to follow these passages, while many in Islam do not follow them, but the radicals exist only because the moderates allow them to do so.



You are correct.  The moderates who do not adhere strictly to the Koran do nothing while they allow the radicals who DO adhere strictly to the Koran to set their agenda and drive their train.  The fact that moderates exist in no way negates the genocidal bent of radical Islam.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Y'know, it would just be WAY too easy  ......


Normally I'd break and tell you that it isn't true, but this is one of those cases where it is.  I've inherited a lot of nasty physical traits from both parents, including stomach problems, but the thing of it is I'm going through some of them earlier than I should be.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> You are correct.  The moderates who do not adhere strictly to the Koran do nothing while they allow the radicals who DO adhere strictly to the Koran to set their agenda and drive their train.  The fact that moderates exist in no way negates the genocidal bent of radical Islam.



Of course not. It's sad that many moderates in Islam aren't doing more to help marginalize the radicals.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

KarlMarx said:


> I've said it before on this message board and I'll say it again.
> 
> If I were a gay man, I'd be fully in back of the President and support the war on terror and urge other gays to do the same. I wouldn't be too worried about the rights of terrorists, reading them the Moranda rights and so on. I'd want to see the bad guys lose and us win.
> 
> ...



the american homosexuals and gays do not think for one minute that the terrorists can win the world wide war, nor during our lifetime ever make significant inroads into US soil as to affect their way of life. Hence, the actuallly want to see us lose, their hatred is sooooo strong. They truly are afraid of God. Its pretty obvious when you see the anti God attacks made by them on every front.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> the american homosexuals and gays do not think for one minute that the terrorists can win the world wide war, nor during our lifetime ever make significant inroads into US soil as to affect their way of life. Hence, the actuallly want to see us lose, their hatred is sooooo strong. They truly are afraid of God. Its pretty obvious when you see the anti God attacks made by them on every front.


As much as I enjoyed your speculation, it's full of shit.

We're not focusing on the war, I admit, but that doesn't mean we want to see the US lose.  As for being afraid of God: bogus.  I am afraid of no god as I'm sure countless others aren't either.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> the american homosexuals and gays do not think for one minute that the terrorists can win the world wide war, nor during our lifetime ever make significant inroads into US soil as to affect their way of life. Hence, the actuallly want to see us lose, their hatred is sooooo strong. They truly are afraid of God. Its pretty obvious when you see the anti God attacks made by them on every front.



Or perhaps they simply don't believe in any god at all.

And I doubt there are many homosexuals who want to see the United States and its allies lose the 'war on terror.'


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> And yes, I was born gay, thank you.




and your proof/evidence of that?

"Veteran of a thousand psychic wars " probably mostly with thineself.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> and your proof/evidence of that?
> 
> "Veteran of a thousand psychic wars " probably mostly with thineself.




He doesn't have any and his argument has been shot completely to shit more than once.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> and your proof/evidence of that?
> 
> "Veteran of a thousand psychic wars " probably mostly with thineself.


I'm going to address the Psychic Wars quote.  It's from Blue Oyster Cult.  It was in the movie Heavy Metal, which is a movie I like a lot.  Dig it?  It's nothing special in any way, shape, or form.  So don't let these shakes go on.

The born with it thing, courtesy of links provided by Reneer, are helped by these studies: 
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/199706/homosexuality-biology/3
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro98/202s98-paper2/Bodian2.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> He doesn't have any and his argument has been shot completely to shit more than once.


Not on this issue.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Not on this issue.



Quite the selective memory. I see.  I blew your argument out of the water myself, at least twice.  It got so easy and repetitious I just quit bothering, so yes, THIS issue.

As I recall, you DON'T have any unbiased and corrobrated sources that prove homosexuality is hereditary.  Since none exist, I can easily see why.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> He doesn't have any and his argument has been shot completely to shit more than once.



Have you ever met a real homosexual?

Oh, yeah, a real homosexual is born that way.

The problem is that most people who call themselves homosexuals, or gay, today, are really bisexuals.  That's why the gay rights movement can't stand bisexuals.  They totally screw up their arguments.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Have you ever met a real homosexual?
> 
> Oh, yeah, a real homosexual is born that way.
> 
> The problem is that most people who call themselves homosexuals, or gay, today, are really bisexuals.  That's why the gay rights movement can't stand bisexuals.  They totally screw up their arguments.


Bisexuals are a bane to heterosexuals and homosexuals.  They're not that well-liked because many view them as those who want their cake and be able to eat it too.

And I had negative relationship experiences with a bisexual guy.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Have you ever met a real homosexual?
> 
> Oh, yeah, a real homosexual is born that way.
> 
> The problem is that most people who call themselves homosexuals, or gay, today, are really bisexuals.  That's why the gay rights movement can't stand bisexuals.  They totally screw up their arguments.



I have met those who claim to be homosexual.  I have not once met one that was born that way and could prove it simply because evidence does not exist to prove it.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I have met those who claim to be homosexual.  I have not once met one that was born that way and could prove it simply because evidence does not exist to prove it.


As evidence stating otherwise cannot be proven as well.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> As evidence stating otherwise cannot be proven as well.



The difference being I am not the one making a claim that needs to be supported by evidence .... YOU are.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> The difference being I am not the one making a claim that needs to be supported by evidence .... YOU are.


Straight up bull, Gunny.  Any claim such as it being a choice or not requires research and evidence.

However, the APA feels differently: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> My apologies, I didn't mean to misrepresent your position. You asserted that many 'new' immigrants want to destroy America, not all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The way they are taking over Europe is by not adapting to the cultural ways of the countries they move to. They insist on  maintaining their culture in its entirty.
It isnt like that in America.

As you stated, in france there are millions of unemployed muslims, so they simply have the opportunity to use violence to try and take over. They dont have that opportunity in AMerica.

The way the muslims in America are helping to overthrow us, is the FACT that they send tons of money back home, some to terrorists, and let the terrorists carry on secretly here in there mosques.

RENEER,,,,you seem confused. How can you claim, "it *maybe that something happened while in utero that caused me to be gay" (not exact quote, but close enough for this purpose.)

THen you claim its a FACT that you were born homosexual. How can  you know its a fact if you arent even sure what causes it?

and that study about the twins is hysterical. They compare them to adopted kids?? Gimme a break. Adoptive kids usually dont spend the first few years of their lives with their adoptive parents, and it could very well be, that during that time the homosexuality becomes ingrained. WE DONT KNOW, hence the study is useless

Now, if you want a REAL study, STUDY THIS:


AIDS KILLS. HOMOSEXUALS in America have an extraordinary high rate of AIDS. END OF STUDY>*


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Straight up bull, Gunny.  Any claim such as it being a choice or not requires research and evidence.
> 
> However, the APA feels differently: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html



Try again.  YOU made the initial claim you were "born that way."  You were asked for evidence.  So far, you've tap-danced a little and now are attempting to reverse the onus of proof, but provided nothing to support your claim.

As far as my claim that homosexuality is behavioral, that is easily proven.  You do guys, don't you?  That requires a conscious, physical act.  End of story for you, my friend.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I have met those who claim to be homosexual.  I have not once met one that was born that way and could prove it simply because evidence does not exist to prove it.



When you meet one, you'll have all the evidence you need.

You can tell just by looking at them.

And that's not being a bigot.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Try again.  YOU made the initial claim you were "born that way."  You were asked for evidence.  So far, you've tap-danced a little and now are attempting to reverse the onus of proof, but provided nothing to support your claim.
> 
> As far as my claim that homosexuality is behavioral, that is easily proven.  You do guys, don't you?  That requires a conscious, physical act.  End of story for you, my friend.


I gave a link from the APA stating their stance on this.  I've given evidence in the past, do you want me to go dig through old topics and search anew?  I will if it'll please you.

It's behavioral: yes.  But that doesn't necessitate it isn't something ingrained into our minds.  Did you choose to be heterosexual?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> When you meet one, you'll have all the evidence you need.
> 
> You can tell just by looking at them.
> 
> And that's not being a bigot.


I take it you hold a similar view to my beliefs on Social and Natural Homosexuality, then?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Straight up bull, Gunny.  Any claim such as it being a choice or not requires research and evidence.
> 
> However, the APA feels differently: http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html



DUDE, do you actually read what you post/link?

when asked if sexual orientation can be changed by therapy, the APA adamently stated NO! Then they followed up with a paragraph that says they "dont have enough proof if the therapy some have received and claim to have changed them, actually works or not"

How the hell can they make a claim when the evidence is non conclusive, or, at best, shows there can be a change.????

"Some therapists who undertake so-called conversion therapy report that they have been able to change their clients' sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Close scrutiny of these reports however show several factors that cast doubt on their claims. For example, many of the claims come from organizations with an ideological perspective which condemns homosexuality. Furthermore, their claims are poorly documented. For example, treatment outcome is not followed and reported overtime as would be the standard to test the validity of any mental health intervention"



As for the "choice" issue:

"Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings"

so, apparently they at least think there is partly a choice in the matter, and have no proof one way or the other (although they have to claim the changed patients are not telling the truth) if it can be changed.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I gave a link from the APA stating their stance on this.  I've given evidence in the past, do you want me to go dig through old topics and search anew?  I will if it'll please you.
> 
> It's behavioral: yes.  But that doesn't necessitate it isn't something ingrained into our minds.  Did you choose to be heterosexual?



One doesn't have to choose to be normal.  That's _another_ poor attempt at deflection.  

You can go dig through topics all day if you think it'll do you any good.  When you get finished throwing out the opinions and can provide medical/scientific evidence, feel free to post it.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Bisexuals are a bane to heterosexuals and homosexuals.  They're not that well-liked because many view them as those who want their cake and be able to eat it too.
> 
> And I had negative relationship experiences with a bisexual guy.



Bisexuals don't bother hetrosexuals that much.  I mean in a political, figurative sense, of course. But just the notion of bisexuality really drives gay rights activists nuts.  It totally screws up their arguments because being bisexual introduces choice into the equation of gays rights legislation.

Gay rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit.  Gays are the only group in the history of the world to demand, and get, laws passed that tell others how they're supposed to react to their personal behavior.

Sexual behavior at that.

The argument that being gay is akin to race, and that homosexuals are entitled to the same protections as other civil rights laws, only works if choice plays no part in it.  Bisexuality totally screws up that argument.

I've met two born homosexual men.  I have never met a bisexual man.  I've met one born Lesbian.  I have met numerous bisexual women.  Being a Lesbian to some women is no different than being a vegetarian or an animal rights activist.  It's a cause.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> DUDE, do you actually read what you post/link?
> 
> when asked if sexual orientation can be changed by therapy, the APA adamently stated NO! Then they followed up with a paragraph that says they "dont have enough proof if the therapy some have received and claim to have changed them, actually works or not"
> 
> ...


I've gone through it before. I only gave it to show a particular psychological organization's stance.

But perhaps you'd like to exactly show me where it says such a thing?  I'm not seeing it there at all.  Maybe it's because I'm blind or just missing it, but it wouldn't hurt to show me, would it?

As for the second quote you've given, what's being said is completely addressed at the conversion therapy centers themselves.  They're saying these organizations don't keep a close watch on its research or test results.

There is some choice involved whether you actually choose to engage IN sex with a person of the same gender.  As for the attraction side of it, it's not something someone just turns off and on, unless they're bisexual (I'm trying to be funny.  LAUGH DAMMIT!).


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> One doesn't have to choose to be normal.  That's _another_ poor attempt at deflection.
> 
> You can go dig through topics all day if you think it'll do you any good.  When you get finished throwing out the opinions and can provide medical/scientific evidence, feel free to post it.


I'd like to use this student written paper: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/kgiamanco.html and use the student's citations: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/gaybrain.html
http://www.genuinejeff.com/researchdata.htm (this one is admittedly biased)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2404109.stm
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1175/is_6_33/ai_66278285
just to cite  a few

And so there's a double-standard to heterosexuality?  Because it's the norm, anything else is chosen?  Right handedness is the norm, so, going on your point made, left handedness is something chosen.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Bisexuals don't bother hetrosexuals that much.  I mean in a political, figurative sense, of course. But just the notion of bisexuality really drives gay rights activists nuts.  It totally screws up their arguments because being bisexual introduces choice into the equation of gays rights legislation.
> 
> Gay rights laws are nothing more than legislating the reaction to a personal habit.  Gays are the only group in the history of the world to demand, and get, laws passed that tell others how they're supposed to react to their personal behavior.
> 
> ...


It does hurt the gay rights movement because bisexuals seem to be very indecisive on things.  But that's my opinion.

And?  All gays want is fair treatement and the right to marry their partners and get the same benefits and rights as heterosexuals do.  Don't even have to call it marriage, call it Happy Fulfillment Time for all I care.

Yes it does screw up the argument because bisexuals are indecisive!

Yeah, I've met people who have chosen to be gay and I shake my head at them because they don't understand that it makes everything look like a lie when it isn't.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I'd like to use this student written paper: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro05/web3/kgiamanco.html and use the student's citations: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
> http://www.totse.com/en/technology/science_technology/gaybrain.html
> http://www.genuinejeff.com/researchdata.htm (this one is admittedly biased)
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2404109.stm
> ...



Like I said, get rid of the opinions.  It is fact there is no scientific and/or medical evidence that supports the claim that homosexuality is hereditary.  If there was, we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?

And no, there is no double-standard.  Your argument is dishonest, simple as that.  Being right or left handed is a proven hereditary trait, and neither is considered abnormal by the medical community.

Heterosexuality is biologically normal and correct.  It's that simple, and quite frankly, I find your grasping for straws to be getting more desperate each time you try to twist one up.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> The way they are taking over Europe is by not adapting to the cultural ways of the countries they move to. They insist on  maintaining their culture in its entirty.
> It isnt like that in America.
> 
> As you stated, in france there are millions of unemployed muslims, so they simply have the opportunity to use violence to try and take over. They dont have that opportunity in AMerica.
> ...



... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.



LuvRPgrl said:


> RENEER,,,,you seem confused. How can you claim, "it *maybe that something happened while in utero that caused me to be gay" (not exact quote, but close enough for this purpose.)
> 
> THen you claim its a FACT that you were born homosexual. How can  you know its a fact if you arent even sure what causes it?
> 
> ...


*

First of all, if you are going to quote me, please actually quote me, alright? I have made no statement on this forum regarding my sexuality (at least that I can recall,) and I would appreciate it if you would retract your statements unless you can actually quote where I wrote about my sexuality. 

Moving on...

Do you have any idea how that study was done? Did you actually bother to do some research and go and find the actual study? Or did you simply see 'adopted' and immediately come to your all-knowing conclusion that the study had to be completely and utterly baseless because you thought it to be so? 

And I don't see a peep out of you in regards to the other studies. Now why is that?*


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I take it you hold a similar view to my beliefs on Social and Natural Homosexuality, then?




What are they?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Like I said, get rid of the opinions.  It is fact there is no scientific and/or medical evidence that supports the claim that homosexuality is hereditary.  If there was, we wouldn't be having this argument, would we?
> 
> And no, there is no double-standard.  Your argument is dishonest, simple as that.  Being right or left handed is a proven hereditary trait, and neither is considered abnormal by the medical community.
> 
> Heterosexuality is biologically normal and correct.  It's that simple, and quite frankly, I find your grasping for straws to be getting more desperate each time you try to twist one up.


Most of that isn't all opinions.  A belief that choosing homosexuality is an opinion and doesn't have evidence, as I've stated earlier.  I think we would still be having this argument because then people'd be saying that the evidence is flawed, etc.

Yes there is a double-standard.  You're claiming one sexual orientation is an inborn thing as opposed to two other ones because they don't go with what is normal.

The left hand/right hand argument IS very dishonest.  I admit that.  BUt it is intentionally so.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> What are they?


They're simplistic in nature.  I believe a majority of gays are born that way and they follow the order of Natural Homosexuality.  The rest were influenced in some way during their childhood or they simply chose it for reasons we don't know (or could guess) and are Social Homosexuals and are the ones who are rather full of it.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Most of that isn't all opinions.  A belief that choosing homosexuality is an opinion and doesn't have evidence, as I've stated earlier.  I think we would still be having this argument because then people'd be saying that the evidence is flawed, etc.
> 
> It would depend on the source of the evidence, yes.  Don't most things?
> Yes there is a double-standard.  You're claiming one sexual orientation is an inborn thing as opposed to two other ones because they don't go with what is normal.
> ...



Why?  You think most people cannot differentiate between factual herditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance?  I see no point in purposefully posting a dishonest argument.  It only makes YOU look bad.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Why?  You think most people cannot differentiate between factual herditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance?  I see no point in purposefully posting a dishonest argument.  It only makes YOU look bad.


Grasping?  Hardly.  Heterosexuality is, by definition, a sexual orientation.  I go by that.  If that's a problem for you, then just say so.

I know most people can differentiate between factual hereditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance.  In my point of view, your beliefs on homosexuality and heterosexuality are along the same line as the right hand/left hand argument.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> It does hurt the gay rights movement because bisexuals seem to be very indecisive on things.  But that's my opinion.
> 
> And?  All gays want is fair treatement and the right to marry their partners and get the same benefits and rights as heterosexuals do.  Don't even have to call it marriage, call it Happy Fulfillment Time for all I care.
> 
> ...



You're 18 years old.  You're too young to have any perspective on the gay rights movement.  You're also too young to be having sex of any kind, fer cryin' out loud!


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> You're 18 years old.  You're too young to have any perspective on the gay rights movement.  You're also too young to be having sex of any kind, fer cryin' out loud!


I disagree with you on those points, but that's a personal opinion.

Look, I've been sexually active since I was 17.  I agree at 17 I wasn't truly ready for sex, but that's too sad, too late.  I'm almost 19 now and I'm more mature sexually and mentally than I was at 17.  I don't feel I'm too young, but again, that's my personal opinion.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I disagree with you on those points, but that's a personal opinion.
> 
> Look, I've been sexually active since I was 17.  I agree at 17 I wasn't truly ready for sex, but that's too sad, too late.  I'm almost 19 now and I'm more mature sexually and mentally than I was at 17.  I don't feel I'm too young, but again, that's my personal opinion.



Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer this, but how many men have you had sex with so far?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I've gone through it before. I only gave it to show a particular psychological organization's stance.
> 
> But perhaps you'd like to exactly show me where it says such a thing?  I'm not seeing it there at all.  Maybe it's because I'm blind or just missing it, but it wouldn't hurt to show me, would it?!).


Here it is:"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation? 

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
which basically means, they dont know, so they will cave in to the pressures from the homosexual community so as not to suffer from them. 
ANd they fail to mention that a majority of homosexuals have their first sexual experience as a minor, with a homosexual ADULT.





Kagom said:


> As for the second quote you've given, what's being said is completely addressed at the conversion therapy centers themselves.  They're saying these organizations don't keep a close watch on its research or test results.!).


which again means they dont know, so how can they state that NO, it cant be changed. Their no should be know.



Kagom said:


> There is some choice involved whether you actually choose to engage IN sex with a person of the same gender.  As for the attraction side of it, it's not something someone just turns off and on, unless they're bisexual (I'm trying to be funny.  LAUGH DAMMIT!).



I agree that the attraction side is not a choice. But we still dont know what causes it or when it occurs.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer this, but how many men have you had sex with so far?


I wouldn't feel comfortable saying in public.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Here it is:"What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?
> 
> There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people."
> which basically means, they dont know, so they will cave in to the pressures from the homosexual community so as not to suffer from them.
> ...


Yes, it is different for each person probably, but a majority share similar reasons.  That's a theory again that I wish to pose.  Also, that's true for some, but not for all.  Only two of my four exes had a sexual experience with  an adult, but not a homosexual adult.

How they can state "No, it can't be changed" is done by examinging people who go through converstion therapy centers.  I've never met anyone who's gone through one that's changed.

That's my major thing.  It's the attraction that no one chooses.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> ... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.?



Sorry, but its a fact that muslims in Europe, by a much higher rate, are NOT adapting to the culture. I dont have the time to go bring up a report, etc. But so far, my record is pure on people challenging me on one of my stated facts that they wanted some sort of evidence to be provided. which included a claim I once made that kennedy and kerry and edwards all denied to return their tax break, even though they claimed the tax breaks for the rich are huring america.





Reneer said:


> ... First of all, if you are going to quote me, please actually quote me, alright? I have made no statement on this forum regarding my sexuality (at least that I can recall,) and I would appreciate it if you would retract your statements unless you can actually quote where I wrote about my sexuality.?



as I stated, I paraphrased. The intent was that you claim that homosexuality is a genetic thing. If I made it sound like you claimed to be born that way yourself, I didnt intend it, my apologies.





Reneer said:


> ... Moving on...
> 
> Do you have any idea how that study was done? Did you actually bother to do some research and go and find the actual study? Or did you simply see 'adopted' and immediately come to your all-knowing conclusion that the study _had_ to be completely and utterly baseless because you thought it to be so??



I read the entire link. You do realize that comparing rates of homosexuality by adoptive, fraternal and maternal twins is not going to be accurate. You do realize that fraternal twins are always the same gender as each other, but about half the time, maternal twins are different genders. That totally messes everything up. What enviormentally could cause a male to become homosexual, might not affect the female. 



Reneer said:


> ... And I don't see a peep out of you in regards to the other studies. Now why is that?



because i didnt waste my time reading them. I picked one, it was bad and bogus. Nobody really challenged it, but I instinctively knew it was problematic, and then when thinking on it, realized mathematically and socially how it couldnt be accurate. By the way, I have maternal twins, boy and a girl. 
Lastly, it was determined by sheer numbers, that the birth order has a higher predictability than other methods of determining if a guy is going to be homosexual or not. Now that would lend one to believe its enviormental, since the birth order of siblings is an entire science of its own, and its well known, that they way the siblings and parents interact with each other is highly determined by their birth order.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Sorry, but its a fact that muslims in Europe, by a much higher rate, are NOT adapting to the culture. I dont have the time to go bring up a report, etc. But so far, my record is pure on people challenging me on one of my stated facts that they wanted some sort of evidence to be provided. which included a claim I once made that kennedy and kerry and edwards all denied to return their tax break, even though they claimed the tax breaks for the rich are huring america.



Alright, assuming you are correct in your statement, I would envision a reason that the Muslim population in Europe is conforming less to the culture is because, even today, moving to America (I assume) is much more of a task - completely different culture, etc. However it also appears to be the case that Muslims in America are conforming more to the overall American culture.



LuvRPgrl said:


> as I stated, I paraphrased. The intent was that you claim that homosexuality is a genetic thing. If I made it sound like you claimed to be born that way yourself, I didnt intend it, my apologies.



And I apologize if I seemed angry/irate at your words, which I was, but it seems we both miscommunicated, and the waters are hopefully calmer now since we have figured that out.



LuvRPgrl said:


> I read the entire link. You do realize that comparing rates of homosexuality by adoptive, fraternal and maternal twins is not going to be accurate. You do realize that fraternal twins are always the same gender as each other, but about half the time, maternal twins are different genders. That totally messes everything up. What enviormentally could cause a male to become homosexual, might not affect the female.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I haven't claimed that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature - the twin study lends some support that it may be related to genetics (whether or not the study is correct in its conclusion is debatable) - but the other studies I linked to give credence to the idea that the hormonal situation within the womb during gestation will cause the child to be born as a homosexual (this also is related to the older-brother theory/study you mentioned - the older the mother is the more likely something will happen that is not 'normal' such as a child being born with Down's Syndrome.)

I believe that homosexuality - whatever the reason, be it genetics, hormones, or environment, or a combination of the three - isn't nearly as detrimental to someone's health, physical or otherwise, as many would make it out to be. Case in point: I have several friends who are homosexual, and they are all mentally and physically healthy (as far as I know, of course.)


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> ... you may be correct that Muslims in America send money back to their families, but everything else you say is complete and utter conjecture. If you provide some news articles that support your conjecture you may have a better case.



well, it didnt take long. Very first google hit:
"Assimilation. Some Muslims born in Europe become secularized and adjust well enough to succeed academically and financially in their countries, says Mark LeVine, associate professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Middle Eastern history specialist. Some, he says, become "Muslim yuppies," join the native-born elite, and are held up as success stories for their communities. However, this group makes up only a small percentage of Muslims in Europe"

along with this:
"Cultural polarization. Many Christian and secular Europeans have grown increasingly wary of Muslim immigration. Meanwhile, some European Muslims respond to the perceived moral permissiveness of Western culture by trying "to assert Muslim culture aggressively and maintain the boundaries around Islam," says Akbar Ahmed, chairman of Islamic Studies at the American University in Washington, DC"

then there is thisfrom the SF Chronicle:

" Most Arabs in the United States, such as Ralph Nader, are not 
Muslims "

by the way, do you notice that there are a number of stringently anti homosexuals in this thread, but none are hateful towards the one openly homosexual? So much for homophobia being the label to be used on all who are opposed to accepting homosexuality as "normal"


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 24, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Alright, assuming you are correct in your statement, I would envision a reason that the Muslim population in Europe is conforming less to the culture is because, even today, moving to America (I assume) is much more of a task - completely different culture, etc. However it also appears to be the case that Muslims in America are conforming more to the overall American culture..)


another reason is that America is already the melting pot of cultures. They can pick and choose which aspects of it they want to adopt, and they will still fit in and be "american", whereas in european countries, generally, lets take Germany as an example, if they are even partially "non german" then it is obvious and they are labeled as not assimilating.





Reneer said:


> And I apologize if I seemed angry/irate at your words, which I was, but it seems we both miscommunicated, and the waters are hopefully calmer now since we have figured that out..)


accepted.





Reneer said:


> I haven't claimed that homosexuality is purely genetic in nature - the twin study lends some support that it may be related to genetics (whether or not the study is correct in its conclusion is debatable) - but the other studies I linked to give credence to the idea that the hormonal situation within the womb during gestation will cause the child to be born as a homosexual (this also is related to the older-brother theory/study you mentioned - the older the mother is the more likely something will happen that is not 'normal' such as a child being born with Down's Syndrome.).)


within the womb is enviormental, not genetic.



Reneer said:


> I believe that homosexuality - whatever the reason, be it genetics, hormones, or environment, or a combination of the three - isn't nearly as detrimental to someone's health, physical or otherwise, as many would make it out to be. Case in point: I have several friends who are homosexual, and they are all mentally and physically healthy (as far as I know, of course.)


.)actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 24, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> well, it didnt take long. Very first google hit:
> "Assimilation. Some Muslims born in Europe become secularized and adjust well enough to succeed academically and financially in their countries, says Mark LeVine, associate professor of history at the University of California, Irvine, and a Middle Eastern history specialist. Some, he says, become "Muslim yuppies," join the native-born elite, and are held up as success stories for their communities. However, this group makes up only a small percentage of Muslims in Europe"
> 
> along with this:
> ...



I accede to the articles you have quoted from. And I have noted that many of those who oppose homosexuality in this thread have been very civil - but I have also seen others on this forum who are anything but towards homosexuals. And I certanly haven't called anyone on this forum a homophobe - though I may have thought it really, really loudly. :



LuvRPgrl said:


> another reason is that America is already the melting pot of cultures. They can pick and choose which aspects of it they want to adopt, and they will still fit in and be "american", whereas in european countries, generally, lets take Germany as an example, if they are even partially "non german" then it is obvious and they are labeled as not assimilating.



I agree with you wholeheartedly on this. America is much more accepting towards immigrants than Europe. I have some personal experience with this, having been in France recently. They don't seem to like Americans too much.



LuvRPgrl said:


> actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.



Well, I believe the mental instability is caused more by the culture in which the homosexual grows up - if they are in an environment that condemns them, of course it is going to cause mental health problems such as depression. And in regards to health problems / life expectancy, everyone can get AIDS or any other STD if they aren't careful, though it would seem that the gay culture is still playing catch-up in safety and whatnot.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 25, 2006)

Reneer said:


> 1. Simply because France is 'weak' does not mean that it is an indicator for the rest of Europe, unless you also consider the rest of Europe to be 'weak' like you consider France to be.
> 2. ... because people don't always practice what is in their religious books? I don't see many Jews or Christians following the rules laid out in Leviticus today. The books may not change, but the rules and guidelines that people follow do. Yes there are some passages in the Koran that advocate the conversion of all non-Muslims to Islam - but if the people who practice Islam don't choose to follow those passages, then it doesn't matter if the passages are even in the book at all. People who follow radical Islam are choosing to follow these passages, while many in Islam do not follow them, but the radicals exist only because the moderates allow them to do so.



1. Yes, the rest of Europe is weak, with France being the weakest.
2. I can't speak for the Jews, but we Christians are followers of Jesus, wo by fullfilling Scripture, makes the passages in Leviticus that you refer to obsolete. Islam has no such Savior. Therefore if you are a true follower of Islam then you will spread it by the sword.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. Yes, the rest of Europe is weak, with France being the weakest.
> 2. I can't speak for the Jews, but we Christians are followers of Jesus, wo by fullfilling Scripture, makes the passages in Leviticus that you refer to obsolete. Islam has no such Savior. Therefore if you are a true follower of Islam then you will spread it by the sword.


If you don't mind me speaking up, it depends on the Jewish sect.  Some do follow Leviticus closely and some don't.  Hasidic and Orthodox Jews will  be more apt to follow it closely and it is seen in their Synagogues when they separate males from females as well as dress traditionally (at least the Hasidic sect does).  Conservative Jews, however, are quite liberal with their following of Leviticus.  They pretty much stick to the parts of kosher dieting as far as following Leviticus is concerned.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> If you don't mind me speaking up, it depends on the Jewish sect.  Some do follow Leviticus closely and some don't.  Hasidic and Orthodox Jews will  be more apt to follow it closely ....


  I'm glad that you did. Do they do animal sacrifices?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I'm glad that you did. Do they do animal sacrifices?


That I don't know.  I just know a general overview.  I believe the Hasidic sect might still do it.  I'd have to research further on that one!


----------



## jillian (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That I don't know.  I just know a general overview.  I believe the Hasidic sect might still do it.  I'd have to research further on that one!



They don't. Animal sacrifice was only permissible in the Temple. Once it was destroyed, all sacrifices had to cease until it's rebuilt.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

jillian said:


> They don't. Animal sacrifice was only permissible in the Temple. Once it was destroyed, all sacrifices had to cease until it's rebuilt.


Thanks for helping out, Jillian


----------



## ErikViking (Sep 25, 2006)

AND THE OLD MAN SAYS:

"Animal sacrifice before pleasure."


----------



## jillian (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Thanks for helping out, Jillian




No worries.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Grasping?  Hardly.  Heterosexuality is, by definition, a sexual orientation.  I go by that.  If that's a problem for you, then just say so.
> 
> Heterosexuality is a natural, biological function.  It requires no definition unless compared to something UNnatural which serves NO biological function.
> 
> I know most people can differentiate between factual hereditary traits and pure conjecture to support a stance.  In my point of view, your beliefs on homosexuality and heterosexuality are along the same line as the right hand/left hand argument.



Then you would be incorrect in your assessment, comparing apples to oranges.  One is a proven hereditary trait, the other a behavior supported only by opinion and no factual evidence.  Your argument is invalid.

What you REALLY don't like about my argument is it rejects your argument.

However, I did not return to this thread to continue talking to the wall; rather, to make a point, having seen your thread on Catholics.  It is the second thread in which you whine about people pointing out your deviant sexual orientation.

One, you define yourself by it.  No one knew you were gay until you came on this board ensuring everyone knew just exactly who and what you are.  I can't recall once seeing anyone make a point of announcing thier sexual orientation EXCEPT homosexuals.

I basically quit looking at threads where you've been because I already KNOW what they're about.  EVERY one.  I even went so far as to ask once if you knew how to talk about anything else.

Point being, man your colors or furl them.  You want to have your cake and eat it too.  And THAT is the problem the majority has with homosexual agenda.  You want to flaunt your aberrant sexual behavior in our faces; yet, you start whining when you get shit thrown back at you.

Is that ALL you are?  A homosexual?  Or can you possibly debate an issue without bringing it up?  Because if that's all you're about, you ain't much of nuthin, and I would say the same thing to ANYONE who defined themselves as a person by a single aspect of their behavior.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 25, 2006)

> actualll, statistically, its disasterous to be homosexual. Life expectency, rate of diseases and health problems, and mental instability are all not favorable on the homosexual side.



So is drinking alcohol; being left-handed; having a diet low in fruits and vegetables, and fiber; smoking; many other things.


----------



## Annie (Sep 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> So is drinking alcohol; being left-handed; having a diet low in fruits and vegetables, and fiber; smoking; many other things.



You are quoting whom, from where?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Then you would be incorrect in your assessment, comparing apples to oranges.  One is a proven hereditary trait, the other a behavior supported only by opinion and no factual evidence.  Your argument is invalid.
> 
> What you REALLY don't like about my argument is it rejects your argument.
> 
> ...


I don't dislike your argument because it rejects mine.  I dislike it because I feel it's invalid.  Heterosexuality is a proven hereditary trait: yes.  Because it's the norm, but I believe homosexuality is a reaction of nature and somewhat nurture in regards to the womb.  It's something one doesn't choose.

In that particular thread, it was not something being discussed and was brought up to make an invalid point.  In fact, the commentary that was directed at me was quite unnecessary as has been pointed out by not just myself, but by others.  And I didn't bring it up out of the blue like "OMG!  LOL!  I'M GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"  It was brought up in a discussion on homosexuality and I brought it up to show that it had a bit of an effect on how I felt towards the topic.  And I have talked about other things, if you haven't completely noticed.  I've talked a bit about the Middle East, I've talked about the baby Ada in that thread, I've responded to issues regarding illegal immigration, so on and so forth.  You choose to view what threads I posted in and, admittedly, they're predominantly homosexual related.  But that correlates with my feeling to defend myself and other homosexuals as best I can.

I whine when people act like assholes about the subject or if they bring it up in a thread that has NOTHING to do with it.  And as for "whining", I actually debate and come back with rebuttal.  That's not whining.

I'm an actor.  I'm a writer.  I'm a fan of mythology and religion.  If people want to know more about me, they need only ask.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> So is drinking alcohol; being left-handed; having a diet low in fruits and vegetables, and fiber; smoking; many other things.



http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I don't dislike your argument because it rejects mine.  I dislike it because I feel it's invalid.  Heterosexuality is a proven hereditary trait: yes.  Because it's the norm, but I believe homosexuality is a reaction of nature and somewhat nurture in regards to the womb.  It's something one doesn't choose.
> 
> However, that is your "belief," as stated in your own words, not fact based on evidence.
> 
> ...



If you are going to post in predominantly homosexual-related threads, and define yourself as a homosexual, expect to take the criticism that goes with that stance.

This is a predominantly conservative board and homosexuality is disliked if not outright rejected in varying degrees.  Know your audience, actor. 

And I don't care what your personal interests are.  That wasn't my point at all.  Just wondering if you are capable of carrying on a debate without it regressing into your sexual behavior.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> If you are going to post in predominantly homosexual-related threads, and define yourself as a homosexual, expect to take the criticism that goes with that stance.
> 
> This is a predominantly conservative board and homosexuality is disliked if not outright rejected in varying degrees.  Know your audience, actor.
> 
> And I don't care what your personal interests are.  That wasn't my point at all.  Just wondering if you are capable of carrying on a debate without it regressing into your sexual behavior.


And?  People here give out their theories on this topic that have no evidence.

I'm quite aware what it entails with.  I have no problem with it.

I'm also aware of that.  Big deal.  It never hurts to have the opposing side's thoughts and views.

But they define me as a person and it goes to answer if I solely label myself as gay.  I am capable of carrying on a discussion without it regressing to my sexual behavior, but usually I'm not the one who brings it up.  If you pay attention, others will bring it up in threads not pertaining to homosexuality.


----------



## CTRLALTDEL (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> He doesn't have any and his argument has been shot completely to shit more than once.




Here is an experience I had 16 year ago.  A nephew of mine showed signs of FEMINE behavior when he was just four years old.  He was very much into girl stuff.  Now today (20 years old) he is a full blown homosexual.  How does a kid learn to become the opposite sex at 4 to 5 years old unless it was programmed into them already.  I've also seen homosexual behavior in dogs.  I've seen a female dog which refuses to be humped by a male but instead tries to hump a female.  Did the dog learn homosexuality as well?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/relativist-fallacy.html



You better review the sequence and explain the relevancy of your link.  Someone said that being homosexual was unhealthy as it that would be a reason to not have homosexuality.  I was explaining that many people participate in activities or have conditions that are unhealthy.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> And?  People here give out their theories on this topic that have no evidence.
> 
> Full-circle.  They don't claim homosexuality is anything more than what can be proven by factual evidence.  That currently would be a behavior which is documented.
> 
> ...



They don't know you from Adam.  YOU defined yourself.  I know I didn't come on this board and first post announce that I am a heterosexual male.  Haven't seen anyone else do it.  However, we ALL know who the homosexuals are within hours if not minutes.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> You better review the sequence and explain the relevancy of your link.  Someone said that being homosexual was unhealthy as it that would be a reason to not have homosexuality.  I was explaining that many people participate in activities or have conditions that are unhealthy.



I just picked one of the 42 since ALL fallacious arguments apply to you.  

Once again you are comparing irrelevant behavior, some that only YOU find abnormal, to homosexuality.  Just your usual, relativist, bullshit argument.

DO try to let the homosexual guy speak for himself without dragging the conversation down into the pits of relativist Hell where all your debates end up.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> They don't know you from Adam.  YOU defined yourself.  I know I didn't come on this board and first post announce that I am a heterosexual male.  Haven't seen anyone else do it.  However, we ALL know who the homosexuals are within hours if not minutes.


They claim it's a choice all the way.  That hasn't been proven true yet.  They also claim people can change and that's only proven by extremely biased sources.

I did define myself and, again, it was in a discussion in which I said who I am to help support why I felt that way.  And you probably STILL wouldn't know if I hadn't slipped up to help justify  my feelings on the subject.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> They claim it's a choice all the way.  That hasn't been proven true yet.  They also claim people can change and that's only proven by extremely biased sources.
> 
> Behavior is choice.  It requires a conscious decision to engage in conscious behavior.  That IS supported by fact.
> 
> I did define myself and, again, it was in a discussion in which I said who I am to help support why I felt that way.  And you probably STILL wouldn't know if I hadn't slipped up to help justify  my feelings on the subject.



Well thank you God .... he's finally seen the damned light.  By accident I am sure.  You're damned right I wouldn't know.  Neither would anyone else; which, is exactly my point, and exactly how it should be.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Well thank you God .... he's finally seen the damned light.  By accident I am sure.  You're damned right I wouldn't know.  Neither would anyone else; which, is exactly my point, and exactly how it should be.


Attraction isn't choice, Gunny.  To act on it is.  Whenever I say "born with it" or "genetic" or anyting like that, I'm talking about the attraction.

You can't turn back the clock, Gunny.  We all know now and there's not a lot we can do about it.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Attraction isn't choice, Gunny.  To act on it is.  Whenever I say "born with it" or "genetic" or anyting like that, I'm talking about the attraction.
> 
> I disagree.  For whatever reason, you have chosen to go against nature.  Acting out an impulse rather than doing what you know is the right thing to do has set you on a path you cannot turn back from.
> 
> You can't turn back the clock, Gunny.  We all know now and there's not a lot we can do about it.



Well, yeah .... you could just shut up about it and not take every little bit of bait slung your way.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Well, yeah .... you could just shut up about it and not take every little bit of bait slung your way.


I am doing what I know is right.  My knowing what is right is different than yours.

I try not to for the most part, but sometimes we can't avoid things, as it's apart of human nature.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I am doing what I know is right.  My knowing what is right is different than yours.
> 
> The basic fallacy of your argument.  You aren't defying _me_.  You're defying _nature_.
> 
> I try not to for the most part, but sometimes we can't avoid things, as it's apart of human nature.



Really?  I'd say it's got a WHOLE lot more to do with ego and pride than "human nature."  Human nature is to survive and perpetuate the species.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 25, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Really?  I'd say it's got a WHOLE lot more to do with ego and pride than "human nature."  Human nature is to survive and perpetuate the species.


That's apart of human nature too.  We're naturally egotistical and full of pride.  Some of us are good at overcoming it and some of us aren't.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 25, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That's apart of human nature too.  We're naturally egotistical and full of pride.  Some of us are good at overcoming it and some of us aren't.



You would be incorrect.  You seem to have a difficult time differentiating between inherited and learned traits.

It's human nature to seek shelter, warmth, and food, and to perpetuate the species.

Pride and egotism are learned traits.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> You better review the sequence and explain the relevancy of your link.  Someone said that being homosexual was unhealthy as it that would be a reason to not have homosexuality.  I was explaining that many people participate in activities or have conditions that are unhealthy.



Yea, and its a good reason not to do those other activities also. So whats your point?


----------



## nt250 (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> You better review the sequence and explain the relevancy of your link.  Someone said that being homosexual was unhealthy as it that would be a reason to not have homosexuality.  I was explaining that many people participate in activities or have conditions that are unhealthy.




The difference is that other people who perform unhealthy acts don't expect the rest of us to celebrate it.  Gays do expect and demand just that.

Smoking is a good analogy except it's the opposite of gay rights laws.  Small minded people who think the world revolves around them have managed to get laws passed that stop a personal behavior.  Gays have gotten laws passed that tell others they are breaking the law if they don't accept the personal behavior of homosexuals.

A teacher can be openly gay, but heaven forbid she smokes.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I just picked one of the 42 since ALL fallacious arguments apply to you.
> 
> Once again you are comparing irrelevant behavior, some that only YOU find abnormal, to homosexuality.  Just your usual, relativist, bullshit argument.
> 
> DO try to let the homosexual guy speak for himself without dragging the conversation down into the pits of relativist Hell where all your debates end up.



Im knowledgeable about the subject Relativist (Subjectivist) Fallacy.  Relativism, as described in the link that you provided suggests that what might be bad for you might not be bad for me. It is similar to the Superman complex.  I am not committing that error.  Im not saying that homosexuality is not risky for me, or you, or anyone else.  I am not different than anyone else.  Ill go as far as to say that if I engage in promiscuous homosexual behavior, Im more likely to get ill than if I were to engage in equally promiscuous heterosexual behavior.  I am saying that people should be free to take such risks just as people take risks with other behaviors.  The cost/benefit risk/reward of activity is relative to other activity.  There must be a comparison.  One cant merely say, Homosexual behavior is dangerous and, therefore, should be outlawed. It is dangerous compared to what? If we were to have no measuring device or means for comparison then we would have to outlaw any and all risky behavior or permit any and all risky behavior.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

nt250 said:


> The difference is that other people who perform unhealthy acts don't expect the rest of us to celebrate it.  Gays do expect and demand just that.



Do gays demand that we celebrate homosexual behavior?  How did you reach that conclusion?  Do you have a link to such a statement? Many gay people want, at the very least, civil unions for gay couples so that gay couples have the same degree of access to the benefits that married couples receive.  I dont see that they demand that we celebrate homosexual activity.  Even if laws were passed allowing gay marriage, it does not follow that I would be forced to celebrate homosexual behavior.  Abortion is allowed.  Im not celebrating abortion. 



> Smoking is a good analogy except it's the opposite of gay rights laws.  Small minded people who think the world revolves around them have managed to get laws passed that stop a personal behavior.  Gays have gotten laws passed that tell others they are breaking the law if they don't accept the personal behavior of homosexuals.



Please be more specific about the use of the term accept.  Are you referring to the laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color (a genetic condition), religion (a choice), sex or national origin? I accept that people are trying to get sexual orientation included in the list of things for which people cant be discriminated against. I doubt that they have succeeded.  Even if they have succeeded, I dont see that my non-discrimination against gays necessarily follows that I accept homosexual behavior. Again, where is it written that that I must accept the personal behavior of anyone?


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Do gays demand that we celebrate homosexual behavior?  How did you reach that conclusion?  ?



Yea, in LAUSD, the LARGEST school district in the world, they have gay pride month, all the way down to the lower elementary grades.

As for your quote, that just because homosexual behavior may be dangerous, doesnt mean we should make it illegal, PLEASE show me who here said it should be illegal.

You think you are mr debater, and know all the "fallacious",Relativist (Subjectivist) Fallacy terms and definitions. Well, trust me, I could easily go toe to toe with you in that arena, but this is a PUBLIC forum. MOST here dont go into in depth study of philosophy and debate. You need to learn to talk at a persons level. I have read books where the first sentence I needed to look up half the words. I simply put the book down. Using large words and knowledgable definitions doesnt make one smarter, or right in the arguement.

Trust me, just on canonical philosophy alone, one could go into the depths of theory, policiics, rhetoric, Nichomacean ethics and so on and so on. Many people spend their entire lives devoted to just studying one of those areas, and if you were to go up against them in a debate, you would be left slacked jaw. Nobody here is impressed with how much education one has, but more how much of a decent arguement one has, and we dont need lectures in every post on what relativism and straw man (as your 'it shouldn't be illegal' arguement is) arguements are.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Do gays demand that we celebrate homosexual behavior?  How did you reach that conclusion?  Do you have a link to such a statement? Many gay people want, at the very least, civil unions for gay couples so that gay couples have the same degree of access to the benefits that married couples receive.  I dont see that they demand that we celebrate homosexual activity.  Even if laws were passed allowing gay marriage, it does not follow that I would be forced to celebrate homosexual behavior.  Abortion is allowed.  Im not celebrating abortion.
> 
> 
> 
> Please be more specific about the use of the term accept.  Are you referring to the laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color (a genetic condition), religion (a choice), sex or national origin? I accept that people are trying to get sexual orientation included in the list of things for which people cant be discriminated against. I doubt that they have succeeded.  Even if they have succeeded, I dont see that my non-discrimination against gays necessarily follows that I accept homosexual behavior. Again, where is it written that that I must accept the personal behavior of anyone?



Marriage is a privledge. It has many tax benefits to promote people to have kids, because having kids is a burden and costly. A society needs to reproduce to remain.
    So, why should a homosexual couple get the benefits of a marriage (tax breaks etc) that a single person shouldnt.?
And dont give me that, "old people who cant have kids can marry, etc" I think you are too smart for that stupid kindergarten reply.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> Marriage is a privledge. It has many tax benefits to promote people to have kids, because having kids is a burden and costly. A society needs to reproduce to remain.
> So, why should a homosexual couple get the benefits of a marriage (tax breaks etc) that a single person shouldnt.?
> And dont give me that, "old people who cant have kids can marry, etc" I think you are too smart for that stupid kindergarten reply.


The state allows barren couples to marry, y'know.  Marriage, as a term in American law and standards, doesn't require procreation as a reason for marriage.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

CTRLALTDEL said:


> Here is an experience I had 16 year ago.  A nephew of mine showed signs of FEMINE behavior when he was just four years old.  He was very much into girl stuff.  Now today (20 years old) he is a full blown homosexual.  How does a kid learn to become the opposite sex at 4 to 5 years old unless it was programmed into them already.  I've also seen homosexual behavior in dogs.  I've seen a female dog which refuses to be humped by a male but instead tries to hump a female.  Did the dog learn homosexuality as well?



Screwed up parenting in both instances.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

nt250 said:


> ......
> 
> A teacher can be openly gay, but heaven forbid she smokes.


   Awesome!


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Screwed up parenting in both instances.


I hope to God you're kidding.

1.) You don't know how the parents raised the child.  For all you know, they could've been the great example of a Christian family.  It happens, you know.

2.) How can animals screw up parenting?  They do what's natural to them.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I hope to God you're kidding.
> 
> 1.) You don't know how the parents raised the child.  For all you know, they could've been the great example of a Christian family.  It happens, you know.
> 
> 2.) How can animals screw up parenting?  They do what's natural to them.



I thought you didn't believe in God.

1. I know that the parents ignored the child's abnormal developmen, per the statement made.
2. There is nothing natural about screwed up parenting- by dogs or humans.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Screwed up parenting in both instances.



Whenever I hear someone spout off 'screwed up parenting' for anything, I am always reminded of how Autism was originally thought of as being caused by a 'refrigerator mother.' Then the medical community figured out that it was more complicated than that. I believe science will come up with a better explanation of homosexuality than simply 'society / parents did it to them.'


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> I thought you didn't believe in God.
> 
> 1. I know that the parents ignored the child's abnormal developmen, per the statement made.
> 2. There is nothing natural about screwed up parenting- by dogs or humans.


Obviously very few people listen to what I actually say.  I'm a deist.  I believe there is a god.

1.) There is no mentioning of the child's "abnormal development" being ignored.  I believe you should keep your mouth shut until CTRLALTDEL actually gives more perspective into how the parents felt towarwds things and treated the child.  Don't make speculations on things like this.

2.) Okay, what do you not understand about animals not being able to screw up parenting?  They only follow their natural instincts in parenting.


----------



## CockySOB (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> The state allows barren couples to marry, y'know.  Marriage, as a term in American law and standards, doesn't require procreation as a reason for marriage.



No, but the current definition of marriage has been the accepted definition for what... centuries?  Millenia?  

Remember, the law is a representation of codified societal norms that a society chooses to live by.  As societies change, sometimes the laws change with them, and sometimes they do not.

Neither here nor there I guess, just commenting on your reference to marriage in legal codes.....


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

CockySOB said:


> No, but the current definition of marriage has been the accepted definition for what... centuries?  Millenia?
> 
> Remember, the law is a representation of codified societal norms that a society chooses to live by.  As societies change, sometimes the laws change with them, and sometimes they do not.
> 
> Neither here nor there I guess, just commenting on your reference to marriage in legal codes.....



Slavery and segregation were codified societal norms as well. Doesn't make it right and doesn't mean laws shouldn't be re-evaluated.


----------



## CockySOB (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> That's apart of human nature too.  We're naturally egotistical and full of pride.  Some of us are good at overcoming it and some of us aren't.



Sorry, but I gotta agree with Gunny on this.  Pride and its effects on ego are a direct result of environment, hence a learned behaviour.  The instinct for fight or flight would be an example of a naturally occuring behaviour pattern.  Now, that being said, natural behaviours can be overcome or conditioned into other responses via learning and environmental factors, so simply writing something off as "natural" is short-sighted as it denies the ability of the higher-self to overcome primal urges.


----------



## CockySOB (Sep 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> Slavery and segregation were codified societal norms as well. Doesn't make it right and doesn't mean laws shouldn't be re-evaluated.



Agreed, which is why I included a statement about how as society changes, the laws change to reflect society's change.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Whenever I hear someone spout off 'screwed up parenting' for anything, I am always reminded of how Autism was originally thought of as being caused by a 'refrigerator mother.' Then the medical community figured out that it was more complicated than that. I believe science will come up with a better explanation of homosexuality than simply 'society / parents did it to them.'



Science has been working on this one for a while now, and so far, no evidence of genetics. It is well known that many homosexuals in fact have made a choice, and it is up to parents to help their kids make the right choices.


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

CockySOB said:


> Agreed, which is why I included a statement about how as society changes, the laws change to reflect society's change.



You did at that. I was commenting more because of your initial comment about the codification of mores. But fair enough.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Science has been working on this one for a while now, and so far, no evidence of genetics. It is well known that many homosexuals in fact have made a choice, and it is up to parents to help their kids make the right choices.


The choice to engage in sex is a choice.  To be attracted to people of the opposite or same sex, however, isn't.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Obviously very few people listen to what I actually say.  I'm a deist.  I believe there is a god.
> 
> 1.) There is no mentioning of the child's "abnormal development" being ignored.  I believe you should keep your mouth shut until CTRLALTDEL actually gives more perspective into how the parents felt towarwds things and treated the child.  Don't make speculations on things like this.
> 
> 2.) Okay, what do you not understand about animals not being able to screw up parenting?  They only follow their natural instincts in parenting.



Yes, I remember now. Sorry.

1. No reason to get rude. It is obvious that the parents screwed up based on the result. Very simple.
2. So dogs and surrogate human parents can't do wrong, and their offspring cannot learn. Is that your position?


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> It is obvious that the parents screwed up based on the result. Very simple.



So the Cheney's screwed up?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> The choice to engage in sex is a choice.  To be attracted to people of the opposite or same sex, however, isn't.


  Incorrect, as there have been many examples of people engaing in homosexual affairs in their younger years, only to become involved in a heterosexual affair later on. A famous example is Ellen Degeneres' babe (what's her name?). I have witnessed several college friends who did the exact same thing.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Yes, I remember now. Sorry.
> 
> 1. No reason to get rude. It is obvious that the parents screwed up based on the result. Very simple.
> 2. So dogs and surrogate human parents can't do wrong, and their offspring cannot learn. Is that your position?


1.) Sorry to come off as rude, but I get annoyed by people who make assumptions on parenting without first know any of the facts, as you're still doing.

2.) I'm not talking about humans, I'm talking about other creatures within the kingdom animalia.  Humans are more interactive with their children's upbringing and are therefore liable to screw up in raising a child.  Animals don't so much as raise their young as they do instruct them in the ways of their specific species.  Animals can't really screw up parenting unless you magically make them alcoholics or something.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> So the Cheney's screwed up?


 Most likely. I believe that most homosexuals have made their choice, not all. I also belive that a minority like Kagom have been somehow affected in the womb, just as he claims.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Incorrect, as there have been many examples of people engaing in homosexual affairs in their younger years, only to become involved in a heterosexual affair later on. A famous example is Ellen Degeneres' babe (what's her name?). I have witnessed several college friends who did the exact same thing.


Anne Heche?  HAHAHAHA!  I needed a damn good laugh.  Thanks!  Anne Heche doesn't know what the fuck she is.  You can't even use her as an example.

And?  People are at times experimenting.  True attraction doesn't change and isn't a choice.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> 1.) Sorry to come off as rude, but I get annoyed by people who make assumptions on parenting without first know any of the facts, as you're still doing.
> 
> 2.) I'm not talking about humans, I'm talking about other creatures within the kingdom animalia.  Humans are more interactive with their children's upbringing and are therefore liable to screw up in raising a child.  Animals don't so much as raise their young as they do instruct them in the ways of their specific species.  Animals can't really screw up parenting unless you magically make them alcoholics or something.



1. Look, I grew up when that Dr. Spock book came out, and parents were told to let their kids do their own thing. My Mom tried it breifly, only to be nixed, thank God, by Dad. He belived that we were to be brought up like he was, which is how my siblings and I all were, all 5 of us. My parents have been married 51 years, the oldest child almost 30, the youngest 15. No divorces, and no gay grandkids. My Dad was right.

2. You were talking about a domestic dog, which is affected by humans. If you want to study animal behaivior then you need to go into the wild somewhere. Now you are just spinning your argument. Admit that you are wrong, that I am right, and move on. Or lose credibility.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Anne Heche?  HAHAHAHA!  I needed a damn good laugh.  Thanks!  Anne Heche doesn't know what the f[] she is.  You can't even use her as an example....



Are you now doing what you accused me of earlier?


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. Look, I grew up when that Dr. Spock book came out, and parents were told to let their kids do their own thing. My Mom tried it breifly, only to be nixed, thank God, by Dad. He belived that we were to be brought up like he was, which is how my siblings and I all were, all 5 of us. My parents have been married 51 years, the oldest child almost 30, the youngest 15. No divorces, and no gay grandkids. My Dad was right.
> 
> 2. You were talking about a domestic dog, which is affected by humans. If you want to study animal behaivior then you need to go into the wild somewhere. Now you are just spinning your argument. Admit that you are wrong, that I am right, and move on. Or lose credibility.



Homosexuality occurs in the wild all the time. Remember the gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo?


By the by, studies have indicated that for women, it does appear to be a choice of sorts.... but that doesn't hold true for males.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. Look, I grew up when that Dr. Spock book came out, and parents were told to let their kids do their own thing. My Mom tried it breifly, only to be nixed, thank God, by Dad. He belived that we were to be brought up like he was, which is how my siblings and I all were, all 5 of us. My parents have been married 51 years, the oldest child almost 30, the youngest 15. No divorces, and no gay grandkids. My Dad was right.
> 
> 2. You were talking about a domestic dog, which is affected by humans. If you want to study animal behaivior then you need to go into the wild somewhere. Now you are just spinning your argument. Admit that you are wrong, that I am right, and move on. Or lose credibility.


1.) When you grew up.  You're probably older than the person mentioned, and they probably had a different parenting style.  And no gay grandkids you know of yet.  It's not like homosexuality runs rampant everywhere.

2.) I'm not spinning anything.  I had been talking about the domestic dog from the get-go.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Are you now doing what you accused me of earlier?


I'm not doing anything other than laughing my ass off that someone brought up Anne Heche.  The woman really is crazy.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> Homosexuality occurs in the wild all the time. Remember the gay penguins at the Central Park Zoo?.....



Am I the only one who notices this gap in logic?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> 1.) When you grew up.  You're probably older than the person mentioned, and they probably had a different parenting style.  And no gay grandkids you know of yet.  It's not like homosexuality runs rampant everywhere.
> 
> 2.) I'm not spinning anything.  I had been talking about the domestic dog from the get-go.


1. You appear to be making my agument for me.
2. You are following the same train of logic evident in post 184.


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Am I the only one who notices this gap in logic?



You were the one opining that homosexuality had something to do with parenting, not I. I thought that was pretty goofy... 

or are you saying that living in a zoo = parenting? lol..... know much about animals?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Am I the only one who notices this gap in logic?


Shhh...don't point it out, okay?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. You appear to be making my agument for me.
> 2. You are following the same train of logic evident in post 184.


1.) And?  I never said it runs rampant in families or anything like that.  There is a chance you do have a gay relative and just don't know it yet.

2.) Not at all.  I specifcally talked about the domestic dog from the very first point I made.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> You were the one opining that homosexuality had something to do with parenting, not I. I thought that was pretty goofy...
> 
> or are you saying that living in a zoo = parenting? lol..... know much about animals?


  Re-read the first two lines of your post again. If I still then need to explain it to you, then ask Kagom.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Shhh...don't point it out, okay?


 I'll let you do it.


----------



## jillian (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Re-read the first two lines of your post again. If I still then need to explain it to you, then ask Kagom.




I know exactly what I said... but if that kind of game makes you feel better about yourself.... no prob....

But given the quality of your "arguments" I guess it's all you've got ...... lol....


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> 1.) And?  I never said it runs rampant in families or anything like that.  There is a chance you do have a gay relative and just don't know it yet.
> 
> 2.) Not at all.  I specifcally talked about the domestic dog from the very first point I made.



1. I was opening up the parenting topic to more than just homosexuality. It's not the only trait in the basket, you know. And I assure you- no gay grandkids. We've got them all over the political spectrum, even a socialist and a anarchist, but no gays.

2. Do I have to be blunt? Domestic is not nature.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

jillian said:


> I know exactly what I said... but if that kind of game makes you feel better about yourself.... no prob....
> 
> But given the quality of your "arguments" I guess it's all you've got ...... lol....



OK Kagom: she needs your help.:fifty:


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. I was opening up the parenting topic to more than just homosexuality. It's not the only trait in the basket, you know. And I assure you- no gay grandkids. We've got them all over the political spectrum, even a socialist and a anarchist, but no gays.
> 
> 2. Do I have to be blunt? Domestic is not nature.


1.) Oh, my bad.  Sorry about that then.

2.) Then let's get together and do a study in the wild.  Or just pay someone else to do it since we both have lives.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> .....Then let's get together and do a study in the wild.  ......


  Sorry, I'm not that kind of girl. And I thought you were gay?


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> It's human nature ... to perpetuate the species.



Is it human nature to choose to not have children  to not perpetuate the species  as far as your genes are concerned? Then I guess that my wife and I are not being naturally consistent with human nature.  I already argued this fallacy too.  What is natural is not necessarily what is good or right.  What is unnatural is not necessarily bad or wrong.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

> Marriage is a privledge. It has many tax benefits to promote people to have kids, because having kids is a burden and costly. A society needs to reproduce to remain.



One receives tax benefits by being single and having kids. Check out the tax rules. 



> So, why should a homosexual couple get the benefits of a marriage (tax breaks etc) that a single person shouldnt.?



(1.)	Benefits of marriage for gays might include stability and a reduction in promiscuity. (2.) Ease of getting inheritance when a partner dies without a will.  (3.) Also, keep in mind that a gay couple might choose to have a child (through adoption or through a surrogate parent) - (sperm bank for lesbians or a temporary womb for gays). 



> And dont give me that, "old people who cant have kids can marry, etc" I think you are too smart for that stupid kindergarten reply.



You gave me that point for me.  It is a perfectly valid point. Anyway, even if a couple decides not to have children, marriage provides benefits via government taxes and such.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Is it human nature to choose to not have children  to not perpetuate the species  as far as your genes are concerned? Then I guess that my wife and I are not being naturally consistent with human nature.  I already argued this fallacy too.  What is natural is not necessarily what is good or right.  What is unnatural is not necessarily bad or wrong.



 

I have not argued that what is natural is good or right.  I agued that it was  ... ummmm...... natural or unnatural.  Conversely, Einstein, what is natural is not necessarily bad or wrong simply because it suits a convolutred argument to claim it is.

If I was going to make any argument at all along this line of thinking, I would argue that heterosexuality is consistent with _biological_, not human nature, and that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.

And the fact that you are inconsistent with human nature is not any kind of revelation given your past confessions of practicing abnormal behavior.

There is nothing fallacious about my argument at all.   However, your attempt to turn it into something it is not, as usual, IS.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I have not argued that what is natural is good or right.  I agued that it was  ... ummmm...... natural or unnatural.  Conversely, Einstein, what is natural is not necessarily bad or wrong simply because it suits a convolutred argument to claim it is.
> 
> If I was going to make any argument at all along this line of thinking, I would argue that heterosexuality is consistent with _biological_, not human nature, and that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.
> 
> ...



Okay. Okay. I guess that the debate about heterosexuality being natural or biological or whatever is then an academic debate that ultimately means nothing. It is simply irrelevant in the debate concerning whether homosexuality is right or wrong  good or bad.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Okay. Okay. I guess that the debate about heterosexuality being natural or biological or whatever is then an academic debate that ultimately means nothing. It is simply irrelevant in the debate concerning whether homosexuality is right or wrong  good or bad.



There are just no bounds to what you won't twist in an attempt to turn an argument to your advantage.  

Homosexuality is wrong at EVERY level, just as you are.  

Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.  That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason.  Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation.  In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.

Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect.  There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse.  Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.

It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome.  Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.

Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong.  With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.  

Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior.  Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public.  That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.  

Quit trying to sell everyone a cow while telling them it's a Cadillac.  That's all that ANY and ALL of your arguments on this topic boil down to.  

There's no agree to disagree ... there's no walking away.  YOU are wrong.  To exacerbate THAT, you continually attempt to sell your relativist snake oil even though you get called on it just about each and every time.  Get a clue, huh?

I'ts NOT normal for one man to want to stick his crank up another man's butt, period.  End of story.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Do gays demand that we celebrate homosexual behavior?  How did you reach that conclusion?  Do you have a link to such a statement? Many gay people want, at the very least, civil unions for gay couples so that gay couples have the same degree of access to the benefits that married couples receive.  I dont see that they demand that we celebrate homosexual activity.  Even if laws were passed allowing gay marriage, it does not follow that I would be forced to celebrate homosexual behavior.  Abortion is allowed.  Im not celebrating abortion.



There are numerous examples of gay rights activists demanding celebration of their personal habits.  Two, just off the top of my head without even having to think about it are:  1)South Boston cancelled it's St. Partricks Day Parade because they lost a court case where gay rights activists demanded the right to march under their own banner.  This was a long standing tradition but, as far as I know, the parade hasn't been held since. 2) In Providence, RI, the mayor ordered city fire fighters to take part in it's annual Gay Pride Parade.  Some of them objected because they had attended previous Gay Pride Parades and we appalled by what they saw.  (I don't blame them.  I attended one about 15 years ago and I couldn't BELIEVE what I saw.)  But the mayor didn't care.    (The current mayor is a gay man, and the previous mayor is in a federal prison.  Oh, the irony)





> Please be more specific about the use of the term accept.  Are you referring to the laws that prohibit discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color (a genetic condition), religion (a choice), sex or national origin? I accept that people are trying to get sexual orientation included in the list of things for which people cant be discriminated against. I doubt that they have succeeded.  Even if they have succeeded, I dont see that my non-discrimination against gays necessarily follows that I accept homosexual behavior. Again, where is it written that that I must accept the personal behavior of anyone?



It's now written in the laws.  I should have the right to not hire anyone I think is disgusting.  Religion, which is the only other choice on your list,  isn't disgusting.  I think it's stupid, but I don't give a shit if someone wants to believe that crap.  

You doubt they have succeeded?  What planet do you live on?  Ask the Boy Scouts.  Check your local school district and see how many gay groups they allow.  Then check and see how many groups about sex they allow for heterosexual kids.  

Oh, I forgot, being gay has nothing to do with sex. 


The bottom line is that I should be entitled to judge others by their behavior and personal habits.  If you pick your nose and eat it, it's not enough that I never see you do it.  I don't want to know you have ever done it because I find it a disgusting personal habit and I will never look at you the same way again.  I don't care how many people there are our there who pick their nose and eat it.  I don't care how normal the experts say picking your nose and eating it is.  I don't care how many parades the Nose Pickers Who Eat It March in.  It's gross.  And I should have the right to decide what behavior I will accept from others.

I don't have that right when it comes to gays.  If I said any of this out loud at work, I'd lose my job.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 26, 2006)

> Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology. That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason. Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation. In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.



I have 2 words for you:  So what? Some people choose to not procreate.  Some people, as bizarre as it may sound, choose to not have sex.  Homosexuality is more than just sex.  It includes a preference for a loving relationship with someone of the same sex. 



> Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect. There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse. Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.



So what?  Things simply dont require your physical provision.  According to your argument, it seems as though you are suggesting that oral or anal sex between heterosexual couples is wrong?  Is protected sex wrong if it cant produce a baby?   Things simply dont require your physical provision. 



> It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome. Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.



So what?  Do you suggest that we outlaw all that is not normal and natural?



> Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong. With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.
> 
> Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior. Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public. That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.



I accept that we live in a republic where, for the most part, the majority rules.  That does not mean that the majority is right.  



> I'ts NOT normal for one man to want to stick his crank up another man's butt, period. End of story.



This is not the end of the story.  Is it normal to wear plaid pants with a striped shirt? Is it normal to smoke?  Is it normal to be left-handed?  Is it normal for a White to get married to a Black?  Is it normal to get married and choose as a couple to not have children?   These things are not normal but they are certainly allowed.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Sorry, I'm not that kind of girl. And I thought you were gay?


I am gay.  And I'm not making that kind of invitation, mind you!


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> ....So what?  Do you suggest that we outlaw all that is not normal and natural?
> ....



I think all he is asking for is that it shouldn't be promoted as it has been by our decadent society.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 26, 2006)

Kagom said:


> I am gay.  And I'm not making that kind of invitation, mind you!


 Not very quick on the draw, are you?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 26, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Not very quick on the draw, are you?


To be quite frank, I'm not right now.  I've cooked, walked, and done all kinds of fun chores today and my brain's not at full capacity.  And I'm hoping you weren't referencing what I thought you were


----------



## Gunny (Sep 26, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> I have 2 words for you:  So what? Some people choose to not procreate.  Some people, as bizarre as it may sound, choose to not have sex.  Homosexuality is more than just sex.  It includes a preference for a loving relationship with someone of the same sex.
> 
> Irrelevant.
> 
> ...



As usual, your argument is weak and dishonest, and finally, falls back on your relativist crapola.

Being left-handed is not considered abnormal, and is a proven hereditary trait.  Irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

Both whites and black are human beings separated only by the shade of their skin; which, is hereditary.  Nothing abnormal about it.  Irrelevant to homosexual behavior.

Couples who choose to not have children in no way impact on the society around them for their decision that affects only them.  I will point out that couples who choose to not have children are not having "Couples Who Have No Children" parades, or attempting to force legislation that gives couples who chosse to not have children special rights.  This also is not considered abnormal.  It is however also irrelevant to homosexual behavior.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Couples who choose to not have children in no way impact on the society around them for their decision that affects only them.  I will point out that couples who choose to not have children are not having "Couples Who Have No Children" parades, or attempting to force legislation that gives couples who chosse to not have children special rights.  This also is not considered abnormal.  It is however also irrelevant to homosexual behavior.



First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain. 

And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 26, 2006)

Reneer said:


> First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain.
> 
> And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.



Homosexuals currently posess EVERY single right under the Constitution of the United States that heterosexuals do.  

Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law.  The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group.

And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights.  I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin.  That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.

Perhaps insted of attacking the traditions of this Nation and our culture, you might try attacking the unConstitutional rules and regulations that specify who you can and cannot have as beneficiary.  That is, IF that is your primary concern.

ANd I am going to even give the benefit of doubt.  I DO recall initially when all this broo-hah-ha started that it was a primary issue.  Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing.  As a result, you got nothing.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Homosexuals currently posess EVERY single right under the Constitution of the United States that heterosexuals do.



Correct. They just don't have the privilege of entering into a union as all heterosexuals can do if they wish.  



GunnyL said:


> Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law.  The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group.



I have never said that it had to be codified in the U.S Constitution, Gunny. And I don't disagree with you on this.



GunnyL said:


> And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights.  I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin.  That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.



Except homosexuals cannot enter into a union that heterosexuals can easily enter into. They cannot attain the financial and legal benefits that heterosexuals can through marriage (there are over 1,000 benefits of marriage, some financial, some legal.) Instead of signing one legal document, to get the same benefits homosexuals would have to sign more than one legal document. That is discrimination, pure and simple.



GunnyL said:


> Perhaps insted of attacking the traditions of this Nation and our culture, you might try attacking the unConstitutional rules and regulations that specify who you can and cannot have as beneficiary.  That is, IF that is your primary concern.



It's funny; I'll bet you that someone made that same argument in favor of slavery back in the 1850s. Surprising how slavery is no longer tolerated in this country. And if it was 'just about beneficiary' then that would be easy. That's one benefit out of 1,000+ that would need to be fought for, each on its own merits. Why not just make it easy and fight for marriage / civil unions?



GunnyL said:


> ANd I am going to even give the benefit of doubt.  I DO recall initially when all this broo-hah-ha started that it was a primary issue.  Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing.  As a result, you got nothing.



I'm not about to try and restrict someone's freedom of speech, thanks.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 26, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Correct. They just don't have the privilege of entering into a union as all heterosexuals can do if they wish.
> 
> Sure they can.
> 
> ...



What, did you take notes from mattskramer to come up with this?  I never suggested any such thing.  Let 'em run their mouthes.  Look what it got you.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> What, did you take notes from mattskramer to come up with this?  I never suggested any such thing.  Let 'em run their mouthes.  Look what it got you.



Sorry, I guess I added more emphasis to


GunnyL said:


> Problem is, you and those that share your concern let the in-your-face flamers hijack your issue and demand all or nothing.


than was intended.

And I'm sure you noticed you ignored everything else I said. :


----------



## nt250 (Sep 26, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> And you are no more discriminated against than a male or female heterosexual when it comes to financial legal rights.  I cannot arbitrarily choose a beneficiary or next of kin.  That isn't law ... it's corporate policy to stack the deck in favor of the insurance companies.



That's one instance where married couples do not have the same rights as single people.  I don't know if it's a law or not, but my company has the same policy.  A person who is married cannot designate anyone other than their spouse as their beneficiary without the spouses approval.  If I get married, my company will not allow anyone but my husband to be my beneficary unless he signs a form agreeing to it.  

As a single person, I can designate it to whoever I want to.


----------



## LuvRPgrl (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> The state allows barren couples to marry, y'know.  Marriage, as a term in American law and standards, doesn't require procreation as a reason for marriage.



I didnt say it was a requirement. You cant prove a couple is barren, now can you? Many supposed barren couples suddenly got pregnant.


----------



## nt250 (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> First and most importantly of all, gays are not trying to get 'special rights.' They are trying to be treated under the same laws that a heterosexual, no-children, married couple is entitled to when they are married (which are benefits under the US Code.) Homosexuals would not hurt a community if they were able to get a civil union / marriage / whatever. Canada has not exploded because homosexuals can have a civil union there. The UK has not exploded, nor has Spain.
> 
> And just so you know, I think pride parades are stupid.



Gays have gotten special rights.  It may not be by law, but the gay rights movement has convinced many corporations and city governments to extend partner benefits to gay "couples".  Single hetrosexuals not only do not have those same benefits, they can get fired for trying to get them.  There have been several incidents in my company where hetrosexuals tried to get their partners on their benefits for things like cancer treatment and they been fired for it.  But gays can get those same benefits by simply saying they're gay.

The claim that gays don't want "special" rights is ludicrius.  They want laws passed that tell the rest of us how we can react to their personal habit.  If that's not a special right, I don't know what is.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> To be quite frank, I'm not right now.  I've cooked, walked, and done all kinds of fun chores today and my brain's not at full capacity.  And I'm hoping you weren't referencing what I thought you were


 Walking is a chore?


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> ....
> 
> Creating a law that recognizes a specific behavior of less than 10% of the US population IS a special law.  The US Constitution should NEVER cater to ANY exclusive, special-interest group......



Correct, except the actual % is between 1 and 1.5, much less than we were led to believe for the last 30 years or so. Another example of the homosexual agenda 's distortion of reality.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 27, 2006)

Okay.  Let me put it to you another way -



GunnyL said:


> Homosexuality is inconsistent with biology.  That is the very basic man, prior to the ability reason.  Homosexuality is incorrect with human nature, as part of basic human nature is procreation.  In those two instances, it is prior to conscious thought.



So what is your point? Even assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with biology or assuming that homosexuality is inconsistent with human nature does not make homosexuality wrong or bad.  



> Homosexuality is anatomically incorrect.  There are no physical provisions created by biology/nature that provide for same gender sexual intercourse.  Using inappropriate orifices designed to perform functions other than sex does NOT constitute biology or nature providing such physical provisions.



So what is your point?  Homosexuality is more than anatomy.  Even assuming that homosexuality is anatomically "incorrect" does not make homosexuality wrong or bad. 



> It IS normal as the word is defined behavior to act in a manner consistent with biology/nature/anatomy that none of your relativist arguments can overcome.  Conversely, it is abnormal to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of biology/nature/anatomy.



So what is your point?  Even if homosexuality is not normal, it does not mean that homosexuality is wrong or bad.



> Then there is the fact that the majority of society dictates the morals/rules/laws of that society, and what it considers normal and/or abnormal and/or right or wrong.  With few exceptions, homosexual behavior has been considered abnormal and wrong throughout the history of Mankind for the reasons listed previously as it relates to biology/nature/anatomy.
> 
> Homosexual behavior is defined by our current society as abnormal behavior.  Last I checked, by over 80% of the American public.  That is regardless their stance on gay marriage or whether homosexuality is hereditary or behavioral.



So what is your point?  Just because the majority believes that something is wrong does not make that thing wrong.    

All that you are presenting are irrelevant tangents.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 27, 2006)

nt250 said:


> Gays have gotten special rights.  It may not be by law, but the gay rights movement has convinced many corporations and city governments to extend partner benefits to gay "couples".  Single hetrosexuals not only do not have those same benefits, they can get fired for trying to get them.  There have been several incidents in my company where hetrosexuals tried to get their partners on their benefits for things like cancer treatment and they been fired for it.  But gays can get those same benefits by simply saying they're gay.



Then that is wrong, pure and simple. Cohabitation typically equals financial involvement, and if one member of the cohabitation is sick and cannot financially contribute, company benefits are designed somewhat to support a worker's partner if said partner can no longer contribute to the cohabitation, financially. And again, gays do not have 'special rights' - they cannot get married, so companies are trying to be fair (and, in your case, screwing it up.) If two people live together and financially support each other, they should be able to share the same benefits from a company that one of them works for, pure and simple.



nt250 said:


> The claim that gays don't want "special" rights is ludicrius.  They want laws passed that tell the rest of us how we can react to their personal habit.  If that's not a special right, I don't know what is.



Again, I'll reiterate: most gays do not want 'special rights' - they want equal treatment under the law if they cohabitate and have a commitment to support financially the person they are cohabitating with. The act of marriage can be thought of as two people making a public intent to financially and emotionally support each other - and the state has an interest in helping this union, for whatever reason. Simply because two people who want the state to recognize their union of financial and personal interests should not be denied that because they are both of the same gender.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> ......Just because the majority believes that something is wrong does not make that thing wrong.
> 
> .....



Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Walking is a chore?


No, it's apart of the reason I'm tired.  Chores also contributed.  Did it really read that way?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

LuvRPgrl said:


> I didnt say it was a requirement. You cant prove a couple is barren, now can you? Many supposed barren couples suddenly got pregnant.


There's tests that people can do to see if they're fertile or infertile.  It's not 100% failproof, but it is somewhat accurate.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.


If you're talking about the Abrahamic faiths, then several thousand years.  Other cultures/majorities could've cared less.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Its usually a pretty good indicator. And I may add that the majority has thought this way for several thousand years.



No.  Popular belief is no indication that what is believed is right or wrong. Most people used to think that the earth was the center of the universe. Most people used to think that the earth was flat.  Most people used to think that women should not be allowed to vote. Most people at one time thought that slavery was okay. (I am not comparing slavery to homosexuality.  I am demonstrating the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority for more information.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> No, it's apart of the reason I'm tired.  Chores also contributed.  Did it really read that way?


 Um jest messin' wit ja. (Its a Southern thang).


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> If you're talking about the Abrahamic faiths, then several thousand years.  Other cultures/majorities could've cared less.


  Not quite. But you're not one to back up your assertions anyway.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> .....I am demonstrating the fallacy of Argumentum ad populum.)
> 
> .....


  You are demonstrating a bogus comparison between scientific facts and morality.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Um jest messin' wit ja. (Its a Southern thang).


Y'all'd best lay off me then.  I was brought up in the South, y'know.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Not quite. But you're not one to back up your assertions anyway.


Not at all.  Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires.  Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes.  THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> You are demonstrating a bogus comparison between scientific facts and morality.



I used slavery and the right to vote as a couple of my examples.  Slavery and the right to vote are moral questions.  Even if I did not find a moral example, the fallacy would still apply.  It carries over. The bottom line is that just because most people think that gay marriage should not be allowed does not, in and of itself, mean that gay marriage is wrong. The only thing that one can conclude from popular sentiment is popular sentiment.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Y'all'd best lay off me then.  I was brought up in the South, y'know.


 But you're not a Southern boy.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> But you're not a Southern boy.


Considering I was raised there for the vast majority of my life so far, I believe that I am a Southern boy.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Not at all.  Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires.  *Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes. * THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.



Don't forget the Centours. Silly Newton! 

Who thinks Herc should have stangled that buthead?


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

Said1 said:


> Don't forget the Centours. Silly Newton!
> 
> Who thinks Herc should have stangled that buthead?


Now that we've all laughed at that since you just had to point out mythological beings 

I was going on how they were accepting of it.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Not at all.  Bisexuality and homosexuality were normal in the Greek and Roman empires.  Other cultures have stories that involved homosexual and hermaphroditic deities and heroes.  THere's no real condemnation of any kind in ancient society.


  Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?


----------



## Said1 (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Now that we've all laughed at that since you just had to point out mythological beings
> 
> I was going on how they were accepting of it.



Yep. As annyoing as he was.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Considering I was raised there for the vast majority of my life so far, I believe that I am a Southern boy.


 Its the attitude not the lattitude. You don't got it. At least not from my perspective. Sorry.


----------



## Said1 (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?



In real numbers maybe, statistically, I doubt you find that. In some parts of the old Roman empire, gay marriage is permitted, in some parts they do bad things to you.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> I used slavery and the right to vote as a couple of my examples.  Slavery and the right to vote are moral questions.  Even if I did not find a moral example, the fallacy would still apply.  It carries over. The bottom line is that just because most people think that gay marriage should not be allowed does not, in and of itself, mean that gay marriage is wrong. The only thing that one can conclude from popular sentiment is popular sentiment.


   The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Y'all always bring up the ancient, idol worshiping, Greeks and Romans. I think the preponderance of homosexuality claimed in those societies is likely more a romantic re-write by modern writers, who themselves wish to advance the homosexual agenda. Don't these cultures now have the exact same percentage of homosexuals that other cultures have? If they werre gay then, then why aren't they gay now?



If by 'modern writers' you mean in the last 50 years, then you're incorrect.

And your 'if they were gay then, why aren't they gay now' is laughable. Well over two thousand years has passed since the end of the Ancient Greek period - people have moved all over the world since that time, and Greece itself has changed dramatically. Not to mention the population of the globe has exploded beyond anything close to what it was 2000 years ago. A large homosexual population that was in Greece roughly 2000 years ago would have been much more significant when the estimated population of the Earth was only roughly 150 million.



glockmail said:


> The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.



Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.


----------



## mattskramer (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> The questions of slavery and right to vote are clarified by the Declaration of Independence in this self evident Truth: "all Men are created equal". Therefore they are not moral decisions but legal ones. For those who pursue the gay life against the tenets of all religions that I know of, they have made a moral decision.



The Declaration of Independence is a not codification of law but a declaration of moral views.  Yet, even with the Declaration of Independence in place, the US government still found it okay to condone slavery and prohibit women from voting  and most people did not have an objection.  For a while the Constitution even defined a Black as being less of a person than a White is a person. Through rules and amendments, laws were established which eventually outlawed slavery and allowed women to vote. Anyway, laws are merely legislated morals (should and shouldnt) with punitive measures attached.  Anyway, I am not talking about the legal system or the constitutionality of issues.  My point still remains that something is not wrong just because most people think that it is wrong.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> .....
> 
> ....Well over two thousand years has passed since the end of the Ancient Greek period - people have moved all over the world since that time, and *Greece itself has changed dramatically*. Not to mention the population of the globe has exploded beyond anything close to what it was 2000 years ago. *A large homosexual population that was in Greece roughly 2000 years ago would have been much more significant when the estimated population of the Earth was only roughly ....150 million.*
> Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.



1. You appear to have made my point for me.
2. Jesus never did either. He and they didn't have to, as it was obvious, as in "don't drink urine".


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Though I may not be the best person to impart this information (I could be wrong) Buddhism does not directly condemn (or condone) homosexuality.


Buddhism and Hinduism do not condemn or condone.  Transgendered people (male to female) are, however, considered to be holy in Hindu culture.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> The Declaration of Independence is a not codification of law but a declaration of moral views.  Yet, even with the Declaration of Independence in place, the US government still found it okay to condone slavery and prohibit women from voting  and most people did not have an objection.  For a while the Constitution even defined a Black as being less of a person than a White is a person. Through rules and amendments, laws were established which eventually outlawed slavery and allowed women to vote. Anyway, laws are merely legislated morals (should and shouldnt) with punitive measures attached.  Anyway, I am not talking about the legal system or the constitutionality of issues.  My point still remains that something is not wrong just because most people think that it is wrong.


 The DOI is the base document for the Constitution. Slavery was hotly debated during the drafting of the Constitution. The section on slave percentage, that you incorrectly interpret as declaring a black less than a white, is actually a compromise between the free states and the south, made necessary as it was more important to unite and fight the Brits than to to argue this single point. Your point is still invalid as the DOI, hence the Constitution and our laws declares that all men are created equal, while gays insist that they were not, or else have chosen to act against several thousand years of established morality.


----------



## glockmail (Sep 27, 2006)

Kagom said:


> Buddhism and Hinduism do not condemn or condone.  Transgendered people (male to female) are, however, considered to be holy in Hindu culture.


 Not quite, dear.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> 1. You appear to have made my point for me.
> 2. Jesus never did either. He and they didn't have to, as it was obvious, as in "don't drink urine".


1.) The fact that things change over time proves a point for you?  I don't see it unless you'd like to expand on that point for me.

2.) Actually, something like homosexuality would need a word or two from Jesus.  To just leave it alone would only be disasterous because that would mean it'd be something for the followers to come to decide for themselves.


----------



## Kagom (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> Not quite, dear.


Do you know more than me on these particular Eastern religions?  I'm not claiming to know a lot about them, FYI, but I'm curious as to what you do know about them in that respect.


----------



## jillian (Sep 27, 2006)

glockmail said:


> The DOI is the base document for the Constitution. Slavery was hotly debated during the drafting of the Constitution. The section on slave percentage, that you incorrectly interpret as declaring a black less than a white, is actually a compromise between the free states and the south, made necessary as it was more important to unite and fight the Brits than to to argue this single point. Your point is still invalid as the DOI, hence the Constitution and our laws declares that all men are created equal, while gays insist that they were not, or else have chosen to act against several thousand years of established morality.




The Declaration of Independence has no force of law and while many of the same political philosophers gave input to it and the Constitution, and it is certainly a valuable historical document, the Declaration is not incorporated by reference in the Constitution, if that's what you're purporting.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> Sorry, I guess I added more emphasis to
> 
> than was intended.
> 
> And I'm sure you noticed you ignored everything else I said. :



I ignore nothing.  If there is no point of contention (since you agreed with me), I see no point in commenting.  I may have also more than likely missed responding yet again to a redundant and bogus accusation.

I commented on what was worthy of comment.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

mattskramer said:


> Okay.  Let me put it to you another way -
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are dumber than brick.  I wasn't making addressing the right nor wrong of homosexuality.  I was addressing the abnormalcy at all levels of homosexuality to which you come back with this bullshit response to something that was never said.  So I'd say the only thing "irrelevant" here is YOU and your responses to noexistent stances.

You ALWAYS try to bring it back to "right and wrong" then go into your relativist mode.  And if no one is discussing "right or wrong", you interject it and yourself.

You're a fraud.  You can't make a legitimate argument.  All you do is ensure that everyone knows that in mattskramers idiotic little world, right and wrong are always relative, so mattskramer can cherrrypick which side of the fence he wants to fall off onto his head again from. 

My points are relevant to my argument and you cannot refute them with anything but irrelevance.  Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you slink away ... again.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> I ignore nothing.  If there is no point of contention (since you agreed with me), I see no point in commenting.  I may have also more than likely missed responding yet again to a redundant and bogus accusation.
> 
> I commented on what was worthy of comment.



I did not agree 100% with you. I agreed with you on one or two points. If you would go back and read again what I wrote, you would notice that I said that homosexuals are discriminated against because they cannot as easily attain the same privileges as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can, by signing one piece of paper, have over 1,000+ benefits given to them by the state. Homosexuals need to sign more than one document in order to obtain those same benefits. It is discrimination because it is creating a barrier to those benefits - instead of signing one document you may need to sign ten, and probably have the added expense of a lawyer as well.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> I did not agree 100% with you. I agreed with you on one or two points. If you would go back and read again what I wrote, you would notice that I said that homosexuals are discriminated against because they cannot as easily attain the same privileges as heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can, by signing one piece of paper, have over 1,000+ benefits given to them by the state. Homosexuals need to sign more than one document in order to obtain those same benefits. It is discrimination because it is creating a barrier to those benefits - instead of signing one document you may need to sign ten, and probably have the added expense of a lawyer as well.



And I did not comment on what you agreed with only.  

I responded to your baseless claim of discrimination.  Maybe YOU need to go back and read it again.

Or I can give you the short version:  You can by signing the exact same papers get the exact same privileges/benefits.   All you have to do is meet the same prerequisites.  There is NO discrimination against anything but your aberrant lifestyle.  Tough shit.

When you choose to live outside the conforms of society and its laws, you have NO RIGHT to whine and cry about the consequences of your actions, and you damned sure don't rate any special rights that cater to nothing but you abnormal behavior.


----------



## Reneer (Sep 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> And I did not comment on what you agreed with only.
> 
> I responded to your baseless claim of discrimination.  Maybe YOU need to go back and read it again.



<strike>No, you did not respond to my points, Gunny. You said this (#214) in response to this (#213). That was the last past you made in this thread until you said this (#252). Amazingly enough I still don't see your earlier response to my post (#213) anywhere between #214-#251. So unless you or someone else deleted it, you didn't respond to me until #252, and accused me of ignoring you when in fact you never responded to my points in the first place. So how can I ignore your points if you never make them?</strike>

Oh geez, I'm sorry Gunny. I apologize profusely for my stupidity. I missed your points because they were all italicized and I thought they were my words.



GunnyL said:


> Or I can give you the short version:  You can by signing the exact same papers get the exact same privileges/benefits.   All you have to do is meet the same prerequisites.  There is NO discrimination against anything but your aberrant lifestyle.  Tough shit.



So if I go by your 'short version' you would have had the same opinion about interracial marriage. Since, you know, a black man could just merry a black woman - instead of the white woman he loved - and he would get the same benefits. Simple!



GunnyL said:


> When you choose to live outside the conforms of society and its laws, you have NO RIGHT to whine and cry about the consequences of your actions



Agreed. But that doesn't mean society is right, only that society gets to dictate the rules. And I for one would like to see those rules changed, by helping to enlighten people to my viewpoint and through due process, change the laws.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

Reneer said:


> <strike>No, you did not respond to my points, Gunny. You said this (#214) in response to this (#213). That was the last past you made in this thread until you said this (#252). Amazingly enough I still don't see your earlier response to my post (#213) anywhere between #214-#251. So unless you or someone else deleted it, you didn't respond to me until #252, and accused me of ignoring you when in fact you never responded to my points in the first place. So how can I ignore your points if you never make them?</strike>
> 
> Oh geez, I'm sorry Gunny. I apologize profusely for my stupidity. I missed your points because they were all italicized and I thought they were my words.
> 
> ...



What you are failing to grasp is society is well-aware of your viewpoint and has rejected it.  

Wht you want to do is destroy yet another moral standard of our society because it doesn't suit your selfish desires.


----------



## CockySOB (Sep 27, 2006)

Wasn't this thread about homosexuals in Iran?  Isn't there another current thread talking about homosexuals in the USA?

Besides, talking about marriage licenses for homosexuals in Iran is like talking about screen doors on submarines.  You can talk about it 'til you're blue in the face, but it doesn't do a damned bit of good for anyone....


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

CockySOB said:


> Wasn't this thread about homosexuals in Iran?  Isn't there another current thread talking about homosexuals in the USA?



Come out of your shell, Cocky.  All threads that mention homosexuals attract them like honey does locusts, and their presence attracts mattskramer.  

And yeah, there's another thread with the same argument going.  No matter how many facts, logic or common sense you post, you'll find them busilly posting the same misinformation elsewhere.


----------



## Annie (Sep 27, 2006)

GunnyL said:


> Come out of your shell, Cocky.  All threads that mention homosexuals attract them like honey does locusts, and their presence attracts mattskramer.
> 
> And yeah, there's another thread with the same argument going.  No matter how many facts, logic or common sense you post, you'll find them busilly posting the same misinformation elsewhere.



I haven't been reading, but should I merge threads? Give me a link if I should.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 27, 2006)

Kathianne said:


> I haven't been reading, but should I merge threads? Give me a link if I should.



The topic titles are completely different.  This one is about how gays are treated in Iran and the other on "Gay Marriage."  This one; however, degenerated to the topic of the other WAY back.

Here's the link:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37804


----------



## Annie (Sep 27, 2006)

I'm closing this. Want to carry on? Go here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=484154#post484154


----------

