What are your attitudes about Homosexuals?

[Seawytch]

It's not "you don't deserve the same rights", Wytchy. It's "you don't deserve the same benefits" when it comes to gay marriage. Your couplings are NOT the same, they're different. If you have kids; that is a different story. That's what marriage is about, children and their safety& well being. You guys seem not to even think about that.

Fortunately for all the married gay couples and the millions of infertile or childless by choice straight married couples, your opinion and $3.45 will get you a coffee at Starbucks.

Sex isn't a requirement to procreate, civil marriage isn't a requirement to procreate and procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage...in fact, in some instances is prohibited altogether.

First cousin marriage is allowed in these states under the following circumstances:
Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.
Indiana- if both are at least 65.
Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.
Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.​

Yes, our marriages are exactly the same as all the other millions of married couple all over the country. Some of us have kids, some of us don't. You only want to keep the gay ones from civil marriage. That's bigotry and discrimination.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh phsaw....False argument since I never told you how to think. I basically told you that your thinking is not going to force gays back in the closet. The number of out gays is only going to grow. You can continue to feel however you want to feel about it...what you try to legislate is the only thing that I give a shit about.

Well, what we're going to do is rally around and support every Christian business you target. We had so much fun with the Robertson family and Chik Filet making tons of money when you targeted them, and we're going to support the Christian bakers, florists, etc. Looking forward to it. The Robertson family and Chik Filet just got more business when you attacked them. Go for it.

And here is an excellent example of why this country is ruined.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean you run their cause into the ground, be a bigot, or make everything about "us vs. them".

Sorry both sides, but those of you who refuse to listen to the other side are wrong.

The confusion between the legal marriage contract as defined by the respective states and the religious institution of Holy Matrimony is where most of the problems lie.

Those that believe in the latter have religions that define homosexuals as sinful. To them that means that allowing gays to marry will somehow "defile" their own "Holy Matrimony".

Since the 1st Amendment prohibits the state from endorsing any religion the state cannot legitimately deny the right of same sex couples the legal benefits of marriage. These state sanctioned marriages have no religious component whatsoever.

Those who believe that homosexuals are sinful and should be denied state sanctioned marriage are trying to unconstitutionally force the state to endorse their religious beliefs. Until they cease and desist this topic will continue.

And yes, I understand the arguments of both sides. I uphold the rights of those who have religious beliefs. However their rights do not override the rights of others. Which is why I am upholding the rights of all Americans to marry the consenting adult of their choosing.

The majority of this nation understands the distinction between the state sanctioned legal marriage contract and the concept of Holy Matrimony. It is only those who haven't figured this out that are still having a problem with it.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. You're not paying attention to what I am saying. I said that you could very well have been born gay, the science isn't there to prove it 100% yet. I also did not say it was a choice. I've done some more rereading of some of the studies and I don't think you CHOSE to be gay. I said the most likely scenario is enviromental & social causes played the biggest role in it. I'm not even saying it was something like being molested or anything like that, I don't know if you were or weren't. The brain plasticity study proved that brain structure changes AS a product of homosexual activity...that is a start on finding the cause if it is not genetic.

Well scientist think it's genetics and environment that plays a role.

Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”
Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do to point to a biological root.

He said: 'The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’​

You also might be interested to note this additional finding...

Last year Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the greater change he will be gay.

They believe that the immune response produced by a pregnant mother increases with each son, increasing the odds of producing more feminine traits in the developing brain of the fetus.

Each older brother raised the odds that a man was homosexual by one third.
​

Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds

 

[Seawytch]

No and the reason why I couldn't is because I believe that doing such a thing is against the word of the Lord, therefore it is wrong.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

So if it wasn't you could? Seriously? If so, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're gay and repressed it or you're bi. You can't choose to be attracted to someone.

You may think that a person can't choose, but I believe that they can because the Lord would not have them be what is against his word.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. And no I am not gay or bi, but if you want to choose to continue thinking that I am, go ahead. You are already wrong about thinking that it isn't a choice. Why not be wrong about something else?

Actually I know orientation is not a choice. That you think you can choose leads to only one conclusion, bisexuality. You believe you could choose to be with a woman. That must mean there is an underlying attraction, yes? See, there is no way I could choose to be emotionally and sexually attracted to a man. I wasn't born that way. I can't make myself want to be attracted to men, but since you think you could make yourself attracted to women, the only logical explanation is that you are bisexual or gay.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, so we have 31 people say that homosexuals should have no special protections, and only 1 that says they hate homosexuals.

I know this is not a scientific pole, but it pretty well proves to my mind that opposition to the militant gay agenda has ZERO to do with hatred at all.

Whew...it's a good thing gays don't want special protections...they want the same protections.

 

[Warrior102]

Wrong. You're not paying attention to what I am saying. I said that you could very well have been born gay, the science isn't there to prove it 100% yet. I also did not say it was a choice. I've done some more rereading of some of the studies and I don't think you CHOSE to be gay. I said the most likely scenario is enviromental & social causes played the biggest role in it. I'm not even saying it was something like being molested or anything like that, I don't know if you were or weren't. The brain plasticity study proved that brain structure changes AS a product of homosexual activity...that is a start on finding the cause if it is not genetic.

Well scientist think it's genetics and environment that plays a role.

Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”
Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do to point to a biological root.

He said: 'The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’​

You also might be interested to note this additional finding...

Last year Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the greater change he will be gay.

They believe that the immune response produced by a pregnant mother increases with each son, increasing the odds of producing more feminine traits in the developing brain of the fetus.

Each older brother raised the odds that a man was homosexual by one third.
​

Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds

More scientific "evidence" to justify your sickness?

 

[Seawytch]

Do you and the other bigots like you engage in coordinated campaigns of slander and libel against anyone who dares hold an opinion contrary to your own?

Holding an opinion different than mine is fine...speaking it out loud makes it available for public censure.






I don't think you understand the meaning of the word bigot. Yes, I am intolerant of intolerance. I am intolerant of racism, misogyny, anti gay bigotry, religious bigotry and a few others I'm sure.

Homosexuality is a behavior, not a race. The only way anyone even knows your sexual activities is if you tell them or perform them in front of them.

Your attempt to equate behavior with race is patently dishonest, but then, bigots are not ofter worried about integrity...

Discrimination is discrimination. You make discriminatory statements or contribute to discriminatory campaigns, you are subject to public disapproval. I'm glad you can't be openly racist anymore just like I'm glad you can't be openly anti gay anymore.

I'm also subject to public approval. It's called free speech. Anything else?

No shit Sherlock. We have it too. You say something anti gay, we can use our free speech to say you're an anti-gay bigot. What ya'll are freaking out about is that the rest of the country doesn't want to bash gays alongside you anymore.

 

[Seawytch]

I am bisexual, ambidextrous, and morally balanced because of choice and willpower... not because of genetics.

You are who you are because of your own free will? You are going to make the LGBT people mad..... But they will forgive you since you are bisexual.

She did not will herself to be sexually and emotionally attracted to both sexes...Could you do it, make yourself attracted to someone of the same sex just through sheer force of will?

 

[Warrior102]

What ya'll are freaking out about is that the rest of the country doesn't want to bash gays alongside you anymore.

I don't know where you live, but we don't take too kindly to queers down here in Virginia. Maybe NORTHERN Virginia - up by D.C. - but most of those Prius-driving pole-smokers are from out of state originally.

 

[Seawytch]

BZZZT Wrong!

Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality - Medical News Today

Bravo ! Excellent article Derideo - well written and full of hope and wishful thinking. It deals with "Epi-Marks" . Epi-marks are eliminated and recreated with each suceeding generation, and were never considered to have been inherited

The study theorizes and suggests that what they term "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks can, at times, pass from generation to generation - if this is true it is extremely , I repeat extremely rare - although not impossible. The study is inconclusive allthough the theory is sound and plausible it is just that a THEORY - not proof positive .

Although I doapplaud your attempt - I believe youhave failed to debunk Lockejaws statement "there is Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality," allthough the study you cited is promising it is not concrete evidence - just a theory.

The mere existence of a highly plausible genetic theory completely debunks the erroneous allegation by LJ that there is "Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality". Obviously there is now plausible "evidence" regarding the genetic cause and it will take further research to confirm the findings. It is highly likely that the further research will turn up evidence of other genetic factors that are currently not known. That is how science works. They develop a hypothesis and then run a series of tests to determine whether it proves or disproves the theory. The results can often lead to further findings.

So the concrete evidence of epigenetic markers is irrefutable. How they behave in determining gender is irrefutable. The fact that genes don't always behave predictably is irrefutable. The mathematical modeling is irrefutable. The existence of the LBGT children born to straight parents is irrefutable. So it is a highly plausible theory to believe that an epigenetic marker could misbehave and the end result would be someone who is born as a member of the LBGT community. That evidence is way more than "zero" by any measure.

What there is zero evidence of is that anyone chooses their attractions. That's ludicrous on it's face.

 

[Seawytch]

What ya'll are freaking out about is that the rest of the country doesn't want to bash gays alongside you anymore.

I don't know where you live, but we don't take too kindly to queers down here in Virginia. Maybe NORTHERN Virginia - up by D.C. - but most of those Prius-driving pole-smokers are from out of state originally.

Funny, I lived near Portsmouth, Virginia in a neighborhood with four lesbian families in a quarter mile area. Folks were mighty "kindly" to us all. Our lesbian friend's house was the hangout for all the kids and adults. The garage was always up and chairs out for "chit chats" with the neighbors. Good times!

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong. You're not paying attention to what I am saying. I said that you could very well have been born gay, the science isn't there to prove it 100% yet. I also did not say it was a choice. I've done some more rereading of some of the studies and I don't think you CHOSE to be gay. I said the most likely scenario is enviromental & social causes played the biggest role in it. I'm not even saying it was something like being molested or anything like that, I don't know if you were or weren't. The brain plasticity study proved that brain structure changes AS a product of homosexual activity...that is a start on finding the cause if it is not genetic.

Well scientist think it's genetics and environment that plays a role.

Dr Bailey said environmental factors were likely to have the biggest impact on homosexuality.

He added: “Don’t confuse “environmental” with “socially acquired.” Environment means anything that is not in our DNA at birth, and that includes a lot of stuff that is not social.”
Richard Lane, of Stonewall, said that while studies into the origins of homosexuality have yet to produce firm evidence, they do to point to a biological root.

He said: 'The thing that’s consistent across all of them is that they all point to sexual orientation being something fundamental to a person rather than the lifestyle choice some opponents of equality repeatedly suggest.’​

You also might be interested to note this additional finding...

Last year Canadian scientists found that the more older male siblings a man has, the greater change he will be gay.

They believe that the immune response produced by a pregnant mother increases with each son, increasing the odds of producing more feminine traits in the developing brain of the fetus.

Each older brother raised the odds that a man was homosexual by one third.
​

Being homosexual is only partly due to gay gene, research finds

More scientific "evidence" to justify your sickness?

No honey, I'm just trying to give you an out so you can go get that butt fucking you can't stop thinking...er, talking about.

 

[Warrior102]

What ya'll are freaking out about is that the rest of the country doesn't want to bash gays alongside you anymore.

I don't know where you live, but we don't take too kindly to queers down here in Virginia. Maybe NORTHERN Virginia - up by D.C. - but most of those Prius-driving pole-smokers are from out of state originally.

Funny, I lived near Portsmouth, Virginia in a neighborhood with four lesbian families in a quarter mile area. Folks were mighty "kindly" to us all. Our lesbian friend's house was the hangout for all the kids and adults. The garage was always up and chairs out for "chit chats" with the neighbors. Good times!

The blacks (natives) don't like gays.
Go ask one.
You four, lying-under-oath, dishonorable out of town "twats" are an anomaly

 

[JakeStarkey]

So many federal and state courts and recent state elections reveal that many, many people do not agree with Lockejaw's contention that same sex coupling is not equivalent to hetero coupling is important enough to deny marriage equality.

 

[Seawytch]

I don't know where you live, but we don't take too kindly to queers down here in Virginia. Maybe NORTHERN Virginia - up by D.C. - but most of those Prius-driving pole-smokers are from out of state originally.

Funny, I lived near Portsmouth, Virginia in a neighborhood with four lesbian families in a quarter mile area. Folks were mighty "kindly" to us all. Our lesbian friend's house was the hangout for all the kids and adults. The garage was always up and chairs out for "chit chats" with the neighbors. Good times!

The blacks (natives) don't like gays.
Go ask one.
You four, lying-under-oath, dishonorable out of town "twats" are an anomaly

So only black people live in Southern Virginia? You can speak for all blacks in Virginia? Do you have a special license to do that?

Overall...A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

 

[Warrior102]

So only black people live in Southern Virginia? You can speak for all blacks in Virginia? Do you have a special license to do that?

Overall...A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

Portsmouth is now Southern Virginia?
You need a geography lesson it appears...

 

[Seawytch]

So only black people live in Southern Virginia? You can speak for all blacks in Virginia? Do you have a special license to do that?

Overall...A national Gallup poll conducted November 26-29, 2012 found 53% of African Americans thought marriages between same-sex couples should be recognized officially and should have the same rights as straight married couples.

Portsmouth is now Southern Virginia?
You need a geography lesson it appears...

I do?

Hmmm....southern edge just shy of NC...

 

[GreenBean]

BZZZT Wrong!

Epigenetics Is A Critical Factor In Homosexuality - Medical News Today

Bravo ! Excellent article Derideo - well written and full of hope and wishful thinking. It deals with "Epi-Marks" . Epi-marks are eliminated and recreated with each suceeding generation, and were never considered to have been inherited

The study theorizes and suggests that what they term "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks can, at times, pass from generation to generation - if this is true it is extremely , I repeat extremely rare - although not impossible. The study is inconclusive allthough the theory is sound and plausible it is just that a THEORY - not proof positive .

Although I doapplaud your attempt - I believe youhave failed to debunk Lockejaws statement "there is Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality," allthough the study you cited is promising it is not concrete evidence - just a theory.

The mere existence of a highly plausible genetic theory completely debunks the erroneous allegation by LJ that there is "Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality". Obviously there is now plausible "evidence" regarding the genetic cause and it will take further research to confirm the findings. It is highly likely that the further research will turn up evidence of other genetic factors that are currently not known. That is how science works. They develop a hypothesis and then run a series of tests to determine whether it proves or disproves the theory. The results can often lead to further findings.

So the concrete evidence of epigenetic markers is irrefutable. How they behave in determining gender is irrefutable. The fact that genes don't always behave predictably is irrefutable. The mathematical modeling is irrefutable. The existence of the LBGT children born to straight parents is irrefutable. So it is a highly plausible theory to believe that an epigenetic marker could misbehave and the end result would be someone who is born as a member of the LBGT community. That evidence is way more than "zero" by any measure.

Derideo - I believe we've had this conversation before , allthough It may have been someone else - I'm not sure.

You do Understand the difference between Fact and Theory - do you not ?

In addition - the keyword in LJs statement is "Concrete" concrete evidence implies factual evidence - not - Theoretical or even hypothetical but FACTUAL. So although the study yopu cited does lend weight to your side of the debate - it most certainly does not debunk LJs statement.

 

[GreenBean]

Lockejaw thinks he's healthy..

I can't speak for his physical health, however based on his posts, he appears to one of the few mentally healthy people posting on this thread - and that includes myself.

That reminds me off the joke about the guy at the mental institution who insists he's Napoleon, and the doctor asks him how he knows he's Napoleon, and he says, "God Told Me".

And the guy in the next bed says, "I did not!"

Sorry, dude, if I were to pick out the two biggest homophobic whacks on this board, you and Lockejaw would be competing for those spots with Sil, who is still drunk dialing poor Sean Penn over that Harvey Milk movie.

Cute Joe -I see you've got a sense of humor !

So far as the biggest "Homophobes" .... depends on how you define homophobe. The Democrats consider themselves to be a bunch of Jack Asses - and I do concur . Clinton claimed he never had sex with that woman, then the silly Jack Ass saved his skin with a semantic word game "Define Sex"

 

[GreenBean]

Bravo ! Excellent article Derideo - well written and full of hope and wishful thinking. It deals with "Epi-Marks" . Epi-marks are eliminated and recreated with each suceeding generation, and were never considered to have been inherited

The study theorizes and suggests that what they term "sexually antagonistic" epi-marks can, at times, pass from generation to generation - if this is true it is extremely , I repeat extremely rare - although not impossible. The study is inconclusive allthough the theory is sound and plausible it is just that a THEORY - not proof positive .

Although I doapplaud your attempt - I believe youhave failed to debunk Lockejaws statement "there is Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality," allthough the study you cited is promising it is not concrete evidence - just a theory.

The mere existence of a highly plausible genetic theory completely debunks the erroneous allegation by LJ that there is "Zero concrete evidence of genetic causes of homosexuality". Obviously there is now plausible "evidence" regarding the genetic cause and it will take further research to confirm the findings. It is highly likely that the further research will turn up evidence of other genetic factors that are currently not known. That is how science works. They develop a hypothesis and then run a series of tests to determine whether it proves or disproves the theory. The results can often lead to further findings.

So the concrete evidence of epigenetic markers is irrefutable. How they behave in determining gender is irrefutable. The fact that genes don't always behave predictably is irrefutable. The mathematical modeling is irrefutable. The existence of the LBGT children born to straight parents is irrefutable. So it is a highly plausible theory to believe that an epigenetic marker could misbehave and the end result would be someone who is born as a member of the LBGT community. That evidence is way more than "zero" by any measure.

What there is zero evidence of is that anyone chooses their attractions. That's ludicrous on it's face.

You are correct SeaWytch, nobody conciouslly chooses their sexual attractions - they are the product of innate conditioning - generally in the formulative years - and they are reversible - sometimes