What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[Silhouette]

The gay gene will never be found, because it doesn't exist.

The major problem with the idea itself, is if some people are born predetermined to be gay, how do you explain bisexuality, people who leave the gay lifestyle(they exist,liberals), and people who lead regular heterosexual lives and then decide they're gay?

Answer: We can't.

You are playing word miser.
Maybe not a gay gene but a man loving gene and a woman loving gene has been discovered in both sexes. In my book a man loving gene in a man is the gay gene we were looking for. And it's not just a single gene but a collection of genes in the strand the more of them the more likely they will be attracted to that sex. So yes we can test for it and then we can abort fetuses with a predilection for man loving in males or female loving in females. So stop prattling your ill informed shit.

So all those bulls in the beef industry trained up to become sexually aroused at the sight, smells and sounds of other castrated male cattle are all "born with a male-loving gene" right?

Do you realize that any male animal can be trained to become sexually oriented towards another male? Or a dummy mount? Or a certain set of clothing, or handlers, lights, environment, sounds? Ever hear of classical conditioning, the bedrock of psychology?

Or are Skinner and all the rest now just "politically incorrect haters"?

 

[Slyhunter]

They've claimed to find a gene that makes people alcoholics, makes people aggressive, etc....all of it is bogus, Slyhunter. There is no man loving and woman loving gene. I just got done reading how bogus that study is.

You need to learn to be skeptical about things other than religion.

I don't mean that as an insult, so I hope you don't take it that way. I seriously think you've made science your religion.

I posted scientific facts backed with citations and links to proof. You are posting opinion. Do you understand the difference. And thinking there is no gene for alcoholics, aggressiveness, etc is being plain ignorant.

 

[Peach]

Yet science continues to prove the "choice" folks wrong:

Homosexuality via canalized sexual development: A testing protocol for a new epigenetic model - Rice - 2013 - BioEssays - Wiley Online Library

 

[Slyhunter]

The gay gene will never be found, because it doesn't exist.

The major problem with the idea itself, is if some people are born predetermined to be gay, how do you explain bisexuality, people who leave the gay lifestyle(they exist,liberals), and people who lead regular heterosexual lives and then decide they're gay?

Answer: We can't.

You are playing word miser.
Maybe not a gay gene but a man loving gene and a woman loving gene has been discovered in both sexes. In my book a man loving gene in a man is the gay gene we were looking for. And it's not just a single gene but a collection of genes in the strand the more of them the more likely they will be attracted to that sex. So yes we can test for it and then we can abort fetuses with a predilection for man loving in males or female loving in females. So stop prattling your ill informed shit.

So all those bulls in the beef industry trained up to become sexually aroused at the sight, smells and sounds of other castrated male cattle are all "born with a male-loving gene" right?

Do you realize that any male animal can be trained to become sexually oriented towards another male? Or a dummy mount? Or a certain set of clothing, or handlers, lights, environment, sounds? Ever hear of classical conditioning, the bedrock of psychology?

Or are Skinner and all the rest now just "politically incorrect haters"?

the fact that you can put someone in jail, for example, rape his ass and turn him into a homo loving fagget does not dissprove the possibility of being born gay. Neither does your anecdotal example of the bulls.

 

[GISMYS]

ALMIGHTY GOD HAS THE LAST WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION== The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

 

[HenryBHough]

ALMIGHTY GOD HAS THE LAST WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION== The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

da Vinci may have agreed with you. Look closely at his (second?) most famous painting and consider what happened shortly thereafter. Maybe you're right!

 

[GISMYS]

almighty god has the last word on the sick abomination of sexual perversion== the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of god? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of god. 1 corinthians 6:9-10

da vinci may have agreed with you. Look closely at his (second?) most famous painting and consider what happened shortly thereafter. Maybe you're right!

there is no doubt!!! God's eternal living word is god's inspired(god breathed) word.=truth!!

 

[Silhouette]

almighty god has the last word on the sick abomination of sexual perversion== the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of god? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of god. 1 corinthians 6:9-10

da vinci may have agreed with you. Look closely at his (second?) most famous painting and consider what happened shortly thereafter. Maybe you're right!

there is no doubt!!! God's eternal living word is god's inspired(god breathed) word.=truth!!

Shut up GISMYS, all you do is detract from the conversation and elicit sympathy for the cult of LGBT which is....

...hey....wait a minute....!

 

[Steven_R]

My problem with gay marriage isn't in who gets married so much as government involvement in the whole issue in the first place. No one should have to go hat in hand in front of a bureaucrat to get married. The only reason government got involved in the first place was because licenses are a revenue stream for local government and because it gave governments the legal authority to keep interracial marriages illegal.

As far as homosexuality as a whole is concerned, I'm tolerant. I tolerate it; I put up with it. It disgusts me, but it neither breaks my legs nor picks my pockets, so I'm not going to do much more to get rid of homosexuals? I don't endorse it, I don't advocate, I don't think it is normal or should be celebrated. I'm okay with shunning people, but I'm not going to throw bricks through their windows or beat them in the streets. I don't think there should be legal protections just because someone is a homosexual and I should be perfectly fine to no do business with them.

 

[LockeJaw]

no you've posted opinions of certain scientists that other scientists don't agree with. There is no man loving or woman loving gene. Period.

Just as there is no gay gene. Period. End of story.

They've claimed to find a gene that makes people alcoholics, makes people aggressive, etc....all of it is bogus, Slyhunter. There is no man loving and woman loving gene. I just got done reading how bogus that study is.

You need to learn to be skeptical about things other than religion.

I don't mean that as an insult, so I hope you don't take it that way. I seriously think you've made science your religion.

I posted scientific facts backed with citations and links to proof. You are posting opinion. Do you understand the difference. And thinking there is no gene for alcoholics, aggressiveness, etc is being plain ignorant.

 

[Silhouette]

You are playing word miser.
Maybe not a gay gene but a man loving gene and a woman loving gene has been discovered in both sexes. In my book a man loving gene in a man is the gay gene we were looking for. And it's not just a single gene but a collection of genes in the strand the more of them the more likely they will be attracted to that sex. So yes we can test for it and then we can abort fetuses with a predilection for man loving in males or female loving in females. So stop prattling your ill informed shit.

So all those bulls in the beef industry trained up to become sexually aroused at the sight, smells and sounds of other castrated male cattle are all "born with a male-loving gene" right?

Do you realize that any male animal can be trained to become sexually oriented towards another male? Or a dummy mount? Or a certain set of clothing, or handlers, lights, environment, sounds? Ever hear of classical conditioning, the bedrock of psychology?

Or are Skinner and all the rest now just "politically incorrect haters"?

the fact that you can put someone in jail, for example, rape his ass and turn him into a homo loving fagget does not dissprove the possibility of being born gay. Neither does your anecdotal example of the bulls.

I think we are both in agreement that homosexualiy is learned, a behavior and my point. That point being that all legal arguments spawned from the incorrect assumption that "gays are born that way" reach false judgements and verdicts from the false premise.

The courts are looking at gays as if they are a genetic race. If the courts looked at them as behaviors, learned ones, that would change the entire legal landscape in how the courts handle these cases. And it would not bode well for the cult of LGBT.

 

[Slyhunter]

ALMIGHTY GOD HAS THE LAST WORD ON THE SICK ABOMINATION OF SEXUAL PERVERSION== The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Ok, where is the damn ignore button?
I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me.
I do have a problem with people spouting superstitious nonsense as if it was fact.

 

[Slyhunter]

My problem with gay marriage isn't in who gets married so much as government involvement in the whole issue in the first place. No one should have to go hat in hand in front of a bureaucrat to get married. The only reason government got involved in the first place was because licenses are a revenue stream for local government and because it gave governments the legal authority to keep interracial marriages illegal.

As far as homosexuality as a whole is concerned, I'm tolerant. I tolerate it; I put up with it. It disgusts me, but it neither breaks my legs nor picks my pockets, so I'm not going to do much more to get rid of homosexuals? I don't endorse it, I don't advocate, I don't think it is normal or should be celebrated. I'm okay with shunning people, but I'm not going to throw bricks through their windows or beat them in the streets. I don't think there should be legal protections just because someone is a homosexual and I should be perfectly fine to no do business with them.

If they were arguing to get the government out of all marriages. Changing the tax code so that everyone paid their own taxes, equally, regardless of marital status and shit like that. Then I would be completely behind them.

I don't give a fuck what the gay's do, long as they keep it to themselves. But I will fight tooth and nail to prevent government recognition of their depravity.

 

[Slyhunter]

no you've posted opinions of certain scientists that other scientists don't agree with. There is no man loving or woman loving gene. Period.

Just as there is no gay gene. Period. End of story.

They've claimed to find a gene that makes people alcoholics, makes people aggressive, etc....all of it is bogus, Slyhunter. There is no man loving and woman loving gene. I just got done reading how bogus that study is.

You need to learn to be skeptical about things other than religion.

I don't mean that as an insult, so I hope you don't take it that way. I seriously think you've made science your religion.

I posted scientific facts backed with citations and links to proof. You are posting opinion. Do you understand the difference. And thinking there is no gene for alcoholics, aggressiveness, etc is being plain ignorant.

You don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
I prefer to believe the scientists who actually know what they are talking about vs an asswipe who talks out his ass.

 

[Slyhunter]

So all those bulls in the beef industry trained up to become sexually aroused at the sight, smells and sounds of other castrated male cattle are all "born with a male-loving gene" right?

Do you realize that any male animal can be trained to become sexually oriented towards another male? Or a dummy mount? Or a certain set of clothing, or handlers, lights, environment, sounds? Ever hear of classical conditioning, the bedrock of psychology?

Or are Skinner and all the rest now just "politically incorrect haters"?

the fact that you can put someone in jail, for example, rape his ass and turn him into a homo loving fagget does not dissprove the possibility of being born gay. Neither does your anecdotal example of the bulls.

I think we are both in agreement that homosexualiy is learned, a behavior and my point. That point being that all legal arguments spawned from the incorrect assumption that "gays are born that way" reach false judgements and verdicts from the false premise.

The courts are looking at gays as if they are a genetic race. If the courts looked at them as behaviors, learned ones, that would change the entire legal landscape in how the courts handle these cases. And it would not bode well for the cult of LGBT.

Your problem is you keep using this word "all" All gays did not choose to be gay, most were born that way. AND "all" gays are not necessarily born gay, some become gay for various reasons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Haha! Check out the poll! No special rights is winning over all!

*watch the libtards make new accounts and try to change it...or call in all the libtards to skew the vote...just as they do in real life! Lol*

However, were the poll done in the US, your ilk would be way in the minority. Fact.

What do you expect from a Forum where the majority of members are Tea Party extremists?

I find that supposition difficult to fathom, every thread I wander onto is infested with socio-fascist useful idiots like you - where are all these tea party people - you're almost, mind you, that's almost as funny as Jake ---- are you two in competition for douchebag of the day ?

greenbean Snow, you truly know nothing.

You are the socio-fascist trying to limit civil liberties.

See, you are what Sil was talking about: let's turn reality inside out.

Sonny, not going to happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The general reaction to greenbean snow and his buddies.

 

[LockeJaw]

no you've posted opinions of certain scientists that other scientists don't agree with. There is no man loving or woman loving gene. Period.

Just as there is no gay gene. Period. End of story.

I posted scientific facts backed with citations and links to proof. You are posting opinion. Do you understand the difference. And thinking there is no gene for alcoholics, aggressiveness, etc is being plain ignorant.

You don't mind if I don't take your word for it.
I prefer to believe the scientists who actually know what they are talking about vs an asswipe who talks out his ass.

How do you know that they know what they're talking about?

 

[Asclepias]

Good Point, it tends to prove the fact that heterosexuality does not have a "cause" it is the norm. Homosexuality is not the norm, it is an abberation, a deviance, a perversion and not normal human behavior , and not somethiong one is born with. So, if it's not something you are born with, if its not genetic , then what causes it ?

The cause of heterosexuality is genes as well. When did you make the decision to be attracted to women instead of men?

Perhaps you need to understand the difference between normal and abnormal. Attraction to the opposite sex is natural, it is why Human Beings and all species for that matter continue to exist. Attraction to same sex is abnbormal, serves no natural function, and is abnormal. Nobody makes the decision tobe attracted to the opposite sex - that's how nature designed us. Your statement, parroted from LGBT propaganda is an asinnine and moronic statement as is the entire LGBT scenario.


So far as the proposed biological basis for explaining homosexuality - Genetics - unproven, unfounded and unsound . Attempts to prove it are based upon Politicized Science which in essence is crack pot science practiced by queer witch doctors in between salivating over one anothers phallic fantasies.

Perhaps you need to read a dictionary.

Natural
1. existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.

If your whole premise is based on your faulty understanding of natural you better rethink your position.

 

[LockeJaw]

To add to my last post. Slyhunter, how do you know they're not using their credentials to further a political agenda?