Gay Marriage

[dwightfry]

There has been a lot of talk about Gay marriages in the news lately. A poll said %60 of Americans are against it. I don't understand why people are making such a fuss, and how the government can even begin to think they would have the right add that kind of intolerance into the constitution.

I was talking to my boss today, and he had two reasons for being against it. He was raised to see it as a sin, and he said that if you allow gay marriages then next we will be allowing polygamy, and then pediphelia and beastitiality which would cause the downfall of the entire country. He based this on past governments that failed, like the roman empire. I think this is rediculous.

First off all, if it a sin, then that's religion, so the gov. can't use that reason anyways. Also, although some do decide to be gay, many others don't have a choice, they just are. How can you deny a basic right to someone who is born differently from others? Do the retarded have less rights? As for saying it would be the downfall of our country, I didn't know how to respond. I can understand allowing polygamy. If that is what works for people then I see no reason why they can't. But pedophelia is usually without the consent of the child, there is no good argument to allow it so the line wouldn't not continue to be pushed back as he said.

Perhaps someone can give me a better insight on where he is coming from, and I would also like to see a poll as well.

GAY MARRIAGES

1. COMPLETELY AGAINST GAY MARRIAGES AND CIVIL UNIONS, AMMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADDED TO CONSTITUTION
2. AGAINST GAY MARRIAGES AND CIVIL UNIONS, AMMENDMENT SHOULDN'T BE ADDED TO CONSTITUTION
3. AGAINST GAY MARRIAGES BUT FOR CIVIL UNIONS, AMMENDMENT SHOULD BE ADDED
4. AGAINST GAY MARRIAGES BUT FOR CIVIL UNIONS, AMMENDMENT SHOULDN'T BE ADDED
5. FOR GAY MARRIAGES, THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS EVERY ELSE, BUT IT MAKES ME UNCOMFORTABLE
6. FOR GAY MARRAIGES, THEY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS, IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL

[Nogimics]

First of all lets get this outta the way ? Are you gay ? (And im not trying to be funny)

Personally I think gay men should NOT be allowed to get married in a church or under any other religious faith. Because as far as I know, no religion has ever supported this.

However I think they should be allowed to get married under law as it is a way of them having equal rights to each others assets after they die and being the next of kin. If they want to live together then that's fine. As long as they don't bother me or flirt with me then I couldn't give a shit.

But we should not set the example that being gay is normal, by allowing them to get married in any church's or in public ceremonies. This should be more of a contract for them.

Sorry if my view offends you or anyone else. Maybe because im straight I am being unreasonable but it isn't right.

[dwightfry]

No, I'm not gay, just liberal. I'm not scared, nor offended by seeing 2 guys kiss. At one point, I too said "let them do what they want, just not in front of me", now I just don't care.

I can understand your views about keeping it out of the church, I don't agree with it, but understand it. I disagree because someday I am going to be married in a church, yet I completely disagree with religion. I am a deep spiritualist, and I believe that I should listen to what my soul tells me is right rather than what the church says, the church has been wrong many many times before. One of those things being the idea the homosexuality is a sin, yet that shouldn't stop me from experiencing a ceremony.

Also, I don't think your opinion is offensive in less you make it offensive. Attacking there lifestyle is offensive, while being against marriage is just an opinion. A couple months ago, a guy walked into a restaraunt wearing hair curlers, and a friend's mom immediatly said "He's probably a fag, they disgust me". I have never in my life heard her say anything like that, and I've been very close to her for over 14 years, and a couple of weeks ago she said that she wouldn't let my friend watch Mister Roger's growing up because "he's a fag". That I find very offensive.


(I don't want to try to change anyone's veiws, I am curious on the reasons why people feel the way they do.)

[ilw]

Could someone clarify the difference between marriage and civil union, is it a religious or legal difference. If its a religious thing then obviously the religion has to choose itself, its almost inconceivable to force a religion to accept something of such a magnitude. If its a legal thing then what does the difference entail, i'm assuming its tax, benefit and some other rights eg next of kin.
.
As far as i'm concerned there is a difference between a heterosexual and homosexual union, but only so far as the fact that heterosexual couples can have children, as such the only difference in the way the law treats the different kinds of couples should reflect this. I think in Britain married couples have a different tax status, i'm assuming to encourage the formation and stability of families and this presumably to help in the raising of children. Therefore imo homosexual couples should be eligible to attain exactly the same legal status, but their tax status should probably be different.

Poll please. :smilie3:

[Rat Faced]

I have no problem with it.

Religious people may, due to their belief in the nature of marriage.

[Biggles]

Can't say it is really something that will keep me awake at night.

Obviously, there are certain religions hostile to the idea and it would be wholly wrong to force them to accept such unions on their premises against their will. However, as Gays pay taxes and being Gay is not illegal then they have as much right to use civil facilities as anyone.

Come to think of it, people declaring their fidelity is something of a rarity - it should be encouraged.

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

To keep it short and simple there&#39;s suppose to be a separation between church/state that takes the philosophical aspect of marriage off the table.

All marriage is in legal terms to the government is the mingling of two individuals property and assets, nothing more than a simple contractual agreement big deal. It simply isn&#39;t rational to outlaw this type of contract on the basis of gender in the land of the free.

Land of free is defined as the ability to pursue your own pursuit of happiness, whatever that may be with certain boundaries set by populous.

[Agrajag]

1. Gay people want to get married, cool nothing to do with me, a civil ceremony is only a contract so why not let them ? Give them the same legal rights as any couple.

2. Gay people getting married in a Church, that&#39;s up to the Church. though I am not aware of any Christian Church which would do it. I believe most preach that carrying out homosexual intercourse in any form is wrong. It is the act which is objected to. So it is unlikely they would perform a religious marriage ceremony.

3. Division of State / Church. Not in the UK, which is a constitutional Monarchy. The Queen is the Head of State. She is also the Defender of The Faith. The Bishops sit in the House of Lords. The State and Church, in the UK are intertwined.

[Rat Faced]

I know 4 is not a sample to base anything on, however if the polls on public acceptance are to be believed, either:


So far we are very enlightened to give it our wholehearted blessing which says a lot for the frequenters of this area or;

You 3 are lying through your teeth :P


Edit: Make that 5 enlightened souls, while i was posting :D





Remembering the debate on this subject a few months ago, I expect the poll results to change drastically later ;)

[<TROUBLE^MAKER>]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 February 2004 - 17:02
I know 4 is not a sample to base anything on, however if the polls on public acceptance are to be believed, either:


So far we are very enlightened to give it our wholehearted blessing which says a lot for the frequenters of this area or;

You 3 are lying through your teeth :P





Remembering the debate on this subject a few months ago, I expect the poll results to change drastically later ;)
I think people of differing beliefs are more or less inclined to take part in a poll. For example a bunch of parishioners who just received a sermon on the evils of gay marriage might be more inclined to take time out to be part of a poll than someone who hasn&#39;t thought about marriage all month because no one got there blood boiling over sexual preference based legislation.

[Arm]

Hey if gays want to get married thats fine with me. No civil unions, just give them full marriages. What makes them so different that they cant have the same rights? They are still human. :smilie4:

Sure the religious people want to preach their old ways originated by a man (who some claim never existed :blink:) thousands of years ago and then a book was written 70 to 130 years after his death based off someone elses interperitation and then distorted and modified several times throughout history. :blink: It&#39;s a classic case of the conservative religious folk trying their best to hinder progress. :frusty:

The religious people and repressed homosexuals are the only people I know of who would be against gay marriage. :ph34r: Otherwise theres no problem right?

[billyfridge]

I&#39;m for,as long as children aren&#39;t involved :)

[MagicNakor]

There are a number of ministers here that will bless a homosexual union. It&#39;s a religious service. Of course, this furthers the somewhat nasty business of creating a schism in the church, which is fairly divided already (other issues include the nature of Jesus Christ, and interpretation of the Bible).

This isn&#39;t the Roman Catholic Church, but the Anglican.

In any case, it certainly isn&#39;t fair to tar all "religious people" with the same brush.

:ninja:

Edit: Clarification.

[hobbes]

A Unitarian church would marry gay couples without conflict. They are people who believe in a God, a God who is not specifically defined. They are more interested in finding "spirituality and harmony" than following a specific dogma and quibbling translations and meaning.

Unitarian Church (http://www.firstunitarianportland.org/)

The heart of our mission is to promote love, reason and freedom in religion, to foster lifelong spiritual growth and to act for social justice. We encourage seekers of all faiths, nationalities, races, genders, ages, abilities and sexual orientations to visit our congregation. We hope that you will find the spiritual home that you are seeking. Please browse the following pages to find out more about our church, its beliefs and its mission.


I am actually surprised a certain member here is not part of this church, it seems right up his alley.


So to say that "marraige" (a union blessed by God and recognized legally) cannot be granted to a same sex couples, is to assume a Christian bias. Why is the Unitarian Church not able to sanction these relations, to encompass both spiritual and legal aspects. Seems that the Christian church is trying to run a monopoly on who defines the rules. In the land of the free, which promises separation between the Church and State, something smells fishy here.

If Christians want, they can call their "marraiges", "Christian marraiges" to distinguish themselves from the sinners. ;)


PS: I am neither gay nor Unitarian.

[{I}{K}{E}]

GAY marriage is legal for some years now in The Netherlands and also a close familly member of me is gay...

I never understood all the fuss about it&#33;

me is 100% supporting gay marriage

[Agrajag]

Hobbes

Absolutely, as I said in my post "Gay people getting married in a Church, that&#39;s up to the Church".

The point being that the state or society, or us should not try to impose our will on any Church. If they want to marry Gay people in their Church, that is up to them. If they do not, that is also up to them.

I would suppose that gay people would not want to be part of a Church which does not recognise their right to be gay. It wouldn&#39;t make any sense. How could someone be part of a Church which says their lifestyle is a sin. They would have to change their lifestyle, or leave the Church and join one that accepts them. That Church would possibly also allow them to marry, so no problem.

[FuNkY CaPrIcOrN]

;) I am all for it.Rather be around a bunch of Gay Men that are Married then Single ones.

:P Not like they are ever interested anyways&#33; :P

[hobbes]

But that is not how it is playing out.

Christians seem to want to retain the use of the word "marriage" and some may concede the point of "civil union" to specifically define a legal relationship.

Gay people are not "Godless", but under the dogma of the Christian church are requisitely excluded. A Unitarian Church is based on God and Spirituality without such restrictions, so why is this even an issue? Any religion should be able to sanction a marriage, but the Christians are all up in arms about this.

Why would one follow a strictly Catholic dogma when a more open and equally moral alternative is available? I would favor bringing my children up as centrally spiritual, but understanding that the exact nature of God is undefinable and that we humans have created certain religions to help explain Him and to assist in living peacefully together. We may not agree on the details, but faith in a loving, compassionate, and caring God is all that matters.

I understood your points, and I think we are in full agreement, you just seem to adhere to a rather "Catholic" perspective, when the Unitarian way would disemburden you from feeling the heat of all those past indescretions done in the name of the Catholic church and having to explain over and over that the Bible is an allegory and not to be taken literally. The Unitarian way allows you to maintain a belief in God and a moral way in which to raise you children, without all the extra baggage.

I, unfortunately, don&#39;t buy this, but that is just me.

[Agrajag]

Hobbes

I agree that we agree :blink: , it is up to you to bring up your children in the way that you feel is right, it is nobody else&#39;s business and they have no right to interfere. Surely then it is also up to the Christians to make their own decisions. If they chose not to allow gay marriages in their Churches, based on their beliefs, then that is their choice. Why would they change their fundamental beliefs ? They would then no longer be Christians, by their own definition. They have no need to be "Unitarian" they are content to maintain their belief in God and his teachings, with the "extra baggage" as you describe it. I think we have ventured into a non-argument, we both accept that each others point of view is valid, taken within the context of our belief system. I think this is a good thing and shows us both to be open and accepting to the views of others, whilst maintaining our own positions.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag@18 February 2004 - 02:06
Hobbes

I agree that we agree&nbsp; :blink: , it is up to you to bring up your children in the way that you feel is right, it is nobody else&#39;s business and they have no right to interfere. Surely then it is also up to the Christians to make their own decisions. If they chose not to allow gay marriages in their Churches, based on their beliefs, then that is their choice. Why would they change their fundamental beliefs ? They would then no longer be Christians, by their own definition. They have no need to be "Unitarian" they are content to maintain their belief in God and his teachings, with the "extra baggage" as you describe it. I think we have ventured into a non-argument, we both accept that each others point of view is valid, taken within the context of our belief system. I think this is a good thing and shows us both to be open and accepting to the views of others, whilst maintaining our own positions.
And we will leave it to Fugley to contemplate those positions and even his own.

[backlash]

if only I could get married. :(

[james_bond_rulez]

ya just live together. Isn&#39;t that enough?

why amend the consititution to include same sex marriage?

You give a mouse a piece of cookie..........

he&#39;s gonna wanna a glass of milk with that <_<

DON"T TOUCH THE CONSITITUTION&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[kAb]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@17 February 2004 - 20:24
ya just live together. Isn&#39;t that enough?

why amend the consititution to include same sex marriage?

You give a mouse a piece of cookie..........

he&#39;s gonna wanna a glass of milk with that <_<

DON"T TOUCH THE CONSITITUTION&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
What glass of milk would go with it? This argument is not backed with real reasoning. Actually, under the constitution, everybody is equal. I guess your point is that some people are more equal than others?


I&#39;m all for gay marriage. Great for them, good for the economy, and great for orphaned children :)

[h121589]

Lesbian is ok :D
but
2 men is jus nasty :x

[alpha]

For gay marriages.
But i don&#39;t think they should shoved down the throat of any religious group that doesnt accept them. Preservation of culture etc.
In my country people can be arrested for public display of homosexuality. (India)
There was a public debate and a police commissioner said that it didnt matter since such arrests were hardly ever made. :frusty:

[Arm]

Originally posted by alpha@18 February 2004 - 02:11
For gay marriages.
But i don&#39;t think they should shoved down the throat of any religious group that doesnt accept them. Preservation of culture etc.
Why not shove gay marriage down their throat? They shoved their beliefs down everybodys throat so we should do the same. :o

[alpha]

Originally posted by Arm+18 February 2004 - 08:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm &#064; 18 February 2004 - 08:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-alpha@18 February 2004 - 02:11
For gay marriages.
But i don&#39;t think they should shoved down the throat of any religious group that doesnt accept them. Preservation of culture etc.
Why not shove gay marriage down their throat? They shoved their beliefs down everybodys throat so we should do the same. :o [/b][/quote]
Whom they allow in is the business of the people who own and run the churches, isnt it?

I guess I don’t share your views since there aren’t very many Christians in my country and the price some of them have paid for shoving anything down anyone’s throat is incineration :( .

Edit: 2nd para added

[Arm]

Originally posted by alpha@18 February 2004 - 05:55
I guess I don’t share your views since there aren’t very many Christians in my country and the price some of them have paid for shoving anything down anyone’s throat is incineration :(
Ah you can get burned to death for alot of things in India. :blink:

It&#39;s nice to see that most people on this forum seem to be liberal by supporting gay marriage. The only reason anybody is making a big deal about it is because thats something that we (Americans) will be talking about in the upcoming election. Otherwise it wouldnt be widely publicized.

[Arm]

Originally posted by dwightfry@17 February 2004 - 13:07
A couple months ago, a guy walked into a restaraunt wearing hair curlers, and a friend&#39;s mom immediatly said "He&#39;s probably a fag, they disgust me". I have never in my life heard her say anything like that, and I&#39;ve been very close to her for over 14 years, and a couple of weeks ago she said that she wouldn&#39;t let my friend watch Mister Roger&#39;s growing up because "he&#39;s a fag". That I find very offensive.
;) Shes probably a repressed homosexual. The biggest gay bashers (except for the religions fanatics) are the ones who are least secure about their own sexuality. Well, thats a theory anyway.

Even if it isn&#39;t true it is a great way to piss those kinda people off by saying that. B)

[dwightfry]

why amend the consititution to include same sex marriage?



Actually, the ammendment is to illegalize gay marriages


Why not shove gay marriage down their throat? They shoved their beliefs down everybodys throat so we should do the same. :o

I agree.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by alpha@18 February 2004 - 02:55

Whom they allow in is the business of the people who own and run the churches, isnt it?


the Church and religions have no say who worships...that&#39;s up to God surely (this comes from a non religious person)




As to gay marriage i see no problem, even though the thought of gay sex is repulsive to me personally i am not offended or worried about someone being gay. It doesn&#39;t make them evil.
Constitutionally speaking in my country i would say that this is supposed to be the land of the free and free speech prevails...yes i agree that people should be able to dissaprove of gay unions but they don&#39;t have the right to stop them and gay unions should have the same legal standing as hetrosexual unions.
To make or keep gay unions illegal is on a par with the segrigation of races that once existed.
ALL MEN ARE EQUAL (WOMEN INCLUDED)

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Arm+18 February 2004 - 07:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Arm @ 18 February 2004 - 07:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-alpha@18 February 2004 - 02:11
For gay marriages.
But i don&#39;t think they should shoved down the throat of any religious group that doesnt accept them. Preservation of culture etc.
Why not shove gay marriage down their throat? They shoved their beliefs down everybodys throat so we should do the same. :o [/b][/quote]
I can assure you, no gay man has ever shoved anything down my throat.

[Ariel_001]

I don&#39;t see a problem. Why should I care. It not harming anyone or anything. So why not. :lol:

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Ariel_001@18 February 2004 - 21:15
I don&#39;t see a problem. Why should I care. It not harming anyone or anything. So why not. :lol:
I just don&#39;t want them to :(

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Agrajag+18 February 2004 - 21:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 18 February 2004 - 21:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Ariel_001@18 February 2004 - 21:15
I don&#39;t see a problem. Why should I care. It not harming anyone or anything. So why not.&nbsp; :lol:
I just don&#39;t want them to :( [/b][/quote]
I am losing the thread a bit here.


You still taking about your throat? :lol:


The vote on this has definitely lurched towards the tolerant. I seem to recall the last vote being less so (although I think tolerance won the day in the end).

What actually happened in the US with regards the legal petitions, most of the lower ranking news items have rightly been pushed aside by the explosian in Iran.

[Biggles]

My dear Fugley


My most humble apologies.


Ahem *cough*

The bigots are enduring a right royal arse kicking



err... is that better? :blink:

[Wizard_Mon1]

Lots of people get married without a church... whats the real issue here.. is it whether two people off the same sex should be allowed to be seen and excepted as a heterosexual couple. Is it whether gay marrige is right under the laws of religion. Is it whether religion still functions or it has &#39;gone to the dogs&#39; (lost integrity, kinda).

Personally i think they should do what they want and if the churches say that they won&#39;t marry because it is a holy union for only heterosexual children of god then they should just live together or seek some other type of marrige, but &#39;god&#39; said man has free will so it is there right to chose there lifestyle.

If the rules of society don&#39;t allow that then society is going against god and it shouldn&#39;t bemarried :blink:

[protak]

In Canada gay marriage is legal for know. To each his own right? Not&#33;&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m sick of turning on the TV and seeing two guy&#39;s kissing, or whining that they want some additional benefit. This is not sending a positive message to today&#39;s youth. And I&#39;m definetely tired of the whining about equal right&#39;s, it&#39;s a daily thing in the new&#39;s here. I also believe that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child. No I&#39;m not gay nor a religous fanatic, just good old family values.

[james_bond_rulez]

Originally posted by protak@18 February 2004 - 19:35
In Canada gay marriage is legal for know. To each his own right? Not&#33;&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m sick of turning on the TV and seeing two guy&#39;s kissing, or whining that they want some additional benefit. This is not sending a positive message to today&#39;s youth. And I&#39;m definetely tired of the whining about equal right&#39;s, it&#39;s a daily thing in the new&#39;s here. I also believe that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child. No I&#39;m not gay nor a religous fanatic, just good old family values.
not all of Canada, only in Ontario and Quebec, i think....

this whole thing is spinning out of control <_<

[protak]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez+18 February 2004 - 23:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (james_bond_rulez @ 18 February 2004 - 23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-protak@18 February 2004 - 19:35
In Canada gay marriage is legal for know. To each his own right? Not&#33;&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m sick of turning on the TV and seeing two guy&#39;s kissing, or whining that they want some additional benefit. This is not sending a positive message to today&#39;s youth. And I&#39;m definetely tired of the whining about equal right&#39;s, it&#39;s a daily thing in the new&#39;s here. I also believe that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child. No I&#39;m not gay nor a religous fanatic, just good old family values.
not all of Canada, only in Ontario and Quebec, i think....

this whole thing is spinning out of control <_< [/b][/quote]
Ya j_b_r I could&#39;nt agree more, and I know it&#39;s in Ontario, but I&#39;m not sure of Quebec either.

Cheers
Tim

[kAb]

Originally posted by protak@18 February 2004 - 21:35
This is not sending a positive message to today&#39;s youth.
I totally agree with you.

These kids seeing tolerance is NOT acceptable.

They should be watching the republicans shoving the two men apart and putting them in jail, instead.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by james_bond_rulez@19 February 2004 - 05:39
not all of Canada, only in Ontario and Quebec, i think....


British Columbia, Quebec, and Ontario.

Ottawa&#39;s got a bill before it to encompass all the rest.

:ninja:

[Arm]

Originally posted by protak@18 February 2004 - 23:35
In Canada gay marriage is legal for know. To each his own right? Not&#33;&#33;&#33;
I&#39;m sick of turning on the TV and seeing two guy&#39;s kissing, or whining that they want some additional benefit. This is not sending a positive message to today&#39;s youth. And I&#39;m definetely tired of the whining about equal right&#39;s, it&#39;s a daily thing in the new&#39;s here. I also believe that a gay couple should not be allowed to adopt a child. No I&#39;m not gay nor a religous fanatic, just good old family values.
B) Ide love to see you a minority and repressed by the rest of society. Then ill see your ass whine about wanting equal rights. Yeah it&#39;s pretty easy to pick on the little guy until you are the little guy. aint it?

And screw family values. You people need to stop reproducing already. Is it just Arm or am I the only one aware that the Earth is dangerously overcrowded and we need to reduce our population, not increase it. And besides, kids are worthless brats that exist only to torture their parents and ruin their life. <_<

:unsure: And what about 2 chicks kissing? Attractive lesbians kick ass. :)
:wub: Arm loves his lesbians even though they don&#39;t really care for me.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Arm@19 February 2004 - 03:52
:unsure: And what about 2 chicks kissing? Attractive lesbians kick ass. :)
:wub: Arm loves his lesbians even though they don&#39;t really care for me.
year but it&#39;s only in porn that the lesbians are hot :( in real life they are just scary :lol:

i totally agree with your point Arm about the equal rights not being imoprtant untill one is the one being suppressed. Perhaps if there weren&#39;t people in the world like him we wouldn&#39;t be having this debate now. Homosexuals and any other group for that matter aren&#39;t looking for special treatment....just eqaul, and even though i might not personally want to even imagine being gay i have a strong belief that ALL are equal.
I say to all biggots if you don&#39;t like the gay life...DON&#39;T BE GAY....but let others live as free as you do. It&#39;s their life and they have the right to live it how they wish without being punished for that choice.

P.S arm...I have 3 children with 1 on the way so i might just be totally responsible for crowding your space.. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Also they don&#39;t actually torture their parents untill they become teenagers :helpsmile: . Guess i have been lucky my children are the way they are (so far :blink: )

[Busyman]

Well it seems I&#39;m a minority here.
Some things:

1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.
I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.

2. I view homosexuality as being wrong...keep in mind so is fornication.

3. I do NOT believe homosexuals are evil and should be beaten or spat on. To me they are just sinning and everyone here sins. They are still just doing something between two consenting adults.

4. I also do NOT believe homosexuality is something you are born with. I believe you choose what type of PERSON you want to love...whether a woman wants a roughneck man or man wants a roughneck........man.

Most homosexuality is a learned way of life. Believe it or not most heterosexuals "learned" to be that way. Observe they way some homosexual men act. Where do they get this pseudowoman way of talking? If a group of guys were born together, lived in seclusion through adulthood they will probably have sex with each other. Were they ALL born gay? You like what you like as they say...whether you realize it at childhood or adulthood.

Keep in mind the "learned way of life". For children, the more something is around them and the more it is accepted, the easier it is to choose it. Imagine a little girl who sees the lifestyle alot. She won&#39;t necessarily choose it herself but it is much easier to do so. There are a number of women that I know from college that hung around a certain crowd and tried different things.

Ever heard of being "turned out". Imagine a woman and man are married. The woman, at the wrong place at the right time, has gay sex with another woman. She realizes that she wants to have sex with women now. She wasn&#39;t born gay. She experienced something new and liked it.

7. I am not surprised by most of the responses here, seeing that most members of this board DO NOT subscribe to any particular religion but basically believe there is a "higher being" (some not even that).

8. Any Christian church or pastor who condones homosexuality is a hypocrite.
Even logically, one would have to rely solely on science to propagate when the opposite sex is equipped naturally.

9. If there is a separation between church and state argument is to be made then:

A. Gay marriage should be allowed.

B. Polygamy should be allowed.

C. Prostitution should be allowed (just pay taxes like everyone else).

D. There should either be all-in-one public bathrooms or four separate ones.

E. Gays should be allowed in the military (even if they are out of the closet).
There should again be 4 separate gendered barracks or all-in-one.


I do not think all change is good. The things that are happening are very prophetic.

[hobbes]

computer fart

[Rat Faced]

I have no problems with points 9A-E either.

I see no reason why a Religions morals should be shoved down my throught as "Law".

A Law should be something that protects society, not a Church or similars moral outlook, its therefore correct that things such as Murder and Theft should be against the Law, but other "Commandments" such as Adultery, Honouring your Mother and Father, Worshipping false idols etc shouldnt be.

The same goes for sexuality...its a "Moral" thing at most (and then only to a certain part of the populous), not something that should be enshrined in law. ;)

Well done that man.

Although i could not imagine being nagged by more than one wife, I have no problem with others doing that if they wish :)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@19 February 2004 - 20:37
I have no problems with points 9A-E either.

Well done that man.

Although i could not imagine being nagged by more than one wife, I have no problem with others doing that if they wish :)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Some men will still cheat if they have seven wives.



....man........if polygamy was allowed it would:

1. Create massive paperwork for the government.

2. Mormons will celebrate..........but they won&#39;t be unique.

3. Marriage would be up 70%.........

4. ............but so would divorce. :lol: :lol:

[Marius24]

I&#39;m againt it 100%, though unsure which one to vote for (cos im stupid)


what happens when they want to have kids? They will have to adopt, poor children :(

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Marius24@19 February 2004 - 20:46
I&#39;m againt it 100%, though unsure which one to vote for (cos im stupid)


what happens when they want to have kids? They will have to adopt, poor children :(
Actually the couple just being gay won&#39;t necessarily harm the child more than the child already has been harmed.

Imagine a foster child bumped from home to home. Now imagine that child in a homosexual couple&#39;s home who happens to have the financial resources and the love to give to the child.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Marius24@20 February 2004 - 00:46
I&#39;m againt it 100%, though unsure which one to vote for (cos im stupid)


what happens when they want to have kids? They will have to adopt, poor children :(
I may be wrong here, but isn&#39;t a loving home better than being left in the orphanage?

Of course there may be no children in the orphanages because all the childless heterosexual couples have adopted them - or have they? :unsure:

The only concern I would have is the bigotry the children might encounter because of who their parents are, not because the parents are unfit to raise them. There are those who would have no qualms about taking out their prejudices against innocent children.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@20 February 2004 - 01:29
Well it seems I&#39;m a minority here.
Some things:


1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.

Why should the Christian interpretation define what is allowable in our society. Unitarian churches don&#39;t see homosexuality as a "sin" and have the power to marry couples. Why should they not be allowed to marry gays, just because Christianity objects.


I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.

How? Marraige is about a commitment which legally binds two individuals. Gays can live singlely just as easily as 2 heteros, if they are not commited enough to marry one another.


2. I view homosexuality as being wrong...keep in mind so is fornication.

That is your opinion, you are free to hold it, but I don&#39;t think others who disagree should be subject to your opinions. I think that as long as no ones indivivdual freedoms are being violated, gays should be allowed to marry.


3. I do NOT believe homosexuals are evil and should be beaten or spat on. To me they are just sinning and everyone here sins. They are still just doing something between two consenting adults.

By the definition of your religion they are, so this point is not open to discussion.


4. I also do NOT believe homosexuality is something you are born with. I believe you choose what type of PERSON you want to love...whether a woman wants a roughneck man or man wants a roughneck........man.

I couldn&#39;t disagree more. Who would choose to be hated by 9/10 people. Think back, you have had crushes on girls since the age of 3 or 4, you just didn&#39;t know what it was all about until sexual maturity. How many of you had a crush on your grade school teachers?


Most homosexuality is a learned way of life. Believe it or not most heterosexuals "learned" to be that way. Observe they way some homosexual men act. Where do they get this pseudowoman way of talking? If a group of guys were born together, lived in seclusion through adulthood they will probably have sex with each other. Were they ALL born gay? You like what you like as they say...whether you realize it at childhood or adulthood.

Keep in mind the "learned way of life". For children, the more something is around them and the more it is accepted, the easier it is to choose it. Imagine a little girl who sees the lifestyle alot. She won&#39;t necessarily choose it herself but it is much easier to do so. There are a number of women that I know from college that hung around a certain crowd and tried different things.

Ever heard of being "turned out". Imagine a woman and man are married. The woman, at the wrong place at the right time, has gay sex with another woman. She realizes that she wants to have sex with women now. She wasn&#39;t born gay. She experienced something new and liked it.


Gay is not learned, it is inherited, some atypical response of the brain to hormones. Most people who "turn" gay later in life were probably gay all the time, but societal pressures have forced them down the path of least resistance. Only later, once they experience what they have desired for so long, they appreciate their true nature.

Look, I can shower at the gym with nude men, I&#39;m not going to get aroused. Physical arousal determines your sexuality.

Your men on the island may screw, but only because it lets the "steam" off, not because they are aroused by the other man. It would be a quick bend over and done thing, not something that starts with a candlelight dinner and tender kisses.

You bring some ladies to that island, then they will all say, "Oh yeah, that&#39;s what I want&#33;".


7. I am not surprised by most of the responses here, seeing that most members of this board DO NOT subscribe to any particular religion but basically believe there is a "higher being" (some not even that).

True


8. Any Christian church or pastor who condones homosexuality is a hypocrite.
Even logically, one would have to rely solely on science to propagate when the opposite sex is equipped naturally.

We have got enough people in the baby business for this to be an issue.


9. If there is a separation between church and state argument is to be made then:

A. Gay marriage should be allowed.
yes


B. Polygamy should be allowed.
Why not? Who gets hurt?


C. Prostitution should be allowed (just pay taxes like everyone else).
Sure, why get thrown in jail for charging for sex, when you can do it for free without legal consequence.


D. There should either be all-in-one public bathrooms or four separate ones.
Works ok as it is, just don&#39;t use those isolated ones in city parks to do #2.


E. Gays should be allowed in the military (even if they are out of the closet).
There should again be 4 separate gendered barracks or all-in-one.

The military does not ban gays because of moral issues, but rather morale issues. I want the guy covering my back, not eyeing my butt.



I do not think all change is good. The things that are happening are very prophetic.

People have been telling me for the last 25 years that all the signs of the second coming were upon us. They just revise it every year to fit the new scenario. I lost interest in this long ago.


Well Busyman, we&#39;ve agreed on things in generally, but on this issue, I must honestly, but respectfully, confess almost complete disagreement.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+19 February 2004 - 21:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 19 February 2004 - 21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@20 February 2004 - 01:29
Well it seems I&#39;m a minority here.
Some things:

Let me first say you are nitpicking my post and addressing it in a "soapbox" fashion.


1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.

Why should the Christian interpretation define what is allowable in our society..

What are you talking about? I didn&#39;t say it should.

Unitarian churches don&#39;t see homosexuality as a "sin" and have the power to marry couples. Why should they not be allowed to marry gays, just because Christianity objects.

I am not Unitarian and again I said nothing of what Unitarians should be allowed to do.


I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.

How? Marraige is about a commitment which legally binds two individuals. Gays can live singlely just as easily as 2 heteros, if they are not commited enough to marry one another.

A civil union is not marriage hobbes so all of what YOU said has nothing to do with what I said. Notice before that I said gay marriage AND civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise to give homosexuals the benefits of marriage without it being called MARRIAGE. My being against civil unions is actually a catch-22: I&#39;m against gay marriage but a heterosexual couple would not be allowed a civil union so why should gays. Again, please read what I&#39;m actually talking about if you are going to nitpick.


2. I view homosexuality as being wrong...keep in mind so is fornication.

That is your opinion, you are free to hold it, but I don&#39;t think others who disagree should be subject to your opinions. I think that as long as no ones indivivdual freedoms are being violated, gays should be allowed to marry.

Who the hell are you to tell me because my opinions differ from theirs and/or yours not to "subject" them to it. I&#39;ve been "subjected" to differing opinion and have not gotten on MY soapbox to "speak for others". Last time I checked this was not The Pro Gay Marriage Thread.


3. I do NOT believe homosexuals are evil and should be beaten or spat on. To me they are just sinning and everyone here sins. They are still just doing something between two consenting adults.

By the definition of your religion they are, so this point is not open to discussion.

They are what.....to beaten and spat on? No....they HAVE BEEN beaten and spat on. I don&#39;t remember anything about it being done now.


4. I also do NOT believe homosexuality is something you are born with. I believe you choose what type of PERSON you want to love...whether a woman wants a roughneck man or man wants a roughneck........man.

I couldn&#39;t disagree more. Who would choose to be hated by 9/10 people. Think back, you have had crushes on girls since the age of 3 or 4, you just didn&#39;t know what it was all about until sexual maturity. How many of you had a crush on your grade school teachers?

At age 3 or 4 you also probably had MOMMY AND DADDY......and most of society.


Most homosexuality is a learned way of life. Believe it or not most heterosexuals "learned" to be that way. Observe they way some homosexual men act. Where do they get this pseudowoman way of talking? If a group of guys were born together, lived in seclusion through adulthood they will probably have sex with each other. Were they ALL born gay? You like what you like as they say...whether you realize it at childhood or adulthood.

Keep in mind the "learned way of life". For children, the more something is around them and the more it is accepted, the easier it is to choose it. Imagine a little girl who sees the lifestyle alot. She won&#39;t necessarily choose it herself but it is much easier to do so. There are a number of women that I know from college that hung around a certain crowd and tried different things.

Ever heard of being "turned out". Imagine a woman and man are married. The woman, at the wrong place at the right time, has gay sex with another woman. She realizes that she wants to have sex with women now. She wasn&#39;t born gay. She experienced something new and liked it.


Gay is not learned, it is inherited, some atypical response of the brain to hormones. Most people who "turn" gay later in life were probably gay all the time, but societal pressures have forced them down the path of least resistance. Only later, once they experience what they have desired for so long, they appreciate their true nature.

Look, I can shower at the gym with nude men, I&#39;m not going to get aroused. Physical arousal determines your sexuality.

Your men on the island may screw, but only because it lets the "steam" off, not because they are aroused by the other man. It would be a quick bend over and done thing, not something that starts with a candlelight dinner and tender kisses.

You bring some ladies to that island, then they will all say, "Oh yeah, that&#39;s what I want&#33;".

Goodness man&#33;&#33;&#33; By what you&#39;re saying, homosexuality wins in the pecking order. "If you&#39;re gay early in life you were born gay. If you&#39;re gay later you were born gay." What a joke&#33;&#33;&#33; I know something about this. I was with a previously homosexual woman for 5 years. We almost married. Due to your pecking order she was born gay. Explain bisexuals then with the hormone reasoning. Some people choose the lifestyle because it&#39;s convenient. Some people for other reasons. Also if the men on the island only know men then they will probably screw her too.......in the, as some you say, ARSE&#33;&#33;


7. I am not surprised by most of the responses here, seeing that most members of this board DO NOT subscribe to any particular religion but basically believe there is a "higher being" (some not even that).

True

mmmmmk glad you agree


8. Any Christian church or pastor who condones homosexuality is a hypocrite.
Even logically, one would have to rely solely on science to propagate when the opposite sex is equipped naturally.

We have got enough people in the baby business for this to be an issue.

huh


9. If there is a separation between church and state argument is to be made then:

A. Gay marriage should be allowed.
yes

uhhh yeah that&#39;s what I said


B. Polygamy should be allowed.
Why not? Who gets hurt?

mmmmk glad you agree.


C. Prostitution should be allowed (just pay taxes like everyone else).
Sure, why get thrown in jail for charging for sex, when you can do it for free without legal consequence.

mmmmk glad you agree.


D. There should either be all-in-one public bathrooms or four separate ones.

Works ok as it is, just don&#39;t use those isolated ones in city parks to do #2.

Why are there separate ones now?


E. Gays should be allowed in the military (even if they are out of the closet).
There should again be 4 separate gendered barracks or all-in-one.

The military does not ban gays because of moral issues, but rather morale issues. I want the guy covering my back, not eyeing my butt.

Some of my veteran friends didn&#39;t like bunking with them...and since the overtly gay don&#39;t say anything, they are not kicked out. Also why does your rationale not apply to women? They are in combat now.


I do not think all change is good. The things that are happening are very prophetic.

People have been telling me for the last 25 years that all the signs of the second coming were upon us. They just revise it every year to fit the new scenario. I lost interest in this long ago.


Well I&#39;m looking at societal change and not just disasters and terrorism.
You can call someone a bitch on network TV.
You can say fuck in certain instances on network TV.
Some see where I&#39;m coming from. The influences are there for all our kids to see.
The way it&#39;s going I only see it getting worse.

Well Busyman, we&#39;ve agreed on things in generally, but on this issue, I must honestly, but respectfully, confess almost complete disagreement.
[/b][/quote]
I still luh ya man but.......I ain&#39;t gay damnit. :lol: :lol:
.....oh yeah and I disagree too. ;)

[Alex H]

Er, wow&#33; I agree with hobbes. Pretty much word for word.

[Marius24]

Originally posted by Busyman+19 February 2004 - 23:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 19 February 2004 - 23:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Marius24@19 February 2004 - 20:46
I&#39;m againt it 100%, though unsure which one to vote for (cos im stupid)


what happens when they want to have kids? They will have to adopt, poor children :(
Actually the couple just being gay won&#39;t necessarily harm the child more than the child already has been harmed.

Imagine a foster child bumped from home to home. Now imagine that child in a homosexual couple&#39;s home who happens to have the financial resources and the love to give to the child. [/b][/quote]
and what would happen when that kid starts going to school. Imagin how much bullying the child would go through for having two mums or two dads

[kAb]

But isn&#39;t it better than not getting adopted at all?

Hopefully the bullying will end as more and more children get parents.

[hobbes]

Busy, (quotes were added to make post look neater- except 1 clarification)- I&#39;m not so sure that worked, but I&#39;m not going to bother undoing it.


After reading your reply I can see why you thought I was nitpicking. The post is:
1. What do you think of gay marriages NOT
2. Should gay marriages be legal.

I was assuming by extension that you thought legal marriages should not be legal, my bad.

Would it be fair to say then that you oppose marriage and civil union based on your religious beliefs, but recognize that the US government has no right to ban them as there is a clear separation between church and state?

The origin of the "civil union" was to give gays the same rights as heterosexual married couples but without using the word "married", which the Christian church feels to have proprietary rights over. It actually doesn&#39;t give the same rights, it gives less.

A homosexual couple cannot get married, a heterosexual couple can get married or have a civil union. Since a civil union has many disadvantages and NO advantages over marriage, why would they?

The actual quote

3. I do NOT believe homosexuals are evil and should be beaten or spat on. To me they are just sinning and everyone here sins. They are still just doing something between two consenting adults.



By the definition of your religion they are, so this point is not open to discussion.

They are what.....to beaten and spat on? No....they HAVE BEEN beaten and spat on. I don&#39;t remember anything about it being done now.

I meant that they are "sinning" by definition of your religion, not that they should be beaten or spat upon. They are going to hell for all eternity, that seems punishment enough.




Most 90-95% of people are born heterosexual, so they obviously win the pecking order. Since society supports these tendancies people feel free to express them. Those who are "gay" may suppress their urges, particularly in those cruel adolescent years, to avoid becoming ostracised from the pack. Gays are subject to the need to belong and peer pressure, just as straight people are. Only later in life, do they come to admit to themselves that they have been in denial and eventually emerge. Who wants to tell Mom and Dad that they take it up the butt and not to expect grandkids, btw meet my lifefriend Pierre.

As for bisexuals, they are homosexuals waiting to come out for the most part but some true bi-sexuals exist. In fact, given that some people have full male AND female reproductive organs (true hermaphrodites) what is "gay" for them?




What about Jamie Lee Curtis? She is a genetic male, but a looks like a female. What is gay for her? She has testes in her abdomen, but no uterus or ovaries. This is a result of a single gene mutation.

You see, homosexuality can result from a single malformed receptor that does recognize it target molecule. There are so many ways that sexual development can go wrong, it is no wonder that we have a huge array of sexual orientations. Most of us turn out in a way which propagates the species, but others come out a with their wires a bit crossed. These are not bad people, as you say, these people were born different.



If God decided to change the rules and said men should be with men and women with women, you might comply with his law out of obedience, but while you were with your man, wouldn&#39;t you be thinking about your woman. She arouses you, he doesn&#39;t? You are just faking it to please God.

That is what it is like for gays. They can either go through life "faking it" or give in to their true desires. Seems so unfair that certain people are born into a life and told to ignore their hormones, while the rest of us indulge freely.


Got on a bit of a rant there. Anymore and no one will read it.

[Wizard_Mon1]

hobbes:Gay is not learned, it is inherited, some atypical response of the brain to hormones. Most people who "turn" gay later in life were probably gay all the time, but societal pressures have forced them down the path of least resistance. Only later, once they experience what they have desired for so long, they appreciate their true nature.

I there a gay gene? How can it be inherited? ....Only socially inherited if anything... but still just because your parents are gay does not mean you will be..... You most certainly are not born with these tendancies.... because they are thoughts..... (i like this, i don&#39;t like that)... and thoughts are taught through cultural programing... through the set of habits built up by your parents.. then passed on to you through nurturing.... It is not inherent in your nature.... Babies react mentally to there environment.. if there mother treats them badly they will develop a subconcious dislike of mother figures.. and so on....

People respond to there surroundings in different ways, due to there past experiences... hormones can only exentuate a feeling not produce it... feelings are produced by thought... (that hurts) Hormones are not the cause... only a factor.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@19 February 2004 - 23:47

hobbes:Gay is not learned, it is inherited, some atypical response of the brain to hormones. Most people who "turn" gay later in life were probably gay all the time, but societal pressures have forced them down the path of least resistance. Only later, once they experience what they have desired for so long, they appreciate their true nature.

I there a gay gene? How can it be inherited? ....Only socially inherited if anything... but still just because your parents are gay does not mean you will be..... You most certainly are not born with these tendancies.... because they are thoughts..... (i like this, i don&#39;t like that)... and thoughts are taught through cultural programing... through the set of habits built up by your parents.. then passed on to you through nurturing.... It is not inherent in your nature.... Babies react mentally to there environment.. if there mother treats them badly they will develop a subconcious dislike of mother figures.. and so on....

People respond to there surroundings in different ways, due to there past experiences... hormones can only exentuate a feeling not produce it... feelings are produced by thought... (that hurts) Hormones are not the cause... only a factor.
Damn dude...I was going to respond to hobbes but you did it for me.

Addendum to Wizard_Mon1:

People choose what they choose because of free will.
A set of twins can raised in the same household, the same way, listening to same music but one can turn out gay...........or.........

they both can turn out to be straight and one like rock and roll and the other likes rap.......or......

one could be a serial killer.............

got me?

The social aspect: A woman styles her hair and cuts it to look like a man&#39;s.
GET IT. Like a man. Emulation.

Use a control: Would she style her hair that way having not seen a man?
Hard to prove using that set of standards but....she grew up knowing men like women...and.......hmmm...she likes women but she&#39;s not a man ....so she&#39;ll look like one. She may like being "like a man", maybe a cretian toughness. But in the end she may be femme in all ways, with long hair, wearing a dress but.........still like women.

Because........there&#39;s influence but.....

there&#39;s is no rhyme or reason behind free will in almost all most cases.

You can do everything in your power as a parent to raise your child the "correct" way but they could turn to drugs. All you can do is increase your odds.

Your not going to come in your child&#39;s room with a joint in your mouth and say, "A.......I heard ya been fuckin&#39; up in school&#33;&#33;&#33;" :lol: :lol:

There was a case of a male schoolteacher that had a sex change and was fired afterwards. I guess they should have let him keep his job. <_<

I have seen many studies that show homosexuality as a birth defect as well as serial killers being born different.

I have also seen studies to show otherwise, so this born with no choice stuff is hogwash.



It&#39;s called free-will.

Now being born a crackhead..well that&#39;s different <_< .


**GRAPHIC NATURE**
btw, Forget what you see on TV. Besides the woman I was in a relationship with for awhile, I can tell you alot of these so called homosexual women dabble in men once in awhile. These are the same women that will go to a gay club and live a gay life but sometimes..........they want dick&#33;&#33;&#33; The funny thing is they will keep it secret from their friends. One female I messed with said her friends would gag if they found out she sucked dick.

Is she really heterosexual but hasn&#39;t gone into the closet??&#33;&#33;&#33; <_< :lol: :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H@19 February 2004 - 22:43
Er, wow&#33; I agree with hobbes. Pretty much word for word.
As most in this thread do.


It makes "logical" sense or in essence it looks good on paper.

Let anything go as long as it doesn&#39;t directly harm you.

America should also give Native Americans there land back too.
What? It&#39;s only right and just.

I&#39;m black and I want my 40 acres and well........they can keep the mule. :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

Wizard,

The post should have read "born" gay. Inherited might imply a gay gene, which is wrong. Remember all humans develop initially as females and through a series of timed chemical events the female "parts" atrophy and the male parts are actively formed. These hormones effect both the central nervous system and the actual physical appearance of an infant. Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended.

Nature is filled with physically different individuals, why also not individuals with physical and mental discordance?

Why are we attracted to females before we understand sexuality? I remember 1st grade. The girls would run around and kiss the boys and we would complain loudly as it is not "cool" to like girls at that age, cooties and all. But me thinks we did protest too loudly and would only admit this in private. The machinary was in place all the time to make us like women.

Why are we suddenly so aroused by women at puberty, some rational decision or waves of hormones washing over our brains. Hormones are the cause of this, not cognition.

I can totally change your personality by castrating you. I can tell you to have sex with you wife, but no amount of cognition will allow you to physically do so or mentally have any interest. You are controlled by your hormones.

As for your Freudian comments, it is true that an abused child may lack self confidence due to being called "stupid" and lack trust in others, but I can&#39;t see how this would lead him to want to get buggered. The child responses to abuse in the broader sense of self worth, this is not an issue of sexuality.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman+20 February 2004 - 06:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 20 February 2004 - 06:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@19 February 2004 - 22:43
Er, wow&#33; I agree with hobbes. Pretty much word for word.
As most in this thread do.


It makes "logical" sense or in essence it looks good on paper.

Let anything go as long as it doesn&#39;t directly harm you.

America should also give Native Americans there land back too.
What? It&#39;s only right and just.

I&#39;m black and I want my 40 acres and well........they can keep the mule. :lol: :lol:[/b][/quote]
Or infringe on the rights of others, that is the key.

We all agree that pedophilia is wrong because the child is not a willing participant. Even if he does become one it is via psychological manipulation. Little boys and little girls want to ride their bikes and play kick ball, not get sodomized.

I would never support a law that allows one person or group to abuse another just because they want to.

Adult homosexuals that marry are consenting individuals, expressing their feelings and harming no one. The true harm comes from the intolerance of others. Like those guys in high school who like to go "fag bashing".

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@20 February 2004 - 06:04
I have seen many studies that show homosexuality as a birth defect as well as serial killers being born different.

I have also seen studies to show otherwise, so this born with no choice stuff is hogwash.




Looks like both theories should be hogwash, no?

Why is one hogwash (born with it) and the other not (free will or environment), seems a bit of a stalemate.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+20 February 2004 - 01:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 20 February 2004 - 01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@20 February 2004 - 06:11
<!--QuoteBegin-Alex H@19 February 2004 - 22:43
Er, wow&#33; I agree with hobbes. Pretty much word for word.
As most in this thread do.


It makes "logical" sense or in essence it looks good on paper.

Let anything go as long as it doesn&#39;t directly harm you.

America should also give Native Americans there land back too.
What? It&#39;s only right and just.

I&#39;m black and I want my 40 acres and well........they can keep the mule. :lol: :lol:
Or infringe on the rights of others, that is the key.

We all agree that pedophilia is wrong because the child is not a willing participant. Even if he does become one it is via psychological manipulation. Little boys and little girls want to ride their bikes and play kick ball, not get sodomized.

I would never support a law that allows one person or group to abuse another just because they want to.

Adult homosexuals that marry are consenting individuals, expressing their feelings and harming no one. The true harm comes from the intolerance of others. Like those guys in high school who like to go "fag bashing". [/b][/quote]
I know it sounds off but...how do you know the child is unwilling?

Do you think the 14 year old in the R Kelly tape was manipulated?(regardless I still ain&#39;t buyin&#39; his albums)
How is it that you actually know?
You read a study?
A female (not gay) I had relations with had been having sex with guys since she was 13. Some were in their 30&#39;s and upper 20&#39;s when she was 14 and she had no regrets even to this day even though now thinks it odd as an adult seeing the same thing going on with children at 14 years old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If what you say about hormones is true, then there should be anti-gay drug on the market soon or hormone therapy.

Some hormones may drive you to like sex or be aroused but they don&#39;t make you like the color blue. You like what you choose to like.

You&#39;ve got women who have been raped in their childhood who don&#39;t ever have sex with a man again and only mess with women. Were they born gay or not?

I love when physical science tries to explain free will.

[protak]

By the definition of your religion they are, so this point is not open to discussion.

Oh Hobsey, would you please enlighten me with your definition of the christian faith please, I consider myself to be of the christian belief, although I certainly do not practise it as maybe I should. As a matter of fact if you can pull one quote out of the bible, where it say&#39;s two men shall be allowed to lay down together, I will not say another thing. Oh please don&#39;t qoute the Gay bible either.
I have to lean more toward busyman on this Hobbes, and not for religious reasoning, but because of family values.


Ide love to see you a minority and repressed by the rest of society. Then ill see your ass whine about wanting equal rights. Yeah it&#39;s pretty easy to pick on the little guy until you are the little guy. aint it?
Your very bright, I am officially a minority in my own country.......but you don&#39;t here me whining about it every time a camera is nearby.


And screw family values. You people need to stop reproducing already. Is it just Arm or am I the only one aware that the Earth is dangerously overcrowded and we need to reduce our population, not increase it. And besides, kids are worthless brats that exist only to torture their parents and ruin their life.

You are the moral fiber that is degenerating today&#39;s society, If you actually said something intelligent, I may listen. Why don&#39;t you go out with your friend&#39;s on a drive by shooting?

Cheer&#39;s
Tim ;)

[hobbes]

Extreme trauma is not used to explain the general situation. Many incredible individual cases can be brought forth, but these hardly explain the commonplace.

[protak]

:lol: :lol: Fair enough..... ;)

[hobbes]

Tim,


Directly from Busyman

1. I am a Christian so of course I&#39;m against gay marriage and civil unions.
I&#39;m against civil unions because it discriminates against heterosexual single couples

3. I do NOT believe homosexuals are evil and should be beaten or spat on. To me they are just sinning and everyone here sins. They are still just doing something between two consenting adults.

I was just acknowledging that Busyman had his beliefs, defined by his Christian faith, and that was that.

Although his faith is against it, does a free society have the right to "outlaw" marriage between to men? Do Christians have the right to outlaw religions they do not like? No and no.

As for moral fiber, gays will be gay whether you let them marry or not. Marriage is simply to simplify asset sharing and paperwork.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+20 February 2004 - 01:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 20 February 2004 - 01:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@20 February 2004 - 06:04
I have seen many studies that show homosexuality as a birth defect as well as serial killers being born different.

I have also seen studies to show otherwise, so this born with no choice stuff is hogwash.




Looks like both theories should be hogwash, no?

Why is one hogwash (born with it) and the other not (free will or environment), seems a bit of a stalemate.[/b][/quote]
Well no actually.

In this thread I&#39;ve mentioned, rather sarcastically, many instances of simple logical homosexuality. Nurture versus nature reasons.

All those studies did was prove errors and inconsistentcies in the report claiming homosexuality as a birth defect.

For instance, if there&#39;s a study claiming there is a predominant amout of a certain chemical in homosexual&#39;s brains that are not in hetero&#39;s, that should remain pretty consistant if those same tests are duplicated. If it doesn&#39;t then the first study is hogwash.

This same thing went on when AIDS was "discovered". The difference is that AIDS was OBVIOUS physical ailment. Doctors just didn&#39;t know what caused it.

Tell me this. If homosexuality IS a chemical imbalance or whatever, and it&#39;s been proven, why is there no anti-gay drug?

Homocol


Cure your homosexual urges
Love women
Have a "normal" family by having sex "naturally"

http://cogsci.uwaterloo.ca/Icons/family2001.jpg

Ask your doctor about Homocol today&#33;&#33;&#33;

















Side effects may include drowsiness, diarrhea, stomach ache, dry mouth, leg cramps, headaches, and loss of appetite. Does not protect against sexually transmitted diseases or HIV infection. Please consult your doctor.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

You make it too linear, it is not a simple imbalance at all. It is about how the brain was formed before birth, and how it responses to hormonal stimulation. It is a multifactorial event.

This would require gene therapy and not just one, but a multitude and they would have to be timed perfectly in the unborn child.

It would be as logical to think that a pill could alter these peoples sexual orientation as it would be to think it could remove your religious faith. They are hardwired now, just as you are.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman
Tell me this. If homosexuality IS a chemical imbalance or whatever, and it&#39;s been proven, why is there no anti-gay drug?

If you think that argument proves your "homosexuality is learned" theory correct Im afraid your mistaken.

If homosexuality is a learned Pavlovian response, as you suggest, then it should be susceptible to standard Pavlovian methods of punishment and reward such as aversion therapy, yes?

They tried this back in the 50&#39;s and it didnt "cure" anybody.

I would also suggest that the reason there is no anti-gay drug is because homosexuality is not seen as an illness these days. The corporations who invent medicines probably have higher priorities.

Tell me, apart from your girflriend going over to the other side, whats wrong with homosexuality?

PS

Ever heard of Alan Turing? The genius who invented computers back in the late 40&#39;s?
He killed himself because people found out he was homosexual. Its kind of ironic that you&#39;re using his invention to express the same opinions that led to his death.

[protak]

Hobbes,

Some people take their faith (for lack of a better word) a little more seriously then other&#39;s, and that is there right. Egyptian&#39;s for example will decapitate a spouse or child if they dishonour the family name. Pretty extreme. And we as a free society have the right to judge those action&#39;s, as we do any other issue.

As for the statement about the moral fiber, it was directed at Arm, not gay&#39;s. As you can see by Arm&#39;s statement&#39;s (that I qouted) about minorities and children.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism+20 February 2004 - 07:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 20 February 2004 - 07:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Tell me this. If homosexuality IS a chemical imbalance or whatever, and it&#39;s been proven, why is there no anti-gay drug?

If you think that argument proves your "homosexuality is learned" theory correct Im afraid your mistaken.

If homosexuality is a learned Pavlovian response, as you suggest, then it should be susceptible to standard Pavlovian methods of punishment and reward such as aversion therapy, yes?

They tried this back in the 50&#39;s and it didnt "cure" anybody.

I would also suggest that the reason there is no anti-gay drug is because homosexuality is not seen as an illness these days. The corporations who invent medicines probably have higher priorities.

Tell me, apart from your girflriend going over to the other side, whats wrong with homosexuality? Or are you just bitter? :P

PS

Ever heard of Alan Turing? The genius who invented computers back in the late 40&#39;s?
He killed himself because people found out he was homosexual. Its kind of ironic that you&#39;re using his invention to express the same opinions that led to his death.[/b][/quote]
Yes, even in societies where the punishment of homosexual activity is death, they still exist, some say in an equal percentage as an open society, though this data is hard to gather. Hard to believe this came from liking someones hairstyle and trying to emulate and hardly "logical".

Enough gentleman, good fun and good night.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 02:18
You make it too linear, it is not a simple imbalance at all. It is about how the brain was formed before birth, and how it responses to hormonal stimulation. It is a multifactorial event.

This would require gene therapy and not just one, but a multitude and they would have to be timed perfectly in the unborn child.

It would be as logical to think that a pill could alter these peoples sexual orientation as it would be to think it could remove your religious faith. They are hardwired now, just as you are.
Wow and scientists figured all this out or..........not. <_<

@protak - I did say that if you are going to allow gay marriage, allow alot of other things, polygamy, prostitution, etc.

I am Christian but also can see it from hobbes point of view.

If there is to be a separation of church and state, the government should separate it, make America&#39;s transformation into a real Babylon complete, and shut-up with the rhetoric.

While we&#39;re at it........church&#39;s are no longer tax exempt. :lol: :lol:
I always thought that was ridiculous.

btw, I refrain from remarking to trollers who have been blacklisted.

edit: my bad leftism. I get you and 1234 mixed up alot. You two are like two anti-American bodies with one head.

Anyway, aversion therapy doesn&#39;t work forever. Also I couldn&#39;t use it to let&#39;s say...... make you hate your mother (maybe for awhile) :lol: . Spurious argument.

Regarding my ex-girlfriend, all I will say is that some you on this forum need lessons in reading comprehension. Read what I said again then get back to me.




Edit by RF:

Removed a couple of remarks that could be interpreted as Flamebate or offending (im sure not intentionally)...I think i left the context intact and didnt detract from the intent

edit by Busy: Wow RF you left the rest of my remarks. Some quite obvious.
Also left leftisms. Which is why I guess mine are still here? Interesting. ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>btw, I refrain from remarking to trollers who have been blacklisted.

edit: my bad leftism. I get you and 1234 mixed up alot. You two are like two anti-American bodies with one head.[/b]

anti-American? wtf?


Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>If there is to be a separation of church and state, the government should separate it, make America&#39;s transformation into a real Babylon complete, and shut-up with the rhetoric.[/b]

You&#39;re the one who disagrees with the constitution Busyman, which makes you anti-American.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
Anyway, aversion therapy doesn&#39;t work forever. Also I couldn&#39;t use it to let&#39;s say...... make you hate your mother (maybe for awhile)[/quote]

Hehe, you accuse me of trolling then insult my mother? Whatever dude... lets stick to the topic eh? Before we get back to gay marrriages/civil unions I just thought I&#39;d point this out to you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Regarding my ex-girlfriend, all I will say is that some you on this forum need lessons in reading comprehension. Read what I said again then get back to me.
[/quote]

"Some you" need lessons in writing. :)

The issue of averision therapy is not a spurious point. Some people do hate their parents because of what they&#39;ve done to them (e.g. child abuse). This is a standard Pavlovian response.

Any behavior that is not based solely on biology can be modified through negative or positive experiences. Like Hobbes pointed out, in some countries people can be killed for being gay but they still do it. Even if they desist from gay behaviour they are still attracted to members of the same sex. It cannot be changed.

The only issue here is that of giving gay couples the same rights as married couples. It wont destroy the family. Its not special treatment. Its just a legal thing to give them equal rights.

Try and bear in mind that "All men are created equal", even the gay ones. <_<




Edit by RF:

Copied through an edit from the previous page, quoted in this post.

[iamtheoneandonlyone]

I&#39;m not for or against any of this. I&#39;m just hoping someone or they can just get this resolved because I&#39;m really sick of this hearing it on the news.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+20 February 2004 - 02:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 20 February 2004 - 02:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>btw, I refrain from remarking to trollers who have been blacklisted.

edit: my bad leftism. I get you and 1234 mixed up alot. You two are like two anti-American bodies with one head.[/b]

anti-American? wtf?


Originally posted by Busyman
If there is to be a separation of church and state, the government should separate it, make America&#39;s transformation into a real Babylon complete, and shut-up with the rhetoric.

You&#39;re the one who disagrees with the constitution Busyman, which makes you anti-American.


Originally posted by Busyman
Anyway, aversion therapy doesn&#39;t work forever. Also I couldn&#39;t use it to let&#39;s say...... make you hate your mother (maybe for awhile)

Hehe, you accuse me of trolling then insult my mother? Whatever dude... lets stick to the topic eh? Before we get back to gay marrriages/civil unions I just thought I&#39;d point this out to you.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@
Regarding my ex-girlfriend, all I will say is that some you on this forum need lessons in reading comprehension. Read what I said again then get back to me.


"Some you" need lessons in writing. :)

The issue of averision therapy is not a spurious point. Some people do hate their parents because of what they&#39;ve done to them (e.g. child abuse). This is a standard Pavlovian response.

Any behavior that is not based solely on biology can be modified through negative or positive experiences. Like Hobbes pointed out, in some countries people can be killed for being gay but they still do it. Even if they desist from gay behaviour they are still attracted to members of the same sex. It cannot be changed.

The only issue here is that of giving gay couples the same rights as married couples. It wont destroy the family. Its not special treatment. Its just a legal thing to give them equal rights.

Try and bear in mind that "All men are created equal", even the gay ones. <_<




Edit by RF:

Copied through an edit from the previous page, quoted in this post. [/b][/quote]
Funny how you took a jab at me and when a jab comes back, you are offended and part of MY post is removed. STICK TO THE TOPIC&#33;&#33; Right?

If you read, I did say well ...exactly what you post in your post.
My original post tells you my preference but based on the current laws......

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
If there is to be a separation of church and state, the government should separate it, make America&#39;s transformation into a real Babylon complete, and shut-up with the rhetoric.[/quote]

READ READ READ. This passage agrees with the majority of the thread (and the constitution).

Then you say that I DISagree right after it.

btw, I "biologically" don&#39;t like the color blue. Will aversion therapy change that forever? I&#39;m not physically hardwired to NOT like it.
According to you gays are physically hardwired to like the same sex.

Funny how all of this "evidence" to support this is not breaking news.
I guess it&#39;s a cover up by the religious right.

[Rat Faced]

Funny how you took a jab at me and when a jab comes back, you are offended and part of MY post is removed. STICK TO THE TOPIC&#33;&#33; Right?


I looked back and only saw one thing that i think was a jab at you...i&#39;ve removed that now, missed it the 1st time.

If im incorrect, and there is something else that was personal..let me know.

For Info:

Leftism never complained about anything.....I did this coz i want the thread to stay "On Topic" and not get personal.

So far, its done that very well.

I also removed a remark aimed at a particular church...if it had been aimed at religion in general, i would have left it alone.

Im sure you understand ;)

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If there is to be a separation of church and state, the government should separate it, make America&#39;s transformation into a real Babylon complete, and shut-up with the rhetoric.[/b]

READ READ READ. This passage agrees with the majority of the thread (and the constitution).

Then you say that I DISagree right after it.
[/b]

Oh I see. So you want the US to be "a real Bablyon complete"? This would be the same Babylon that God destroyed? So, you either want God to destroy America or you&#39;ve just contradicted yourself.


Originally posted by Busyman
btw, I "biologically" don&#39;t like the color blue. Will aversion therapy change that forever? I&#39;m not physically hardwired to NOT like it.

If you "biologically" dont like the colour blue then it IS hardwired. Maybe if you calm down a bit you wont be so confused?

Unless that was your attempt at humour? In which case I&#39;m forced to point out the obvious. There is a "subtle" difference between sexuality and colour preference.

Anyway to answer your question.. aversion therapy, when it works, can only be used to make someone dislike something. So it couldnt make you like the colour blue if you already disliked it. If you&#39;d applied a little thought to what the word &#39;aversion&#39; means you wouldnt need to ask.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@

According to you gays are physically hardwired to like the same sex.
[/quote]

And according to you its a "lifestyle" choice. They make this choice even when they live in countries where they could be killed for it. Very logical...

What about Alan Turing? Do you sincerely believe that this genius decided he was going to risk his livelihood, reputation and ultimately his life out of pure choice, just so he could be gay? Bear in mind that the man was not stupid and that his work on computers was based around LOGIC. Hardly the first person you would expect to make a completely illogical "lifestyle choice" that ultimately led to his death.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
Funny how all of this "evidence" to support this is not breaking news.[/quote]

There&#39;s loads of evidence to support it. If you choose to look. I suggest a few neuropsychology journals.

Please answer one question for me. When did you "choose" to be heterosexual?

You see it was different for me. I didnt wake up one day and thought "well you know what, I&#39;ve decided Im going to be heterosexual for the rest of my life.". I have always been heterosexual and I always will be. I couldnt "choose" to be gay, even if I wanted to. Could you?

[Skweeky]

Ah, the old debate is back, good good :D

I read through all of the posts and I&#39;m just going to reply to a few points that struck me.

First of all I think marriage between homosexuals should be allowed. Gay people love each other the same way straight people do. If they feel they need a piece of paper to prove that to one another, then why not let them?
The marriage in front of the Church is a bit tricky though. As was said, it is the belief of the Church that homosexuality is a sin, so it would be unfair to ask them to change their views on it. On the other hand, this same Church says that premarital sex is a sin, I don&#39;t think they try to find out whether you commited to that &#39;sin&#39; or not before straight couples get married, so in my opinion they&#39;re using double standards here. Also are these rules based on a book that was written nearly 2000 years ago, surely times have changed a lot ever since and maybe the Church should consider adapting the rules to the age we live in...

Busyman said he thinks that homosexuality is something you &#39;develop&#39;, influenced by your environment. I must disagree here. I am bisexual, I realy like guys, but I really like girls as well. I went to a catolic school, a very strict one too. My parent were very conservative and I didn&#39;t know any gay people until I was 17 or so. One day I just fell in love with my best friend (was 15 then) and that was that. A simple fact for me and not nurtured or influenced by anyone else.


Anyway,
a few years ago in Belgium a priest was &#39;fired&#39; because he openly had admitted to be gay. Ever since he sort of started his own movement and marries homosexuals, you can imagine the reaction from all the bishops there. The movement still is a big success and in many ways more popular than the &#39;normal&#39; Church ( if you look at it in perspective that is)
I think that&#39;s a good initiative and it offeres a valid alternative.

[NotoriousBIC]

Originally posted by Skweeky@20 February 2004 - 14:47
On the other hand, this same Church says that premarital sex is a sin, I don&#39;t think they try to find out whether you commited to that &#39;sin&#39; or not before straight couples get married, so in my opinion they&#39;re using double standards here. Also are these rules based on a book that was written nearly 2000 years ago, surely times have changed a lot ever since and maybe the Church should consider adapting the rules to the age we live in...
Alas, there are quite a few examples of similar &#39;double standards&#39; in the history of the Church and almost all religions.

I had just typed a long-ass post of my views about religion in general and it&#39;s influance on this matter in particular, when it occurred to me that faith shouldn&#39;t be even a factor in this discussion.

I think a lot of people mix up marriage in the sense of the law and in the sense of religion with eachother. Both don&#39;t have anything to do wich eachother and indeed a lot of marriages are now double. One for the law and one for the church.

The rules for marriage in the church should be set by the church and therefore the rules for marriage by law shouldn&#39;t neccessarily be based on those.
I like the &#39;All men are created equal&#39; argument...

As for the family arguments I believe that percentage-wise there are less problems with &#39;Gay&#39;-families than normal families (here in the Netherlands), but it&#39;s far too early to conclude anything (perhaps not even possible).
But if I have to believe claims of American reports on Dutch family values, they&#39;re all going to hell anyway... :lol:

p.s. Those reports have been claimed to exist, but haven&#39;t been sent to any newspaper/magazine who has requested those. More anti-gay propeganda?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 February 2004 - 09:49

Funny how you took a jab at me and when a jab comes back, you are offended and part of MY post is removed. STICK TO THE TOPIC&#33;&#33; Right?


I looked back and only saw one thing that i think was a jab at you...i&#39;ve removed that now, missed it the 1st time.

If im incorrect, and there is something else that was personal..let me know.

For Info:

Leftism never complained about anything.....I did this coz i want the thread to stay "On Topic" and not get personal.

So far, its done that very well.

I also removed a remark aimed at a particular church...if it had been aimed at religion in general, i would have left it alone.

Im sure you understand ;)
It&#39;s cool man.
I actually didn&#39;t think he would be offended seeing as though he said something to me that could be construde as "rather offensive". I have thick skin.
No problem here.

Anyway leftism,

I was being facetious. You can&#39;t "biologically" like the color blue. Now through aversion therapy you can be made to hate the color blue. But a like...is not hardwired.

I have read neurological journals regarding this issue. They are not conclusive whatsoever.

You like what you like.
Skweeky is perfect example.

EVERYTHING is an influence but what triggers a like or dislike is sometimes UNexplainable.
Most people on here are trying nail down and scientifically explain free-will.
I&#39;m not even putting religion into equation. It&#39;s just free will.

You ever NOT like a person and you don&#39;t why?

Again read.

I am Christian so I am against gay marriage and civil unions.............but

If America is has a separation between church and state then.....SEPARATE IT or else our own laws are hypocritical.

got me?

I be back answer your "other" question.

I&#39;ll do an edit.

[Skweeky]

I don&#39;t know about that..I think there is always an explainable reason for like or dislike, but maybe the reason itself isn&#39;t explainable?

e.g:

I don&#39;t like spiders
Why?
Because I think they look repulsive
why?
The movement of those 8 legs at the same time is just creepy
Why?
I don&#39;t know


You also say you can&#39;t biologically like a certain colour, I don&#39;t know if you would classify this as biologically, but there is a certain link between the character of a person and the colours this person likes or dislikes. In fact it is sometimes used in psychological tests (the yellow room test for example).

Free will is a tricky thing to discuss..I am not sure if there is such a thing. Everything we do is influenced in one way or another by what other people do or say.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>EVERYTHING is an influence but what triggers a like or dislike is sometimes UNexplainable.
Most people on here are trying nail down and scientifically explain free-will.
I&#39;m not even putting religion into equation. It&#39;s just free will.[/b]

I agree, but what I&#39;m saying is that sexuality is more than just a simple like/dislike. Its completely different to colour preference or your favourite food.

Arguing that sexuality is hardwired does not cut free will out of the equation at all. Like I said before its a &#39;special case&#39;, a unique characteristic that you cannot compare with disliking a person or place.


Originally posted by busyman@

I am Christian so I am against gay marriage and civil unions.............but


I can understand you disagreeing with marriage for gays on account of religion. Im not religious myself but the bible clearly states that its wrong and I dont think Christianity should be forced to change.

However, I dont understand why your against civil unions though. They have nothing to do with religeon. In fact in an earlier post in this thread you stated that you were against civil unions because "it discriminates against heterosexual single couples.". You didnt mention religion then.

This need not be true either. Theres no reason why a heterosexual couple shouldnt be able to have a civil union if they wish. I think it would be a good idea. Non-christians being married in a church has always seemed a bit illogical to me, but they did this because there was no viable alternative. If we have legally binding civil unions then gay couples can enjoy the same rights straight couples do and the Church doesnt have to compromise on its position.

So putting the issue into this context, are you still against civil unions, and if so, why?


If America is has a separation between church and state then.....SEPARATE IT or else our own laws are hypocritical.

got me?

I agree, but next time leave Babylon out of it because even non-Christians know a few bible stories too.

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman

I be back answer your "other" question.[/quote]

I look forward to it. It is a bit of a difficult position for you though isnt it? Because deep down I think you know that you could not choose to be gay anymore than you could choose to be a hippo :D

[Wizard_Mon1]

Busyman, i think that free will has to many religious connotations, rather i would say that what choices you make depend on alot of factors e.g. upbringing, past experience, situation/environment and view (outlook e.g. religious). These then are a series of built habits that shape your reactions to outside stimuli. Your body stores this information e.g. body posture <(this is theory from chinese medicine)>. Your body posture is interconnected with your mental process, one affects the other and vice versa. So in this way all your&#39;e feelings from past experiences, and emotional reactions to them (e.g. abuse), have a direct influence on your actions.

I am not dismissing that your hormones also have an on your behavior, i am just saying there are more important factors that affect choice. In saying that "Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended" you are implying that these malformations are a characteristic of being gay, but really the percentage of the gay population with this problem is a small one, not the majority. During puberty hormone levels are particularly high but your reactions to the strong increase of hormonal activity will depend on your upbring, past experience e.t.c.

If someone is in an environment that is dangerous for them they can&#39;t deny there personal mental patterns formed through past experience.


Thanks guys for the thread, it has been engaging. Two bits especially made me laugh.


Hobbes: As for your Freudian comments, it is true that an abused child may lack self confidence due to being called "stupid" and lack trust in others, but I can&#39;t see how this would lead him to want to get buggered.

and


Homocol

Cure your homosexual urges
Love women
Have a "normal" family by having sex "naturally"

/me has weird sense of humour.

[hobbes]

Part 1:

Perhaps we can view "homosexuality" as a genetic predisposition. In some people this switch is thrown, in others it is not. This is called the "penetrance" of a condition.

I will use schizophrenia as an example. It is obvious that no one would logically chose to be insane vs sane. Children born of schizophrenic parents have a greatly increased risk of becoming schizophrenic, but they certainly don&#39;t all become crazy.

Some children are schizophrenic from the start (hardwired), but most only manifest the disease in their late teens. Typically during their first semester at college, when the teen is away from friends and family and under stress. Some combination of genetic predisposition and the effects of stress hormones on the brain seems to trigger a gene which had previously been silent. The teen then manifests his disease and no drug to date has been able to fix this problem.

So a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental conditions has lead to the manifestation of the disease. At no time was "free will" involved.

The above was a "classic case", and truthfully no one is sure of all the variables involved.

[hobbes]

Part 2


From another view, let us go back to Jaime Lee Curtis.

She is a genetic male that looks completely female. However, she has a blind ending vagina, no uterus or ovaries and a pair of testicles. This is because the hormone receptors that were supposed to orchestrate the male characteristics did not function, they could not bind the hormone. Hence she developed as a female.

Nobody has any problem understanding that due to a genetic condition a gonadal male developed into a female. Nobody is talking about "free will".

Let us then consider something that is not so obvious, the maturing brain.

As a simplified example let us assume that a receptor in the brain is defective and does not respond to its target hormone. Although physically not visible, the brain is developing in a way which will lead to normal male behavior, and just like Jamie Lee&#39;s external genitalia (breasts, blind ending vagina) the brain in the affected individual cannot mature properly as a male and develops as a female, and therefore has female sexuality. So why is it so obvious that physical characteristics are not "free will", yet any mental variance from the norm is considered an act of "free will". Just because you can&#39;t see the developing brain, does not make its sexual development any less real than breasts or a vagina.



As you know, people get half of their genes from each parent. If Mom has a defective receptor and Dad has a defective receptor, the brain cannot develop normally as a male and you will be gay(hardwired). If both parents have working receptors then you will be a heterosexual (hardwired).

Then we get to the grey zone of one working gene or 2 partially working genes, or 1 totally defective and 1 partially working. Add to this the fact that it is probably a combination of many genes, rather than 1 and you see how we can get a full spectrum of people from totally gay, to bisexual, to totally heterosexual.

The heterosexual or working genes are preserved because these are the people that can reproduce. The defective genes are those passed as traits, most likely by gays pretending to be straight and marrying.

So for the grey zone people, they come out in limbo, and this is where environmental and emotional experiences can push people in one direction or another. I have no idea what exactly all of the variables are, but I am sure it is quite complex, not simply seeing a picture of a nude man or woman.

So a pereson becoming gay doesn&#39;t just happen like being struck by lightening, it is a combination of society,personal experiences and emotions influencing a genetic predisposition and not a matter of free will.

[hobbes]

Part 3

Free will

Let us go back to the statement that God considers it a sin to be have same sex relations (buggering).

Free will would be getting buggered by a guy simply for physical release because you are in between girlfriends or incarcerated. You are not aroused by your partner, they are just a means to an end. No kissing, no cuddling, no afterglow, just wham, bam, done. An example of this can be found in Billy Deans thread about prison in Morrocco.

That would be free will violation of Gods&#39; decree.

[Rat Faced]

Jamie Lee Curtis is a guy....... :&#39;( :&#39;( :&#39;(

[Wizard_Mon1]

I agree it is a combination of both naure and nurture, but one thing.


As you know, people get half of their genes from each parent. If Mom has a defective receptor and Dad has a defective receptor, the brain cannot develop normally as a male and you will be gay(hardwired). If both parents have working receptors then you will be a heterosexual (hardwired).

How so, you are saying there is a gay gene... if a parent passes a trait to there child it is through there genes... the gene carring the defective receptor information.... Is it reccesive? :lol: Can you also explain how having a defective recptor in your brain can make you gay?

[Biggles]

I am not convinced the approach taken by those in California against Gay unions is either correct or ultimately beneficial to the case they present.

It is true that a number of references exist in the Old Testament that forbid homosexuality (although, as I once pointed out, not as many that forbid lending money with interest) and in the New Testament Paul had a problem with sex in general; and at one point said if it was up to him no one would get married or have sex. This has to be seen in the context that he thought Christ&#39;s return was imminent and that such unions were pointless. Jesus himself says nothing on homosexuality and only mentions marriage briefly. In fact, in answer to a question on who a person would be married to in heaven if they had more than one partner in this life (due to a previous partner dying) he answered that in heaven we would not be like man and women but like the angels (who would appear to be androgynous).

However, I digress (again). The concept of "family values" which is being touted as the reason for being against two people of the same sex declaring their love through promises of fidelity, appears flawed on a number of accounts.

Firstly, exactly what does this term mean? Do any of you feel your marriage is now unsustainable because same sex marriages have been approved in California? Will two hetreosexual people who fall in love declare that it would be nice to promise fidelity to each other but feel that they cannot because there are people of the same sex who have made the same promises? One of the complaints against homosexuals was that are were fickle and promiscuous, it seems absurd to me to then rail against them because they want to be true and loyal.

Secondly, Jesus told Christians that they are "in the world but not of the world". He asked that those who followed him lead by the examples of their lives not by burning people who disagreed with them (be it real flames or the flames of ostracising) . Their is little merit in being the Salt if Salt enacts legislation to make the food taste like salt too. Or, put simply, you cannot live others lives for them. If according to your light an action is wrong then abstain from it (be it homosexuality or eating meat on a Friday), but it is fundamentaly wrongheaded to presume to enact laws in civil courts to prevent others from doing so. I seem to recall that Paul was none to keen on Christians being litigious.

Thirdly, increasing numbers of Christian marriages are ending in divorce, it would be fairer to say that although the mote of undermining "family values" may be in the homosexual eye, beams abound in the eyes of others.

I am sorry this is a bit long, and Busyman I would like to say that this is not directed at you. I see in your writing a genuine desire to reach beyond pure legalism and search for something that is good and just.

I know I won&#39;t convince those who are convinced they can create heaven on Earth; if only the legislature and judiciary were to be on their side. I know there is nothing I can say that would convince them that they may have simply been seduced by a dream. But then one of my favourite lines in the Bible is Ecclesiastes Ch1 V2 - (if, as a Pagan, I may presume to quote someone elses scriptures).

To be honest, I am not desperately comfortable with two men being intimate and like a hypocrite go :w00t: if it is two girls. However, the former is my problem not theirs and I have never been able to decide if the latter is a problem. :unsure:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 February 2004 - 20:35
How so, you are saying there is a gay gene... if a parent passes a trait to there child it is through there genes... the gene carring the defective receptor information.... Is it reccesive? :lol:&nbsp; Can you also explain how having a defective recptor in your brain can make you gay?

I gave the recessive gene scenario. This was strictly for illustrative purposes to keep things simple and to keep the post readable to the average viewer.

I thought I explained pretty clearly how it could make one straight, gay and everything in between. Is there something you can point out which is unclear?



Wizard,

The post should have read "born" gay. Inherited might imply a gay gene, which is wrong.

That was the very first line of a response to you, are you reading or skimming the posts?

A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

We are born sexually immature and must actively differentiate into our mature sexual state. At any step in this process a genetic abnormality may derail proper development. Some, as I have stated, lack the proper hormone receptors for this approriate brain maturation and are never going to develop normally.

As a simplified analogy, a nonfunctioning thyroid gland can cause a child to become mentally retarded due to a lack of hormone support which assists in development of the brain.

There is no "mental retardation" gene, it is a matter of faulty brain maturation because the proper genes were not stimulated at the proper times. This can result from either inadequate hormone stimulation or inability of the brain to recognise a hormone. This is why EVERY child born is screened for hypothyroidism. If you don&#39;t get the hormone replacemnet started immediately, irreversible mental retardation will occur. You cannot take a mentally retarded hypothyroid individual and reverse him later, it is not just proper hormone availability, but also timing is critical.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Biggles@20 February 2004 - 20:42
It is true that a number of references exist in the Old Testament that forbid homosexuality (although, as I once pointed out, not as many that forbid lending money with interest) and in the New Testament Paul had a problem with sex in general; and at one point said if it was up to him no one would get married or have sex.


So I guess you would stand squarely against 2 gay bankers marrying.

Yet another enlightening and well written effort.

[Agrajag]

Certainly a lot of talk here, much of it very clever and well thought out, however ultimately missing the point. In what way does why or how people are gay effect what rights they should have ? It seem the consensus that it is genetic, environmental or probably a mixture, whatever is true it is something which happens to someone, not something they choose. I am genetically quite tall, the fact that I am quite fat is my fault. I do not think either should effect my right to be married. I do not think that the nature of gayness is the issue here.

With regard to the atheists and agnostics, the Chuch aspect is meaningless. As you do not believe in God then surely being "married in the eyes of God" is a non sequitur. The Church wedding is therefore meaningless and is, if anything of less value than the civil one.Those who follow a religion will feel exactly the opposite and their wedding is of more significance than the civil alternative. So why not let people choose to go whichever route you want, however the non Church goers have no more right to tell the Church who they should marry, than the Chuch has to tell the state who they should not.

At the end of the day, let people express their love for each other and make a comitment to act a certain way with regard to their relationship. Let them form a contract in the eyes of the law and give them the same rights as everybody else. let the Churches decide who they will allow to be married, if anyone does not like this, then it is probably the wrong Church for them anyway.

Live and let live.

[Busyman]

Sorry hobbes, all that stuff about schizophrenia and homosexuality is hogwash.

Schizophrenia IS a physical ailment that affects the brain. I don&#39;t have a book with me like you but I know it has something to do with dopamine levels and the frontal lobe of the brain.

The stuff regarding gays being born gay or in essence having no choice is ludicrous.
You must have read JUST 1 issue of Scientific American (actually I&#39;ve read it too :) ).

Your explanation of a person such as Skweeky is that she had a different mix of hormone levels mixed with environmental stimuli mixed with.....blahblah.

Do realized you described everyone in the world?

We are ALL different, hormones and all. You explain things as if you had petri dishes and did the tests yourself. The fact is you read articles that support your argument and ignored others.

Where is all of this on the news? There&#39;s are plenty of gay movies and propaganda.
This would support their agenda. Where is it LOUDLY?

@leftism - Could I have been gay? Sure. Would I? Hell fucking no. It disgusts me. Things about a man I find unattractive.

hobbes&#39; rationale is that if you have sex with the same sex at anytime you have ALWAYS been gay. Totally ridiculous and I can&#39;t believe an intelligent person such as himself thinks that.

Skweeky finds either sex attractive. Not because she was hardwired but because there is something in A PARTICULAR PERSON she finds attractive.

....but I guess she was preordained at birth to be bisexual. <_<

[hobbes]

I don&#39;t think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Most people, even those who are religiously opposed to gay marriages, agreed that separation between the church and state would dictate that they should be legal.

No one has suggested that churches be forced to marry anyone against their will. There are plenty of unitarian churches which will do it with no reservations.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 18:00
I don&#39;t think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Most people, even those who are religiously opposed to gay marriages, agreed that separation between the church and state would dictate that they should be legal.

No one has suggested that churches be forced to marry anyone against their will. There are plenty of unitarian churches which will do it with no reservations.
Very good point hobbes.

I think me and like....2 other people are opposed but..............
according to our own laws religion does not matter.

[Wizard_Mon1]

That is what i wanted you to say


A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

Before this you did not qualify how a brain malformation could make you gay, the closest thing u got to it was this:

Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended.

Yes i read all the posts. TYVM.

However, lack of male sex hormone can only made you less drawn towards women it cannot make you attracted to males. In the case of males that a high amount of female sex hormone, they are not neccesarily drawn to men. Feminine males are not neccessarily drawn to men, it is more likely that they are seen as slighly different to other males and outcast during adolescence which leads them to question them selves because they are not like other males. After this what is left? They seek an alternative or an answer to why they are different.

@agrajag - yes sorry i went off topic - but i have no opinion on gay marrige other that people can do what they want.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 February 2004 - 18:12
That is what i wanted you to say


A gene does not actively make you gay, but lack of properly functioning and sufficient quantities of sex hormone and other endocrine receptors may prevent one from fully developing normal male sexuality.

Before this you did not qualify how a brain malformation could make you gay, the closest thing u got to it was this:

Any timing or hormone receptor problem may cause the brain or the genitalia to not form as intended.

Yes i read all the posts. TYVM.

However, lack of male sex hormone can only made you less drawn towards women it cannot make you attracted to males. In the case of males that a high amount of female sex hormone, they are not neccesarily drawn to men. Feminine males are not neccessarily drawn to men, it is more likely that they are seen as slighly different to other males and outcast during adolescence which leads them to question them selves because they are not like other males. After this what is left? They seek an alternative or an answer to why they are different.

@agrajag - yes sorry i went off topic - but i have no opinion on gay marrige other that people can do what they want.
I could take estrogen and I still won&#39;t like men.

I would grow boobs though. :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

Busyman,

I have referenced no articles, I am just posting what my scientific backround has taught me.

Calling stuff "hogwash" is not a very eloquent rebuttal. It just says, "I don&#39;t want to believe what you are saying, but I cannot refute your statements".

Do you seriously believe that "homosexuality" is a choice, I can&#39;t believe an intelligent person such as yourself would say that.

Why are there so many priests caught for homosexual indiscretions. They are men of God but openly defy him as a choice? Or perhaps they sought the shelter of the church to fight their homosexual desires, which they are deeply ashamed of because of their upbringing. In the end, even after devoting their lives to Christ, their true natural desires came out anyway.

Openly gay priests, that really ought to give you a clue.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 22:00
I don&#39;t think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Elsewhere it would be described as "hijacking", what is the difference here ? is it the big words ? the well written posts ? or something else.

Could it be that the erudite consider what they do to be "stream of consciousness" whereas in others it is lack of focus ?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag+20 February 2004 - 23:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 20 February 2004 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@20 February 2004 - 22:00
I don&#39;t think any point has been missed.&nbsp; The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Elsewhere it would be described as "hijacking", what is the difference here ? is it the big words ? the well written posts ? or something else.

Could it be that the erudite consider what they do to be "stream of consciousness" whereas in others it is lack of focus ?[/b][/quote]
It is a relevant topic which precedes and bears upon the question. It was only embarked upon after the intial question had been well settled. How can you you talk about the health of a plant without first exploring the soil upon which it has blossomed?

Hijacking requisitely involves the mention of NikkiD. You&#39;re new here so you may not be aware of this.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@20 February 2004 - 23:12
However, lack of male sex hormone can only made you less drawn towards women it cannot make you attracted to males. In the case of males that a high amount of female sex hormone, they are not neccesarily drawn to men. Feminine males are not neccessarily drawn to men, it is more likely that they are seen as slighly different to other males and outcast during adolescence which leads them to question them selves because they are not like other males. After this what is left? They seek an alternative or an answer to why they are different.


We are not talking about hormone levels. You are describing effects on the mature brain. Just like growth hormone will not make you grow after your bone growth plates have fused.

We are talking about brain maturation, which relies on, but is not exclusive to sex hormones. Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.

Remember my comments about thyroid hormone replacement. You can&#39;t give a retarded teenager thyroid hormone to cure him. The horses are well out of the barn by then.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by hobbes+20 February 2004 - 22:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 20 February 2004 - 22:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Agrajag@20 February 2004 - 23:37
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@20 February 2004 - 22:00
I don&#39;t think any point has been missed. The thread just progressed on from the initial question to explore why people came to the conclusions they did.

Elsewhere it would be described as "hijacking", what is the difference here ? is it the big words ? the well written posts ? or something else.

Could it be that the erudite consider what they do to be "stream of consciousness" whereas in others it is lack of focus ?
It is a relevant topic which precedes and bears upon the question. It was only embarked upon after the intial question had been well settled. How can you you talk about the health of a plant without first exploring the soil upon which it has blossomed?

Hijacking requisitely involves the mention of NikkiD. You&#39;re new here so you may not be aware of this. [/b][/quote]
Do you truly feel that the original question was setled ? if so I would appreciate it if you could inform me of the outcome, because I cannot find the definitive answer anywhere in the thread. Unless of course you consider your own proclamations to be definitive.

How does the off topic (as I see it) discussion bear upon the question ? How does why people are gay matter when deciding upon the rights of gay people ? Does this go for other groups as well ? Do we have to decide on why they are how they are before we decide on their rights ? Or do we feel that all men are born equal and have equal rights ?

[Rat Faced]

A quick look at the poll results show that the original question was settled rather conclusively (in the opinions of the people that frequent this area of the board)...

The rest of the thread appears to be an investigation as to why people think this way...

[hobbes]

Outcome:


What are your views on Gay Marriage?
Against Marriage and Civil Union. Should be in Constitution [ 3 ]&nbsp; [6.67%]

Against Marriage and Civil Union. Shouldn&#39;t be in Constitution. [ 4 ]&nbsp; [8.89%]

Against Marriage, For Civil Union. Should be in Constitution [ 0 ]&nbsp; [0.00%]

Against Marriage, For Civil Union. Shouldn&#39;t be in Constitution [ 3 ]&nbsp; [6.67%]

For Gay Marriages and Civil Union, makes me uncomfortable [ 1 ]&nbsp; [2.22%]

For Gay Marriages and Civil Union, doesnt bother me [ 34 ]&nbsp; [75.56%]

Total Votes: 45

You&#39;re so cute when you&#39;re pissy :lol:

[Biggles]

Agrajag

The erudite don&#39;t hijack






...they merely digress - its just some digressions are more tenuous than others. :lol:


To be fair to Hobbes and Busyman the subject of their discussion is adjacent to the topic. A complex issue like this can probably sustain two, or even three, separate discussions at the same time.

I personally was more interested in the socio-political drivers for the reaction against than anything else, consequently my contribution on the nature vs nurture debate has been non-existent (plus I preferred plant biology :01: )

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Biggles@20 February 2004 - 23:14
Agrajag

The erudite don&#39;t hijack






...they merely digress -&nbsp; its just some digressions are more tenuous than others.&nbsp; :lol:



Of course they dont..... (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=101082)




:P

[Agrajag]

My apologies, I took "the initial question had been well settled" as meaning that we had come up with a definitive answer for this problem. As opposed to, nobody is voting any more, so there is a "winner" in this poll. Being a simple soul I took the combination of words in their normal meaning. Forgive this aberration, I will try to do better as I learn the subtleties of interpretation in this board area. I was hoping this would happen through osmosis, however so far this has been unsuccessful.

The fact that I did not vote in the poll and as such could not see the current position may not have helped :blink:

[Biggles]

Some digressions are, of course, quite, quite tenuous.





:"> :-"

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+20 February 2004 - 23:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 20 February 2004 - 23:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@20 February 2004 - 23:14
Agrajag

The erudite don&#39;t hijack






...they merely digress - its just some digressions are more tenuous than others. :lol:



Of course they dont..... (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=101082)




:P [/b][/quote]
That&#39;s just mad talk :lol:

[Wizard_Mon1]

Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.

Where is the sexual identity center? Are you sure you don&#39;t mean sexual center?
So you are saying that all sexual prefence is developed between 4-6 years because of sex hormones. In that case why is it scarcely encountered in chimps that are 98% genetically similar to humans. Where do you find this information hobbes? I am also interested to see what percentage of people are born like this and how it realites to the percentage of the pop. that is gay.

Personally i don&#39;t think that the human body can naturally be gay sure they could be more feminine or masculine but this is not directly related to there sexual identity because that is a result of programing.

[Biggles]

Originally posted by Agrajag@20 February 2004 - 23:25


The fact that I did not vote in the poll and as such could not see the current position may not have helped :blink:
:helpsmile:


Voter apathy - it gets everywhere. :lol:


Actually, your interpretation was close.

I think what Hobbes, and by dint of association, Busyman, meant by settled was partly the direction of the vote and partly they had found a related issue that they had got their teeth into.

[Agrajag]

Biggles

I agree, however I am reminded of a famous anecdote which I attribute to George Melly, only because the first time I heard it was from him. It is almost certainly apocryphal, whatever the source. The story goes that someone had written on a toilet wall "My Mother made me a homosexual" and some wag had written underneath "If I give her the wool, will she make me one as well ? "

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@21 February 2004 - 00:29

Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.

Where is the sexual identity center? Are you sure you don&#39;t mean sexual center?
So you are saying that all sexual prefence is developed between 4-6 years because of sex hormones. In that case why is it scarcely encountered in chimps that are 98% genetically similar to humans. Where do you find this information hobbes? I am also interested to see what percentage of people are born like this and how it realites to the percentage of the pop. that is gay.

Personally i don&#39;t think that the human body can naturally be gay sure they could be more feminine or masculine but this is not directly related to there sexual identity because that is a result of programing.
I am not writing a textbook, I am trying to convey how homosexuality can be explained through genetics and environment, and is not an example of free will.

My posts have been simplified to convey concepts via analogies, not draw neuroanatomic charts.

When I put something in my post, why do you not read it the first time?

We are talking about brain maturation, which relies on, but is not exclusive to sex hormones. Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.
Slow down and try to understand what I am saying, not how to make a rebuttal.


As for chimps (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html),(<---its a link) they are queer as folk, too&#33; Homosexual and bisexual activity in the animal kingdom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/031225377X/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-1827837-3198541#reader-link), I had no idea they could chose their sexual orientation?

Statistical variance in homosexual activity among animals is irrelvant, it clearly shows that genetics are unequivically involved in this phenomenon.

Where do you get your information?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 February 2004 - 11:10
Jamie Lee Curtis is a guy....... :&#39;( :&#39;( :&#39;(
http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/jlc.html

http://www.snopes.com/movies/actors/jamie.htm

long-running urban myth. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 18:18
Busyman,

I have referenced no articles, I am just posting what my scientific backround has taught me.

Calling stuff "hogwash" is not a very eloquent rebuttal. It just says, "I don&#39;t want to believe what you are saying, but I cannot refute your statements".

Do you seriously believe that "homosexuality" is a choice, I can&#39;t believe an intelligent person such as yourself would say that.

Why are there so many priests caught for homosexual indiscretions. They are men of God but openly defy him as a choice? Or perhaps they sought the shelter of the church to fight their homosexual desires, which they are deeply ashamed of because of their upbringing. In the end, even after devoting their lives to Christ, their true natural desires came out anyway.

Openly gay priests, that really ought to give you a clue.
Who said I was ever eloquent? Fuck eloquent (as I scratch my nuts)&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D


Your statements are easily refuttable.

ex,
I can sprout all types of reasons scientific reasons about why people like the color blue. I can go as so far as to say they had no choice because at birth there was a predominance of colonic in their brain. As they matured (usually in the first three years) the colonic hit their visual center causing a bluish tint.

This is the reason they have a liking of the color blue. <_<

It cannot be because well...........they just like it.
It&#39;s proven because of the scientific analysis of the last "20 years" and my personal scientific backround.

BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; (sorry if I&#39;m not being......... eloquent.

Dude I could choose to pound on dudes in the ass if I wanted to.
I don&#39;t choose too.
There are guys who have said they have neeeever been with a woman. Gay their entire life.
What if one had a woman ...finally and....LIKED IT. Would he still be gay?

According to your "pecking order" if he chose a guy, at any time, he was born gay.

This is why your argument is hogwash to me. It goes against common sense.
If their is conclusive proof that there is "something" physically different that makes me or anyone else want to slam guys in the ass or MAKES me want to be romantic with them I wouldn&#39;t hesitate too pay attention (regardless of my religious views).

Until then this has been a hoot and holler&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Feel Teh Love baby

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+21 February 2004 - 01:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 21 February 2004 - 01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@20 February 2004 - 11:10
Jamie Lee Curtis is a guy....... :&#39;( :&#39;( :&#39;(
http://www.urbanlegends.com/celebrities/jlc.html

long-running urban myth. ;)[/b][/quote]
Your link does not disprove my statement. In fact, the question asked is wrong, she is not a hermaphrodite, but has testicular feminization which is completely different.

She is tall with large breats which is typical for TF.
She has not been able to have children, which hermaphrodites should.


But, whether she is or not is not relevant to my point. I meant no disrespect to her, I&#39;m sorry Jamie. :(

[Rat Faced]

Dude I could choose to pound on dudes in the ass if I wanted to.



Really?

The reflex for me has always been involuntary....and no "Dudes" ever triggered it ;)

Just a short skirt on the pavement as i drive past frequently does it though :P




As to Ms Curtis.......thank god she&#39;s not. :wub:

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by hobbes+21 February 2004 - 00:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 21 February 2004 - 00:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@21 February 2004 - 00:29

Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.

Where is the sexual identity center? Are you sure you don&#39;t mean sexual center?
So you are saying that all sexual prefence is developed between 4-6 years because of sex hormones. In that case why is it scarcely encountered in chimps that are 98% genetically similar to humans. Where do you find this information hobbes? I am also interested to see what percentage of people are born like this and how it realites to the percentage of the pop. that is gay.

Personally i don&#39;t think that the human body can naturally be gay sure they could be more feminine or masculine but this is not directly related to there sexual identity because that is a result of programing.
I am not writing a textbook, I am trying to convey how homosexuality can be explained through genetics and environment, and is not an example of free will.

My posts have been simplified to convey concepts via analogies, not draw neuroanatomic charts.

When I put something in my post, why do you not read it the first time?

We are talking about brain maturation, which relies on, but is not exclusive to sex hormones. Once the sexual identity center is matured (4-6 years), hormones will not effect sexuality.
Slow down and try to understand what I am saying, not how to make a rebuttal.


As for chimps (http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1999/03/cov_15featurea.html),(<---its a link) they are queer as folk, too&#33; Homosexual and bisexual activity in the animal kingdom (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/031225377X/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-1827837-3198541#reader-link), I had no idea they could chose their sexual orientation?

Statistical variance in homosexual activity among animals is irrelvant, it clearly shows that genetics are unequivically involved in this phenomenon.

Where do you get your information? [/b][/quote]
At no point did i mention free will in regards to being gay. I mentioned it in the begining in relation to marrige.


Busyman, i think that free will has to many religious connotations, rather i would say that what choices you make depend on alot of factors e.g. upbringing, past experience, situation/environment and view (outlook e.g. religious).

Did you read the thread?

I was just asking whether you had any results to back up what you say as you seem so addament that what you say is correct. I do understand what you have written i&#39;m questioning it, is that so hard to understand?

I was using chimps as an example because with them it is a social phenomena, they use it to built relationships and secure bonds.

I am sorry if i sound rude in this post but i object when people talk to me like this:

When I put something in my post, why do you not read it the first time? Slow down and try to understand what I am saying, not how to make a rebuttal.

Edit - The word i was looking for was patronising.

BTW - nice links.

I get my information from chinese medical theory.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@21 February 2004 - 01:23

Who said I was ever eloquent? Fuck eloquent (as I scratch my nuts)&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D


Your statements are easily refuttable.

ex,
I can sprout all types of reasons scientific reasons about why people like the color blue. I can go as so far as to say they had no choice because at birth there was a predominance of colonic in their brain. As they matured (usually in the first three years) the colonic hit their visual center causing a bluish tint.

This is the reason they have a liking of the color blue. <_<

It cannot be because well...........they just like it.
It&#39;s proven because of the scientific analysis of the last "20 years" and my personal scientific backround.

BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; (sorry if I&#39;m not being......... eloquent.

Dude I could choose to pound on dudes in the ass if I wanted to.
I don&#39;t choose too.
There are guys who have said they have neeeever been with a woman. Gay their entire life.
What if one had a woman ...finally and....LIKED IT. Would he still be gay?

According to your "pecking order" if he chose a guy, at any time, he was born gay.

This is why your argument is hogwash to me. It goes against common sense.
If their is conclusive proof that there is "something" physically different that makes me or anyone else want to slam guys in the ass or MAKES me want to be romantic with them I wouldn&#39;t hesitate too pay attention (regardless of my religious views).

Until then this has been a hoot and holler&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Feel Teh Love baby
First off, I need a translation for most of that. :lol:

Second, do you throw away a whole bag of potato chips because 1 is burn&#39;t. You seem hung up on a rather trivial comment.


According to your "pecking order" if he chose a guy, at any time, he was born gay.

I&#39;m saying that a person may lead a straight life due wanting to fit in and be normal. He may date, he might bleep the prom queen, but at some point, like college, when family is not around and he is relatively annonymous, he might attempt to dabble in his fantasies. That is why so many people come out in college. Others push to get married hoping that will chase those "bad" thoughts away. There are many anecdotes about the man with 3 children who finally tells his wife he is gay and moves out.

Why do you think suicide is so much higher in gays. They have these feeling, and it makes them guilty because they have been brought up to believe them to be sinful.

So how can you say gays choose this lifestyle when most actually fight it because of societal and family pressures.



Not EVERYONE (wait a sec, let me scratch my left nut, ahh better) who has an encounter with the same sex is a sequestered homosexual, but, perhaps like Skweeky, they have attraction for both sexes.

I think if you consider people who label themselves bisexual, you will find true bisexuals and another group that this making an effort to appear somewhat socially acceptable. You will find that later they convert to pure homosexuality.

So don&#39;t get hung up on that one line, hope that clears up that statement and your balls don&#39;t get in a twist.

Talking about common sense, how do you explain a gay priest or gay animals?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by hobbes@20 February 2004 - 16:30
Your link does not disprove my statement.&nbsp; In fact, the question asked is wrong, she is not a hermaphrodite, but has testicular feminization which is completely different.&nbsp;

She is tall with large breats which is typical for TF.
She has not been able to have children, which hermaphrodites should.


But, whether she is or not is not relevant to my point.&nbsp; I meant no disrespect to her, I&#39;m sorry Jamie. :(
that link does go on to discuss the symptoms you&#39;ve described, which are not those of a hermaphrodite-- they used the term because it&#39;s been attached to common variations of the "jamie lee curtis is a man" legend. and hermaphrodite is the traditional layman&#39;s term to describe a whole variety of sexual ambiguities, regardless of medical accuracy. of course the link doesn&#39;t disprove your statement-- the only thing that would disprove it would be for jamie lee to spread her legs and submit to thorough examination, along with public disclosure of her hospital records, preferably on international television.

which sorta begs the question, why does anyone need to disprove your statement, when you haven&#39;t offered anything to prove it? even one single link purporting to feature a quote from jamie lee curtis or her physician admitting that she is a genetic male... well... i&#39;m sure a lot of people would be both astonished and deeply interested to read. :P

[hobbes]

Wizard,

Are you saying that becoming homosexual is a choice which is effected by upbringing and experience, and is not related to genetics in any way?

Then why do homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, why are people who devote their life to Christ being found to be gay?

You say that hormones cannot make you gay or straight, just masculine or feminine and that sexual identity is a product of programming (societal?).

Who programs their kids to be gay? How do gays arise in a society where homosexual activity is punished with death? Who programmed these people?

Why do homosexuals fight thier calling. I know of several people who came out in college. They told me that they thought their feelings " would pass" and they could be "normal", but eventually they just gave in.

If I have misinterpreted your posts (the bold statements) then perhaps you can clarify.

I feel that homosexual activity in the animal kingdom, from chimpanzees to fruit bats, confirms that there is a strong genetic aspect to this phenomenon.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+21 February 2004 - 02:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 21 February 2004 - 02:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@20 February 2004 - 16:30
Your link does not disprove my statement. In fact, the question asked is wrong, she is not a hermaphrodite, but has testicular feminization which is completely different.

She is tall with large breats which is typical for TF.
She has not been able to have children, which hermaphrodites should.


But, whether she is or not is not relevant to my point. I meant no disrespect to her, I&#39;m sorry Jamie. :(
that link does go on to discuss the symptoms you&#39;ve described, which are not those of a hermaphrodite-- they used the term because it&#39;s been attached to common variations of the "jamie lee curtis is a man" legend. of course the link doesn&#39;t disprove your statement-- the only thing that would disprove it would be for jamie lee to spread her legs and submit to thorough examination, along with public disclosure of her hospital records, preferably on international television.

which sorta begs the question, why does anyone need to disprove your statement, when you haven&#39;t offered anything to prove it? even one single link purporting to feature a quote from jamie lee curtis or her physician admitting that she is a man... well... i&#39;m sure a lot of people would be both astonished and deeply interested to read. :P[/b][/quote]
Yes, but would you still do her?

Not now I wouldn&#39;t, but there was a scene from A Fish Called Wanda where she looked scrumptcious. Call me queer, but I would have done her then for sure&#33;

[3RA1N1AC]

gee, i dunno. i&#39;m not really into genetic males. and according to your earlier post, being tall and having big tits is indicative of... uh... being genetically male. waitasec, that&#39;s not right... :blink:

[vidcc]

i do find it funny when people worry about homosexuals raising children because they feel that the child will grow up gay when all homosexuals are the result of a hetrosexual relationship of whatever degree.
I have read posts here saying people choose to be gay and they have a choice to not live the gay lifestyle and instead have hetrosexual relationships. To me a homosexual is a person that finds the same gender sexually exciting, just because they don&#39;t act on it doesn&#39;t make them any less a homosexual just as someone that is celebate doesn&#39;t make them any less hetrosexual.... is a 50 year old virgin gay just because they haven&#39;t had sex with someone of the opposite gender? NO.
It really doesn&#39;t matter if it&#39;s genetic or not, the fact is that homosexuality exists and as long as it involves consenting adults only why all the fuss?

[Wolfmight]

Being strait,
I tell you i really dont care. I think if it could make more people happy, then allow it. What&#39;s the harm about the same sex getting married, since they will live together anyways. A marrage wont stop anyone, but might improve some.

btw there are already gay commited relationships that raise children.

[junkyardking]

People&#39;s sexuality should not be a point of discrimination; everybody should have the same rights and privileges.

Christians have tried to claim marriage for there own, but marriage has been around along time before the religion ever existed, to argue with Christians or other religions depending on there beliefs about sexuality when it comes to this issue of dictating is a moot point, because there belief compels them to be against it unless that church/religion/belief is of a more flexible nature....

[Off topic]
I as a kid use to be a Christian, but I came to understand that it’s all bollocks, to base your understanding of the universe on a book of fairy tales, where every disaster is judgment day is naive at best...
Also most of the prophetic beliefs tend to be of centralistic nature, September 11th is a good example of this, Allot of Western Christians saw that as a sign of the judgment day ect, when something similar happens in some "foreign countries" its considered nothing of any importance...
[/off topic]


When Apathy rains as it does in the US, it gives Christians more power than they ever deserve and the only people to blame are people themselves.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Are you saying that becoming homosexual is a choice which is effected by upbringing and experience, and is not related to genetics in any way?

Yes. Genetics can make you more feminine or masculine - which have a social effect which leads to a mental effect.


Then why do homosexuals have a higher suicide rate, why are people who devote their life to Christ being found to be gay?

Suicide is a sensitive subject but one explaination for homosexuals having a higher suicide rate could be the mental stress they experience as a result of being gay e.g. society pressure (will they execpt me won&#39;t they), self questioning (am i, aren&#39;t i ) < self doubt produces massive levels of stress.

I do not for one second believe that just because you devote yourself to god you have a pure mental thought process, but i also think that living that life can be extremely stressful and often they don&#39;t have any vent for there thoughts or feelings, this can lead to execesive thinking and self doubt. In the case were they become celebate, just this act can cas tremendous damage if there is no vent e.g. if a priest has sexual feelings towards a woman he will tell himself of because it is not what he has pledged to god. After a while of this confusion sets in because he has built up such a mental block against opposite sex attraction that his mind starts looking for somewhere else to explain his feelings. In the case of going in gay their are experiences in the individuals past that explain there homosexual tendancies - even if the individual is not aware of them.


You say that hormones cannot make you gay or straight, just masculine or feminine and that sexual identity is a product of programming (societal?).

Who programs their kids to be gay? How do gays arise in a society where homosexual activity is punished with death? Who programmed these people?

This is what i mean by programming: Upbringing, past experience, situation/environment and view (outlook e.g. religious) all affect your mental patterns. These then are a series of built habits that shape your reactions to outside stimuli. Your body stores this information e.g. body posture. Your body posture is interconnected with your mental process, one affects the other and vice versa.

People do not intentionally program anyone else, it happens by your brain and body recording traumas from your environment. These traumas can be very small but they all have an effect on you. Even in an society where it is an offence - people are still affected by their own personal experience


Why do homosexuals fight thier calling. I know of several people who came out in college. They told me that they thought their feelings " would pass" and they could be "normal", but eventually they just gave in.

It is the conflict of views and internal arguements that can produce mass amounts of stress and cause terrible feelings of self doubt, in many cases it is easier to give in than to continue fighting against themselves. This does not mean its genetic it means the negative mental patterns are so strong and habitaulised that the are also impossible to break.

This is quite a uncommon view, i don&#39;t want anyone to take offence, it is my view and you do not have to accept it.

P.S - Animals have though patterns to.

[clocker]

While all this chit-chat about why a body may be gay may be entertaining, what possible relevance does it have to the topic in question?

If Christian churches choose not to sanction a gay marriage then fine, so be it.

If they want to step outside the bounds of religion and try to influence legislation on legal marriage then fuck &#39;em, their opinion carries no more weight than mine.

As an institution "Christian" marriage doesn&#39;t seem to be doing all that well anyway, why should I pay attention to the efforts of the dysfunctional?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+20 February 2004 - 20:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 20 February 2004 - 20:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@21 February 2004 - 01:23

Who said I was ever eloquent? Fuck eloquent (as I scratch my nuts)&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D


Your statements are easily refuttable.

ex,
I can sprout all types of reasons scientific reasons about why people like the color blue. I can go as so far as to say they had no choice because at birth there was a predominance of colonic in their brain. As they matured (usually in the first three years) the colonic hit their visual center causing a bluish tint.

This is the reason they have a liking of the color blue. <_<

It cannot be because well...........they just like it.
It&#39;s proven because of the scientific analysis of the last "20 years" and my personal scientific backround.

BULLSHIT&#33;&#33;&#33; (sorry if I&#39;m not being......... eloquent.

Dude I could choose to pound on dudes in the ass if I wanted to.
I don&#39;t choose too.
There are guys who have said they have neeeever been with a woman. Gay their entire life.
What if one had a woman ...finally and....LIKED IT. Would he still be gay?

According to your "pecking order" if he chose a guy, at any time, he was born gay.

This is why your argument is hogwash to me. It goes against common sense.
If their is conclusive proof that there is "something" physically different that makes me or anyone else want to slam guys in the ass or MAKES me want to be romantic with them I wouldn&#39;t hesitate too pay attention (regardless of my religious views).

Until then this has been a hoot and holler&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

Feel Teh Love baby
First off, I need a translation for most of that. :lol:

Second, do you throw away a whole bag of potato chips because 1 is burn&#39;t. You seem hung up on a rather trivial comment.


According to your "pecking order" if he chose a guy, at any time, he was born gay.

I&#39;m saying that a person may lead a straight life due wanting to fit in and be normal. He may date, he might bleep the prom queen, but at some point, like college, when family is not around and he is relatively annonymous, he might attempt to dabble in his fantasies. That is why so many people come out in college. Others push to get married hoping that will chase those "bad" thoughts away. There are many anecdotes about the man with 3 children who finally tells his wife he is gay and moves out.

Why do you think suicide is so much higher in gays. They have these feeling, and it makes them guilty because they have been brought up to believe them to be sinful.

So how can you say gays choose this lifestyle when most actually fight it because of societal and family pressures.



Not EVERYONE (wait a sec, let me scratch my left nut, ahh better) who has an encounter with the same sex is a sequestered homosexual, but, perhaps like Skweeky, they have attraction for both sexes.

I think if you consider people who label themselves bisexual, you will find true bisexuals and another group that this making an effort to appear somewhat socially acceptable. You will find that later they convert to pure homosexuality.

So don&#39;t get hung up on that one line, hope that clears up that statement and your balls don&#39;t get in a twist.

Talking about common sense, how do you explain a gay priest or gay animals?[/b][/quote]
Gay priests:

Many gay males trying to fight their sexual desires for males turn to the priesthood. It doesn&#39;t work. Their religion is in conflict with what they like.

Then there are some that are outwardly gay...well....I&#39;ll never understand that one.

Gay animals? :blink:

They male sticks it to another male because there is a hole there and it feels good?
:huh:


Basically to sum up ALL your earlier comments

THIS MUST BE TRUE:

Through science, a test can be performed after age 5 that will determine what gender they will be attracted to. There is irrefutable evidence of this.

Thank you hobbes <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@21 February 2004 - 00:37
their opinion carries no more weight than mine.


Duly noted :lol: :lol:

[hobbes]

American Psychiatric Assoiciation- updated in 2000


No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

American Psychological Association- updated in 2004


Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges (note is says "emerges", NOT formed, see below)for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person&#39;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&#39;s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person&#39;s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.


I consider both sources less reliable than myself, but they have websites and I don&#39;t, so they get all the props&#33;

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 00:59
American Psychiatric Assoiciation


No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.

American Psychological Association


Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges (note is says "emerges, NOT formed, see below)for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person&#39;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&#39;s sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person&#39;s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.


I consider both sources less reliable than myself, but they have websites and I don&#39;t, so they get all the props&#33;
I partially agree. I guess I don&#39;t CHOOSE to LIKE the color black.

I just like it.


However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.

I&#39;ve said that all along


In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.

Agreed.


There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person&#39;s sexuality.

Still significantly unproven also. AIDS was thought to be cancer many years ago.
I read a journal that has debunked many studies "proving" sexual orientation is something you&#39;re born with. I can&#39;t find the damn thing and I&#39;ve been looking since yesterday&#33;&#33;&#33; SHIT&#33;&#33;

I do remember one study it debunked had to do with scientists finding something in the brain that homosexuals had more or less of (I can&#39;t remember which).
It was debunked with evidence that a great percentage of heterosexuals had roughly the same amount...aww I&#39;ll shut up about it until I find the journal.

There was also an article in Newsweek that debunked it and pointed to it&#39;s source.
Unless I can find the article, it will be hard to find the source on that one.


In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person&#39;s sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.&nbsp;

Exactly. The world is full of influences.
Also, some people may just be plain nuts. Who knows.

Again you like what you like ;)

[hobbes]

:frusty:

And when they&#39;ve given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it&#39;s not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger&#39;s wall.

Pink Floyd- The Wall

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 05:30
:frusty:

And when they&#39;ve given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it&#39;s not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger&#39;s wall.

Pink Floyd- The Wall
Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture ?

[leftism]

Originally posted by Agrajag
Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture ?

Having reviewed this thread I would say its definitely due to the environment.

Some people are still comparing colour preference to sexuality and using that as proof that sexuality isnt genetic.

The reason people are getting so upset about this issue is because they think that if sexuality is dictated by genetics then you cant have free will.

Both of these things (color preference = sexuality + genetics does not allow for free will) have been dealt with, but no ones listening, so whats the point? :frusty:

[NotoriousBIC]

Originally posted by clocker@21 February 2004 - 04:37
While all this chit-chat about why a body may be gay may be entertaining, what possible relevance does it have to the topic in question?

If Christian churches choose not to sanction a gay marriage then fine, so be it.

If they want to step outside the bounds of religion and try to influence legislation on legal marriage then fuck &#39;em, their opinion carries no more weight than mine.

As an institution "Christian" marriage doesn&#39;t seem to be doing all that well anyway, why should I pay attention to the efforts of the dysfunctional?
Here, here. My point exactly.
Only worded much better.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism@21 February 2004 - 11:52

Both of these things (color preference = sexuality + genetics does not allow for free will) have been dealt with,&nbsp; but no ones listening, so whats the point?&nbsp; :frusty:
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

[Biggles]

I am loathe to get into the nature vs nurture debate as it would appear to as much a quagmire as most scientific debates on human behaviour.

I agree with RF. Whilst on a bike in Edinburgh I ran into the back of a double decker bus (which had stopped at a bus stop) because a very pretty girl was getting out of Triumph Spitfire wearing an exceedingly short skirt. Even her laugh as I straightened my handle bars sounded musical and attractive - no man has turned my head in this way. I find it hard to believe that someone can choose this path simply because it seems like a bit of a wheeze. .

However, whether triggers are fired at an early age to determine preferences (such as a liking for shoes or rubber or chickens etc.,) or whether it is predetermined I do not know. Nevertheless, once the trigger is fired it would appear to be permanent. The difficulty is in saying that someone is to be discriminated against for something beyond their control. Therefore there is an emotional attraction to the argument that homosexuals are just being difficult and wilful.

[dwightfry]

I&#39;m surprised that nobody has brought up the Corpus Callosum. It is the bundle of nerves that connect the 2 halves of the brain. It is proven that some straight men have a corpus collosum that is nearly 2 times the size of gay men, and the reverse for women. Granted, there was a overlap of gray area...but perhaps this is where enviroment comes into play. But, as far as I know, there have been no cases where an overally small corpus callosum resulted in a straight man, or an overly large corpus callosum resulted in a gay man.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+21 February 2004 - 07:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 21 February 2004 - 07:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag
Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture ?

Having reviewed this thread I would say its definitely due to the environment.

Some people are still comparing colour preference to sexuality and using that as proof that sexuality isnt genetic.

The reason people are getting so upset about this issue is because they think that if sexuality is dictated by genetics then you cant have free will.

Both of these things (color preference = sexuality + genetics does not allow for free will) have been dealt with, but no ones listening, so whats the point? :frusty: [/b][/quote]
The only thing was hardwired was the urge to fuck.

There is no chemical from birth that says


Fuck this person because you see they have a penis
Fuck that person because you see they have a vagina.

Just fuck.

Personal preference determines the rest.

There&#39;s no chemical in the brain from birth that tells me to turn away once I see a dick.

And regarding dwightfry&#39;s comment, what...... a BIsexual has a medium sized corpus callosum? hogwash&#33;&#33;&#33;

dwight read how many people were used in that study then come back.

Also read and see how many other groups back that study.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag+21 February 2004 - 10:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 21 February 2004 - 10:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@21 February 2004 - 05:30
:frusty:

And when they&#39;ve given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it&#39;s not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger&#39;s wall.

Pink Floyd- The Wall
Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture ?[/b][/quote]
I downloaded my condescension from the interweb.

I also downloaded the insight to know when no further posts will change anyones mind.

I gave my best effort, I was unable to penetrate anothers preconceived point of view, so I thanked everyone for the fish and walked away, maybe next time.

What is remarkable is that we are on page 5 and there has been no flaming and in a thread about homosexuality it seems almost unthinkable that no one has been called a "prick".

As for my quotes from the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association, Busyman may have felt they were directed at him, but they were for Wizardmon and his Freudianesque view points, particularly the line in red.

[Agrajag]

Hobbes

It is quite possible for people to disagree, sometimes even in a heated way, without resorting to offensive language. However some people choose to use such language, often more for the effect and to amuse themself by the result than a genuine sense of anger. It is interesting to see a topic such as this ebb and flow without such manipulation. It is rather refreshing.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+21 February 2004 - 14:58--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 21 February 2004 - 14:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 10:47
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@21 February 2004 - 05:30
:frusty:

And when they&#39;ve given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it&#39;s not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger&#39;s wall.

Pink Floyd- The Wall
Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture ?
I downloaded my condescension from the interweb.

I also downloaded the insight to know when no further posts will change anyones mind.

I gave my best effort, I was unable to penetrate anothers preconceived point of view, so I thanked everyone for the fish and walked away, maybe next time.

What is remarkable is that we are on page 5 and there has been no flaming and in a thread about homosexuality it seems almost unthinkable that no one has been called a "prick".

As for my quotes from the American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association, Busyman may have felt they were directed at him, but they were for Wizardmon and his Freudianesque view points, particularly the line in red. [/b][/quote]
hobbes, you prick (oh and I find that amusing and am not angry Agrajag) :lol:

but on serious note......
hobbes I didn&#39;t think your post was directed at me but I had to comment.

Nor was my point of view preconceived. When I first saw a header for a study claiming homosexuality was something you are born with I thought it would be interesting. I&#39;ve read of men acting violently due to an extra Y chromosome and many others things so it didn&#39;t seem "too" far fetched. Unfortunately, the evidence to the contrary doesn&#39;t back this up and hasn&#39;t been duplicated to the degree of let&#39;s say testing for HIV.

I don&#39;t jump at the first study I read or , for that matter, the second.

I remember the same discussion with you regarding Glucosamine Chondroitin but that&#39;s another topic.

[kAb]

Lets remember that humans are not the only species with homosexuals. there are many many species of animals where there are homosexuals (including apes). and there are theorys that it is actually GOOD for the species because the animals without children can nurture other young-uns and help out.

[Agrajag]

Don&#39;t get me started on the glucose conundrum. Sugar is useful for the body to survive, but too much is a bad thing, end of story.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Thanks for the thought hobbes.

Someone somewhere said: science is just a string of disproven theories.
So excuse me if i don&#39;t agree. My view is just that, mine. I didn&#39;t get it from freud so whether it&#39;s vaguely freudian has no relevance.

Two studies in america prove nothing, there could be completely contrasting results in europe. In most scientific reports people include the results that back up thier hypothesis and don&#39;t cover those that don&#39;t.

My view is just a different way of looking at things, science understands a very small proportion of this universe, maybe just maybe others understand more.

One question: In ten years when there is more biological evidence - what if a straight man was told he was biologically gay.

I try to encompass what i have learn&#39;t from TCM with Modern Medical Theory - as i believe that both have a lot to learn from each other.

[hobbes]

I did not post two studies. I posted the position statements of the American Psychiatric and Psychologic Associations.

So we have my position which is supported by all the doctors in America and then your theory which is supported by you.

Not just that but your particular theories have been refuted in large part by these Associations.

It is important to note that my theory was based on my personal education and experience, I only looked up those sources later to see what the medical world was saying. They pretty much backed me point for point.

Forgive me if I don&#39;t see things your way.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 21:48
I did not post two studies. I posted the position statements of the American Psychiatric and Psychologic Associations.

So we have my position which is supported by all the doctors in America and then your theory which is supported by you.

Not just that but your particular theories have been refuted in large part by these Associations.

It is important to note that my theory was based on my personal education and experience, I only looked up those sources later to see what the medical world was saying. They pretty much backed me point for point.

Forgive me if I don&#39;t see things your way.
Two studies, Two statements now your just splitting hairs. :P

All the doctors in america - thats a bit of a wide statement, if you don&#39;t mind me saying.

As i said before: its an uncommon view.

My points are also from my experience.

Your forgiven [/joke]

It&#39;s been fun discussing with you. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 17:48
I did not post two studies. I posted the position statements of the American Psychiatric and Psychologic Associations.

So we have my position which is supported by all the doctors in America and then your theory which is supported by you.

Not just that but your particular theories have been refuted in large part by these Associations.

It is important to note that my theory was based on my personal education and experience, I only looked up those sources later to see what the medical world was saying. They pretty much backed me point for point.

Forgive me if I don&#39;t see things your way.
Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric&#39;s position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post. ;)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@21 February 2004 - 15:46
Don&#39;t get me started on the glucose conundrum. Sugar is useful for the body to survive, but too much is a bad thing, end of story.
:huh:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Busyman@22 February 2004 - 03:26

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric&#39;s position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post. ;)
American Psychiatric Assoiciation- updated in 2000

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.


Actually, it does not. It admits that the exact cause of homosexuality is under investigation and biologic etiologies are the top area of research. It does not state that the biologic role is not promising, it states that they have yet to find a "specific entity" to explain it.

There is absolutely no mention that homosexuality is a choice. They do note on their website that when homosexuals come in to be "repaired" and made straight, no therapy has been shown to work. Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

The more recent Psychological Association directly contradicts your position. Please be sure to E-mail them and tell them it is all hogwash and that quite frankly this is all a matter of commonsense to Busyman, end of story.

You know what, I have decided, because of my free will, that rocks smell good and taste better. Whenever I see them, I will begin Pavlovian salivation.

Ok, I got a rock. What? I am not salivating, and it really has no taste. How come I cannot make it taste delicious by my free will. Oh right, my biology is not programmed to see rocks as a source of nutrients, so my brain does not make me want to eat them by giving them a delightful odor and taste. Guess I&#39;m just hardwired. Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eats it.

We act as our brains&#39; tell us.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@21 February 2004 - 19:09
Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eat it.

We act as our brains&#39; tells us.
Yeah.

Don&#39;t knock it till you&#39;ve tried it.

I wonder what the APA has to say about that?

Sorry.
Carry on.

[leftism]

Originally posted by Agrajag
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

:frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:

Dude, please think for a second before jumping into battle with all guns blazing.

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.

Lets try again...

You can have free will and genetics. This is obvious by looking at the world around you. The way you guys are talking its like you can only have one or the other.

Colour preference is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality is a unique characteristic and is hardwired, colour preference is a trivilaity probably produced by experience and environment.

Can you answer these 2 points without repeating the same sentence over and over again? I think not.

All this because you guys want everyone to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and they arent just born that way?

I sense another agenda behind all this.... "Methinks he doth protest too much"

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 09:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 22 February 2004 - 09:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

:frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty: :frusty:

Dude, please think for a second before jumping into battle with all guns blazing.

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.

Lets try again...

You can have free will and genetics. This is obvious by looking at the world around you. The way you guys are talking its like you can only have one or the other.

Colour preference is not the same as sexuality. Sexuality is a unique characteristic and is hardwired, colour preference is a trivilaity probably produced by experience and environment.

Can you answer these 2 points without repeating the same sentence over and over again? I think not.

All this because you guys want everyone to believe that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice and they arent just born that way?

I sense another agenda behind all this.... "Methinks he doth protest too much"[/b][/quote]
If you read my posts I have not argued either side of the cause issue, as it is not the subject being discussed, or at least proposed by the thread starter. It is a Poll with regard to whether people should be allowed to marry. My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

I merely observed that other people&#39; opinions may differ from your&#39;s, no matter how many times you argue your point. As this subject is far from being decided within the scientific community it remains a matter of speculation, conjecture and opinion. You appear to think that your position is definitive, I and others disagree. I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just the confidence with which you say it.

Banging your head against the wall, metaphorically or otherwise magnifies this impression. I hardly think what I said could be described as "all guns blazing" though I suppose the hyperbole suited your argument.

Please read the second last sentence in the first paragraph above, it is the position I have taken all along and is directly contradictory to that which you accuse me off.

[Rat Faced]

11 pages with no flaming...

Please cool it a little guys, i sense that people are starting to get a tad annoyed with each other now, which is when the bottles start flying....

[leftism]

@agrajag

I can see your having trouble keeping track of whats going on here so lets have a quick recap.

Agrajag attacks Hobbes "condescension".


Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Do you think your condescension is genetic, hormonal, learned or a mixture?[/b]

Leftism explains that Hobbes "condescension" is due to busyman repeating the same arguments without addressing the counter-arguments put to him with regards to colour preference and free will.


Originally posted by leftism+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Having reviewed this thread I would say its definitely due to the environment.

Some people are still comparing colour preference to sexuality and using that as proof that sexuality isnt genetic.

The reason people are getting so upset about this issue is because they think that if sexuality is dictated by genetics then you cant have free will.

Both of these things (color preference = sexuality + genetics does not allow for free will) have been dealt with, but no ones listening, so whats the point? [/b]

Agrajag doesnt understand this and trys to make out that leftism is talking about people disagreeing with him and hobbes in general.


Originally posted by agrajag
The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Leftism tries again....

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism@

If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY. Instead you guys are just repeating yourselves and not taking note of what anyone else is saying. This is what I was referring to. Not the fact that people disagree with me per se.[/quote]

Agrajag still doesnt understand and forgets that the focus of this exchange was busymans "keep on repeating the original argument and ignore the counter arguments" strategy.

<!--QuoteBegin-agrajag

If you read my posts I have not argued either side of the cause issue, as it is not the subject being discussed, or at least proposed by the thread starter. It is a Poll with regard to whether people should be allowed to marry. My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

I merely observed that other people&#39; opinions may differ from your&#39;s, no matter how many times you argue your point. As this subject is far from being decided within the scientific community it remains a matter of speculation, conjecture and opinion. You appear to think that your position is definitive, I and others disagree. I don&#39;t necessarily disagree with what you are saying, just the confidence with which you say it.

Banging your head against the wall, metaphorically or otherwise magnifies this impression. I hardly think what I said could be described as "all guns blazing" though I suppose the hyperbole suited your argument.

Please read the second last sentence in the first paragraph above, it is the position I have taken all along and is directly contradictory to that which you accuse me off.[/quote]

Leftism gives up and reflects on the fact that you can lead a horse to the water but you cant make him drink.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

Because they don&#39;t have the right methods?


We act as our brains&#39; tell us.

Yes but they are learned responces.

Your all wrong and i&#39;m right [/joke]

[Agrajag]

Agrajag gives up,

Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post. Even when asked in bold to read just one sentence, the author realising that they won&#39;t have the decency to read the whole thing.

Realising that these people may be created by inherited traits or environmental conditioning. Suspecting that it is both, given that those who create us often also nurture us.

Accepting that they are, in reality, more to be pitied than scorned, as they often end up in solely the company of those such as themselves. Since other people simply can&#39;t be bothered dealing with someone who doesn&#39;t have enough respect to even listen to them. Having judged the other inferior and as such automatically devoid of the right to an opinion.

Hobbes is indeed condescending, it is perhaps her most endearing quality. The post was made in good nature and judging by the reply (by the person concerned) taken the same way. However the condescension is normally part of a two way conversation. Not some diatribe, involving others only to avoid the accusation of intellectual masturbation.

RF

Would this be considered flaming here ? Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.

[leftism]

Originally posted by agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.


My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you&#39;d paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
RF

Would this be considered flaming here ? Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.
As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate.....

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 14:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 22 February 2004 - 14:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-agrajag
Realising that some people are so self-important that they only read what they themselves post.

Indeed. It took 5 posts to get you to realise that Hobbes and I were not talking about Busyman disagreeing with us, but that Busyman was ignoring every counter argument and simply repeating his own multiple times.


My only point with regard to the cause of homosexuality is that it does not matter. Whether it is genetic, hormonal, learned or a combination of these and other factors it seems agreed that it is not a matter of choice. As such should not effect people&#39;s rights.

Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable.

So basically you thought Hobbes was attacking Busyman for disagreeing with him. You were wrong. You then defended Busymans position without even realising it goes against your own argument 100%.

If you&#39;d paid a little more attention to the reasoning behind both Hobbes "condescension" and Busymans "being gay is a lifestyle choice" argument, this ugly little disagreement would not have occurred. [/b][/quote]
I had formed no opinion on the interaction between Hobbes and Busyman. I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such. It related to his overall demeanor, here and elsewhere, not to his inter-action with Busyman in this thread. However given that you would not be aware of every discussion Hobbes and I have had, you may not have known that. A simple fact such as this is obviously not enough for you to desist from voicing your opinion, on matters which you are under-informed

This whole thing is based on your preconceptions on what I was getting at. Again I don&#39;t expect you to realise that, because you will consider it within your own context, which is obviously self absorbed. People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+22 February 2004 - 15:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 22 February 2004 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 14:27
RF

Would this be considered flaming here ?&nbsp; Just wanted to know as I have not seen much to judge myself against. If so, my apologies for any inconvenience.
As j2k4 would point out.

If you use a club or baseball bat, your flaming.

If you use a rapier, its merely debate..... [/b][/quote]
:lol: I&#39;ll bear that in mind :D

[leftism]

Astounding, you&#39;ve still missed the point by a mile....


Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...


Originally posted by agrajag@

The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Which I already replied to...

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY.[/quote]

What will it take to get you to understand this simple concept? A thousand posts? A million?

Hobbes post was aimed at Busymans conduct. It is you who is uninformed in this respect, not I. Therefore, you were supporting Busymans conduct, although I will concede you were doing so out of pure ignorance.

I obviously credited you with more intelligence and observational power than you deserve. You see, I assumed you had half a clue of what hobbes was referring to via his "condescension". You&#39;ve just admitted you didnt have the first idea of what hobbes meant, so accordingly, I will have to make sure you can see whats in front of your nose before I attempt simple communication with you in the future,

Now, taking into account the fact that you are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts, its quite ironic that:

1. This is the 4th post where I&#39;ve tried to hammer this very simple concept into you seige mentality.

2. You were unaware you were supporting a position completely opposed to your own until I pointed it out to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

3. You were completely unaware of what Hobbes was referring to.

btw, we are all aware you know the word "omniscience", we are all suitably impressed with your ability to use an online thesaurus.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Well done :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now that you&#39;ve used it 50 times in 2 minutes it appears to be the only word longer than 6 letters you&#39;re aware of. I suggest you revisit the thesaurus before this impression becomes permanent, off you go&#33; --&#62; :book:

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 12:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 22 February 2004 - 12:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Astounding, you&#39;ve still missed the point by a mile....


Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>People have opinions and relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge. As stated way back when, your omniscience is in doubt, at least to some of us.[/b]

A carbon copy of another post...

<!--QuoteBegin-agrajag@

The point may be that other people&#39;s certainty, with regard to your omniscience, may not be as complete as your own. This may lead them to have an opinion at odds with your&#39;s. I know this may come as a surprise, but you should at least consider the possibility.

Which I already replied to...

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
If these people do not agree with me or hobbes then they should say WHY.[/quote]

What will it take to get you to understand this simple concept? A thousand posts? A million?

Hobbes post was aimed at Busymans conduct. It is you who is uninformed in this respect, not I. Therefore, you were supporting Busymans conduct, although I will concede you were doing so out of pure ignorance.

I obviously credited you with more intelligence and observational power than you deserve. You see, I assumed you had half a clue of what hobbes was referring to via his "condescension". You&#39;ve just admitted you didnt have the first idea of what hobbes meant, so accordingly, I will have to make sure you can see whats in front of your nose before I attempt simple communication with you in the future,

Now, taking into account the fact that you are quick to accuse others of not reading your posts, its quite ironic that:

1. This is the 4th post where I&#39;ve tried to hammer this very simple concept into you seige mentality.

2. You were unaware you were supporting a position completely opposed to your own until I pointed it out to you. :lol: :lol: :lol:

3. You were completely unaware of what Hobbes was referring to.

btw, we are all aware you know the word "omniscience", we are all suitably impressed with your ability to use an online thesaurus.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Well done :clap: :clap: :clap:

Now that you&#39;ve used it 50 times in 2 minutes it appears to be the only word longer than 6 letters you&#39;re aware of. I suggest you revisit the thesaurus before this impression becomes permanent, off you go&#33; --&#62; :book:

PS I hear "Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a good one to go for, just try to use it sparingly otherwise it looks like you picked it up from the "word of the day" section of your local newspaper. [/b][/quote]
I never thought the Agrajag was supporting my position. It seems that if he didn&#39;t support ...well....everyone else&#39;s position in the thread, he had to be supporting mine. :lol: <_<

Please cut the posts about "how your posting" and stick to the topic.

[Agrajag]

Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won&#39;t stop using them because of your playground taunts.

[leftism]

Originally posted by agrajag+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (agrajag)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed[/b]

Considering this is coming from someone who is so confused that they cannot decide whether hobbes is male or female...


Hobbes is indeed condescending, it is perhaps her most endearing quality.


I posted the condescension thing as a good natured pop at Hobbes and he took it as such

I am not overly concerned :lol:

btw, is that what you meant by..


some people have relationships separate from your experience and outwith your knowledge

..?

If so, do not despair, I&#39;m sure the next object of your affection will turn out to be female.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Anyway, lets get back to the topic.


Originally posted by agrajag@
The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay

<!--QuoteBegin-leftism
Thats why this "is it a choice" debate began in the first place. Busyman is arguing that "gay is learned" because he disagrees with both civil unions and marriages. If he were to accept that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" his position on civil unions would be untenable[/quote]

Its funny how things tend to go in circles. At the end of this little head to head we&#39;re back to the starting point. People not reading peoples posts, not keeping up with the thread and simply repeating their own position.

Talk about deja vu....

For those with short attention spans, I believe gay people dont choose to be gay and thus deserve the same treatment as straight couples. If they did choose that lifestyle just to be different then one could argue, as Busyman does, that they are merely being "awkard" and are demanding special treatment. I dont believe the Christian church should be forced to change its position, therefore civil unions are the best possible compromise.

In closing I&#39;d like to ask Busyman why he&#39;s against civil unions. You said it was due to religious reasons, can you be more specific?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+21 February 2004 - 23:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes &#064; 21 February 2004 - 23:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@22 February 2004 - 03:26

Actually hobbes, The American Psychiatric&#39;s position backs up my position not yours.

Thanks for the post. ;)
American Psychiatric Assoiciation- updated in 2000

No one knows what causes heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.
Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based onmisinformation and prejudice.

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality
.

Similarly, no specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse. Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual.


Actually, it does not. It admits that the exact cause of homosexuality is under investigation and biologic etiologies are the top area of research. It does not state that the biologic role is not promising, it states that they have yet to find a "specific entity" to explain it.

There is absolutely no mention that homosexuality is a choice. They do note on their website that when homosexuals come in to be "repaired" and made straight, no therapy has been shown to work. Why would anyone want to change but not be able if it is just a matter of free will?

The more recent Psychological Association directly contradicts your position. Please be sure to E-mail them and tell them it is all hogwash and that quite frankly this is all a matter of commonsense to Busyman, end of story.

You know what, I have decided, because of my free will, that rocks smell good and taste better. Whenever I see them, I will begin Pavlovian salivation.

Ok, I got a rock. What? I am not salivating, and it really has no taste. How come I cannot make it taste delicious by my free will. Oh right, my biology is not programmed to see rocks as a source of nutrients, so my brain does not make me want to eat them by giving them a delightful odor and taste. Guess I&#39;m just hardwired. Just like the dung beetle is hardwired to think dung smells delightful and eats it.

We act as our brains&#39; tell us. [/b][/quote]
Well one of my statements claimed that there ain&#39;t no proof of people being born homosexual.

The Psychiatric statement DID back that up.
Saying something is the top area of research .........AIN&#39;T PROOF.
It seems that you claim it as fact. ;)
Furthermore, I never claimed "support" of the Psychological&#39;s statement.

lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.

hobbes regarding your rock...........put hot sauce on it.

You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists. :lol:

You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.

Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she&#39;s ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired. <_<

Back around my old neighborhood, there were gay women and men here and there.
There are guys that have hooked up with prostitutes, fine ass ones, then get in the bed and.......foind out she was a he. Well......some say fuck it, bend "him" over, and go for what they know. Are they gay?

You guys still haven&#39;t explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can&#39;t. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.

Just to clarify my position (without a religious point of view).

Homosexuality a like not a choice. The behaviors that go along with it ARE learned.
There is no programming from birth that tells a person to like penis vs. vagina (or ass). You can go through life liking woman then in your 40&#39;s have an affair with a man :x :x .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?

hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Take your Jamie Lee Curtis.
Most straight guys here would bang her. Why?
According to you she&#39;s a man....but she&#39;d still get banged.

You know why?

She LOOKS like an attractive woman. Through what we have seen through life we think that&#39;s attractive. If she was fat, most of us would turn away. I guess that&#39;s the heterrosexual anti-fat chemical? :lol: :lol: <_<
We look at her and think she has a nice ass, face, and ti..tays&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@22 February 2004 - 13:01
Busyman

The topic is with regard to whether gay people should be allowed to marry / have a civil union. Not about why they are gay. I think my position on this is quite clear, if it coincides with the majority of people who have posted here, so be it. If yours is different then I am sure from reading your posts that you can live with that.

Leftism

Of course it is almost a carbon copy. You chose to leave a part from the quote, the part where I made it clear that I was re-iterating an earlier post. I do not use anon-line thesaurus, or a hard copy one for that matter. I suspect you do, may I suggest you use it in conjunction with a dictionary in future.

Your ability to be obtuse, self satisfied and condescending all at the same time is very well developed. You take small sections of what people say, out of context and then try to "brow-beat" them with your pseudo-intellectualism. The style is very familiar. The fact that I may have use the same words several times in this thread is perhaps because they were the proper words to use. I won&#39;t stop using them because of your playground taunts.
Your exactly right. I and hobbes have morphed the topic.
In regards to you I was being sarcasactic. I knew all along you didn&#39;t necessarily support my position so I don&#39;t know what lefty was talking about. Seems you just didn&#39;t back him up. <_<

lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?

[leftism]

Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.[/b]

Agrajag, in all seriousness and with all due respect, can you see what Ive been getting at now?

Busyman, for the millionth time. Colour preference is not equivalent to sexuality. Arguing that because colour preference is not affected by your genes therefore sexuality is not affected by your genes is completely illogical. Even if you repeat it a million times, its still illogical.

Our position is quite clear.

Its supported by science.
Its supported by case studies.
Its supported by what everyone whos reading this instinctively knows based on their own experience.

What is there to support your position? Nothing&#33;


You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists.

Maybe you should READ that document properly. Because you know what is missing? Your position. They are researching the genetic connection because that seems to be the most promising. They have ruled out "psychosocial or family dynamic cause".

They dont even mention like/dislike as a possible cause. Do you think that means anything?


Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.[/b]

Its utterly illogical&#33; Your arguing that sexuality is a simple like/dislike that has nothing to do with evolutiion or its resulting effect on human genetics.


Originally posted by Busyman
Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she&#39;s ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired.

It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with &#39;nice&#39; hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you&#39;ll deny it. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman@
You guys still haven&#39;t explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can&#39;t. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.[/quote]

Yes it does have basis in fact. Its called evolutionary psychology. YOUR opinions have no basis in fact. I challenge you to find one respected scientific study that says sexualitty is a simple like/dislike similar to colour preference.

If sexuality is defined by genetics then theres no reason why bi-sexuality cant be decided by it too.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
You can go through life liking woman then in your 40&#39;s have an affair with a man .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?[/quote]

Who the hell does that? Just switches from straight to gay overnight? You&#39;ve got to be joking....


hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Thats it&#33; Just repeat it 10 more times and it&#39;ll be true&#33;&#33;

WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES????????


btw, Im still waiting for a reason why your against civil unions. You havent mentioned it at all in this post.



lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?

No and no.

Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.

[hobbes]

Some homosexual animals have one-night stands and some have long marriages. Gay and lesbian geese stay together year after year. Bottlenose dolphins don&#39;t form male-female couples, but males often form lifelong pairs with other males. Some are interested only in males, but others are bisexual and happily indulge in beak-genital propulsion and more with male or female alike.


When I look at the animal world and see that a certain percentage live EXCLUSIVELY homosexual lifestyles, I imagine that the cause in both man and animal is likely the same.

It was said by Busyman that animals just stick their naughty bits into whatever gives pleasure. Unfortunately it has been shown that is not the case.

I find it hard to believe that animals are making free will decisions to ignore females and be only with males. This observation makes me consider that there may be a genetic cause.

The evidence is there, the exact mechanism has not yet been detailed.


On the other hand, we have gay priests, who, despite knowing that their lifestyle will win them eternity in hell, can&#39;t fight their urges. And we have homosexual men who despite wanting to become straight can&#39;t, even with the assistance of doctors.

Kind of weird that you can chose to be one way, but be unable to reverse that decision.

And yes, I have explained bisexuality (http://filesharingtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=100692&view=findpost&p=886327) and no "genetics" is not pseudoscience.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by leftism@22 February 2004 - 19:20
Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.
He is against civil unions because he chooses not to like the color blue. That much is obvious enough. :lol:

[Wizard_Mon1]

I find it hard to believe that animals are making free will decisions to ignore females and be only with males. This observation makes me consider that there may be a genetic cause.

Or a mental one??


On the other hand, we have gay priests, who, despite knowing that their lifestyle will win them eternity in hell, can&#39;t fight their urges. And we have homosexual men who despite wanting to become straight can&#39;t, even with the assistance of doctors.

I&#39;m sure i gave examples of how those can happen.... Now where were they. :rolleyes:

Heres one: Because they don&#39;t have the right methods?
Heres a theory for how: Your body stores this information e.g. body posture. Your body posture is interconnected with your mental process, one affects the other and vice versa. So in this way all your&#39;e feelings from past experiences, and emotional reactions to them (e.g. abuse), have a direct influence on your actions.

Heres the other: I do not for one second believe that just because you devote yourself to god you have a pure mental thought process, but i also think that living that life can be extremely stressful and often they don&#39;t have any vent for there thoughts or feelings, this can lead to execesive thinking and self doubt. In the case were they become celebate, just this act can cas tremendous damage if there is no vent e.g. if a priest has sexual feelings towards a woman he will tell himself of because it is not what he has pledged to god. After a while of this confusion sets in because he has built up such a mental block against opposite sex attraction that his mind starts looking for somewhere else to explain his feelings. In the case of going in gay their are experiences in the individuals past that explain there homosexual tendancies - even if the individual is not aware of them.

I&#39;m not saying this is it and thats all there is, i&#39;m saying here is another view that shows that biological reason is not the the sole or undisputed reason.

But it&#39;s pointless saying any off this because it seems no one is listen to anyone else. <_<

[Busyman]

Originally posted by leftism+22 February 2004 - 14:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism &#064; 22 February 2004 - 14:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by busyman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (busyman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>lefty, the reason I keep bringing up the color blue is because YOU and HOBBES have a preconceived position.[/b]

Agrajag, in all seriousness and with all due respect, can you see what Ive been getting at now?

Busyman, for the millionth time. Colour preference is not equivalent to sexuality. Arguing that because colour preference is not affected by your genes therefore sexuality is not affected by your genes is completely illogical. Even if you repeat it a million times, its still illogical.

Our position is quite clear.

Its supported by science.
Its supported by case studies.
Its supported by what everyone whos reading this instinctively knows based on their own experience.

What is there to support your position? Nothing&#33;


You guys explanation towards sexuality is basically..... YOUR BORN WITH IT END OF DISCUSSION.
For something that has no proof, you guys seem to have all the answers. Maybe you could help the scientists.

Maybe you should READ that document properly. Because you know what is missing? Your position. They are researching the genetic connection because that seems to be the most promising. They have ruled out "psychosocial or family dynamic cause".

They dont even mention like/dislike as a possible cause. Do you think that means anything?


Originally posted by busyman
You basically claim my position is spurious when it is quite logical.

Its utterly illogical&#33; Your arguing that sexuality is a simple like/dislike that has nothing to do with evolutiion or its resulting effect on human genetics.


Originally posted by Busyman
Person likes WOMAN A because she has a nice face.
Another dislikes her because he thinks she&#39;s ugly. I guess all of that was hardwired.

It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with &#39;nice&#39; hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you&#39;ll deny it. <_<

<!--QuoteBegin-busyman@
You guys still haven&#39;t explained BIsexuals. You know why.......you can&#39;t. Even with your pseudoscientific explanations that have no... BASIS...IN....FACT.

Yes it does have basis in fact. Its called evolutionary psychology. YOUR opinions have no basis in fact. I challenge you to find one respected scientific study that says sexualitty is a simple like/dislike similar to colour preference.

If sexuality is defined by genetics then theres no reason why bi-sexuality cant be decided by it too.

<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
You can go through life liking woman then in your 40&#39;s have an affair with a man .
Did the gay brain chemical jump up and bite you in the ass?
Oh I guess you were gay all along and fighting the urge until you were 40.
If you have a gay thought, are you gay?[/quote]

Who the hell does that? Just switches from straight to gay overnight? You&#39;ve got to be joking....


hobbes read some more psychological studies. Straight people have had gay thoughts. You either liked or disliked them. Get it...like or disLIKE.

Thats it&#33; Just repeat it 10 more times and it&#39;ll be true&#33;&#33;

WHERE ARE THESE STUDIES????????


btw, Im still waiting for a reason why your against civil unions. You havent mentioned it at all in this post.



lefty- off topic question- Do you know 1234 personally or are you the same person?

No and no.

Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer. [/b][/quote]
Your support in case studies has been proven and disproven. There still isn&#39;t an answer or ..............having these figured it out. They haven&#39;t. <_<
YOU ARE CLAIMING SOMETHING AS FACT THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.
All of what you said about bisexuality is well....they "proven" homosexuality is genetic so they CAN do the same with bisexuality.

Next thing you know there will be a pedophilia gene and beastiality gene. :lol:

My support is common sense.

Who the hell switches from straight to gay? Alot of people. It&#39;s called being turned out.
Hey did they have the ...gay gene, the straight gene, or bisexual gene?

Yeah that&#39;s REALLY logical. <_<


It is actually. Research has been done that shows the idea of what is attractive is largely similar across different countries and cultures with a few minor exceptions.

They even came up with a mathematical formula that represented the ideal ratio between certain features of the face.

There are individual differences in taste but on average there is a consensus. To put it in really really simple terms for you. Some men get off on fat women, but very very few do. Most men like a slim women with &#39;nice&#39; hips.

You know why? Because it signifies a healthy female who can bear children. Its the result of millions of years of evolution. <--- logic

btw the "perfect" hip/waist ratio is 0.7 (the waist is 70% the size of the hips).

This has been scientifically proven to be true, although Im sure you&#39;ll deny it.

So now there is a "I like hippy women" gene. You just said yourself it&#39;s cultural so HOW IS IT GENETIC&#33;&#33;&#33;
For instance, in my area which is mostly black, we men like women with a fat ass and big tits. But white men living in certain tend to like well.....skinny women with "cute butts". Take a baby from Israel and have him grow up in my area and most likely will like fat ass and big tits but........who knows?

Next thing you know your going to tell me I "genetically" like rap music.

If you read these "studies" you will find that MOST people have had a homosexual "experience" in their lifetime (most as children). Not saying they necessarily had sex.

I remember the comedian Colin Quinn said (in his sorry ass HBO special) that he was walking and was startled to see this certain guy. They both felt awkward because they uh.......used to play with each other penis when they were young. :lol: :lol: :lol: :x

Regarding civil unions.......you need to read dude. I&#39;ve addressed that already.
Since your hung up on it and "asked me three times" go back near the beginning of posts in this thread, pay attention, and READ. I gave a simple answer.

Its funny how things tend to go in circles. At the end of this little head to head we&#39;re back to the starting point. People not reading peoples posts, not keeping up with the thread and simply repeating their own position
Quote from you lefty
As matter of fact it was my VERY FIRST POST. I then explained it due someone asking. Now extend me some courtesy and READ&#33;&#33;

Oh and btw regarding gay priests. That&#39;s very simple.

Gay priests are fighting the urge to........fuck.
THAT IT&#33;&#33;&#33;

Now there preference is guys but the urge is to fuck.

If you think about it this applies to...guess what? STRAIGHT PRIESTS TOO.
We are compelled to fuck that&#39;s is all. Orgasms make it feel good and that&#39;s why we do it. Simple logic. Priests in general are trying to stop that urge to devote their life to god. THE URGE TO FORNICATE&#33;&#33;&#33;

[Busyman]

Originally posted by hobbes+22 February 2004 - 14:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 22 February 2004 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-leftism@22 February 2004 - 19:20
Now will you extend me the same courtesy by answering my question about civil unions? I think this is the 3rd time Ive asked without getting an answer.
He is against civil unions because he chooses not to like the color blue. That much is obvious enough. :lol: [/b][/quote]
Hmmmm maybe you should read as well then. <_<

[bigdawgfoxx]

Fuck gay marriage. I mean I guess since the government isnt supposed to be involved with religion, and thats all that is wrong with it. Sept AIDS and shit..that is another issue. I am very strongly against gay marriage...thats fucking disquting and isnt good for the youth and especially kids that they may raise

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@22 February 2004 - 20:22
Fuck gay marriage. I mean I guess since the government isnt supposed to be involved with religion, and thats all that is wrong with it. Sept AIDS and shit..that is another issue. I am very strongly against gay marriage...thats fucking disquting and isnt good for the youth and especially kids that they may raise
Bigdawg are you trying to say that two girls kissing is disgusting?

Give me a break.

[Biggles]

There has been considerable debate regarding the nature vs nurture debate much of which is arcane in the extreme. However, I am not yet convinced I have seen anything close to a convincing argument to explain why individuals will fly in the face of extreme social pressure to pursue happiness in a same sex relationship. In darker times such relationships carried the death penalty. These indivuals would often play the part of "normal" by marrying and even raising families (ironically, if it is genetic, spreading the gene far and wide). Yet they would always be drawn to that within them which they knew was their preference.

Busyman has put forward the notion that the urge to procreate is the single most important driving force behind all animal behaviour including humans. This is a fair point - this primal urge is indeed very strong and is almost certainly genetic. This does not in my view explain homosexuality. A man through genetic coding may be attracted to a young woman of child bearing age whose symmetrical appearance triggers all the codes that say "pass on your genes through her". It is most unlikely that another man could trigger such codes. Unless of course something is different.

It must also be remembered that many homosexuals are fearful of the genetic argument. It could herald a return the Eugenics style position that they are merely malfunctions, corrupted genetic codes to be repaired as soon as we have the skills to do so. (Although where we would get clothes designers, hairdressers and interior decorators I am not sure :) ).

However, for many couples, both homosexual and heterosexual, in long lasting stable relationships, the initial passion moves onto other other levels. These individuals may well be in a relationship that has much less sexual activity but they love each other deeply and wish to stay together.

This is the crux of the thread really - why should those who wish to be in a long lasting relationship be dis-allowed the right to make legally binding commitments? Does it really matter to anyone else if a man or woman makes such a commitment? Busyman has already said wild horses would not drag him into such a relationship, so it is hardly likely to undermine his commitment to his family - nor, I suspect, anyone else.

As someone said above, you like what you like. a bit of paper in someone elses hand is not going to change that. Individual churches have the right to say anything they like is wrong and not permitted in their membership, be it homosexuality or eating Black Magic chocolates. However, this cannot impinge on the rights of others who do not share these beliefs. Society as a whole belongs to everyone and not just one viewpoint.

[Busyman]

Biggles I actually don&#39;t even think we as humans have a driving force to procreate.
I think there is the urge to fuck. Procreation is a byproduct. Look at how many "accidents" there are :lol: :lol: . Take orgasms away and we&#39;ll see how much procreation there is.

Great post btw&#33;&#33;

If homosexuals are genetically that way, should there be marital rights given to the result of a "malfunction"?
Most folks on here agreed that if there is gay marriage that polygamy should also be allowed.
Under what criteria then?
Can I marry 20 wives? 40? Will my medical benefits cover them all?
How are is the estate split up in a divorce..(from x amount of wives)?

I see the writing on wall.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Expire@22 February 2004 - 22:32
Deleted Post
Have you ever ass fucked your woman, er I mean little girlfriend?

Then you have stabbed shit too my friend.

Let&#39;s not move towards flaming any group.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 02:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 23 February 2004 - 02:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Expire@22 February 2004 - 22:32
Deleted Post
Have you ever ass fucked your woman, er I mean little girlfriend?

Then you have stabbed shit too my friend.

Let&#39;s not move towards flaming any group. [/b][/quote]
Damn straight&#33; No flaming you f*cking hetero&#33; :lol:

Here&#39;s an interesting one: I&#39;ve just been diagnosed with Summer Seasonal Affective Disorder (SSAD), meaning while most people get hot and bothered in summer, I sink into a depression and feel like killing myself. All the evidence (of which there is little) points to a genetic cause for my condition, however it only becomes aparent during the summer when humidity and temperature levels rise. So it is a genetic problem with an environmental trigger. Shit eh? Not much I can do. My brain is wired a bit different to most people, but it doesn&#39;t decrease my capacity for love and commitment.

My black friend doesn&#39;t have a problem loving people because he has different skin pigmentation.

My female friend doesn&#39;t have a problem with guys even though she was raped.

The gay couple around the corner from me who have been together for 42 years don&#39;t seem to have a problem with commitment. They have an adult adopted son, who is not gay ("Where did we go wrong?" they joke), has a girlfriend and will soon be a proud father, although he is not married.

Marriage does not mean love and commitment and love and commitment don&#39;t mean marriage. In the end it HAS to be about the couple in question and if they want to get married, let them - I wish them luck and happiness :hug:

[dwightfry]

And regarding dwightfry&#39;s comment, what...... a BIsexual has a medium sized corpus callosum? hogwash&#33;&#33;&#33;



That&#39;s not at all what I meant. I didn&#39;t mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

Straight Women have a small Corpus Callosum
Gay Men have a Corpus Callosum the same size of women
Straight Men have a large Corpus Callosum
Gay Women have a Corpus Callosum the same size of men


The study was made by Simon Levay.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...david_nimmo.htm (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm)

But, I should also post this that points out many flaws in his studys

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_gaybrain.html

My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn&#39;t enviromental.

[Wizard_Mon1]

That there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn&#39;t enviromental.

At least and Reflect don&#39;t prove anything.

They show there is some relation.

I would argue that a smaller Corpus Callosum might have a relation to an individuals abilty to suffer from repeatative thinking, it doesn&#39;t PROVE there is not any enviromental factors involved.

@ Biggles


Flying in the face of extreme social pressure to pursue happiness in a same sex relationship.

Humans wants happyness in there life, where they find it is relative to thier situation and personal information (thoughts & habits).



Busyman has put forward the notion that the urge to procreate is the single most important driving force behind all animal behaviour including humans. This is a fair point - this primal urge is indeed very strong and is almost certainly genetic. This does not in my view explain homosexuality. A man through genetic coding may be attracted to a young woman of child bearing age whose symmetrical appearance triggers all the codes that say "pass on your genes through her". It is most unlikely that another man could trigger such codes. Unless of course something is different.

Good point. Females give off pheromones that attract males. Are gay men biologically attracted to male pheromenes?. They are attracted to them because there is an imbalence in thier system. I am taking about the taoist concept of Yin & Yang when i talk about balence, e.g. excess yin, yang deficient.

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes to sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?

@ Alex h


My black friend doesn&#39;t have a problem loving people because he has different skin pigmentation.

Are you saying we think he should? :blink:


My female friend doesn&#39;t have a problem with guys even though she was raped.

This was also not what i was saying, i was pointing out that humans have subconcious reactions to there surroundings which can be built up until mental patterns and habits are formed.

[vidcc]

Getting back on subject i see Arnie is going to take court action against the city of San francisco to stop it issuing marriage lisences to gay couples....perhaps he is not the man for the people and for fairness and individual rights he claimed to be.

[Wizard_Mon1]

To many muscles :01: cloud his reasoning :wacko:

Is he really doing that? Is that what the majority of the public want?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by dwightfry@23 February 2004 - 12:15

And regarding dwightfry&#39;s comment, what...... a BIsexual has a medium sized corpus callosum? hogwash&#33;&#33;&#33;



That&#39;s not at all what I meant. I didn&#39;t mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

Straight Women have a small Corpus Callosum
Gay Men have a Corpus Callosum the same size of women
Straight Men have a large Corpus Callosum
Gay Women have a Corpus Callosum the same size of men


The study was made by Simon Levay.
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20...david_nimmo.htm (http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Human%20Nature%20S%201999/sex_and_the_brain_by_david_nimmo.htm)

But, I should also post this that points out many flaws in his studys

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_SPECRPT_gaybrain.html

My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn&#39;t enviromental.
Hey dwight I remember this Simon Levay study and remember the flaws.
I didn&#39;t know he was homosexual though and I had forgot his name for that matter.

Another good post btw&#33;&#33;&#33;

I like this one

To summarize, LeVay ignores previous studies, incongruities in his own data, and numerous alternative explanations for the "differences" he cites. Yet the media was quick to hail this study as the final proof. In Vancouver, Washington, The Columbian editorialized that INAH-3 "is always smaller in the brains of homosexual males than it is in other brains.... Now [gays] have evidence to back [their] faith [that they didn’t choose to be gay]. Anti-gay zealots won’t surrender their positions in the face of one scientific report; zeal may be defined as the refusal to see reason no matter what the evidence says. Anyone else should be able to see more clearly that hating a sexual preference is no more valid than hating eye color, skin tone, hair twist or any other characteristic based on biology."

A similar media circus was generated in 1984, when Science published an analogous study (8) on physiological differences between 17 heterosexual and 14 homosexual males. In spite of all the excitement, it led nowhere – again, a study using an extremely small sample. The chances are good that LeVay’s study will meet the same fate.

maybe some folks should take this to heart


To have a "hunch" about something, then to argue that one’s hunch is proven by evidence that could just as plausibly be used by someone with a totally different "hunch" [e.g., a classical music instructor who "just knew" that smaller INAH-3 caused an appreciation of fine music], is much more like "wishful fishing" than serious scientific hypothesis testing.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes to sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?



Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 11:40
To many muscles :01: cloud his reasoning :wacko:

Is he really doing that? Is that what the majority of the public want?
yes he is doing it via the state attorney, if it is the wish of the majority or not, one could only find that out if a referendum took place

[Biggles]

Thank you for the kind words Busyman. I agree, orgasms are nature&#39;s little carrots to get us interested. If sex was unpleasant it might not catch on. :D

Alex H move to Scotland - you won&#39;t suffer from summer problems here.


To be fair to Arnie, I think he has cited legal chaos as his primary concern rather than the issue itself (although I am sure he has half an eye on the ratings).

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 19:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 23 February 2004 - 19:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?



Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children? [/b][/quote]
Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. :P If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children? :smilie4:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 16:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 16:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 19:56
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 15:09

In terms of reason from being gay, it makes no sense biologically (some benefits socially as already pointed out) to not pass on your genes. So if it is the case why has this &#39;malfuction of neural development&#39; been selected for?



Then why do gay women AND men biologically still have children?
Because humans are biologically hardwired to procreate, not just to fuck, as you so eloquently put it. :P If your opinion were correct females would have sex with any male, but as they are looking for someone who will look after and provide for there child, they are more picky. Males want to pass there seed on to as many women as possible, this is not because they just want to fuck, but because the more children they produce the more likely there genetic line is to be passed on. Further more if they just want to fuck, would anyone look after children? :smilie4: [/b][/quote]
I still don&#39;t think there is this "driving force" for humans to procreate.

I think it&#39;s more social or cultural.

I could be sterile and I&#39;ll still want to fuck.

Homosexual females will sometimes have kids through a "donor" (1 finds some guy to fuck). What about the other woman? She really isn&#39;t procreating.

Homosexual females in general actually DO NOT use donors, they adopt if they want kids. Sometimes they&#39;ll say, "We are having a baby". "We" aren&#39;t doing anything, your girlfriend is.

Homosexual males in general don&#39;t use surrogate mothers, they adopt.

Where is this driving force when let&#39;s say having a baby gets in the way of your career. You say, "I&#39;ll have one when I land this major contract".

As for looking after children again your delving into a social issue. Some people have dogs. Are you saying there&#39;s a driving force to......look after pets?

A driving force kicks you in the ass.

It&#39;s not your ass kicking the driving force.

[Wizard_Mon1]

So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?
In part, yes.

I sounds good to say, "Men want to spread their seed in as many women as possible." It&#39;s sounds really "scientific" but think....do you have sex in an effort to make a baby all the time?
Does a woman have sex to do the same all the time?

When it&#39;s really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."

[Wizard_Mon1]

Originally posted by Busyman+23 February 2004 - 23:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 23 February 2004 - 23:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?
In part, yes. [/b][/quote]
:huh: Care to explain?

If you look all over the animal kingdom you will see many instances of sex for furthering your genetic line, e.g. a type of monkey that has extra bit on his member for scooping out a competitors sperm, or male spiders that shed there load then get eaten.
Humans have a much more complex social existence but or biological want to further our line still exists.

Edit - you explained after i quoted.

We don&#39;t always have sex to procreate but it is an inherant part of our nature to create offspring. Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to.

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28


When it&#39;s really, "Men really want to orgasm inside this warm place as much as possible. If the warm place is in women then a baby may or may not be created."
Men&#33;

Bastards&#33;

Remind me to not get drunk with any of them again.... :unsure:

:unsure:

[Agrajag]

With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1+23 February 2004 - 19:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Wizard_Mon1 @ 23 February 2004 - 19:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@23 February 2004 - 23:28
<!--QuoteBegin-Wizard_Mon1@23 February 2004 - 18:36
So female urges to have children are just a social phenomena?
In part, yes.
Even if sex was not enjoyable we would still go through it because we are designed to. [/b][/quote]
I totally disagree.

We have sex because it is enjoyable (want to have an orgasm).

Our bodies ARE "designed" to procreate yes.

Penis goes in vagina, drops load, blahblahblah...

.....but without the clitoris, G-spot, and penis, most of us wouldn&#39;t be here.

Sorry but our enjoyment is what separates us from extinction.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.
There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add.

[Wizard_Mon1]

You are saying that if sex wasn&#39;t enjoyable then the human race not procreate anmd therefore die out. Look at examples in the animla kingdom.... we are just complex animals. At some point in our long evolution sex was not enjoyable but we didn&#39;t stop creating offspring.

Some women can&#39;t orgasm will they never have kids?

[clocker]

Originally posted by Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.


An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can&#39;t be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman&#39;s memory of the physical trauma.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by Busyman+24 February 2004 - 00:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 24 February 2004 - 00:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.
There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add. [/b][/quote]
That is entirely specious and you know it. The urge is to make them and raise them. There are way too many orphans for it just to be the "nurturing" instinct. If your scenario were correct then the childbirth part (after the first) would be entirely unnecessary. Women would simply adopt more children to raise.

I particularly liked the part about some homosexuals choosing to adopt, rather than go through child birth. I can only assume you speak of the daughters of Lesbos, unless your genetic manipulation has reached staggering heights.

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by clocker+24 February 2004 - 00:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 February 2004 - 00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.


An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can&#39;t be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman&#39;s memory of the physical trauma. [/b][/quote]
The point was as a direct response to the contention that love making was purely a physical thing. If that were the case then women could ensure that childbirth would never happen again. No matter how nebulous the memory of the pain was. The fact is that large numbers do not, they chose to go through it again. They choose to have more children in spite of what it will mean for them. That surely is not a simple pleasure thing.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag+23 February 2004 - 20:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 23 February 2004 - 20:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@24 February 2004 - 00:07
<!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 19:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.

Why then do people have more than one child. The love making can be organised with absolutely no chance of a child being made. There must be an urge, at least in some women, to procreate. This must also outweigh the desire not to go through the process of giving birth.
There is the urge to raise kids. They are cute.
Furthermore it is fascinating seeing a little you.
The kid has your eyes and nose. Sometimes it&#39;s a spitting image of you.

There are some people that adopt rather than go through childbirth, some of them homosexual I might add.
That is entirely specious and you know it. The urge is to make them and raise them. There are way too many orphans for it just to be the "nurturing" instinct. If your scenario were correct then the childbirth part (after the first) would be entirely unnecessary. Women would simply adopt more children to raise.

I particularly liked the part about some homosexuals choosing to adopt, rather than go through child birth. I can only assume you speak of the daughters of Lesbos, unless your genetic manipulation has reached staggering heights. [/b][/quote]
Adopt a child. Nahhhh. I want a child that reminds me of me and has MY characteristics.


Way too many orphans.......
made by parents who:

died
didn&#39;t want them
couldn&#39;t take care of them

The fact is that the nurturing can still exist whether it&#39;s for a child your own or not but again, people want a child that looks like them.

Regarding your last statement, I read it to mean daughters of lesbians choose to adopt rather go through childbirth. hUH?

Most homosexuals choose to adopt for obvious reasons. I&#39;m sure they rather have a child of there seed but it&#39;s not normally feasible due to there lifestyle.

Get this:

If there is this "driving force" not necessarily to have sex but to procreate, how is it that some people can easily cut this urge off after having 4 children or 1 child for that matter.

There are mothers who only want one child and then no more. Some may decide to have another anyway. Babies are cute. Seeing another baby you might outweigh your career, finances, etc.
However, all of a sudden a mother can have 2 kids before age 20 and the this "driving force" just left the mother&#39;s body with that second child. <_<

Uhhh yeah uh huh whatever.

My aunt has no kids. So I guess the urgtohavekids gene was not doing it&#39;s job. She does sometimes say she wondered about seeing a ltitle baby her but ultimately she says she had me to help look after but didn&#39;t want to bother with one of her own.

[clocker]

Busyman,

Specific cases neither make nor break a truism.

Your aunt is a statistical minority.
Many women can subsume the urge to procreate themselves by actively participating in the rearing of another&#39;s child.
Many women don&#39;t feel the urge at all, or choose to ignore it in the pursuit of other goals.

Fortunately ( at least in terms of our continued existence), these women are the minority.
Although this could change, as the increase in survival rates for newborns continues, we need fewer and fewer births to ensure our survival as a species...

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Agrajag+23 February 2004 - 20:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag @ 23 February 2004 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@24 February 2004 - 00:32
<!--QuoteBegin-Agrajag@23 February 2004 - 15:58
With regard to the procreation thing, I would suggest that any female who had gone through childbirth once would not chose to go through it again. Particularly as there are many ways to ensure no more childbirth can occur.


An interesting point, but flawed.

Humans have a remarkably poor memory of pain.
We may remember that something hurt like a sumbitch, but trying to recall the specifics is very difficult.
I think it may be a defence mechanism.

Although I have never given birth ( obviously) I have suffered a few major traumas.
I remember wishing I could die when my lung collapsed.
But for the life of me, I can&#39;t be specific about the nuances and varieties of the pain.

Probably the massive wash of pherenomes and hormones released at birth erases the woman&#39;s memory of the physical trauma.
The point was as a direct response to the contention that love making was purely a physical thing. If that were the case then women could ensure that childbirth would never happen again. No matter how nebulous the memory of the pain was. The fact is that large numbers do not, they chose to go through it again. They choose to have more children in spite of what it will mean for them. That surely is not a simple pleasure thing. [/b][/quote]
First off it&#39;s not "love making".
Second off, explain:
Why women get there tubes tied? The urge gene is gone? :lol:
Why men get vasectomies?
Why get drunk and throw up in a hotel toilet bowl even after I said the last time....
,you know the age old adage

I&#39;LL NEVER DRINK AGAIN

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@23 February 2004 - 21:05
Busyman,

Specific cases neither make nor break a truism.

Your aunt is a statistical minority.
Many women can subsume the urge to procreate themselves by actively participating in the rearing of another&#39;s child.
Many women don&#39;t feel the urge at all, or choose to ignore it in the pursuit of other goals.

Fortunately ( at least in terms of our continued existence), these women are the minority.
Although this could change, as the increase in survival rates for newborns continues, we need fewer and fewer births to ensure our survival as a species...
I&#39;ll buy that for a dollar.

Oh I know my aunt is a minority. Hell my mother is too; I&#39;m an only child.

My point is that there is a explainable reason besides there is this one "driving force" behind procreation.

It&#39;s a multitude of things. Most are explainable.

[TARPD]

theres too many words for me to read before breakfast but i&#39;ll say again like when this happened about a year ago. think of the kids. if this goes ahead gay adoptions will.

kids need a mother and father + they&#39;d get picked on and end up broken in the head from having gay parents

[Busyman]

Originally posted by TARPD@24 February 2004 - 07:12
theres too many words for me to read before breakfast but i&#39;ll say again like when this happened about a year ago. think of the kids. if this goes ahead gay adoptions will.

kids need a mother and father + they&#39;d get picked on and end up broken in the head from having gay parents
:huh:

Gay adoptions have already been happening and most kids seem to turn out fine and more tolerant btw.

[dwightfry]

At least and Reflect don&#39;t prove anything.

They show there is some relation.

I would argue that a smaller Corpus Callosum might have a relation to an individuals abilty to suffer from repeatative thinking, it doesn&#39;t PROVE there is not any enviromental factors involved.

:frusty:


My point was, that there may be differences in the brain that at least reflect the sexual orientation which would prove that it isn&#39;t enviromental.


I didn&#39;t say it definitly proved anything. WOULD prove, not DOES prove. Nobody has said anything in this whole debate that was proven. Science doesn&#39;t know. So, we should at least look at every idea that is out there.


I didn&#39;t mean that everyone with a medium Corpus Callosum was bisexual, I meant that some do decide to be gay, they may land in that area, and that was just a thought that crossed through my mind while writing.

Nor did I say that it wasn&#39;t ever enviromental. But, (to use a poor, but popular example), all because I like the color Blue, doesn&#39;t make my brain change. So, yes, if the studys turned out to be true, it would prove that it isn&#39;t always a choice. The only choice that is made is whether or not they want to act on there desires.

[Wizard_Mon1]

Sorry Dwightfry missed that :)

Make up was originally designed to imitate how a woman looks when they are most fertile. Why do you think this is? Because when women are fertile men are more attracted to them, they produce more pheromones.

Heteosexual go partners that have dissimlar features, this is because they are less likely to be genetically close to you. They also look for symetrical face shapes because this signifies a good genetic make up.

when a a women is closer to her fertile period, she will seek a more reliable male and be extra picky.

Humans are animals we have instinct, no matter how much society obsures it.

There is so much research on this like sweat tests where women where asked to smell sweaty t shirts and say which one they like the most.... they picked different ones depending on where they where in there menstrual cycle.. they picked men how were less similar to them genetically when there were close to fertility and men who where genetically similar when they were not, e.g. men who act as protection fathers, brothers and relatives.

[dwightfry]

I&#39;m kinda surprised, about 31% are against gay marraiges. (22 - 43)

I expected it to be closer to 10% to 15%

and of those, only 32% are okay with civil unions (7 - 15)

I expected that to be at least 50%.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Wizard_Mon1@24 February 2004 - 09:58
Sorry Dwightfry missed that :)

Make up was originally designed to imitate how a woman looks when they are most fertile. Why do you think this is? Because when women are fertile men are more attracted to them, they produce more pheromones.

Heteosexual go partners that have dissimlar features, this is because they are less likely to be genetically close to you. They also look for symetrical face shapes because this signifies a good genetic make up.

when a a women is closer to her fertile period, she will seek a more reliable male and be extra picky.

Humans are animals we have instinct, no matter how much society obsures it.

There is so much research on this like sweat tests where women where asked to smell sweaty t shirts and say which one they like the most.... they picked different ones depending on where they where in there menstrual cycle.. they picked men how were less similar to them genetically when there were close to fertility and men who where genetically similar when they were not, e.g. men who act as protection fathers, brothers and relatives.
Wow with all this "proof" of what I like and "why" I like it you then believe gays are born gay and I have sex just to procreate.

Women wear gold lipstick and foundation to look fertile? :blink:

I don&#39;t know about you but I&#39;m most attracted to my woman when she is butt naked and curling her tongue up at me while playing herself&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol: :lol:

Keep reading those studies. They seem to have us "animals" all mapped out.

[vegasguy]

Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.
First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:

[dwightfry]

Originally posted by Busyman+27 February 2004 - 01:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman &#064; 27 February 2004 - 01:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry.&nbsp; Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else.&nbsp; Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.
First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:[/b][/quote]
Actually, I started this thread, and the first replay I got was


First of all lets get this outta the way ? Are you gay ?

So...yes, at least one person believed that if you supported gay marriage, you may be gay.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by dwightfry+27 February 2004 - 12:41--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (dwightfry &#064; 27 February 2004 - 12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@27 February 2004 - 01:18
<!--QuoteBegin-vegasguy@25 February 2004 - 03:03
Hi,

Gays should be allowed to marry, they are humans and they have the right to marry. Even if its in a church, court, drive-thru,

AND this won&#39;t be set as "Gay as normal" , come on, most people in the world are Hetro,

AND if any ask me if I am gay (Which I am not) is a bigger homo then anybody else. Enuff said, if you support gay marriage, it doesnt mean you are gay, it means you are liberal, you du-mass.
First off who the hell are you talking too&#33;&#33;&#33;

No one said anything about whoever supports marriage is gay.

Before you post in here again, pick your brain up off the floor and try to hoist it upon your shoulders. :lol:
Actually, I started this thread, and the first replay I got was


First of all lets get this outta the way ? Are you gay ?

So...yes, at least one person believed that if you supported gay marriage, you may be gay. [/b][/quote]
Ok I&#39;ll buy that but this vegasfella proceeds with the du-mass remark so I wouldn&#39;t think he&#39;s talking about a post near the beginning.

Hell he&#39;s got 3 stars so I would think he&#39;s know how to use the quote button.

edit: I did forget, due to the relaxed rules in the Lounge, we do have 5 stars noobs.

I stand corrected. <_< (well no not really)

[3RA1N1AC]

the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=9884&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it. definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary. a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary. :)

[j2k4]

Another update:

Dictionary: Paper product suitable for wiping one&#39;s ass.

Question, 3RA1N1AC:

How would I install society on my PC so as to stay up to speed on these new and constantly changing definitions?

I might finally have to do something, as I haven&#39;t previously felt the need for such a thing.

Does what I just typed still mean what it did when I typed it, or did I just ask you where in London to shop for an inflatable shoehorn suitable for use while on holiday in Oslo during unseasonably warm weather? :huh:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@27 February 2004 - 20:57
Dictionary: Paper product suitable for wiping one&#39;s ass.
different strokes.


How would I install society on my PC so as to stay up to speed on these new and constantly changing definitions?

you don&#39;t have to. you don&#39;t even have to buy a new dictionary. like i said, it&#39;s not a rule book. if you sincerely wish to keep up to date on english as used by modern speakers of the language, the Oxford Dictionary is a worthy choice since it has sheer numbers on its side (in terms of pages, and number of people employed to find & verify new words & definitions). if english as spoken & defined by contemporary society is unacceptable to you... well, different strokes.


Does what I just typed still mean what it did when I typed it, or did I just ask you where in London to shop for an inflatable shoehorn suitable for use while on holiday in Oslo during unseasonably warm weather? :huh:

if you&#39;ve got doubts about the language&#39;s suitability to precisely convey your intended meanings, you could try doing what Shakespeare did (http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm): just make a whole slew of words up. they (along with your definitions) might gain common acceptance and end up in a dictionary someday. at least there&#39;ll be no controversy over what you meant to say.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 02:23
if you&#39;ve got doubts about the language&#39;s suitability to precisely convey your intended meanings, you could try doing what Shakespeare did (http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm): just make a whole slew of words up. they (along with your definitions) might gain common acceptance and end up in a dictionary someday. at least there&#39;ll be no controversy over what you meant to say.
Then I am a throwback; I&#39;ve been doing that for years. ;)

Now, if you&#39;ll excuse me, I have to walk my dinosaur. :)

[Agrajag]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=9884&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it. definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary. a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary. :)
Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Agrajag+28 February 2004 - 23:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agrajag &#064; 28 February 2004 - 23:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@28 February 2004 - 04:46
the Canadian Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary will soon revise its definition of "marriage" to specify a contract between two "people" rather than man and woman.

unless i can find the Edmonton Journal article, this one from the popular gay magazine The Advocate will have to do.
http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?id=9884&sd=09/17/03

if this leaves anyone scratching their heads, wondering if it&#39;s a propaganda manuever or thinking it&#39;s a technical foul... one needs to understand that dictionaries do not hand language down to us and force us to accept it.&nbsp; definitions found in religious texts may be sacred, but there&#39;s nothing sacred about a dictionary.&nbsp; a dictionary&#39;s purpose is to document words & meanings as they are used by contemporary society... society dictates the content and meanings of its language, and the language dictates what goes into a dictionary.&nbsp; :)
Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?[/b][/quote]
Google it, you thread hi-jacker.

Canadian Oxford (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0195417313/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-7135322-4695210#reader-page)

[clocker]

Originally posted by Agrajag@28 February 2004 - 14:51

Why is there a Canadian version of the English dictionary ? Do they speak Canadian English ?
Not satisfied with the definitions of "eh" and "hoser" provided by other dictionaries, the Canadians felt it necessary to publish their own, unique tome.

My understanding is that page two is due out soon.....

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s got far more pages than two. Remember it has to not only explain what a butter tart is, it also has to change Newfie into something vaguely recognisable as English, and do the same with Quebecois.

:ninja:

[clocker]

Ok, I&#39;ll bite.

What is a butter tart?

[MagicNakor]

It&#39;s...a butter tart. I actually didn&#39;t know it wasn&#39;t a widespread food until this year. ;)

They&#39;re usually made around Christmas. They&#39;re filled with a buttery and sugary custard that&#39;s studded with rum-soaked raisins.

http://www.cooksco.com/images/tart.jpg

There&#39;s a picture. ;)

http://www.pastrywiz.com/archive/buttet.htm is a recipe, although I can&#39;t vouch for it, because I always use my Grandma&#39;s recipe (which is the best one :P).

:ninja:

[clocker]

I see.

And this justifies a whole new dictionary?

Wouldn&#39;t an episode of the Iron Chef have sufficed?

[MagicNakor]

Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun. ;)

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 05:28
Apparently it&#39;s a contentious subject. How sugary, how buttery, how thick, with walnuts, without walnuts, with or without pecans, and so on.

Plus the butter tart is just an example, you jackabaun. ;)

:ninja:
So, are you for gay marriage or against it? Sorry for being dense, but your butter tart analogies are too obtuse for me.

[MagicNakor]

As the thread really hasn&#39;t been about gay marriage for quite some time, I figured there was no better time to begin my reign of butter tart terror.

:ninja:

[hobbes]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@29 February 2004 - 06:43
As the thread really hasn&#39;t been about gay marriage for quite some time, I figured there was no better time to begin my reign of butter tart terror.

:ninja:
And thus, darkness falls upon this thread.

God have mercy....mercy.

[clocker]

You can&#39;t fight it hobbes.

He&#39;s a mod with a mission.

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

as for gay marriage, i dont care. i dont have enough time to give a shit about something this stupid. :lol: