another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

[Gato_Solo]

You presented him as your scientific source as to your theory that gays choose to be gay. I simply asked who is this guy and what are his credentials. Is it a crime to look elsewhere on the site to find the answers? Is it a crime to point out that a he says hes a missionary and a follower of the bible and that theres nothing on there about his scientific qualifications to speak on the topic? If I site some yahoo's web page as a source should I act all indignant when you call me on it and ask me why he qualifies as an expert?

Only if you use that as a ploy not to dispute his facts. Not once did you prove that any of his facts were wrong. You just jumped on the first thing you didn't like about his personal beliefs to deny everything he posted. Was it too much work to disprove his statements, or was it too easy to spin this into something you can debate easier. Either way, it's sloppy work, and I expect better from you.

BTW...this whole thread started out about some persons livejournal. They don't have any credentials, either, but you took what they said as truth. Hypocrisy?

 

[BeardofPants]

Mebbe they can cure this affliction called whiteness whilst they're at it.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Then you are suggesting that people stop looking for cures to alzheimers or TB or MS or cancer or...

they are all natural & therefore in need of no cure.

are you actually still living in a world where you equate homosexuality with fatal horrible disabilitating diseases? How incredibly scary.

 

[chcr]

Allow murder, rape, robbery. Just because the masses have deemed such actions inappropriate.

Once again, you leap to the immediate, ridiculous extreme, as lib-con extremists are wont to do. You know what I meant, debate that or be quiet.

 

[Gato_Solo]

are you actually still living in a world where you equate homosexuality with fatal horrible disabilitating diseases? How incredibly scary.

So now you reverse yourself. When I said it was a choice, with a small amount of the population being genetic, you argued for genetics, now you argue that it's not genetic it's a choice. Now I'm really confused...Before you attack this, remember that Alzhiemers is also genetic, and also realize that I never claimed homosexuality was a disease...

 

[Gato_Solo]

Mebbe they can cure this affliction called whiteness whilst they're at it.

There's already a cure for that...it's called sunlight...

 

[chcr]

See, now I don't believe it matters in the least whether it's a choice (concious or unconcious) or not. Interesting though, how we've degenerated from gay marriage to simple gay-ness, though, isn't it.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Only if you use that as a ploy not to dispute his facts. Not once did you prove that any of his facts were wrong. You just jumped on the first thing you didn't like about his personal beliefs to deny everything he posted. Was it too much work to disprove his statements, or was it too easy to spin this into something you can debate easier. Either way, it's sloppy work, and I expect better from you.

wait… this guy makes an attempt on his home page to discredit ONE study and that PROVES that homosexuals all choose to be that way? Im sorry I missed the logic jump there. All that shows me is that a guy with an agenda can cut and paste. If you want someone to give you reasons why that study isn’t full of holes then you may want to ask Simon LeVay. From what I understand REAL SCIENTISTS also had a problem with LeVays data as well. Does that prove that homosexuality is in fact all about choice? Certainly not. If I write a silly research paper with faulty data that supports my theory that gravity is actually controlled by really thin strings does that mean you can throw out the entire theory of gravity?

BTW...this whole thread started out about some persons livejournal. They don't have any credentials, either, but you took what they said as truth. Hypocrisy?

actually I don’t think I made one comment at all about the scientific basis of the original post. To me it was quite obviously simple irony in order to make a point about the absurdity of the anti-homosexual claims. Where as you are using that guys home page as the basis of your ideas on homosexuality and choice.

 

[Gonz]

Once again, you leap to the immediate, ridiculous extreme, as lib-con extremists are wont to do. You know what I meant, debate that or be quiet.

I actually used your words to reach my logical conclusion.

Any freedom or right is completely meaningless if it only applies to that of which you approve.

There has to be standards. A line in the sand. An unreproachable point in which a society, a family, a couple or an individual will not broach. America has set this one in the same place as every other society in history.

TD...if it makes you feel better we can use chicken pox, malaria or leprosy. The point is still the same. Either it's genetic & a cure can be found to alleviate the suffering or it's a choice & we don't need to concern ourselves with making choices into law.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

So now you reverse yourself. When I said it was a choice, with a small amount of the population being genetic, you argued for genetics, now you argue that it's not genetic it's a choice. Now I'm really confused...Before you attack this, remember that Alzhiemers is also genetic, and also realize that I never claimed homosexuality was a disease...

where the heck do you get that im saying its a choice there? and if you claim that homosexuality isnt a disease then why defends gonz's stance that it is and is in need of irradicating?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Either it's genetic & a cure can be found to alleviate the suffering or it's a choice & we don't need to concern ourselves with making choices into law.

what suffering? why does the possiblity that it is genetic imply that something must be changed? Youre losing me. can we do the same to left handed people too? They are in dire need of curing too quite clearly.

 

[Gonz]

It must be suffering that is causing all this. Things were going along alright & WHAM!

"we want to get married too".
Why?
Because it is unfair & our feeling are hurt that you think we're different.
You are different.
SEE!! He's a homophobe. We just want what's right.
Okay, here's all the legal parts but to avoid a big issue call it a civil union.
UNFAIR...my feelings are hurt & I'm being opressed & psychologically damaged.

 

[Gato_Solo]

where the heck do you get that im saying its a choice there? and if you claim that homosexuality isnt a disease then why defends gonz's stance that it is and is in need of irradicating?

Who's defending what Gonz said? I'm merely pointing out that you never denied that it's genetic. In fact, you went out of your way not to answer at all. Hmmm...perhaps you just have no opinion one way or the other, so you are just arguing to argue...

If it's natural maybe it can be cured. If they wouldn't wish to be cured it's choice. If it's choice then all this in moot. They can chosse a more traditional way.

cured? Why dont we just labotomize anyone who we even suspect of being in any way gay and get it over with.

A bit extreme, don't you think? Approximately 1% of the population...

Anyhow, you never once confirmed, or denied, your stance on the presentation. My God..you are the supreme waffler in this one, aren't you. You don't take a stand, and then go against everyone elses opinion. Ingenius, TD, ingenius.

 

[chcr]

There has to be standards.

Yes there have to be standards. Your illogical conclusion is just so much hot air though. Again, you knew what I meant, but rather than debate that, you made a ridiculous response. The more you grasp at straws like that, the more obvious it becomes that you're grasping at straws.

Never mind.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Who's defending what Gonz said? I'm merely pointing out that you never denied that it's genetic. In fact, you went out of your way not to answer at all. Hmmm...perhaps you just have no opinion one way or the other, so you are just arguing to argue...

huh? how many times did i say i disagree with your assesment that its mostly choice? is calling that opinion dead wrong not strong enough for you?

Anyhow, you never once confirmed, or denied, your stance on the presentation. My God..you are the supreme waffler in this one, aren't you. You don't take a stand, and then go against everyone elses opinion. Ingenius, TD, ingenius.

what are you babbling about here? are you talking about gay marriage or the nature of being gay? either way are you telling me you dont know where i stand on either issue? may want to reread then. Its pretty straight forward. I dont tend to pull punches.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Thulsa you have offered nothing resdembling scientific fact. The closest thing you offered to science was specultaion that would support the cause. There is no science in it.

There is ZERO PROOF that there is a genetic cause for homosexuality, even though they have spent many tens of million trying to prove homosexuality is natural.

The gay lobby spends millions trying to make the science case for homosexuality so they can call it natural. Everytime they produce a result that supports their claim it get proven to be skewed results, improper interpitation of data or voodoo science.

Yet, there are hundreds of validated studies that explain the homosexual behaviors resulting from emtional traumas.

The natural herding of animals and the social order of it is a broad but undeniable fact that heterosexuality is hard-wired.

Ferramones are proof of hard-wired sybiotic sexual signaling. There are no homosexual ferramones that have ever been documented. (thats just butt you smell)

Show me the basis in which the anus is a sexual organ! Show me the sexual development of the anus and colon that supports the naturally reoccuring homosexual act of anal penitration. You can’t because there is none, there is only the stimulas of the rewards center associtated with ‘pooping’ there is no exterior natural lubrication or sexual nerves. There is a prostate, however there a higher rate of prostate cancer among gay men that is direrct result of anal penitration.

Thulsa, you have repeatedly threatened to show facts, you have not shown any.

You repeatedly call for data, yet you have obviously not looked at any yourself.

Bottom line, science is open to the concept of ‘naturally gay’, but so far there are no grounds to believe there is anything to it.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Is this the part where we keep saying the same thing over and over and blatantly ignoring what the other person has said? If you choose to ignore the well accepted possibilities for the continuous occurance of homosexuality in human populations then that’s your own ignorant problem. You cant explain it away as just choice and sex abuse no matter how hard you try. It simply doesn’t fit the pattern. So find something else.

And once again allow me to reiterate for like the twelve thousandth time: why should you be allowed to legally discriminate against gays whether they are that way naturally or not? How is it relevant to the point? Are you saying you are willing to grant homosexuals marriage rights if they can prove they are that way by nature and not by choice? If not then why are you even arguing this point?

Yet, there are hundreds of validated studies that explain the homosexual behaviors resulting from emtional traumas.

and how much would you like to bet that there are FAR MORE examples of emotional traumas leading to heterosexuality. Imagine that. Whats that say about heterosexuality! Oh and many people who breath air have gone on to become those disgusting homo-sexuals too! There MUST be a direct correlation between air and gayness! Wait whats that you say? There are thousands and thousands and thousands of homosexuals who were raised in perfectly fine families and weren’t horribly abused as children? Crap well it must just be a blip. Its those “hundreds” of cases that tell us everything we need to know after all.

Show me the basis in which the anus is a sexual organ! Show me the sexual development of the anus and colon that supports the naturally reoccuring homosexual act of anal penitration. You can’t because there is none, there is only the stimulas of the rewards center associtated with ‘pooping’ there is no exterior natural lubrication or sexual nerves. There is a prostate, however there a higher rate of prostate cancer among gay men that is direrct result of anal penitration.

So then from this logic we will need to also ban ANY couple that engages in anal sex at all. Willing to stand by your beliefs for that? Perhaps millions of heterosexual couples use the anus as a sexual organ. Why are we letting them stay married! And what about lesbians. They don’t engage in anal sex (or at least a lot less often then heterosexual couples do). Does that make them a better candidate for your marriage rules? Your attempt to confine sex acts to one group and not another is a futile task. Face it.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

This is where you ignore everything else anyone post and post more of the same nonsensical garbage.

Gay’s can have every right a married couple can have it is called a civil union, what they wants is not the rights, it is the title.

The gay people do not meet the long standing socially evolved definition of marriage. They want to forcefully re-write the definition to include them. They want the validation that the word gives.

Homosexuality is tolerated but is by no means condoned by society. It is different then there heterosexual tradition of marriage. The majority feel that homosexuality is deviant and dirty.

Why should they be called married if they do not meet the definition? (You prolly believe Clinton was the first black president too)

Nobody can use the anus as a sexual organ, because there is not sexual organ called and anus. (but I bet you have more of your scientifc proof of the sexual organ Anus)

For the record anal sex was illegal for quite sometime in most places. Again thoo you argumnet is misguaided and dry. You are looking at the wold thru pixie-straws and fail to see anything other than the confusion you so un-eliquenty spew.

After reading this thread I have become far more aware of the need for the federal Gov’t to make a constitutional amendment to protect the liberties on values of the American people. As before I was unsure and uncomfortable with it, I have decided I fully support it.

Also, after reading your loose and tangental train-of-thoughts, I keep expecting you to finish your next post with: "wan't fries with that? . . . " not

 

[BeardofPants]

Really? So when the Greeks used to perform pederasty, it used to be illegal? Hunh.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Really? So when the Greeks used to perform pederasty, it used to be illegal? Hunh.

No, of course it wasn’t silly.
The Greeks had untold freedoms of sexual pleasure and highly valued the man-boy relationship, right up to the time when their liberal civilization collapsed upon them.

But let me clarify: In the US sodomy was illegal in many states until very recently. The wonderful Greek practice sodomizing young boys (A NAMBLA moment) is still taboo but gaining force thanks to the prior efforts of the homosexual crowd, who have a shared interest in the degradation acceptable moral standards.