The Homosexual Dilemma

[Conservative65]

If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile. I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.

Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

Science has proven that the human physiological design is the basis of marriage. Choices regarding gender preference or NON-Choices regarding which gender one craves for sexual gratification, are wholly irrelevant to marriage.

Marriage is the joining of one man and one woman.

 

[hipeter924]

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

What science don't we care about? Biology?

Mark

Any science that either proves evolution, homosexuality and bisexuality in nature, or looks into the origin of the universe without the premise a god exists. If it disagrees with your world view you hate it, much like soviet planners that ignored anything that wouldn't fit with the ideology.

 

[kaz]

So women had no right to demand the vote?
Blacks had no right to demand an end to Jim Crowe?

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Hey...the racial standard applied equally too. Everyone had a right to marry someone of the same race.

Wrong. Since marriage was always based on gender, always, disallowing one race to not marry another was clearly discrimination.

This isn't apples to oranges. This is apples to watermelons.

Mark

Yes. Also, being a different race changed who you can marry. Being gay or straight does not change who you can marry.

 

[kaz]

So, to you, demanding government gives you stuff = demanding government not take away your rights? I want government to give me a refrigerator = I want government to not take away my right to vote. I want government to buy me a TV = I want government to not tell me I can't use the public drinking fountain. Seriously, you don't know the difference?

If you still don't get it, you should Google "positive and negative rights."

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark

The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.

begging the question

 

[kaz]

No.

No one is demanding the governent give anyone "stuff".

The only demand is that the government apply the Constitution equally. As in - the right to vote. The right to use public drinking fountains. The right to marry. ...

Then we're good to go here, given that no one is being prohibited from marrying anyone, as long as they apply with only one other person and that person is a member of the distinct gender.

A standard which is applied EQUALLY, throughout the entire United States and without exception.

Why does it need to be a "distinct gender"? That automatically is discrimminatory. Heteros can marry the person they love. Homos can not.

Sigh. The basis of marriage is GENDER. Not race. Not religion. Nothing else. Gender. Until we got "enlightened".

Mark

The basis of marriage is contract law, as written by the states and administered by state courts. Contract law written to accommodate two equal consenting adult partners in a committed relationship recognized by the state in accordance with its marriage contract law – same- or opposite-sex, it makes no difference, both are eligible to participate.

Wrong. The state doesn't define marriage. Biology does. They can pass a law stating Clayton is an asshole, it will not make it so.

Mark

Neither will passing a law that says he is not one.

Then how does the State restrict marriage to minors and incestual couples? Of course the State defines government marriage.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Any science that either proves evolution, homosexuality and bisexuality in nature, or looks into the origin of the universe without the premise a god exists. If it disagrees with your world view you hate it, much like soviet planners that ignored anything that wouldn't fit with the ideology.

ROFLMNAO!

So science is subjective? (LOL! Idiots... they're so dam' entertaining. Leftists are the Jesters of the modern 'court'... OKA: the Interwebz message board.)

Science does not look at God, because science has insufficient understanding of the universe to even begin to know what questions should be asked to come to understand what science must learn to even begin to understand what needs to be known to question what should be answered before we begin to question the composition of what God is.

(Ya see scamp, science has a way to go, maybe ... for instance, it should come to understand what gravity 'is', and then perhaps a firm understanding of time... before they begin to study 'God'.)

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB The Homosexual Dilemma thread, I present you:

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!​

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage. Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".

In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny. Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.

In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.

But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.

If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate. If not, then the actions are illegitimate.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.

You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such.

Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?

Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?

Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?

And so on... .

 

[hipeter924]

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile. I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.

Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.

Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

 

[80zephyr]

Nature is a complex and wondrous thing. Did you know that some species are a-sexual? Did you know some could change their gender? How about when animals intentionally sterilize themselves due to over population?

Since Homosexuality exists in over a thousand animals species and has existed in the human animal since the beginning of recorded history, it's pretty safe to assume that we're supposed to be here. Rest easy, scientists have some theories.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality

The genes that code for homosexuality do other things too
The allele - or group of genes - that sometimes codes for homosexual orientation may at other times have a strong reproductive benefit. This would compensate for gay people's lack of reproduction and ensure the continuation of the trait, as non-gay carriers of the gene pass it down.

Gay people were 'helpers in the nest'
Paul Vasey's research in Samoa has focused on a theory called kin selection or the "helper in the nest" hypothesis. The idea is that gay people compensate for their lack of children by promoting the reproductive fitness of brothers or sisters, contributing money or performing other uncle-like activities such as babysitting or tutoring. Some of the gay person's genetic code is shared with nieces and nephews and so, the theory goes, the genes which code for sexual orientation still get passed down.[...]

Gay people do have children
In the US, around 37% of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual people have a child, about 60% of which are biological. According to the Williams Institute, gay couples that have children have an average of two.

These figures may not be high enough to sustain genetic traits specific to this group, but the evolutionary biologist Jeremy Yoder points out in a blog post that for much of modern history gay people haven't been living openly gay lives. Compelled by society to enter marriages and have children, their reproduction rates may have been higher than they are now.

It's not all in the DNA
Qazi Rahman says that alleles coding for same sex attraction only explain some of the variety in human sexuality. Other, naturally varying biological factors come into play, with about one in seven gay men, he says, owing their sexuality to the "big brother effect".

This has nothing to do with George Orwell, but describes the observation that boys with older brothers are significantly more likely to become gay - with every older brother the chance of homosexuality increases by about a third. No-one knows why this is, but one theory is that with each male pregnancy, a woman's body forms an immune reaction to proteins that have a role in the development of the male brain. Since this only comes into play after several siblings have been born - most of whom are heterosexual and go on to have children - this pre-natal quirk hasn't been selected away by evolution.

And, after all of this, my statement still stands:

In every species, natures way is reproduction. If a body does not reproduce, it kills off its lineage. That is why, in nature, homosexuality has to be considered abnormal.

Humans are born with many types of problems. While these conditions are natural, they most assuredly are abnormal.

Mark

Lots of things are 'abnormal'- oral sex is abnormal by your definition- yet the majority of Americans experience it at some time in their life- some of us more than others.

Abnormal doesn't mean bad.

Except in the case of homophobes- homosexuals=abnormal-= bad.

It all boils down to what consenting adults do behind closed doors is their business - so why does the Gay machine insist on getting into everybody else faces ?

The very question this whole thread is about. And in over 75 pages, none of the hemorrhoids have been able to answer it.

Do you consider marriage "getting in everybody's faces"?

Yes. By normalizing and socially accepting a deviancy, it certainly is.

Mark

 

[GreenBean]

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

If only one changes, the argument that someone is born that way is invalid.

Heh. I know a woman who was straight, then gay, then straight again.

Lesbians especially have a high rate of "recovery".

Mark

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice

Yes , and at one time "most people"would tell the World was flat and if you sailed far enough over the edge you went ....

Scientists will tell you too.

The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

Nobody makes a CONSCIOUS choice to be normal or be a pervert - [Real] Scientists WILL tell you that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB The Homosexual Dilemma thread, I present you:

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!​

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage. Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".

In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny. Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.

In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.

But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.

If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate. If not, then the actions are illegitimate.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.

You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such.

Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?

Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?

Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?

And so on... .

 

[GreenBean]

Sounds like a pretty screwed up in the head chick to me - her name didn't happen to be "SeaWytch" did it ?

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile. I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.

Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.

Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria

 

[80zephyr]

So with a mere choice you could find a man's hairy ass as sexually attractive as a woman's shapely backside?

Then Sy's right. You're probably bi already. For most of us, its not a choice. Its just an attribute.

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse. The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.

Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.

See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.

Mark

 

[initforme]

"
"A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement"

That's the risk they took. I don't feel one bit of remorse for them. Did they go under only because gays stopped going there or did others stop going there or what happened? As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.

 

[hipeter924]

But Seawytch will tell you that someone is born gay.

Actually most people will tell you sexual orientation is not a choice. Scientists will tell you too. The fact that YOU believe you made a conscious choice leads me to suspect you are bisexual and simply denying part of your attractions.

I never made a choice to be attracted to the same gender, I just always was.

They don't care about science or reality in this thread. Just a lot of gay bashing, attempting to demonize gays as pedophiles, and so on. I am bored of this thread already.

Outside of this forum, the WBC, Neo Nazi groups, or the most die hard of church groups, same-sex marriage being 'wrong' is no longer an issue of the day.

I don't claim being gay makes someone a pedophile. I claim it's abnormal and deviant same as pedophilia.

Same sex marriage is wrong despite what you faggot lovers thinking.

Meh, and there are invisible pink unicorns and floating tea cups. Both are more real than a link between homosexuality and pedophilia.

Homosexuality and pedophilia ARE varying degrees of the same class of Dementia - Sexual Dysphoria

Uganda awaits.

 

[80zephyr]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

Because one is between two consenting adults, and the other is between an adult and a child (who by definition is below the age of consent).

Who sets the age of consent? It was posted what the different ages of consent are by state. Why are they different?

They are different because all these numbers are arbitrary. There is no "right" or "wrong" age. Age is set by society using...nothing to base the number on.

Mark

 

[GreenBean]

"
"A family-run business went under because they chose not to bake a fucking cake for a gay wedding?
That's not only the Gay agenda at work, but the twisted brains of the Liberals who will not stand for dissent or disagreement"

That's the risk they took. I don't feel one bit of remorse for them. Did they go under only because gays stopped going there or did others stop going there or what happened? As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.

As a married 76 year old heterosexual man I fail to see how the homosexual agenda is of any threat to me.

Then obviously - you don't give a rats ass about any Children, Grandchildren and future generations you produced.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If its not a choice, then how come some are choosing it...or not:

Some Gays Can Go Straight Study Says - ABC News

Of course, gay groups are fighting this study, because if homosexuality was a choice, there can be no discrimination.

Since I personally know gays that have went straight, I have to ask why the appeal of a "big hairy ass" left them and was replaced by a vagina.

Mark

You really should have researched further...

Psychiatry Giant Sorry for Backing Gay 'Cure'

And? My point was that some people have converted. Are you going to deny that? As for your link, if homosexuality is "ingrained", then I contend that every sexual deviancy is and that treatment should stop on all of them.

Homosexuality is not "special".

Mark

People can choose who to have sex with.

There is no evidence that people chose who to be attracted to.

Homosexuality is not 'special'- it is humans attracted to the same gender instead of the opposite gender.

No need to treat homosexuals special at all- just treat them without discrimination.

So if people don't choose what they're attracted to and should be able to shag whoever they're attracted to, why doesn't that also go for people who are attracted to children? I mean, who are you to say your homo love is right, but their pedo love is wrong?

They will use the "age of consent" as an excuse. The age of consent is nothing more than an arbitrary number society agrees on to set policy.

Sorta like when society deemed marriage was limited to one man and one woman.

See, its OK to change policy when you agree with it, not so much when you don't. They are simply "bigots" just like us, only their moral standards are a shade lower.

Mark

Yup...

But it's worse than that... they have for decades sought to play down the consequences of adult predation of children for sexual gratification.

Alfred Kinsey traveled the country to 'inform' local and state governments that the psychological consequences of molestation were no where near as harmful as had been believed... as long as such was manifest through a loving, caring interaction... and that often such was actually beneficial to the child.

It's some ridiculously sick shit...

 

[80zephyr]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the USMB The Homosexual Dilemma thread, I present you:

THE SLIPPERY SLOPE!​

And in fact marriage isn't 'distinct gender,' where the doctrine of coverture was abandoned by all 50 states well over a generation ago.

Coverture is in fact the natural result of marriage. Wherein the joining of the two respective genders, into one legally recognized body, determines that two people are now one... as is the case in coitus, wherein the male enters the body of the female, joining with her to form one "being".

In that the female is bound by nature as the body in which conception is manifest, it falls to the male to provide for her security, to sustain her through gestation and the decades long period of maturation of the progeny. Thus the male is saddled with her, and is responsible for the female, entirely.

In their customary bass-ackward perception of reality, the Feminist saw such in the inverse, wherein they erroneously felt that the female was in a state of servitude to the male, when in truth, it is quite the opposite.

But... I am a big believer at looking at the consequences to determine if the action is sound.

If the consequences are beneficial, then the actions are legitimate. If not, then the actions are illegitimate.

I'll leave it to the reader to determine if Feminism 'freeing' the female from male bondage has improved the culture's viability or if it undermined such.

You may test this by your determination as to whether the actions increased the bonds of marriage, or decreased such.

Was marriage, as an institution stabilized or destabilized?

Has the family unit been promoted in culture or demoted?

Has the culture which is dependent upon stable families been improved or has it decayed?

And so on... .

Excellent post.

Mark