Which statement about gay rights do you agree with more.

[BacktoBasics]

Statement One:



Gay people are seeking equality.

You have the right to marry and legally share your life with the person you love and to whom you are committed. A gay man wants the right to marry and legally share his life with the person he loves and to whom he is committed. A lesbian wants the right to marry and legally share her life with the person she loves and to whom she is committed.


Statement Two:



Gay people are seeking additional rights that go above and beyond what straight people are entitled to.

A gay man can marry a woman the same as I can.

He/She wants the extra right (not to be confused with equality) to marry another man/women. Extra meaning that he wants +1 on top of what he and I both already have.




Its a private poll so please vote.

[IronMexican]

#2

[Spur-Addict]

I'll have to go with statement one. I say this because gays don't want to marry those of the opposite sex for reasons relating to love.

But, the thing is, we'd have the same rights. Heteros would have the right to marry those of the same sex, it equals out.

[BacktoBasics]

This poll is not about mexicans. In case anyone was wondering.

[JoeChalupa]

I'm too stupid to know the difference.

[Thunder Dan]

I went with option #1 because I'm a ragin liberal and don't like getting involved in making decisions about how others should live their lives

[JoeChalupa]

Its a private poll so please vote.

Private? :td

[monosylab1k]

At what point can I chime in with the full text of the Warren Commission report?

[peewee's lovechild]

At what point can I chime in with the full text of the Warren Commission report?

If you do that, I'm posting the 9/11 Commision's report.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I'm too stupid to know the difference.

You are a retard!

[ATRAIN]

There is no option 3?

[peewee's lovechild]

There is no option 3?

Statement Three (ATRAIN's mother is a whore.)

[FromWayDowntown]

I think Statement #1 is accurate.

I think Statement #2 is basically a rhetorically-charged means to suggest that opposing same-sex marriage is grounded in something other than homophobia.

[ATRAIN]

Statement Three (ATRAIN's mother is a whore.)

Statement 4 Peewee's momma swallows

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

#1

All you petty-minded little #2-believing biatches out there, please explain to me why what someone else does in the bedroom is any business of yours, and how it affects you in any way. And don't give me some Biblical bullshit - the world is awash with 6.8bil people, and populating the earth is no longer a priority.

And no, to beat you to it, I'm not gay. Women, though frustrating as hell most of the time, still get my juices flowing (so to speak... :lol )

[I Love Me Some Me]

I think Statement #1 is accurate.

I think Statement #2 is basically a rhetorically-charged means to suggest that opposing same-sex marriage is grounded in something other than homophobia.

I actually think the opposite, and #1 uses "unequality" rhetoric to to suggest that everyone who opposes is discriminatory and homophobic.

[Brutalis]

Gays can marry all they want, I don't care about that part. But if they marry multiple persons and start getting tax breaks or some shit I shall be pissed.

[ATRAIN]

And no, to beat you to it, I'm not gay. Women, though frustrating as hell most of the time, still get my juices flowing (so to speak... :lol )

yeah right your gay lmao just kidding man, I give you shit all the time but I agree with you. I fucking Hate women, everytime I put trust into them they do something to fuck it up. I have friends that are gay and they have the same if not more relationship problems so it happens on the other side of the spectrum too. Fucking bitches!! I try not to treat women bad after all the times I get screwed over but its getting harder and harder.

[Bigzax]

let them get married.

why should i care?

next.

[peewee's lovechild]

Statement 4 Peewee's momma swallows

:lol

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I think Statement #1 is accurate.

I think Statement #2 is basically a rhetorically-charged means to suggest that opposing same-sex marriage is grounded in something other than homophobia.

+1


I actually think the opposite, and #1 uses "unequality" rhetoric to to suggest that everyone who opposes is discriminatory and homophobic.

the difference being you are completely full of shit. There is absolutely no reasonable excuse for #2.

[LockBeard]

This country has so many bigger problems than gay marriage. Who gives a fuck really. The fact this is one of the prominent issues blows my mind.

Yes, my mind.

[DarkReign]

Private? :td

Oh, so youre against secret ballots for unionization, too I guess, huh?

Joe, Joe, Joe...you disappoint me. I am most displeased.









j/k

[JoeChalupa]

Oh, so youre against secret ballots for unionization, too I guess, huh?

Joe, Joe, Joe...you disappoint me. I am most displeased.




j/k

Civil Unions?

[DarkReign]

I think Statement #2 is basically a rhetorically-charged means to suggest that opposing same-sex marriage is grounded in something other than homophobia.

Then the question is, is there any other reason to oppose gay marriage outside of homophobia?

I cant think of one. People will come up with some weirdo analogies that are anything but true (priests being obligated to marry gay people, etc), but it really boils down to, IMO, is "I dont like gay people, I dont agree with their lifestyle and I wont recognize them as equal citizens entitled to the same rights and protections I enjoy based on my bias."

[JoeChalupa]

Then the question is, is there any other reason to oppose gay marriage outside of homophobia?

I cant think of one. People will come up with some weirdo analogies that are anything but true (priests being obligated to marry gay people, etc), but it really boils down to, IMO, is "I dont like gay people, I dont agree with their lifestyle and I wont recognize them as equal citizens entitled to the same rights and protections I enjoy based on my bias."

I concur.

[DarkReign]

Civil Unions?

No, you took me seriously. You were boo-hooing the "secret" portion of this poll. By and large, it should be private.

But I used your complaint to segue into another topic hit upon in the PF Forum (secret ballots in unionization).

Now that I have explained the (admittedly bad) joke, it is no longer funny.

[JoeChalupa]

No, you took me seriously. You were boo-hooing the "secret" portion of this poll. By and large, it should be private.

But I used your complaint to segue into another topic hit upon in the PF Forum (secret ballots in unionization).

Now that I have explained the (admittedly bad) joke, it is no longer funny.

No, I got it. :lol

My attempt with the :td failed. Hiding your true feeling behind a secret vote. Another stupid attempt.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Then the question is, is there any other reason to oppose gay marriage outside of homophobia?

I cant think of one. People will come up with some weirdo analogies that are anything but true (priests being obligated to marry gay people, etc), but it really boils down to, IMO, is "I dont like gay people, I dont agree with their lifestyle and I wont recognize them as equal citizens entitled to the same rights and protections I enjoy based on my bias."

That's not accurate, and pretty close-minded. What if I were to say that I am morally oppossed to homosexuality, and I oppose same-sex marriage based on my own moral convictions? That doesnt't mean I don't like gay people, nor does it mean that I don't recognize them as equal.

It's important to differentiate what people think about homosexuality from how they feel about homosexuals.

[peewee's lovechild]

That's not accurate, and pretty close-minded. What if I were to say that I am morally oppossed to homosexuality, and I oppose same-sex marriage based on my own moral convictions? That doesnt't mean I don't like gay people, nor does it mean that I don't recognize them as equal.

It's important to differentiate what people think about homosexuality from how they feel about homosexuals.

This is code for "hate the sin, not the sinner."

[I Love Me Some Me]

This is code for "hate the sin, not the sinner."

[I Love Me Some Me]

This is code for "hate the sin, not the sinner."

Just because the words are bigger than you're comfortable with, doesn't make it "code."

[Dark Gable]

That's not accurate, and pretty close-minded. What if I were to say that I am morally oppossed to homosexuality, and I oppose same-sex marriage based on my own moral convictions? That doesnt't mean I don't like gay people, nor does it mean that I don't recognize them as equal.

It's important to differentiate what people think about homosexuality from how they feel about homosexuals.

That is BS. That is like someone saying "I'm against equal rights but I don't hate blacks. I'll never vote for a black person but I don't hate them."

[Sec24Row7]

#2 is technically correct.

They already can marry a person of the opposite sex like a heterosexual.

It is an Extra right to be able to marry someone of the same sex.

:ihit :p:

[I Love Me Some Me]

That is BS. That is like someone saying "I'm against equal rights but I don't hate blacks. I'll never vote for a black person but I don't hate them."

Can we quit playing the race card in these conversations? Being black and being gay have NOTHING to do with each other, and NOTHING in common.

If you support gay marriage, make your own argument...don't borrow the black guy's.

Saying you are morally oppossed to homosexuality should have no bearing on how you treat an individual who so happens to be gay. If you, as an individual, are defined by your sexual orientation so much that you think my opinions about how you have sex equate to me hating you, then perhaps you need to take an introspective look at what defines you as a person.

[peewee's lovechild]

That's not accurate, and pretty close-minded. What if I were to say that I am morally oppossed to homosexuality, and I oppose same-sex marriage based on my own moral convictions? That doesnt't mean I don't like gay people, nor does it mean that I don't recognize them as equal.

It's important to differentiate what people think about homosexuality from how they feel about homosexuals.


This is code for "hate the sin, not the sinner."


Just because the words are bigger than you're comfortable with, doesn't make it "code."


That is BS. That is like someone saying "I'm against equal rights but I don't hate blacks. I'll never vote for a black person but I don't hate them."


Any questions?

[Dark Gable]

Can we quit playing the race card in these conversations? Being black and being gay have NOTHING to do with each other, and NOTHING in common.

If you support gay marriage, make your own argument...don't borrow the black guy's.

Saying you are morally oppossed to homosexuality should have no bearing on how you treat an individual who so happens to be gay. If you, as an individual, are defined by your sexual orientation so much that you think my opinions about how you have sex equate to me hating you, then perhaps you need to take an introspective look at what defines you as a person.

You are just in denial.

[I Love Me Some Me]

You are just in denial.

About what?

[Spurminator]

This country has so many bigger problems than gay marriage. Who gives a fuck really.

Gay people give a fuck, I'm pretty sure. If it's no big deal then I'm sure you won't make the effort to oppose it.

[baseline bum]

Can we quit playing the race card in these conversations? Being black and being gay have NOTHING to do with each other, and NOTHING in common.


Yeah they do; both groups are/were discriminated against because of something they were born into.

[JoeChalupa]

Yeah they do; both groups are/were discriminated against because of something they were born into.

I concur.

[J.T.]

Gays can marry whoever the fuck they want as long as we give them separate bathrooms. My eyes don't want to be an unwilling third party to their quest for equality.

I think we should legalize gay marriage the same way we legalized weed, by making them purchase a permit for it, only the government never sells any permits. I would laugh.

[JoeChalupa]

Gays can marry whoever the fuck they want as long as we give them separate bathrooms. My eyes don't want to be an unwilling third party to their quest for equality.

Just don't tap your foot when you are unloading and you should be okay.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Yeah they do; both groups are/were discriminated against because of something they were born into.

Has science concluded that sexual orientation is something one is born into?

[BacktoBasics]

Has science concluded that sexual orientation is something one is born into?Does it matter?

[baseline bum]

Has science concluded that sexual orientation is something one is born into?

I base that on what every gay person I have ever known has told me. I base it on liking tits from a young age, and trying to get girls to show me things and do things since I was in kindergarten. I base it on the fact that no one could ever convince me some guy's hairy ass is hot.

[Smart Ass]

I base that on what every gay person I have ever known has told me. I base it on liking tits from a young age, and trying to get girls to show me things and do things since I was in kindergarten. I base it on the fact that no one could ever convince me some guy's hairy ass is hot.

You haven't had a look at mine.

[Blake]

Does it matter?

are you kidding or are you honestly this ignorant?

[I Love Me Some Me]

I base that on what every gay person I have ever known has told me. I base it on liking tits from a young age, and trying to get girls to show me things and do things since I was in kindergarten. I base it on the fact that no one could ever convince me some guy's hairy ass is hot.

Well...I'm convinced now.

[Blake]

I base that on what every gay person I have ever known has told me. I base it on liking tits from a young age, and trying to get girls to show me things and do things since I was in kindergarten. I base it on the fact that no one could ever convince me some guy's hairy ass is hot.

scientific method in action

[I. Hustle]

I'll have to go with statement one. I say this because gays don't want to marry those of the opposite sex for reasons relating to love.

But, the thing is, we'd have the same rights. Heteros would have the right to marry those of the same sex, it equals out.

I disagree with the first part. Only because I know a gay dude that married some illegal chick from Europe to help her out.

[I. Hustle]

I don't really care but the thing I hate is this.

Both groups say you are wrong for not thinking like me. That in itself is retarded. If I don't agree with gay people then eff you and if I don't agree with people who hate gay people then eff you too. Let me think for my damn self and stop telling me how I am narrow minded. So my response is FUKK both groups!

[ploto]

Marriage is defined in a manner that does not apply to what they want to do. They want the same rights (which I agree with) but they can obtain them in other ways.


You have the right to legally share your life with the person you love and to whom you are committed. A gay man wants the right to legally share his life with the person he loves and to whom he is committed. A lesbian wants the right to legally share her life with the person she loves and to whom she is committed.
Fixed it.

[baseline bum]

Well...I'm convinced now.

So you could be convinced to like cock?

[DarkReign]

So you could be convinced to like cock?

:lmao

I usually dont laugh at gay jokes because theyre overplayed, but this sticks for some reason...:lmao

[CuckingFunt]

yeah right your gay lmao just kidding man, I give you shit all the time but I agree with you. I fucking Hate women, everytime I put trust into them they do something to fuck it up. I have friends that are gay and they have the same if not more relationship problems so it happens on the other side of the spectrum too. Fucking bitches!! I try not to treat women bad after all the times I get screwed over but its getting harder and harder.

Seriously? Maybe it's time to raise your standards.

[CuckingFunt]

Has science concluded that sexual orientation is something one is born into?

Did you make an active, conscious decision to be straight?

[Blake]

Did you make an active, conscious decision to be straight?

seems to me there are plenty out there that cant make up their minds.

Anne Heche comes to mind.....

lemme know if you want more examples

[CuckingFunt]

seems to me there are plenty out there that cant make up their minds.

Anne Heche comes to mind.....

lemme know if you want more examples

I'm the only example I need in terms of bisexuality.

And, for the record, bisexual is not the same as confused.

[mavs>spurs2]

gays have rights? the right to get shit on by society maybe

[Xylus]

#2 is the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard.

If you use the logic that it's an extra right for a gay man to be able to marry another man, since he already has the right to marry a woman, then you can also say that a straight man would then have the right to marry another man if he so wished. So both straight and gay people can marry men or women. So there is no extra right.

Furthermore, why would a gay man marry a woman? That's not a right, that's a waste of time.

By the way, I'm drunk. Hahahahaha....

Whatever, give the gays whatever the straights have.

[MiamiHeat]

I don't want gays to be 'married'... i would give them a legal union so they can enjoy tax benefits or whatever.

but marriage means gays want to be accepted by society. this isn't about actually being married on a piece of paper, ok? there are heterosexuals couples who live together as a married couple but never got legally married. it's just a piece of paper sometimes, you don't need it. you don't need it to say "i love you forever and will always be with you"

so this isn't about that piece of legal paper. it's about "please accept my homosexuality"

I want 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, as it has been for at least 8 thousand years.

allowing gays to become legally married = legitimizes gay couples as 'normal' and there is a problem here because many people do not believe homosexuality = normal.

I would never discriminate against a homosexual, never, but that doesn't mean I have to accept his lifestyle as 'normal'

[baseline bum]

I don't want gays to be 'married'... i would give them a legal union so they can enjoy tax benefits or whatever.

but marriage means gays want to be accepted by society. this isn't about actually being married on a piece of paper, ok? there are heterosexuals couples who live together as a married couple but never got legally married. it's just a piece of paper sometimes, you don't need it. you don't need it to say "i love you forever and will always be with you"

so this isn't about that piece of legal paper. it's about "please accept my homosexuality"

I want 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, as it has been for at least 8 thousand years.

allowing gays to become legally married = legitimizes gay couples as 'normal' and there is a problem here because many people do not believe homosexuality = normal.

I would never discriminate against a homosexual, never, but that doesn't mean I have to accept his lifestyle as 'normal'

Hasn't marriage mostly been between a man and many women for the past 8000 years? We should all become Mormons if we're going to go with the traditional angle.

[MiamiHeat]

Hasn't marriage mostly been between a man and many women for the past 8000 years? We should all become Mormons if we're going to go with the traditional angle.

Because all marriages in all cultures were formed on those principles? According to you, marriage between one man and one woman was not commonplace?

or Why take care of the elderly? Eskimos, in the past, killed their elderly when they became a burden. Why continue with our tradition of taking care of the elderly since the Eskimos killed theirs?

[ididnotnothat]

I don't want gays to be 'married'... i would give them a legal union so they can enjoy tax benefits or whatever.

but marriage means gays want to be accepted by society. this isn't about actually being married on a piece of paper, ok? there are heterosexuals couples who live together as a married couple but never got legally married. it's just a piece of paper sometimes, you don't need it. you don't need it to say "i love you forever and will always be with you"

so this isn't about that piece of legal paper. it's about "please accept my homosexuality"

I want 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, as it has been for at least 8 thousand years.

allowing gays to become legally married = legitimizes gay couples as 'normal' and there is a problem here because many people do not believe homosexuality = normal.

I would never discriminate against a homosexual, never, but that doesn't mean I have to accept his lifestyle as 'normal'

By not giving them equal rights you ARE discriminating against homosexuals. :rolleyes

[Blake]

I'm the only example I need in terms of bisexuality.

Great for you.

Unfortunately, science disagrees.


And, for the record, bisexual is not the same as confused.

I'm not sure if you think that's what I am getting at, but it's not.

[BacktoBasics]

By not giving them equal rights you ARE discriminating against homosexuals. :rolleyesI don't find legal unions as an alternative to "marriage" discriminatory. I think, and I could be wrong, but most gays are fine with a legal union. The word "marriage" isn't the issue its the benefits and legal rights that should be fairly available for them.

[Blake]

I don't want gays to be 'married'... i would give them a legal union so they can enjoy tax benefits or whatever.

but marriage means gays want to be accepted by society. this isn't about actually being married on a piece of paper, ok? there are heterosexuals couples who live together as a married couple but never got legally married. it's just a piece of paper sometimes, you don't need it. you don't need it to say "i love you forever and will always be with you"

so this isn't about that piece of legal paper. it's about "please accept my homosexuality"

I want 'marriage' to be between a man and a woman, as it has been for at least 8 thousand years.

allowing gays to become legally married = legitimizes gay couples as 'normal' and there is a problem here because many people do not believe homosexuality = normal.

I would never discriminate against a homosexual, never, but that doesn't mean I have to accept his lifestyle as 'normal'

Odd post from you.

[Blake]

#2 is the dumbest fucking argument I've ever heard.

If you use the logic that it's an extra right for a gay man to be able to marry another man, since he already has the right to marry a woman, then you can also say that a straight man would then have the right to marry another man if he so wished. So both straight and gay people can marry men or women. So there is no extra right.

Furthermore, why would a gay man marry a woman? That's not a right, that's a waste of time.

By the way, I'm drunk. Hahahahaha....

Whatever, give the gays whatever the straights have.

yay B2B.......you got the drunk votes.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Did you make an active, conscious decision to be straight?

No....maybe sub-consciously I did. Maybe I just followed the natural function of my reproductive organs.

Who knows? But the point is that to say being born gay (if that even exists) and being born black ARE NOT THE SAME THING. One is a physical characteristic genetically determined by the race of your parents, the other is where you like to put your penis when you're horny.

[spurster]

I think mostly option #1, but partly #2 as well.

The question that comes to my mind is why have the government involved in what adults do in private. Why should they be involved in matters of love? My answers are abusive relationships and children.

Women have long been the weaker partner in man-woman relationships, and often abused. I think the government clearly has an interest in preventing this. Women still take the large majority of abuse.

I think the government also has an interest in ensuring the well-being of children, both in promoting the positive (e.g., education, health, stability) and preventing the negative (abuse, poverty). I think this is clearly the strongest of my two answers.

Except for the "love" angle, I just don't see why the government should be involved in gay marriage. Of course, a lot of marriages are intentionally childless, and I don't see why they should be getting tax breaks, insurance breaks, etc. either. Creating a civil union contract would cover a lot of the legal rights couples would be interested in without adding the dubious benefits. People with children should get a break.

[RichardSimmons]

No....maybe sub-consciously I did. Maybe I just followed the natural function of my reproductive organs.

Who knows? But the point is that to say being born gay (if that even exists) and being born black ARE NOT THE SAME THING. One is a physical characteristic genetically determined by the race of your parents, the other is where you like to put your penis when you're horny.

I've known I was gay since I can remember and YES, I was born that way.

[CuckingFunt]

Great for you.

Unfortunately, science disagrees.

Science disagrees with what? That assertion doesn't make a lick of sense within the context of the comments preceding it.


I'm not sure if you think that's what I am getting at, but it's not.

A comment that bisexuals can't make up their mind is not hinting at a suggestion that they're confused? Really?

It's quite obvious to me that you're arguing here just to be obstinate, but that's usually more successful when you actually engage with the other comments being made.

[CuckingFunt]

No....maybe sub-consciously I did. Maybe I just followed the natural function of my reproductive organs.

Who knows? But the point is that to say being born gay (if that even exists) and being born black ARE NOT THE SAME THING. One is a physical characteristic genetically determined by the race of your parents, the other is where you like to put your penis when you're horny.

So... you didn't have any conscious control over your sexuality, but the millions of gay/lesbian/bisexual people in this world did?

[Blake]

Science disagrees with what? That assertion doesn't make a lick of sense within the context of the comments preceding it.

science disagree that your the only example needed in regards to bisexuality.


A comment that bisexuals can't make up their mind is not hinting at a suggestion that they're confused? Really?

what is your definition of bisexual? Can someone not go back and forth between straight and gay and not be considered bi?


It's quite obvious to me that you're arguing here just to be obstinate, but that's usually more successful when you actually engage with the other comments being made.

No, I'm really not.

I thought I've engaged all the relevant comments made, including yours, but please let me know which ones I haven't engaged and I will be happy to engage with them.

[purist]

Gay or straight, American citizens are protected by the constitution. However, not all acts or behavior are protected or granted "right" status.

If you're a man who likes men; or woman who like women, so be it. I may not agree with it, but that's your deal; your business. It's when you equate sexual preference to a "protected class" of people that you find the rub. And, the more you push, the more the social and political chasm grows between straight and gay.

[peewee's lovechild]

seems to me there are plenty out there that cant make up their minds.

Anne Heche comes to mind.....

lemme know if you want more examples

Come up with some more.

Then, we can compare with the millions of people who have "made up their minds" as you so eloquently put it.

[Blake]

So... you didn't have any conscious control over your sexuality, but the millions of gay/lesbian/bisexual people in this world did?

so none of those millions of gay/les/bi people made conscious decisions over theirs?

[samikeyp]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how allowing Gay marraige is going to destroy the "institution of heterosexual marraige". I keep hearing that from right-wingers and religious folk but none of them have proof.

[CuckingFunt]

science disagree that your the only example needed in regards to bisexuality.

I specifically said that I was the only example of bisexuality that I needed, referring to the fact that I'm fairly familiar with a bisexual lifestyle. I did not mean that I am singularly representative of every single bisexual person.


what is your definition of bisexual? Can someone not go back and forth between straight and gay and not be considered bi?

My definition of bisexual is someone that is physically and sexually attracted to both men and women. However people choose to express that is up to them -- there are probably as many different ways to "be" bisexual as there are bisexual people.

[I. Hustle]

yeah right your gay lmao just kidding man, I give you shit all the time but I agree with you. I fucking Hate women, everytime I put trust into them they do something to fuck it up. I have friends that are gay and they have the same if not more relationship problems so it happens on the other side of the spectrum too. Fucking bitches!! I try not to treat women bad after all the times I get screwed over but its getting harder and harder.

between the lines

[peewee's lovechild]

Gay or straight, American citizens are protected by the constitution. However, not all acts or behavior are protected or granted "right" status.

If you're a man who likes men; or woman who like women, so be it. I may not agree with it, but that's your deal; your business. It's when you equate sexual preference to a "protected class" of people that you find the rub. And, the more you push, the more the social and political chasm grows between straight and gay.

They only need to be "protected" because they are being discriminated. However, that's another conversation.

[Blake]

Come up with some more.

Then, we can compare with the millions of people who have "made up their minds" as you so eloquently put it.

I didn't say there are people that "made up their minds". I said there are plenty of people that can't make up theirs."

nice fail.

If CF wants examples I'll provide them.

[CuckingFunt]

Gay or straight, American citizens are protected by the constitution. However, not all acts or behavior are protected or granted "right" status.

If you're a man who likes men; or woman who like women, so be it. I may not agree with it, but that's your deal; your business. It's when you equate sexual preference to a "protected class" of people that you find the rub. And, the more you push, the more the social and political chasm grows between straight and gay.

The lifting of oppression is not the same thing as protection.

[peewee's lovechild]

I didn't say there are people that "made up their minds". I said there are plenty of people that can't make up theirs."

nice fail.

If CF wants examples I'll provide them.

What was your point then?

If you had one, that is.

[CuckingFunt]

so none of those millions of gay/les/bi people made conscious decisions over theirs?

I think that everyone makes a conscious decision as to how they choose to express their sexuality. But I don't think that anyone, straight or gay, makes a conscious choice as to whether they're attracted to men and/or women.

[Blake]

I specifically said that I was the only example of bisexuality that I needed, referring to the fact that I'm fairly familiar with a bisexual lifestyle. I did not mean that I am singularly representative of every single bisexual person.

and I said "Great. Too bad science disagrees."


My definition of bisexual is someone that is physically and sexually attracted to both men and women. However people choose to express that is up to them -- there are probably as many different ways to "be" bisexual as there are bisexual people.

My definition of bi is the same as yours, only that the person be attracted to both men and women at the same time.

If someone has a few episodes of lesbianism in college but is now married to a man. I don't see that as being bi. I see that as changing her mind.

[samikeyp]

and I said "Great. Too bad science disagrees."

How so?

[stretch]

lol blake

[mrsmaalox]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me how allowing Gay marraige is going to destroy the "institution of heterosexual marraige". I keep hearing that from right-wingers and religious folk but none of them have proof.

The main thing that destroys the institution of any kind of marriage is divorce. That's what they should outlaw if they want to protect marriage!

[samikeyp]

The main thing that destroys the institution of any kind of marriage is divorce. That's what they should outlaw if they want to protect marriage!

Heterosexuals shouldn't have a exclusive right to marriage. We don't exactly have a stellar record. :lol

[peewee's lovechild]

and I said "Great. Too bad science disagrees."

Science disagrees with what?

Are you saying that science disagrees with the idea that you are born gay?

Because, it would be nice if you would post some of that science that backs up your post.

Are you aware that there has been scientific studies performed that prove that animals have shown homosexual tendicies in nature?

So, what's this science you're talking about?

[Blake]

What was your point then?

If you had one, that is.

that there are plenty of people that can't make up their minds.

[mrsmaalox]

Heterosexuals shouldn't have a exclusive right to marriage. We don't exactly have a stellar record. :lol

Really! And yet they continue to focus only on the marriage part and not the quality of the marriage.

[Blake]

How so?

science needs more than personal opinion to determine genetic makeup

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

Heterosexuals shouldn't have a exclusive right to marriage. We don't exactly have a stellar record. :lol

Back before the last election, when Prop 8 (the bill to legalize gay marriage out here) was the hot topic, I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read:

"Why shouldn't gay marriage be legalized?
They should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

I'd say that's fairly relevant here and now as well.

[BacktoBasics]

science needs more than personal opinion to determine genetic makeup
Can you show me where science has proved that being gay is a preference over genetic makeup?

[CuckingFunt]

and I said "Great. Too bad science disagrees."

And, again, science disagrees with what? I'm not making any great, sweeping generalizations about the entire bisexual population.

You brought up bisexuality to introduce a point that has yet to become clear, and I merely responded that I am bisexual. I get bisexuality. It's not a mystery to me.


My definition of bi is the same as yours, only that the person be attracted to both men and women at the same time.

If someone has a few episodes of lesbianism in college but is now married to a man. I don't see that as being bi. I see that as changing her mind.

And I see it as a matter of labeling and self-expression. If a person had a few "episodes of lesbianism" in college but is now married to a man, they may or may not choose to call themselves bisexual. I, for instance, am very strongly queer identified. I consider myself to be a part of that community, and I don't see that ever changing. Furthermore, I very strongly identify as specifically bisexual. I don't view my sexuality as a transitory phase that will only be determined when I settle down with my one life partner -- spending the rest of my life with a woman won't make me suddenly lesbian, spending the rest of my life with a man won't make me suddenly straight.

That's not for everyone, though. Some people may feel a need to identify as either straight or gay based on the stigma associated with the bisexual label. Some people may have same sex experiences and discover that they were not based on a genuine attraction. Some people my have opposite sex experiences and discover that they were not based on a genuine attraction. I absolutely think that expression and labeling are fluid and changing and heavily influenced by personal choice and comfort level, but attraction is not -- either you like pussy, or you don't, to put it bluntly.

[Blake]

Science disagrees with what?

Are you saying that science disagrees with the idea that you are born gay?

science disagrees that all it takes is personal opinions to determine genetic makeup


Because, it would be nice if you would post some of that science that backs up your post.

you mean like how science has not yet proven the existence of gay genes?


Are you aware that there has been scientific studies performed that prove that animals have shown homosexual tendicies in nature?

are you aware of mothers eating their young?


So, what's this science you're talking about?

the one that has yet to prove the existence of a gay gene

[CuckingFunt]

that there are plenty of people that can't make up their minds.

And, again, bisexuality is not the same thing as confusion.

[Blake]

Back before the last election, when Prop 8 (the bill to legalize gay marriage out here) was the hot topic, I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read:

"Why shouldn't gay marriage be legalized?
They should be allowed to be as miserable as the rest of us!"

I'd say that's fairly relevant here and now as well.

What's funny is that really isn't the original point of this thread.

I think we all knew it would head this way though.

[CuckingFunt]

science disagrees that all it takes is personal opinions to determine genetic makeup

Which would be a perfectly valid argument if I'd ever made that assertion.

[Blake]

I think that everyone makes a conscious decision as to how they choose to express their sexuality. But I don't think that anyone, straight or gay, makes a conscious choice as to whether they're attracted to men and/or women.

Great. Your opinion.

My opinion is that there are plenty of people that can't make up their minds.

Yippee.

[peewee's lovechild]

that there are plenty of people that can't make up their minds.

So, shall we compare your impressive list of people who can't make up their minds, like your Anne Heche example, against the millions who have?

[CuckingFunt]

Great. Your opinion.

My opinion is that there are plenty of people that can't make up their minds.

Yippee.

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

[BacktoBasics]

Which would be a perfectly valid argument if I'd ever made that assertion.What is he basing his point on? Where has science in fact proven or disproven this.

I'd like to know because I've yet to read that article or study.

[Blake]

Can you show me where science has proved that being gay is a preference over genetic makeup?

I never said science has proven anything.

But feel free to show me where science has proven the existence of a gay gene and I'll run it to President Obama right away so we can put an end to this debate once and for all.

[Condemned 2 HelLA]

I never said science has proven anything.

But feel free to show me where science has proven the existence of a gay gene and I'll run it to President Obama right away so we can put an end to this debate once and for all.

Obama has Bracketology on his mind at the moment.
Leave him alone for now.
:lol

[CuckingFunt]

What is he basing his point on? Where has science in fact proven or disproven this.

I'd like to know because I've yet to read that article or study.

There actually isn't that much empirical data on either side of the fence. Theory all over the place, hypotheses all over the place, but not much in terms of actual, conclusive studies.

[Blake]

And, again, science disagrees with what? I'm not making any great, sweeping generalizations about the entire bisexual population.

You brought up bisexuality to introduce a point that has yet to become clear, and I merely responded that I am bisexual. I get bisexuality. It's not a mystery to me.

Great!!!!

All I'm saying is that it proves nothing to anyone but you.


but attraction is not -- either you like pussy, or you don't, to put it bluntly.

is this more of your opinion or is this scientific proof?

I know the answer, but I want yours.

[CuckingFunt]

I never said science has proven anything.

But feel free to show me where science has proven the existence of a gay gene and I'll run it to President Obama right away so we can put an end to this debate once and for all.

Genetics and personal choice aren't the only two options, I hate to break it to you.

[Blake]

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

well, since we were told girls had cooties throughout elementary school, I'm guessing somewhere around 6th grade.

[Blake]

Genetics and personal choice aren't the only two options, I hate to break it to you.

you can break it off into whatever subsections you want, but in the end, yes they are.

[desflood]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

There have been studies in which brain scans show significant physical differences between hetero male/female brains and their gay counterparts.

[peewee's lovechild]

you mean like how science has not yet proven the existence of gay genes?


Has science proven the existence of hetero genes?



are you aware of mothers eating their young?



Yea, we're talking about mothers eating their young. But, anyway, we could probably link that to post-partum depression. So, there's a correlation there.



the one that has yet to prove the existence of a gay gene


Is there one that has proven to find a hetero gene?

[Blake]

How old were you when you decided to be straight?

How old were you when you decided you liked broccoli?

[Blake]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

There have been studies in which brain scans show significant physical differences between hetero male/female brains and their gay counterparts.

there are countless studies on the subject.

[BacktoBasics]

science needs more than personal opinion to determine genetic makeup

This doesn't ring a bell?


Great for you.

Unfortunately, science disagrees.






Here is a half assed quick search with a few comments on the matter.


Before I go farther, let me say that from a scientific point of view, any genetic variation that occurs in 1% or more of the members of a certain population is considered to be "normal." No matter whose survey and numbers you use, the incidence of gays and lesbians is clearly greater than 1%. Amongst certain families, the incidence of family members who are gay is very high. In over 60% of identical twins, if one is gay, the partner twin will also be gay. Among non-identical twins, about 22% are gay, which is higher than pairs of non-twin brothers at 11%. These results suggest that genetics are strongly involved in the establishment of homosexual identities. In the general population, the incidence is probably less than 10%, but the exact figure is not known. It is important to emphasize that any survey examining sexual orientation will most certainly be an underestimate of the actual percentages, primarily because many individuals who are not "out" will likely deny being gay, even though they are homosexual.


A genetic study reported in the journal Science in 1993 (Science 261:321-327 [1993]) is probably the most definitive study so far which clearly links homosexuality with genetics. This particular study examines only male homosexuality, but female homosexuality has similar genetic associations. First, these researchers studied gay brothers and showed that the incidence of gay males were often concentrated in certain families. In addition, the presence of gay males in a family tree usually followed maternal (mother and sister) pedigrees. That is, the genetic trait for male homosexuality appeared to be inherited by a son from his mother. This genetic trait, however, could be carried by other females in the family so that these women could also produce gay sons. It appears, however, that women carrying this gay genetic trait are heterosexual. Moreover, a gay child in these families would be more likely to have gay cousins if these cousins were the sons of his mother's sisters (his maternal aunts) rather than his mother's brothers (his maternal uncles). In fact, virtually none of his mother's brothers ever had gay sons. Likewise, few gay males would likely exist on his father's side of the family. Since these gay genes seem to be carried by females, it is likely that some of his maternal uncles (his mother's brothers) would also be gay since these uncles would have inherited the same gay genetic trait from their mother (your mother's mother or your maternal grandmother).


Several lines of evidence suggest a weak-moderate genetic component to sexual preference. A genetic basis is especially difficult to establish for human behavioral differences, both because we don’t do experimental crosses with people and because there is so much parental influence on behavior that confounds environmental effects with genetic ones. One of the most useful comparisons therefore makes use of identical twins versus non-identical (fraternal) twins. Identical twins are genetically the same, so any difference between a twin pair must be non-genetic (environmental). Fraternal twins are genetically related but not identical. Both kinds of twins share the womb and are the same age, so they experience many environmental similarities that might be thought to affect behavior. As a consequence, if identical twins more often have the same type of behavior than fraternal twins, we suspect a partial genetic basis to the behavior. If the behavior was 100% due to genes, two identical twins should always have the same behavior. And if there is no genetic basis to the behavior, then identical twins should no more often be similar to each other than fraternal twins.

The twin data show that identical twins have about 50% concordance for sexual preference in some studies, 30% in others. Fraternal twins have nearly half this concordance. So these data suggest that there is a modest effect of genetics. Other data, using a combination of molecular techniques and pedigrees, suggest that an X-linked gene or region influences sexual preference, but that finding has not been confirmed in all careful studies.


One widely cited study in the 1990s found that if one member of a pair of identical twins was gay, the other had a 52 percent chance of being gay. In contrast, the result for pairs of non-twin brothers, was 9 percent. A 2000 study of Australian identical twins found a much lower chance.

Dr. Alan Sanders of Evanston Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute, the lead researcher of the new study, said he suspects there isn't one so-called "gay gene."

It is more likely there are several genes that interact with nongenetic factors, including psychological and social influences, to determine sexual orientation, said Sanders, a psychiatrist.

Still, he said, "If there's one gene that makes a sizable contribution, we have a pretty good chance" of finding it.

Many gays fear that if gay genes are identified, it could result in discrimination, prenatal testing and even abortions to eliminate homosexuals, said Joel Ginsberg of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.


A big federal study is underway to identify the specific DNA changes that contribute to being a homosexual. Note that scientists are not investigating whether or not being gay is genetic. The evidence is already pretty strong at this point that there is a genetic component to being gay. What they are looking for are the specific changes.

For example, one study showed that if one identical twin was gay, then the other was 50% of the time. If the two brothers were fraternal twins, then the odds dropped down to 22%. And if one brother was adopted, the odds were only 11%.

Another more comprehensive study gave similar results with both twins in an identical twin pair being gay around 32% of the time as compared to 13% of the time for fraternal twins. Lots of other studies have been done that show the same trend even if they don't have the exact same numbers.

These results strongly suggest genes are involved because identical twins share the exact same DNA. If both twins in an identical twin pair have some trait in common more often than do fraternal twins, then odds are that genetics plays a role.

These twin studies show that being gay is at least partly genetic. So the new study is really just looking to explain explain the older results.

[CuckingFunt]

well, since we were told girls had cooties throughout elementary school, I'm guessing somewhere around 6th grade.

Recognizing an existing orientation is not the same thing as consciously choosing an orientation.

[BacktoBasics]

there are countless studies on the subject.yes I cited just a small few out of the thousands using a page called "google".

[BacktoBasics]

There actually isn't that much empirical data on either side of the fence. Theory all over the place, hypotheses all over the place, but not much in terms of actual, conclusive studies.Seems to be more of a basis than you think. Quite a few reputable studies suggest its genetic and most legitimate sources cited that it was already widely accepted throughout the scientific community.

The fact of the matter is that Blake is doing what Blake always does and thats pass off his opinion as some kind of scientifically researched fact or lack thereof. He has no basis for his statements and provides no material to support it.

[CuckingFunt]

you can break it off into whatever subsections you want, but in the end, yes they are.

No, they're not. It's entirely possible that there are several factors that influence ones sexuality at a young age so that one is predisposed to a certain sexual orientation in a way that removes the element of conscious choice, but is not necessarily linked to a specific gene or elements of biology.


How old were you when you decided you liked broccoli?

I was probably about five when I recognized that I liked broccoli.

[Blake]

Has science proven the existence of hetero genes?

If science can prove the existence of hetero gene, then science could then pretty much prove the existence of a gay gene.

You really are an idiot.


Yea, we're talking about mothers eating their young. But, anyway, we could probably link that to post-partum depression. So, there's a correlation there.

"......[rat] Mothers tend to kill deformed or wounded infants, which may allow her to allocate resources to the healthy pups who are more likely to survive. Mothers may also kill entire litters when they are stressed, perhaps because the mother perceives the environment as too hostile for pup survival, or she perceives herself as unable to rear the litter successfully, so she recuperates some her energetic investment by consuming the young. Malnourished mothers, and mothers who have an abnormal birth experience, may also become infanticidal."

http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm#MaternalInfanticide

do you need any more weird behaviors in nature or are you through getting owned?



Is there one that has proven to find a hetero gene?

If science can prove the existence of hetero gene, then science could then pretty much prove the existence of a gay gene.

You really are an idiot.

[Richard Cranium]

Although I disagree I have to give props to Blake for holding his own.

[Blake]

yes I cited just a small few out of the thousands using a page called "google".

well then what is the government waiting for?

Do lawmakers not have access to that page called "google"?

[Blake]

Although I disagree I have to give props to Blake for holding his own.

usually not a good sign if you get props from a chalupa or mouse troll

[BacktoBasics]

Although I disagree I have to give props to Blake for holding his own.He provided nothing to support his argument. Not one shred of data.

He just ran his mouth and then when challenged to provide a basis for his stance he offered nothing.

Again, he's just being running circles with zero supportive evidence.

[Blake]

No, they're not. It's entirely possible that there are several factors that influence ones sexuality at a young age so that one is predisposed to a certain sexual orientation in a way that removes the element of conscious choice, but is not necessarily linked to a specific gene or elements of biology.

specific examples of what "options" you are talking about then


I was probably about five when I recognized that I liked broccoli.

I gagged on broccoli growing up. My wife started force feeding it to me and now I can't have a salad without it.

I was about 30 when I started loving broccoli.

[Richard Cranium]

usually not a good sign if you get props from a chalupa or mouse troll

I'm not either one of those. :lmao Not every screen name needs to be a troll. :rolleyes

[peewee's lovechild]

You really are an idiot.

Idiot?

Owned??

You're the stupid ass making all sorts of idiotic statements.

Science can't prove there's a gay gene . . . well, science can't prove that there is a hetero gene. So, where does that leave us?

Idiot.

Bottom line, people have sexual preferences. Some people are gay, others are not.

Telling the people that are gay that they can't marry another person that is gay because they already have a choice to marry someone who isn't gay is the stupidest, most ludicrous, most idiotic thing to say.

Owned?

Pendejo, you are the laughing stock of this thread.

You are just like those UTSA retards who don't understand how idiotic they are, even when everyone else is spelling it out to them.

[BacktoBasics]

well then what is the government waiting for?

Do lawmakers not have access to that page called "google"?Since when has the government been all about being fair and partial. The large majority of the people who could make a difference are too scared to stick their necks out and support something that might come back to bite them. IE god warrior backlash.

The government rarely passes on significant rights to people already paying full taxes.

Black rights (and I'm not completely comparing the two) weren't just about black rights it paved the way to tax millions of additional workers and expand the scope of the government.

[Blake]

He provided nothing to support his argument. Not one shred of data.

He just ran his mouth and then when challenged to provide a basis for his stance he offered nothing.

Again, he's just being running circles with zero supportive evidence.

you obviously didn't use google for both sides.

what did you give, three articles?

gimme a minute or two to copy and paste.

[Richard Cranium]

He provided nothing to support his argument. Not one shred of data.

He just ran his mouth and then when challenged to provide a basis for his stance he offered nothing.

Again, he's just being running circles with zero supportive evidence.

Now you sound like Miamiheat. :rolleyes You are all just spinning your wheels over this.

[JoeChalupa]

I know I can be dickhead sometimes but damn.

[BacktoBasics]

you obviously didn't use google for both sides.

what did you give, three articles?

gimme a minute or two to copy and paste.At the very least you could provide some kind of basis for your statements. Instead of just running your mouth.

Surly you understand the value in supporting your argument with outside sources.

[peewee's lovechild]

Although I disagree I have to give props to Blake for holding his own.

The UTSA retards have been "holding their own" for quite some time.

[Blake]

Since when has the government been all about being fair and partial. The large majority of the people who could make a difference are too scared to stick their necks out and support something that might come back to bite them. IE god warrior backlash.

The government rarely passes on significant rights to people already paying full taxes.

Black rights (and I'm not completely comparing the two) weren't just about black rights it paved the way to tax millions of additional workers and expand the scope of the government.

That's ridiculous.

If it can be proven in a court of law that homosexuality is encoded in human genes, then there is nothing for a lawmaker to be scared of.

[Richard Cranium]

The UTSA retards have been "holding their own" for quite some time.

Pfft...WTF cares about UTSA? :rolleyes

[CuckingFunt]

I gagged on broccoli growing up. My wife started force feeding it to me and now I can't have a salad without it.

I was about 30 when I started loving broccoli.

So, then, if she had instead started force feeding you cock, you'd have been RuPaul by 30?

[Blake]

At the very least you could provide some kind of basis for your statements. Instead of just running your mouth.

Surly you understand the value in supporting your argument with outside sources.

I said "gimme a minute"

hell, you just now finally did some copy and pasting on your own, jeenyus.

[peewee's lovechild]

Pfft...WTF cares about UTSA? :rolleyes

Exactly.

[Blake]

So, then, if she had instead started force feeding you cock, you'd have been RuPaul by 30?

not me, but if you need examples of people that go back and forth, it's really not hard to find them.

[Richard Cranium]

Exactly.

:lol Well at least UTSA does exist.

[BacktoBasics]

That's ridiculous.

If it can be proven in a court of law that homosexuality is encoded in human genes, then there is nothing for a lawmaker to be scared of.Do you really think that Christians or Catholics or whatever you call them give a flying fuck about whether being gay is genetic or not?

Very few people are willing to risk their prestige and income over a questionable stance, scientifically supported or not.

Sincerely,

Evolution, Black holes, dinosaurs, alien life, transition fossils......................

[CuckingFunt]

not me, but if you need examples of people that go back and forth, it's really not hard to find them.

Nobody goes back and forth. It doesn't happen.

To use your Anne Heche example, she would have to have already had the capacity to love and be attracted to women in order to hook up with Ellen Degeneres. Does she act on it every day? Is she attracted to every woman walking down the street? Probably not. But that willingness/ability to act on it, even once, was already a part of her.

[JoeChalupa]

Just for the record I believe one is born that way. I grew up with a cousin who I knew was gay from almost day one. His mom was shocked when she found out and I was like, "how could you not know?"

[BacktoBasics]

Just for the record I believe one is born that way. I grew up with a cousin who I knew was gay from almost day one. His mom was shocked when she found out and I was like, "how could you not know?"So its genetic in your eyes but as a bible thumper you don't support them?

or if you do support them and believe that its genetic then why hasn't the government stepped in and provided all kinds of equal rights?

Listen in closely Blake

[jman3000]

just let homosexuals marry with the same sex... big fucking deal... it doesn't affect me in the least. government should have no say so in this matter whatsoever.

that whole "sanctity of marriage" crap is bullshit... more than half of straights (not sure of the divorce rates... but I'm sure they're either 50% or close) don't abide by it in the first place.

[Blake]

Do you really think that Christians or Catholics or whatever you call them give a flying fuck about whether being gay is genetic or not?

Very few people are willing to risk their prestige and income over a questionable stance, scientifically supported or not.

Sincerely,

Evolution, Black holes, dinosaurs, alien life, transition fossils......................

Evolution, black holes, dinosaurs and even transition fossils are already taught in science classes with no legal prejudice.

I'm not sure what alien life has to do with anything except show how much more of an idiot you are.

[jman3000]

Nobody goes back and forth. It doesn't happen.

To use your Anne Heche example, she would have to have already had the capacity to love and be attracted to women in order to hook up with Ellen Degeneres. Does she act on it every day? Is she attracted to every woman walking down the street? Probably not. But that willingness/ability to act on it, even once, was already a part of her.

If you're an attention whore and doing it just because you'll get attention.. then yes... it actually is possible to go back and forth... ive seen it thrice recently.

[mrsmaalox]

I know I can be dickhead sometimes but damn.

Personal choice? Or were you born that way? ;)

[Blake]

Nobody goes back and forth. It doesn't happen.

source? or is this your opinion again?


To use your Anne Heche example, she would have to have already had the capacity to love and be attracted to women in order to hook up with Ellen Degeneres. Does she act on it every day? Is she attracted to every woman walking down the street? Probably not. But that willingness/ability to act on it, even once, was already a part of her.

and if she is no longer aroused by women you are going to tell her "oh yes you are"

[BacktoBasics]

Evolution, black holes, dinosaurs and even transition fossils are already taught in science classes with no legal prejudice.

I'm not sure what alien life has to do with anything except show how much more of an idiot you are.
They were examples of things our government officials discriminate against from time to time. Some in fact think that dinosaurs didn't exist or possibly walked the earth as little as a couple of thousand years ago.

My point was that there is prejudice with lots of things scientifically backed.

[DarkReign]

just let homosexuals marry with the same sex... big fucking deal... it doesn't affect me in the least. government should have no say so in this matter whatsoever.

that whole "sanctity of marriage" crap is bullshit... more than half of straights (not sure of the divorce rates... but I'm sure they're either 50% or close) don't abide by it in the first place.

bam

Sanctity of marriage is a charade.

[BacktoBasics]

Still waiting on Blake's scientific sources.

[JoeChalupa]

So its genetic in your eyes but as a bible thumper you don't support them?

or if you do support them and believe that its genetic then why hasn't the government stepped in and provided all kinds of equal rights?

Listen in closely Blake

When did I ever say I don't support them? I'm all for equal rights for gays. I support gay marriage as well. Don't assume you know everything. I don't run the government. Did you hear that?

[Blake]

So its genetic in your eyes but as a bible thumper you don't support them?

or if you do support them and believe that its genetic then why hasn't the government stepped in and provided all kinds of equal rights?

Listen in closely Blake

This is from the World Health Organization.

Read closely, idiot(s):


Genetics and Sexual Orientation

There has been interest among researchers in determining a biological basis for complex behavioural traits, including sexual orientation. One area of study has been how developmental processes may affect psychosexual orientation in adolescence and adulthood. For example, testosterone exerts an influence on the development of the central nervous system. It is thought that this brain imprinting may in turn affect psychosexual orientation. Another area of study has been the search for a ‘gay gene’. However, studies in this area have been inconclusive and debate continues. (60) The search for a genetic basis for sexual orientation is controversial for many reasons, one being that it is unclear whether a genetic basis will serve to enhance or diminish the stigmatization of homosexuality that occurs in some societies. (61)

http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index2.html

[JoeChalupa]

Personal choice? Or were you born that way? ;)

I was born that way. :lol

[CuckingFunt]

If you're an attention whore and doing it just because you'll get attention.. then yes... it actually is possible to go back and forth... ive seen it thrice recently.

Yeah, and porn stars sometimes go down on other girls just to fulfill contractual obligations, but I'm specifically talking about attraction. Considering sexual behaviors that aren't grounded in attraction/desire makes this subject almost too complicated to discuss.

I, personally, don't think it's possible to fake or force attraction.

[JoeChalupa]

If you're an attention whore and doing it just because you'll get attention.. then yes... it actually is possible to go back and forth... ive seen it thrice recently.

When the "Girls Gone Wild" camera is on.

[jman3000]

Yeah, and porn stars sometimes go down on other girls just to fulfill contractual obligations, but I'm specifically talking about attraction. Considering sexual behaviors that aren't grounded in attraction/desire makes this subject almost too complicated to discuss.

I, personally, don't think it's possible to fake or force attraction.

i didnt read the thread... i agree with you.

although beer does do all kinds of shit.

[Blake]

They were examples of things our government officials discriminate against from time to time. Some in fact think that dinosaurs didn't exist or possibly walked the earth as little as a couple of thousand years ago.

My point was that there is prejudice with lots of things scientifically backed.

right.

Just like how Galileo got tried for heresy for saying the sun and not the earth was the center of our system.

As soon as science confirmed it, government had no choice but to go along.

My point is that prejudice is quickly squashed if it can proven in a court of law as detrimental.

[Dr. Gonzo]

I, personally, don't think it's possible to fake or force attraction.

Peewee's wife has been doing that for almost a decade.

[JoeChalupa]

Peewee's wife has been doing that for almost a decade.

:lmao

[peewee's lovechild]

Peewee's wife has been doing that for almost a decade.

There was a break, so you can count those years.

It's actually less than 5.

[peewee's lovechild]

Maybe she's gay.

[manufor3]

gays can marry all they want, i don't care about that part. But if they marry multiple persons and start getting tax breaks or some shit i shall be pissed.

+1

[Blake]

I know I can be dickhead sometimes but damn.

[/rimshot]

[CuckingFunt]

and if she is no longer aroused by women you are going to tell her "oh yes you are"

Of course not. As I've already mentioned several times in this thread, I think that people are fully capable of making a conscious choice when it comes to sexual activity or expression. If Anne Heche walked up to me and said she was no longer interested in or aroused by women, I would take her word for it and honor her decision. However, I would see it as a choice of expression, not of attraction.

[BacktoBasics]

When did I ever say I don't support them? I'm all for equal rights for gays. I support gay marriage as well. Don't assume you know everything. I don't run the government. Did you hear that?Calm down. I didn't say that you don't support them. I wanted your statement to compare a bible thumper like yourself to scientific study to how/why/when a government would chose to support something.

[JoeChalupa]

Calm down. I didn't say that you don't support them. I wanted your statement to compare a bible thumper like yourself to scientific study to how/why/when a government would chose to support something.

I see. But I only thump my own bible. I never push my beliefs on anyone. Carry on.

[BacktoBasics]

right.

Just like how Galileo got tried for heresy for saying the sun and not the earth was the center of our system.

As soon as science confirmed it, government had no choice but to go along.

My point is that prejudice is quickly squashed if it can proven in a court of law as detrimental.Squashed as quickly as black segregation? That didn't take long to get straightened out.

As a matter of fact things were turned around so quickly that all the blacks got together and promptly dismissed any reparation talks due to the swift and just actions of the government. You know when we scientifically proved that black people are just like the white people.

Come to think of it asbestos laws didn't take long either. Surly that didn't drag on for financial reasons over the course of a few decades.

Do you really have this much faith that your government acts independently of themselves and always holds up the law where it is just and righteous?

Is that ambivalent article all you got or can you at least find a scientific study supporting that statement. You simply cited an opinion not a case study or scientific data that would suggest otherwise. What I'm asking you to do is try and substantially back up your opinion with case study.

[BacktoBasics]

I see. But I only thump my own bible. I never push my beliefs on anyone. Carry on.If that is in fact true and I'm not questioning it then surly you see where most thumpers have a tendency to push their belief on others.....more importantly the government and their process of decision making.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Let me just say that I introduced "science" into this discussion asking for someone to prove that being gay was something you were born into exactly the way black people are born black.

Now, from what I've read, science is (at best) inconclusive concerning any kind of genetic predisposition to homosexuality. But for those asking when the straight guy decides he's straight...you have to take into consideration the physical makeup of men and women, and the natural function of each's reproductive organs. Men and women are physically designed to reproduce (sexually) with a member of the opposite sex. So, for a man to be attracted to a women, no decision is necessary. That decision was made when nature gave him a male reprodutive system.

That's the reason the search is on for a "gay gene" and not a "straight gene." For a person to not follow the natural function of his or her sexual organ requires something to be different. And it is not going to be a physical difference. Physically, I am exactly like any other guy (gay or straight). Something is different in meta-physically , and science most likely will not be able to identify that difference.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

But feel free to show me where science has proven the existence of a gay gene


Show me where science proves one specific gene, and one gene only, corresponds to one specific complex human behavior. Any one gene for any one behavior.

I forgot how good you were at science.

[CuckingFunt]

Let me just say that I introduced "science" into this discussion asking for someone to prove that being gay was something you were born into exactly the way black people are born black.

Now, from what I've read, science is (at best) inconclusive concerning any kind of genetic predisposition to homosexuality. But for those asking when the straight guy decides he's straight...you have to take into consideration the physical makeup of men and women, and the natural function of each's reproductive organs. Men and women are physically designed to reproduce (sexually) with a member of the opposite sex. So, for a man to be attracted to a women, no decision is necessary. That decision was made when nature gave him a male reprodutive system.

That's the reason the search is on for a "gay gene" and not a "straight gene." For a person to not follow the natural function of his or her sexual organ requires something to be different. And it is not going to be a physical difference. Physically, I am exactly like any other guy (gay or straight). Something is different in meta-physically , and science most likely will not be able to identify that difference.

It's not that simple when we're one of the few species that has sex for pleasure.

[I Love Me Some Me]

It's not that simple when we're one of the few species that has sex for pleasure.

Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.

[JoeChalupa]

If that is in fact true and I'm not questioning it then surly you see where most thumpers have a tendency to push their belief on others.....more importantly the government and their process of decision making.

Yes, I do That is why so many have such a hard time understanding how I can be Pro-life, yet be pro-choice. Although I believe life begins at conception I will not push my beliefs on a woman's right to choose. But that is a different subject,

[BacktoBasics]

Show me where science proves one specific gene, and one gene only, corresponds to one specific complex human behavior. Any one gene for any one behavior.

I forgot how good you were at science.He can't. As best as I'm understanding it most of the scientific studies show that portions of genes associated with certain types of behavior create the so called "gay gene". At best its view as a compilation of portions that show up at higher percentages based on heredity.

The studies done on twins and family trees lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the argument. Only guys like Blake refuse to acknowledge that this could be a composite of many variables all rooted in genetic makeup. They require a single item to be pointed to. This is why you see zero scientists again ZERO scientist taking a full stance that its not genetic. At best you'll get a "maybe". I wonder how many of those "maybe" scientists are bible thumpers.

[Blake]

Of course not. As I've already mentioned several times in this thread, I think that people are fully capable of making a conscious choice when it comes to sexual activity or expression. If Anne Heche walked up to me and said she was no longer interested in or aroused by women, I would take her word for it and honor her decision. However, I would see it as a choice of expression, not of attraction.

There are so many tangents this could easily go off on.

I'd rather not.

[CuckingFunt]

Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.

Which should indicate how foolish it is to argue that we are naturally or normally motivated by functionality.

[JoeChalupa]

It's not that simple when we're one of the few species that has sex for pleasure.

Now how do we know that?

[Dr. Gonzo]

Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.

If this is entirely true, why then did nature make sex pleasurable for us?

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

He can't. As best as I'm understanding it most of the scientific studies show that portions of genes associated with certain types of behavior create the so called "gay gene". At best its view as a compilation of portions that show up at higher percentages based on heredity.

The studies done on twins and family trees lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the argument. Only guys like Blake refuse to acknowledge that this could be a composite of many variables all rooted in genetic makeup. They require a single item to be pointed to. This is why you see zero scientists again ZERO scientist taking a full stance that its not genetic. At best you'll get a "maybe". I wonder how many of those "maybe" scientists are bible thumpers.

It's not his fault, no one can.

[Blake]

Show me where science proves one specific gene, and one gene only, corresponds to one specific complex human behavior. Any one gene for any one behavior.

I forgot how good you were at science.

I haven't forgotten how you suck at reading comprehension.

Try reading post #157 again and see if you can understand it.

[Jesus]

If this is entirely true, why then did nature make sex pleasurable for us?

It wasn't nature.

[CuckingFunt]

There are so many tangents this could easily go off on.

I'd rather not.

Got nothing, huh?

[Dr. Gonzo]

It wasn't nature.

So nature didn't give us massive amounts of nerve endings in our genitals that create pleasurable feelings?

[CuckingFunt]

Now how do we know that?

I don't have the data at my fingertips, but studies show that we and just a couple other groups of primates have sex for pleasure. All other species have sex ONLY with the intention of procreation and/or dominance.

This is not to suggest that there aren't other species for whom the sex act is pleasurable (I don't know those figures, frankly, and would assume it to be a hard thing to measure), but behavioral studies have shown very few animal groups for whom sexual pleasure is the goal and not merely a coincidence.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Which should indicate how foolish it is to argue that we are naturally or normally motivated by functionality.

No...using your body parts for their intended purpose requires no motivation. No one has to motivate you to see with your eyes, or hear with your ears, or walk on your feet. But, something has to motivate you to walk on your hands. There is an outside source that tells you to use your hands for something different that what their natural function is.

The motivation is not required to function as intended, it is required to function in a different capacity than what is intended.

[BacktoBasics]

So what can we argue about next?

Don't worry Blake you'll still be allowed to rant and rave without supporting factual evidence to back anything up.

[Blake]

He can't. As best as I'm understanding it most of the scientific studies show that portions of genes associated with certain types of behavior create the so called "gay gene". At best its view as a compilation of portions that show up at higher percentages based on heredity.

The studies done on twins and family trees lends a tremendous amount of credibility to the argument. Only guys like Blake refuse to acknowledge that this could be a composite of many variables all rooted in genetic makeup. They require a single item to be pointed to. This is why you see zero scientists again ZERO scientist taking a full stance that its not genetic. At best you'll get a "maybe". I wonder how many of those "maybe" scientists are bible thumpers.

No, I've pretty clearly stated that I can't prove a hetero gene.

You are an illiterate idiot.

[I Love Me Some Me]

If this is entirely true, why then did nature make sex pleasurable for us?

If it didn't feel good, would you do it?

[Mrs.Roper]

It's not that simple when we're one of the few species that has sex for pleasure.

My experience says otherwise.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't have the data at my fingertips, but studies show that we and just a couple other groups of primates have sex for pleasure. All other species have sex ONLY with the intention of procreation and/or dominance.

This is not to suggest that there aren't other species for whom the sex act is pleasurable (I don't know those figures, frankly, and would assume it to be a hard thing to measure), but behavioral studies have shown very few animal groups for whom sexual pleasure is the goal and not merely a coincidence.

I guess behavioral scientists believe that. IMO, no way we can know that.

[CuckingFunt]

No...using your body parts for their intended purpose requires no motivation. No one has to motivate you to see with your eyes, or hear with your ears, or walk on your feet. But, something has to motivate you to walk on your hands. There is an outside source that tells you to use your hands for something different that what their natural function is.

The motivation is not required to function as intended, it is required to function in a different capacity than what is intended.

Again, it's just not that simple when all of us, as humans, use our sexual organs for something other than their "intended" reproductive functions. Straight/gay/bi/whatever, we all fuck for the fun of it.

To use your analogy, we all have made the decision to walk on our hands. The question then becomes why do some of us walk on open palms while others walk on closed fists?

[BacktoBasics]

No, I've pretty clearly stated that I can't prove a hetero gene.

You are an illiterate idiot.

:lmao. Ironic considering that isn't what I asked you to provide. I wasn't the poster who suggested researching a hetero gene.

I asked you to provide research or case studies that conclude or support the belief or fact that homosexuality isn't genetically based.

[Blake]

So what can we argue about next?

Don't worry Blake you'll still be allowed to rant and rave without supporting factual evidence to back anything up.

I'm not the one that resorts to shouting curse words and posting in giant blue fonts and I have provided a link to the WHO website which reiiterates what I've been saying: "there is no proof of any gay gene"

but here's a monozygotic twin study for you:


The role of genetics in establishing sexual orientation (the degree of sexual attraction to men or women) and its link to homosexuality have been hotly debated in the relevant scientific literature and the media. Studies of identical twins have revealed that sexual orientation, like the overwhelming majority of human traits and characteristics, is not exclusively governed by genetics, but is more likely the result of a gene-environment interaction. For example, if homosexuality was exclusively controlled by genes then either both members of a set of identical twins would be homosexual or neither would be. Multiple studies have shown that if one twin is homosexual his or her sibling is also homosexual less than 40% of the time.

Michael Bailey et al. systematically evaluated gender identity and sexual orientation of twins and reported their findings in "Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sexual Orientation and Its Correlates in an Australian Twin Sample [Personality Processes and Individual Differences]" (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 78, no. 3, March 2000). Bailey et al. observed that both male and female homosexuality appears to run in families and that studies of unseparated twins suggest that this is primarily due to genetic rather than familial environmental influences. They also observe that previous research suffers from limitations such as recruiting subjects via publications aimed at homosexuals or by word of mouth—strategies likely to bias the samples and results.

To overcome these limitations, Bailey and his colleagues assessed twins from the Australian Twin Registry rather than sample those recruited especially for the purpose of their research. Using proband-wise concordance (an estimate of the probability that a twin is nonheterosexual given that his or her co-twin is nonheterosexual), they found lower rates of twin concordance for nonheterosexual orientation than in previous studies. The most striking difference was between the researchers' proband-wise concordance rates and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation. Previously, the lowest concordances for single-sex identical twins were 47% for women and 48% for men. This study documents concordances of just 20% for women and 24% for men, significantly lower than the rates reported for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation. Bailey et al. concluded that sexual orientation is familial; however, their study does not provide statistically significant support for the importance of genetic factors for this trait. They caution that this does not mean that their results entirely exclude heritability. In fact, they consider their findings consistent with moderate heritability for male and female sexual orientation, even though their male monozygotic concordance suggests that any major gene for homosexuality has either low penetrance or low frequency.

http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2233/Genetics-Environment-TWIN-STUDIES.html

There is no proof of a gay gene.

There is no proof of a straight gene.

There is no proof there isn't a gay gene or straight gene.

There is proof that B2B, peewee and disgruntled lion fan #76762832942823 are illiterate idiots.

[Blake]

:lmao. Ironic considering that isn't what I asked you to provide. I wasn't the poster who suggested researching a hetero gene.

I asked you to provide research or case studies that conclude or support the belief or fact that homosexuality isn't genetically based.

I'm surprised you also haven't asked me to prove that God "doesn't" exist.

You are truly an idiot.

[Dr. Gonzo]

If it didn't feel good, would you do it?

For me, there would be no reason to do it. I don't want kids so reproduction means nothing to me.

[samikeyp]

just let homosexuals marry with the same sex... big fucking deal... it doesn't affect me in the least. government should have no say so in this matter whatsoever.

that whole "sanctity of marriage" crap is bullshit... more than half of straights (not sure of the divorce rates... but I'm sure they're either 50% or close) don't abide by it in the first place.

We have a winner. :tu

[samikeyp]

Right...but pleasure is not the natural function of sex. Reproduction is.

But its a great by-product! :tu

[JoeChalupa]

but its a great by-product! :tu

+1

[I Love Me Some Me]

Again, it's just not that simple when all of us, as humans, use our sexual organs for something other than their "intended" reproductive functions. Straight/gay/bi/whatever, we all fuck for the fun of it.

To use your analogy, we all have made the decision to walk on our hands. The question then becomes why do some of us walk on open palms while others walk on closed fists?

"The fun of it" is the motivation...the question that remains is, why is the homosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?

[mavs>spurs2]

Do you idiots always come in here to argue for fun? I should pull a Mono and get someone's panties in a bunch just to derail this bullshit thread

[Blake]

Got nothing, huh?

:lol

You've provided nothing but your own opinions and experiences. I'm not gonna argue your opinions.

[samikeyp]

"The fun of it" is the motivation...the question that remains is, why is the homosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?

EDIT:

I answered my own question.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm not the one that resorts to shouting curse words and posting in giant blue fonts and I have provided a link to the WHO website which reiiterates what I've been saying: "there is no proof of any gay gene"

but here's a monozygotic twin study for you:



There is no proof of a gay gene.

There is no proof of a straight gene.

There is no proof there isn't a gay gene or straight gene.

There is proof that B2B, peewee and disgruntled lion fan #76762832942823 are illiterate idiots.Did you actually read the article you posted? Did you understand it? Do you understand that they ran a test and didn't like the results so they polled data from a different pool and ran with the one with a lower %. Then lended credibility to the possibility of it being hereditary at the end of the article.

[samikeyp]

"The fun of it" is the motivation...the question that remains is, why is the homosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?

Different question..


Does it have to be?

[baseline bum]

Do you idiots always come in here to argue for fun? I should pull a Mono and get someone's panties in a bunch just to derail this bullshit thread

What do you have against discussion of social issues in the Club? You make this exact post in every thread here with any interesting argument in it.

[CuckingFunt]

"The fun of it" is the motivation...the question that remains is, why is the homosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?

Why is the heterosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?


:lol

You've provided nothing but your own opinions and experiences. I'm not gonna argue your opinions.

Considering that I've never presented my argument as based on anything but my own opinion, experiences, and theory, I'm still unsure as to why you ever tried.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

There is no proof of a gay gene.

There is no proof of a straight gene.

There is no proof there isn't a gay gene or straight gene.

There is proof that B2B, peewee and disgruntled lion fan #76762832942823 are illiterate idiots.

I make two posts and get lumped in with those two post whores?

I'm flattered.

[BacktoBasics]

I'm just about done. This guy can't even direct his name calling to the appropriate poster.



No, I've pretty clearly stated that I can't prove a hetero gene.

You are an illiterate idiot.

:lmao. Ironic considering that isn't what I asked you to provide. I wasn't the poster who suggested researching a hetero gene.

I asked you to provide research or case studies that conclude or support the belief or fact that homosexuality isn't genetically based.


The fact of the matter is that regardless of genetics these are people just like the blacks, mexicans, jews, midgets and whoever else reside in this Country. To treat anyone like less of a human being for any reason other than criminal is disgusting. These people want union rights that are equal to that of marriage. I don't think they give two shits what you call it (even if it does open additional doors for prejudices). They're people just like we are and deserve to be respected for who they are and their opinions. I'm sick of people like Blake excusing bigotry on a basis of technical unproven bullshit just so they can sleep at night.

You're an inhumane bigot if you feel these people should be treated differently. Its an embarrassment to the advancement of our race and society that people like that exist in modern day America.

[BacktoBasics]

I make two posts and get lumped in with those two post whores?

I'm flattered.I am not a post whore dammit.

[JoeChalupa]

Post whores? :lmao

[CuckingFunt]

I make two posts and get lumped in with those two post whores?

I'm flattered.

And I don't?

I'm confused.

[BacktoBasics]

He's got more posts than I do

[BacktoBasics]

This is an outrage. My father wasn't a post whore my mother wasn't a post whore. Its not genetic ok. Its preference to post a lot. Its certainly not written in my DNA unless someone can prove otherwise.

[samikeyp]

And I don't?

I'm confused.

No, you're bi.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

And I don't?

I'm confused.

Science disagrees with you.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Different question..


Does it have to be?

Maybe. I mean, when any other body part isn't performing it's natural function, we diagnose it and treat it (if possible).

Of course, this is not to suggest that homosexuality is a medical condition which requires treatment...

[CuckingFunt]

No, you're bi.


Science disagrees with you.

I'll be damned...

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

He's got more posts than I do

Only one of us changed names.

[samikeyp]

Maybe. I mean, when any other body part isn't performing it's natural function, we diagnose it and treat it (if possible).

Of course, this is not to suggest that homosexuality is a medical condition which requires treatment...

Does that also go for heterosexual couples who do the same thing?

[I Love Me Some Me]

Why is the heterosexual's motivation not in line with the naturally intended result?

The hetero is in line with the naturally intended result...procreation. If sex were just for fun, maybe a guy would shoot out maple syrup, or Jack Daniels, or silly string when he cums. Instead, he ejaculates sperm who's only funtion is to find a female egg to impregnate.

[E20]

So what's everybody talking about?

[purist]

The lifting of oppression is not the same thing as protection.

True. but oppression occurs regardless of constitutional protection. what you're really talking about is changing people's attitudes; not the law per se. right?

[samikeyp]

The hetero is in line with the naturally intended result...procreation. If sex were just for fun, maybe a guy would shoot out maple syrup, or Jack Daniels, or silly string when he cums. Instead, he ejaculates sperm who's only funtion is to find a female egg to impregnate.


Sex isn't just for fun but with humans it also isn't just for reproduction

[peewee's lovechild]

We shouldn't allow hetero couples to have anal sex because it destroys the sanctimony of reproduction.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Does that also go for heterosexual couples who do the same thing?

The female is the only gender that can reciprocate a man"s reproductive needs, and vice-versa. To be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex is in line with your natural sexual function. Whether or not you procreate is irrelevant to the fact that you are motivated to have sex with someone you could naturally procreate with.

[peewee's lovechild]

America should just embrace its Puritan past.

[CuckingFunt]

True. but oppression occurs regardless of constitutional protection. what you're really talking about is changing people's attitudes; not the law per se. right?

Prejudice and oppression are different things -- one operates at an individual level, the other operates at an institutional level. Personal prejudice would still continue regardless any changes in law (in the immediate future, at least), but systemic oppression would be considerably more difficult.

My long term vision of a perfect world would include changing people's attitudes and erasing all individual prejudices, but systemic and institutional oppression has to be the first to fall in order for that to have even the slightest chance of happening. In the here and now, I think the laws should change in order to represent all people equally, and I really give fuck all about whether or not everyone is happy and comfortable with it. Attitudes of hate need not be coddled.

[samikeyp]

The female is the only gender that can reciprocate a man"s reproductive needs, and vice-versa. To be sexually attracted to someone of the opposite sex is in line with your natural sexual function. Whether or not you procreate is irrelevant to the fact that you are motivated to have sex with someone you could naturally procreate with.

According to who?

[JoeChalupa]

If I think another man is attractive, not that I'm attracted to him, does that make me gay?

[Blake]

Considering that I've never presented my argument as based on anything but my own opinion, experiences, and theory, I'm still unsure as to why you ever tried.

I never really tried to argue against your opinions.

I really answered your questions like 'what age did I find out i was straight' out of politeness because I didn't want you to feel that I was not answering the posts like you stated that I was/wasn't doing.

Don't worry. I won't answer your questions any more.

[I Love Me Some Me]

According to who?

I'm not sure what you're disputing....can you be more specific?

[Blake]

I make two posts and get lumped in with those two post whores?

I'm flattered.

actually all it took was one post from you.

[CuckingFunt]

I never really tried to argue against your opinions.

I really answered your questions like 'what age did I find out i was straight' out of politeness because I didn't want you to feel that I was not answering the posts like you stated that I was/wasn't doing.

Don't worry. I won't answer your questions any more.

After all these pages, not only do I not know what point you're trying to make, I am increasingly unconvinced that you know what point you're trying to make.

[mrsmaalox]

If I think another man is attractive, not that I'm attracted to him, does that make me gay?

Not unless you have anal sex with him!

[peewee's lovechild]

Not unless you have anal sex with him!

But, if he sucks his cock, he's still not gay?

[mrsmaalox]

But, if he sucks his cock, he's still not gay?

Wait a sec, who's sucking who?

[samikeyp]

I'm not sure what you're disputing....can you be more specific?

You are implying that you are only "in line with your natural sexual function" if you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex. So if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex..you are saying they are not natural by someone's standards and I was curious as to whom. Someone who is powerful enough to determine what is natural to an entire species would be nice to know.

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

actually all it took was one post from you.

To be fair, Blake, maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, if you were trying to make one at all.

I'm still flattered, though.

[David Bowie]

Some people feel that you get one free pass on being gay. (i.e. Trying it once.)

If you do it again, then your gay.

(This doesn't seem to apply to women. you can eat all the pussy you want andstill be straight. )

[JoeChalupa]

Not unless you have anal sex with him!

I'm good then.

[mrsmaalox]

Some people feel that you get one free pass on being gay. (i.e. Trying it once.)

If you do it again, then your gay.

(This doesn't seem to apply to women. you can eat all the pussy you want andstill be straight. )

I never heard of that! I thought it was only if you were being paid a bunch of money.

[Blake]

I'm just about done. This guy can't even direct his name calling to the appropriate poster.

You, BacktoBasics, are an idiot.

I know you are illiterate so maybe someone can show you just how directly I'm aiming this post.


The fact of the matter is that regardless of genetics these are people just like the blacks, mexicans, jews, midgets and whoever else reside in this Country.

It's a fact? Prove it.


To treat anyone like less of a human being for any reason other than criminal is disgusting. These people want union rights that are equal to that of marriage.

All Americans share the same rights.

Nobody is being treated like less of a human being.


I don't think they give two shits what you call it (even if it does open additional doors for prejudices). They're people just like we are and deserve to be respected for who they are and their opinions. I'm sick of people like Blake excusing bigotry on a basis of technical unproven bullshit just so they can sleep at night.

I have no problem with gay marriage. I have already told you twice now.

Not only can you not read, but you also have memoryhave thei problems.

You are an idiot.


You're an inhumane bigot if you feel these people should be treated differently. Its an embarrassment to the advancement of our race and society that people like that exist in modern day America.

I have no problem with them adding laws to extend extra rights and privileges to the ones we have in place already.

This started when you compared slaves back in the 1800s that got whipped, beaten, captured, sold, bought, and treated the same as cattle to homosexuals of today that have and run their own TV networks, shows, movies and can legally walk down any street in America and hold hands with each other.

Maybe someone can help you read this as I am directing this to you, BacktoBasics:

You are an idiot.

[JoeChalupa]

I know some guys who refuse to acknowledge that they think another man is attractive. You don't have to be gay to know that Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington are studs.

[Blake]

To be fair, Blake, maybe I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, if you were trying to make one at all.

I'm still flattered, though.

No problem.

I still think you are an idiot for calling out the Surgeon General of the United States, but that's a different matter.

[David Bowie]

I never heard of that! I thought it was only if you were being paid a bunch of money.

It was something my ex boyfriend told me once :lol