PDA

View Full Version : The Gay Marriage Controversy



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Japanimaniac
23-12-04, 08:25
I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle...?

forkagentsmith
23-12-04, 18:33
first off...some religions werent started by man
Christianity and Judaism are based on facts given to us by the one true God
i believe(take it for what it is worth) that this country was founded on Christian morals and that that is the only way it will stand
allowing gay marriages to be legal would start corruption of the government
i am not treading on anyones pursuit of happiness
i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion

BamaFan2989
23-12-04, 20:04
wow, if you don't know already I know forkagentsmith personally, because he lives right down the road from me, and we play poker and study Japanese together.

I used to think the same way as forkagentsmith, but I am starting to think/realize/believe that we shouldn't get in the way of their rights. They should have the same rights. I also now understand that just because I believe something that it doesn't make it "right" to EVERYONE. I have found that out the hard way too.

And in your post you show some selfishness with the statement:
"i am just saying that although there are gay ppl out there like kuro_tsubasa who try to keep me from expressing my beliefs i will stand firm in my God-made religion"
Well it can't always be about OUR beliefs and OUR religion. We don't have to make everyone believe what we believe, but as being a Christian it is about telling them about the Gospel, Jesus Christ, and what we believe, and let God take over from there...

Anyway there is much more but I am hungry lol.... so til the next post...

Ja

Japanimaniac
23-12-04, 22:55
BamaFan, that has to be the smartest and most enlightened thing I have read about religion on this forum since I joined. Very, very well put.

BamaFan2989
23-12-04, 23:26
Thanks. I take things too sarcastic... but I will believe you hehe. ^_^

Japanimaniac
23-12-04, 23:29
Na, wasn't being sarcastic. :cool: It's the only post I've read from a religious person's point of view that actually said "our way may not be the right way for everyone else" (at least, as far as I can remember).

BamaFan2989
23-12-04, 23:33
Yeah, that was a fast reply... Thanks. Yeah I was just about to edit my post. I don't know exactly yet what I believe. I started a thread about that somewhere, but maybe there should be ..... a comprimise, or is it only Christianity, or is the religion thing just a fantasy... I dunno yet, but I hope to find out.

In that case, what do you think "Truth" is? I have been trying to find that out for awhile now.... I am not sure if Christianity is right, if it's all fake, or there is no God... you know all the possibilities..... :clueless:


until then.... :ramen: lol

Japanimaniac
23-12-04, 23:40
Lol, yeah, instant e-mail notification let's me reply quicker. ^.^"

And though it's not exactly the thread to get into this subject, I'll let you know that I believe in the possibility of anything. I don't put my faith into any one thing, but I don't discredit it as false. There could be one, all mighty God, or Zeus and Hera could be sitting on a mountain laughing at all of humanity. I'm pretty confident in science, though, so there'd have to be overwhelming evidence to push me towards an actual "religion". I guess you just never know. :-)

BamaFan2989
23-12-04, 23:42
I can see what you mean....

bossel
29-01-05, 03:48
Genes influencing male homosexuality identified (http://www.plebius.org/article.php?article=734)
Quote:
"They identified sequences of DNA related to sexual orientation in three separate chromosomes

"There is no one 'gay' gene," said Mustanski. "Sexual orientation is a complex trait, so it's not surprising that we found several DNA regions involved in its expression."

"Our best guess is that multiple genes, potentially interacting with environmental influences, explain differences in sexual orientation."

The researchers analyzed the genomes of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
[...]
"Our study helps to establish that genes play an important role in determining whether a man is gay or heterosexual," said Mustanski. "The next steps will be to see if these findings can be confirmed and to identify the particular genes within these newly discovered chromosomal sequences that are linked to sexual orientation.""

Still a long way to go, but at least science shows progress.

seasurfer
08-02-05, 05:12
First of all, I think it is ok for gays to get married, why not? As long as they love each other, and those involved parties consent...then let them do what they want. Others should not have any right to object. They are the one living their lives, not thoes who object.

Just wondering, a gay couple adopts a child, whose surname should that child follow?

How does that child call their parents? Call them both daddy? or...

Sorry, I don't know any gay couple with a child...However, I am quite interested in knowing their lifestyle. Can anyone kindly tell me?

Moon Child
08-02-05, 20:38
George Bush, is a very arrogant president. I do not like him, I think that he is trying to push his religious beliefs on the entire nation. Which is wrong, and against his own. Not everyone believes Gay & lesbian's are evil demons trying to corrupt the world. I for one am one of them who don't believe the same as him.

Shooter452
09-02-05, 06:56
I hear about the "seperation of church and state" all the time. That is despite the fact IIRC that there is no such doctrine written into the US Constitution or in any codified law of the Federal government. Look it up, boys and girls.

It is a doctrine based soley on opinions of many jurists in the United States of America, but not in any precendent of which I am aware. It may be on the books in different states (I dunno know, but I doubt it because cases are always being argued--more correctly threatened to be argued--in Federal courts) but not with the Feds.

Nevertheless, assuming its existance, why are we arguing at all? Marriage is a institution native to religions. Civil unions--as opposed to marriages--are available to homosexual and lesbian couples already in many states. Why is the issue of marriage important? It is not a civil liberties issue in the states that permit civil unions, and that is a fight that everyone could win in each and every state north of Virginia and west of Nevada. So why does the fight over marriage go on?

I dunno, but I have my own carefully guarded opinions. Don't ask...won't tell ya! Put it to music, the answer is the same.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Dura lex, sed lex

alexriversan
01-04-05, 16:03
marriage allows these ***** to adopt/grow up children/to have those around at home legally.

marriage is defined as to establish a bond to secure the act of growing up children. cheers.

christianity votes for itself. not that the bishops love underage persons. NO. HOW THEY DO IT. THIS MAKES ME ANGRY.

nothing more to say. abolish the discussion.

annull these marriages and fine the registrars. ban the bishops and close down their houses.

i know these words are hatred, but it is a shame for america.

imagine HULK flirts with little boys and buys them sweets. are you getting sick? and hulk is not that narrowminded.

for those who need explanations: this would set up a bad example, and put america in the situation of getting a military attack target.

spongebob is O.K. as it is, as long as there are no insane crosses and churches in ghey colors.

take it easy. soap tastes good, but in a marriage cake? one meaing of this is we have enough soap opera.

Dutch Baka
01-04-05, 22:34
Hello everybody

im sorry first off all, im not going to read 260 posts that would take me to long, so i just read the first 30..

my opinion about gay marriage, is that it should be legal... because, when a person love somebody male or female, the have should be able to life together, sometimes marriage is a fiancial thing, somtimes its just because of love and ceremony. who is a president, or other people to tell people what they should do or not do with there love one....

this is i think a verry serieus thread ( its in the serieus discussions duh) because for gay people its a really big problem, in many places in the world!!!

im happy to life in the netherlands, where we have lots of freedom with things like this, and opinions ( how ever saying your opinion is getting difficult here, after the murder of PIM FORTUIN, and movie maker THEO VAN GOGH)

In 2 months my mom is going to marry her girlfriend. before this my mom had some other lesbian relations, and im Happy for her a lott.... and also for her wife, whom i can get along really good!!!!

im happy that they can marry each other, also for fianancial reasons, and for example, if my mom dies her girlfriend have NO RIGHTS ON ANYTHING.....

so as i say in this, i dont have people around me that are against gay marriage, or anything like this.... but the last month a new problem came up and that is, that my japanese girlfriend her parents have a hard time to respect that... and her mom maby even want the rest of the familie not to know anything...

it hurts me a lott, and even my girlfriend ....

i hope that in the future gay people will get more rights, and more respect, because there normal people like everybody else!!! so as i said before ... WHO THE **** IS A PRESIDENT TO DESIDE ABOUT PEOPLE THERE LIFE, IF ITS THIS PERSONAL!!!

greetings BAka dutch

isayhello
01-04-05, 22:57
good rant Dutch Baka! I agree! Gay marriage should definitely become legal. Not letting people who love eachother marry one another when they want to is SICK and stupid! I don't get the people who are against gay marriage... *angry* (um, I have not bothered to read all the posts so I don't know what the oppinions are)

Sweden is a pretty liberated (is that right?) country, and we have these gay pride festivals and all - but Gay marriage is still forbidden.. I can't believe that. There are still too many people out there who are against homosexuality... *wants to fight with the ones who are against gay marriage*

You have a lesbian mother? Cool.. I've never met anyone with a lesbian mother. :cool:

Dutch Baka
01-04-05, 23:07
Sweden is a pretty liberated (is that right?) country, and we have these gay pride festivals and all - but Gay marriage is still forbidden..

that is crazy yeah.. so they say : SURE YOU GAY PEOPLE CaN HAVE PARTIES AND THAT KIND OF THINGS, NO PROBLEM...

ow you want to get married,,,mmm no im gay people are not allowed to get married in here....

i think btw,, just my personal opinion gay people are pretty nice, and funny, at least the once i know!!!

thanks for your sharring opinion isayhello

EnzoHonda
02-04-05, 10:29
I'm just jumping in here to give my opinion, then I'll flee to the shadows:

The only problem with gay marriage is... that people have a problem with gay marriage. This is only an issue because people have made it an issue. Nothing bad happens in places where gay marriage is legalized. The Netherlands didn't implode and Canada hasn't fallen into the sea. Everyone just take a moment to imagine what would actually happen if all gay couples on the planet were allowed to marry. What happens? Nothing. Just a whole bunch of happy gay people.

alexriversan
02-04-05, 11:34
it might be the fate of christianity.

remarkable a system of belief (one superhero died for a community of people)
introduced by the ROMANS.

for the purpose of establish heterosexual bonds, for the purpose of childbirth.

the romans HAD orgies, baths, wine, sexual freedom. and fate.

not to say i am not a christ, because i do not like wine/painful death glorification.

means the discussion is not affecting me and i should not contribute.
well and i am not living in america.

Dutch Baka
02-04-05, 12:24
Everyone just take a moment to imagine what would actually happen if all gay couples on the planet were allowed to marry. What happens? Nothing. Just a whole bunch of happy gay people.

:bravo: :bravo: :bravo: :bravo:

alexriversan
02-04-05, 12:55
imagine a world of people which are not narrowminded.
no need to be ghey anymore.

----------------

or to increase taxes for all (no more tax reductions for families)
or to decrease taxes for all (tax reductions for families no more required)

----------------

probably you can read the biography of this politican:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonaldWilsonReaganOnline/
and get an answer yourself. he was the predecessor of bush/clinton.

alexriversan
04-04-05, 11:20
well i have edited my reply and reduced the NEGATIVE speak.
to show some piety now that the pope has deceased.
a message to the church of christus: underage choir OR this marriage.

not both things.
it lacks seriousity, remember the church is also responsible for birth and burial.

four couples whatever composition, they do not really need marriage. it is just to have a little financial advantage, and to adopt children legally.

Dutch Baka
17-04-05, 02:41
I think to Adopt children LEGAL is a Verry important thing !!! and the Financial advantage ( as you call it advantage) is important...

my mom is a lesbien, and have a g/f who lives her... that g/f here live is in this house... if my mom dies ... that g/f DOESNT HAVE ANYHING,, she wont be able to live in this house,, ( neither do i...) so i think its B-sh*t about LITTLE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE... and getting married is a big think!!!!!!!!!!!!

alexriversan
17-04-05, 18:03
in japan, it is expected a man enters permanent relationship with a woman. if this does not occur after the age of 35, people consider this as almost unlikely.

polite how they are, they offer assistance and ask friendly, but sometimes suggestive. at least a formal marriage is entered.
this is economic for all parties.

an unequal relationship can be considered as "hetero", by the word meaning.
of course, english brings gender into play, so you use it wrong.
another example how wrong speak generates "spook" and "abberation".

Silverbackman
18-04-05, 23:38
I am not anti-gay or anything, I in fact have gay friends. However the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion is a stupid question. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is no way around it. Saying a homosexual couple is marriage is like saying a construction worker is a fireman. A police officer is a police officer and a construction worker is a construction worker, there is no way around it. Mariage is a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is how it has always been. I don't however mind if gays have the same econmical rights straight couples do in a civil union as long as it is not called marriage, because it is not marriage.

Silverbackman
18-04-05, 23:44
George Bush, is a very arrogant president. I do not like him, I think that he is trying to push his religious beliefs on the entire nation. Which is wrong, and against his own. Not everyone believes Gay & lesbian's are evil demons trying to corrupt the world. I for one am one of them who don't believe the same as him.

Is he? All he did is say his mind on the issue and never enforced nothing. Is it not his right to freedom of speech? Especially considering he is our leader.

Where did Bush ever say that gays and lesbains are evil demons? Again you are doing something what many liberals, do putting people in boxes of disagree with you. I am against gay marriage, and I don't think gays are demons nor do I follow a religion.

Dutch Baka
19-04-05, 01:19
I am not anti-gay or anything, I in fact have gay friends. However the question of whether gays should be allowed to marry in my opinion is a stupid question. Marriage is between a man and a woman, period. There is no way around it. Saying a homosexual couple is marriage is like saying a construction worker is a fireman. A police officer is a police officer and a construction worker is a construction worker, there is no way around it. Mariage is a union between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That is how it has always been. I don't however mind if gays have the same econmical rights straight couples do in a civil union as long as it is not called marriage, because it is not marriage.


So if you gay friends say to you, were getting married, you wont accept that?

thats bit strange for me... maybe its the place if been born, and raised ( already before i knew my mom was gay) .

for me, this thing like marriage is man-wife, i think thats a bit old fashion... but yeah, everybody there opinion.

just being a child of a gay, makes it hard sometimes, when people cant accept such a thing as this.... :(

sorry i just think you are a bit Double... you accept your friends because there gay, but not there marriage? am i right? :?

Silverbackman
19-04-05, 02:14
So if you gay friends say to you, were getting married, you wont accept that?

thats bit strange for me... maybe its the place if been born, and raised ( already before i knew my mom was gay) .

for me, this thing like marriage is man-wife, i think thats a bit old fashion... but yeah, everybody there opinion.

just being a child of a gay, makes it hard sometimes, when people cant accept such a thing as this.... :(

sorry i just think you are a bit Double... you accept your friends because there gay, but not there marriage? am i right? :?

If the friends that I have that are gay get married, my freindship would not change whatsoever. All I would say is that I am against what he is doing but I would be cool with it, just so long as the my gay friend doesn't let it come between our friendship.

Again though, liberals seem to put everyone that is against gays getting marriage into a box. They say that being against gays getting married means you think gays are demons from hell that need to be killed. No I don't hate gays but I do love logic and truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just like a chair is a chair, a lion is a lion, a planet is a planet, ect. ect. The word marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. There is no way around it. You don't have to have to hate gays to support the word marriage is between a man and a woman.

bossel
19-04-05, 06:48
but I do love logic and truth. Marriage is between a man and a woman.
That's neither very logic, nor true. There are even places in the world where some girls traditionally got (get?) married to dogs. :p


The word marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman.
Ah, now, that's closer to the truth. You follow a certain definition of the word marriage, but that doesn't mean that others have to follow the same definition.

Sensuikan San
19-04-05, 06:54
If two guys or two gals want to get married....

...is it really going to ruin my day ?

I think not.

W

marcus314
29-04-05, 18:21
Is it REALLY that important to be "married?" Homosexual marriages do not bother me one bit, but here is my humble take on this issue.

How is your life going to be the different before or after marriage? Are you fighting for the right to simply go through the wedding ceremony? After the ceremony, it is not going to be very much different than if you are co-habitating with your partner.

With the divorce rates so high these days, I think that marriage is merely a piece of certificate rather than an insurance for you and your partner's relationship......

I think I am simply going against the concept of marriage....rather than homosexual marriage.......

I am open to any criticism.....

^_^

Kama
03-05-05, 10:26
Still, some people wish to be married. Homosexuals also. Why deny them what others can have?

misa.j
04-05-05, 04:43
I hardly see any relation between religion and gay people having the same rights as heterosexual people. Things get complicated when people bring up their beliefs which sometimes distort you from rational thinking.

This should not be an issue, everyone must have the equal rights.

Revenant
09-05-05, 19:25
This was an issue only meant to put Bush back in office as I see it, and it succeeded.

The religious people, most of them, like most of all people, don't think through things carefully enough.

The main objective of Christianity, is to win others over to salvation, so they too may have eternal life, and not go onto their second death (spoken of in Revelations, and as I read it, no eternal suffering).

It would work far better, if first a gay was won over to the faith, and then gave up part of his/her lifestyle for the faith out of desire.

But by imposing laws based on Christianity alone, those who feel forced to follow a law they don't agree with, will naturally feel angry, as it's just a normal human mechanism for people who feel forced to get angry. And as people do, they then attach negative emotions to Christianity, and so are driven away from the faith, as are so many others who are witness to this.

Two arguments against those Christians that would ban same sex marriage,

Freedom of religion would be under no threat, in either Canada or America, as the churches have the full right to refuse anyone a marriage ceremony.

Allowing same sex marriage isn't destroying the sanctity of marriage, as that was done long ago, according to Christian belief, when divorce became a common and accepted practice. Jesus said that anyone who divorces a woman causes her to commit adultery, and any who marry the divorced woman would also be guilty of adultery. That's just the beginning of the arguments.

Two arguments against common liberal attacks.

Disagreement with the gay lifestyle doesn't equal hate. I can disagree morally with an action my friend took, but not hold any negative feelings against him.

Suggesting abstinence as a viable option for a gay-convert isn't suggesting the impossible. How are the homosexual and the heterosexual different, besides being attracted to the same or opposite sex? Sexual urges are just that, desires, and even a most basic urge, is controllable. Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and a host of other people are testament to this. Also, that one should never beat oneself up for having a desire arise, but simply refocus, as that is the healthier way, then saying, "I am evil for having these desires". Common sense really.

I am a Christian, but would not vote against same sex marraige, nor would either condone, nor condemn same sex marriage, as there are strong arguments that the Levitical laws were cancelled in verses such as Colossians 2:14, and that the verses speaking against homosexuality in the new testament are actually mistranslations. I don't have any knowledge of greek, or latin, and it's not an issue that I must make a personal choice on. I will therefore let the gay-convert look at both sides of the arguments, within the Christian world, and come to his own conclusions. There are homosexuals on both sides of the argument with the Christian world.

alexriversan
15-05-05, 16:37
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_poll

this is from AP / YAHOO!, two hours ago

Dutch Baka
15-05-05, 19:19
as this thread is about the Gay Marriage, im happy to pronounce that This next Thursday my mom is going to have her Wedding with her, yes yes yes with her GIRLFRIEND!!!!!

its going to be a nice party!! ( should be .. im the dj... ( i go crazy... first time i do this...) , and im really happy for my mom, and her girlfriend!!!

LONG LIVE THE GAY MARRIAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT AND NEED IT!!!!!!!!!!

Sensuikan San
16-05-05, 00:28
Congratulations, Dutch Baka !

Would you please be so kind as to extend my sincerest best wishes to the Happy Couple?

This whole deal as to wether gay couples should be "allowed" to commit themselves to each other, or wether or not common law marriage is "right" or "wrong" simply disgusts me.

Everybody has their own life. Everybody has their own love. Most of us do not interfere or want a say, or want to control anothers life. I certainly want nobody to try to control my life !

Let's all get on living our own lives - dammit ! They're short enough, anyway !

Best Regards,

W

Dutch Baka
16-05-05, 00:33
thanks Sensuikan san!!! i will give my wishes to them!!!!

there will always be a group of people that will be picked on like this!!! were there any problems in the greek time about this???

Kara_Nari
16-05-05, 11:03
Yes dutch baka, congratulations :)
At least there are countries that acknowledge and accept gay couples out there. Then there are always going to be the rednecks that oppose... Im all for the 'so what let them do what they want' In some of the situations im sure that they have put up with a lot to get to where they are now, so they would deserve to marry, or join in civil union. I know it made lots of NZ gay couples happy when they brought in the Civil Union.

Kama
16-05-05, 12:52
Congratulations to your Mum, Dutch baka. :)

Dutch Baka
16-05-05, 16:02
thank you all :D after the wedding i will post some pictures her if you guys would like!

Kama
16-05-05, 21:12
yes, yes, please do so. :-)

btw, have you seen "a me madre..." (I don't remeber the whole title) a film by Almodovar?

Dutch Baka
16-05-05, 21:28
No, whats it about kama?

Kama
16-05-05, 23:41
the full title means "my mother likes women"

mother tells her adult daughters that she's in love with a girl. a girl is from Czech if I remember correctly, and the woman gave her art scholarship above all the other things. Daughters doesn't agree with this, and want to get rid of the girl. :P it's really weird and many things are mixed up together. great film. :-)

Dutch Baka
16-05-05, 23:49
ow thanks, yes i will have a look for it!!!

a nice movie is F U C K I N G amal ( movie title!!!!!) look at http://www.*******-amal.com/ ( ***** is F U C K I N G ( without space)

nice swedish movie about high school girl, !!

NOTE: THIS IS NOT A PORN MOVIE

Kala
17-05-05, 03:00
I don't know if anyone cares, but the name (in spanish) is "a mi madre le gustan las mujeres", it's not actually a film by almodovar, it's of two spanish women, but 'tell' (not sure that's the correct word-_-UU) in the almodovar's way....just comenting :bluush: :bluush:

Ma Cherie
17-05-05, 07:23
I'm late in this thread, of course. I hope I don't mean to offend anyone when I say this, but please just grant homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. For one, I am sick of hearing about this issue. And two, it's getting on my nerves the way some researchers are coming up with reports that if children are more likely to be sexually abused growing up in gay/lesbian parents than heterosexual ones. (That's only if those couples want to adopt children).

Kama
17-05-05, 11:27
I don't know if anyone cares, but the name (in spanish) is "a mi madre le gustan las mujeres", it's not actually a film by almodovar, it's of two spanish women, but 'tell' (not sure that's the correct word-_-UU) in the almodovar's way....just comenting :bluush: :bluush:


Thank you for correcting me. :-) I wonder why I did that mistake. :D It really is told in Almodovar's style, maybe that's way. Anyway, that's a great film, worth watching.

alexriversan
17-05-05, 13:10
"there is a fine line between love and hate" (IRON MAIDEN)

Dutch Baka
20-05-05, 12:46
HELLO :wave:

Sooo yesterday my mom and her girl (woman from now on) got Married :wave: :wave:

It was a really Beautifull day, they where being picked up by an old cadilac ( people stoped on the street to watch it what was really cool!!!! then we went to the city ward, there was a really beautifull ceremonie, ( i was the man of honor!!! :relief: ) then we had a party from 4 till 12... where i was the dj :relief: ( it was doing okay... so i can come to you next time KIrei!!!!! :wave: )

they got lots of presents, and it was just ABSOLUTLY amazing, how Happy the were, and how all the people react on everything....

most beautifull thing was that her ex-husband , my dad, was on the whole wedding all day!!!!!!

i will show you peeps some pictures as soon as i have them!!!!! :wave:

and again thanks for all the best lucks!!!!!

kirei_na_me
20-05-05, 15:28
Congratulations to dutch baka's mom and wife!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :romance:

May they have a long and happy life together!

Oh, and I'll be having a party July 1. Are you game? :p

Dutch Baka
20-05-05, 15:31
first of july... yeah , i can be the Online dj for you darling hihi!!!!

thank you for the congratulations !!!!!

Here are some pictures of the wedding

1. from right to the left: Driver , cousin Robert ( crazy micheal jackson fan) my brother, me, and the chid of a friend of my mom her wife... Cayen... SOOO KAWAII)
http://members.lycos.nl/tieso/design/wesdavedeur.jpg

2. my mom , Carolien (her wife) in the car with the 2 children... carolien is the woman left, and then my mom
http://members.lycos.nl/tieso/design/auto.jpg

3. in the city ward, just before the YES!!
http://members.lycos.nl/tieso/design/trouwzaal.jpg

4. at the party
http://members.lycos.nl/tieso/design/dansen.jpg

as i said it was a really great day, and i hope that in the future, it will be more easy for gay people to have Better rights, and will be less discriminated!!!

Kama
20-05-05, 22:09
Congratulations for your mum once again. :)

They really look happy. Let them have a happy life. :D

Maciamo
30-06-05, 07:36
Little update; Canada has just legalised gay marriage (BBC News : Canadian MPs back gay marriages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4632229.stm), and Spain is also planning to very soon (BBC News : Spain set to back gay marriages (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4636133.stm)). If Spain, one of Europe's most religious country does it, then others will probably follow (Scandinavia and France first I guess).

Dutch Baka
30-06-05, 07:58
i thought Spain Rejected it around 1-2 weeks ago..... :?

moffeltoff
13-03-06, 17:00
Congratulations to your mother dutch ^^

Now my opinion on gay marriage:
I personally dont really care if gay people get married or not so why not let them ,if it makes them happy. =)

Kama
14-03-06, 09:12
That's a good point of view, moffeltoff. :) I would like to see more people thinking like this.

What's your view on what lately happened in Berlin? (protest of German gays when Kaczynski went to Berlin) Do you think they should have protested about situation in Poland?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about here is news:

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/03/11/2

(Somebody please kill that fool ( -.-) )

moffeltoff
03-04-06, 01:16
Well I think everyone should be able to express himself so if they want to protest let them protest, and although Im not affected by the more or less disrciminating way he deals with gays I still think ,that it shouldnt a possibuility for someone ,who isnt a democrat at heart ,which in this case means tolerating different perspectives, to become prime minister of any country.

Matiasu
21-05-10, 22:23
I believe the government should approve any gay marriage, but it should be up to every priest whether he wishes to marry gay couples or not.

Aristander
25-07-10, 06:38
I believe that gay couples should have exactly the same rights as anyone else.
I think that they should have to suffer just as much as straight people! :grin:

LeBrok
25-07-10, 20:17
LOL
I don't care much for this. Anyway the definition of marriage and family is changing and blending with common law, and often indistinguishable for tax purposes or divorce settlements.
If they marry or not it doesn't have much barring on rest of the society, therefore none issue in my books.

dmdiannemorales
24-11-10, 04:40
In my own opinion, we should not judge other people decision and wants. If marriage with the sex makes them happy and fulfill their needs then let it be, though it's against the law.

Riccardo
23-03-11, 15:38
They should have the same rights! I don't only make an ethical statement, but they pay taxes, they are citizens as everyone else. So YES, they should have the same rights...And it is something that should be acquired in 2011.

sparkey
23-03-11, 17:30
They should have the same rights! I don't only make an ethical statement, but they pay taxes, they are citizens as everyone else. So YES, they should have the same rights...And it is something that should be acquired in 2011.

<Devil's Advocate>So, they should have the same rights as everyone else... to marry someone of the opposite sex, yes?</Devil's Advocate>

Canek
23-03-11, 18:14
I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

Riccardo
23-03-11, 18:34
<Devil's Advocate>So, they should have the same rights as everyone else... to marry someone of the opposite sex, yes?</Devil's Advocate>

Nope, just to marry someone they love.

LeBrok
24-03-11, 03:43
I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

Where there any gays in Aztec empire?

Antigone
24-03-11, 11:38
I really don't care, gays are a minority in any population and there is far too much attention and importance given to this topic, especially when there are more pressing issues that should be addressed first.

Canek
24-03-11, 13:17
Where there any gays in Aztec empire?

i wasn't life by then... so i don't know. but if they existed they surely didn't get married. :rolleyes2:

i have no problems with homosexuals living togheter, btw... their lifes is not my bussiness.

but being married as any other normal couple? no, i think that's wrong. it's anti-natura. it established a wrong precedent.

Riccardo
24-03-11, 14:10
So the question now is...When something is anti-natura and pro-natura?

I think the only criteria one should follow is that if they damage someone or not. And they don't. =)

Canek
24-03-11, 15:16
pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
anti-natura = the opposite

sparkey
24-03-11, 17:19
pro-natura = looking for a couple which you are capable of procreate
anti-natura = the opposite

Ergo, infertile couples are "anti-natura" and should be banned from marriage. Thanks for clearing that up.

Canek
24-03-11, 17:30
that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.

sparkey
24-03-11, 17:41
that's demagoguery sparkey. a children can only be made by a man and a woman, if one of them have some internal disease which makes him/her unable to procreate, well it's back luck, but their marriage is not anti-natura.

Not so much demagoguery as a logical deduction from your premise. You're going to need to redefine your premise to avoid that conclusion rather than just dismissing it. It could go something like:

pro-natura = a couple able to procreate or fitting a gender pattern that typically is able to procreate
anti-natura = opposite

It still seems like an arbitrary exception to me. Neither an infertile couple nor a gay couple can produce children by natural means. Why should society favor one over the other? All I can think of is that it comes from an instinctive reaction against the one that is perceived to be unnatural, whether it is or not...

Incidentally I would strip governments of the ability to authorize marriage licenses, allowing only civil unions. Civil unions could then support whatever arrangement among consenting adults that people can come up with. Nothing immoral there--just legal contracts. Marriages would then be the responsibility of the religious bodies.

Canek
24-03-11, 18:40
ok, i will clarify mi first statement.

pro-natura marriage = a man and a woman.
anti-natura marriage = two persons of the same sex.

civillib
24-03-11, 20:07
Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.

Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).

sparkey
24-03-11, 20:15
Marriage shouldn't even be recognized by the state in the first place (regardless of sex orientation). Separation of church and state should trump.

Civil unions should be what the state recognizes (regardless of sex orientation).

Exactly. :good_job:

Reinaert
10-04-11, 13:58
I don't agree.
The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions.
That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
But don't call it a marriage!

Aconform
10-04-11, 16:15
When it comes to the state then they should be able to get married like any other couple. So that they don’t have legal problems like if something happens to one the other should be able to inherit.

But I don’t think that there should be a law that forces religious institutions to marry gay couples. That would be stepping on others rights.

sparkey
11-04-11, 07:29
I don't agree.
The state shouldn't interfere with civil unions whatsoever!

That doesn't really make sense... the point of civil unions is for the state to recognize some sort of union. Basically, a legally-binding contract of some sort. So clearly we need the state to be there for civil unions. Although if you mean that it should be basically unrestricted as to who should be able to get a civil union, I agree.


Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Period.
I can imagine the state comes up with an alternative cheap contract for alternative unions.
That may include brothers, or sisters, or whatever.
But don't call it a marriage!

OK, so you can declare from your perspective that gay marriages are not real marriages because they do not fit your definition. And you can tell people who call gay marriages "marriages" that you think that. But it doesn't follow that there should be a law to prevent people (or churches) from calling such a thing a "marriage," does it?

Reinaert
23-04-11, 11:23
Well.. If you look at it in the cultural way, man and wife have some ceremony when they want to get married in every culture.
For the rest of the community to see, they are going to live together. In fact, that marriage even asks if anyone has an objection.
So, it's in a sense also an act of acceptance by the community.

Now what, if 2 people from the same sex wanted to get married.
They would be the laughing stock of the community.
In fact, it was done as a joke many times in European history.
Especially with carnival (mardi gras).

The problem arose, when the states in Europe took over the control over cultural habits.
In early European history the Church was accepted to marry people.
Later on, the state took over.
And now, we are facing the struggle between rational logic, and irrational feelings.

The state says, men and women are equal.
So, they were very fast to put military conscription for women into the refrigerator.
Because it's not very popular, and it would cost them lots of votes.
The other way around, gay marriages are a subject that is accepted for the simple reason it produces votes.
Populism is government that isn't based on principles, but what some groups of people want.

In The Netherlands we have gay marriages, and if you ask people about it, most of them have no objection because they don't give a damn about it. But at the same time there is a discussion how to think about community secretaries that refuge to marry a gay couple. From that moment on, tolerance against a civil servant that is against gay marriages has disappeared!

So, in the general opinion civil servants are deprived from the rights and tolerance that normal citizens claim for themselves.!

Really, a strange way of thinking!

And in fact, this kind of situations you get, if the state tries to make more and more rules and laws.
It is getting a bigger mess every day.
It's like in the Arthur story, where Arthur in the end becomes the victim of his own laws.
A tragedy.

Carlitos
23-04-11, 22:10
In my country that is Spain is accepted gay marriage, I accept the laws and I have no objection, except to be mad to marry.

Rastko Pocesta
28-04-11, 16:19
Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples! No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.

Riccardo
29-04-11, 14:46
Before reading the choices of the poll, I thought I would have to abstain sicne I am a vocal proponent of the abolition of marriage. However, this is my exact thought - I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples! No discrimination - no marriage for anyone. If you are religious and want to marry you are free to go to church and do it but it will never exist on paper and state has nothing to do with it.

I totally agree. Societies are still fighting about this issue in 2011 (in Italy we don't neither have a law against homophoby), because most times homophoby hides homosexuality; that's why many people are anxious to show their homophoby and to limit the rights of people with a different sexuality.

Franco
08-11-11, 23:35
In Spain homosexual marriages were legalised in 2005 if I recall well, but very few couples compared to total homosexual population (10% of total population according to some estimations), got married. This contradicts one of the arguments that one could hear back then in Spain in favor of gay marriages which was the big number of gays who were awaiting this law to marry. That simply didn't happen. I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time". In my opinion I don't mind gay marriages but I'm a bit more concerned aboug gay adoption. Every child should have a mother and a father, but I guess that if the only option is just one mother and no father , one father and no mother or a gay couple, then that's always better than being orphan. This is my sincere opinion, I hope homosexuals don't find it disrespectful.

PaschalisB
19-01-12, 12:50
I think that even homosexuals themselves are not much interested in following the typical heterosexual vital project, that is ,getting married, having children , raising them, buying a a house , two cars and some pets, etc. They are more like "have fun while you can and change your partner from time to time".

This is totally wrong and homophobic. It has nothing to do with being homosexual, I know lots of heterosexual men who do exactly the same as you say (have fun while you can and change your partner) and I also know homosexual couples who have been together for lots of years.

Taharqa
04-02-12, 02:20
Live and let live. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

LeBrok
04-02-12, 04:16
Though homosexuality turned to be genetic, it is a baffling question, why human homosexuality rate is much higher than any other mammals?
I think that the culprit is and was arranged marriage in combination with intolerant village communities. You wouldn't confess that you are gay in small conservative religious homophobic communities. Bulling and "accidental" death would come rather quickly. So you are trapped in a closet, parents arranged marriage, you have to agree, or otherwise you will not inherit anything. In rural scenario, not inheriting a field to plow, or herd to flock, it is pretty much a death sentence.
Now, all family is expecting kids and making constant nagging and pressure,... I wonder how gays did this trick?
Well, maybe it wasn't so difficult, the night and room is very dark, you touching a soft young body (it's dark so you can't tell boy or girl, whatever lol), in your mind you see a naked handsome guy, the one you saw last summer working with hay without a shirt, ....and vuala, new gay is made. No really it's not that difficult, you see, a straight young herder can have sex with sheep if horny enough, so what's difficult with my gay example, lol.

I'm pretty sure that in free society, where gays are not forced to marriages and having kids, ration gay to straight will fall in coming generations, to be on par with other mammals.

Carlos
04-02-12, 05:10
I do not think that homosexuality will disappear in future generations, on the contrary, I think it will increase. The seizure of power of women, the changing role of women in society towards an increasingly female character added to the abandonment of his pleasure in the only concern men to meet women will make more and more men seek freedom sex with men.

Riccardo
02-04-12, 17:15
Live and let live. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

I think it's just a way to exorcise a fear. Many people just don't accept the possibility to be "different" and not accepted. This doesn't mean that they are all latent, but they fear it.

Brett142
25-05-12, 21:45
Remember when the US and a lot of other countries didn't allow Black people to marry white people? You go ask a kid in British school these days and I bet you they wouldn't have even thought such laws existed. I think (and hope) that in the next couple of decades, especially in countries where gay people are equal in the law, kids will react the same when they learn two men or two women never used to be able to get married.

Also, at least in the UK, non-acceptance of gay people 95% of the time tends to be a generational problem. People who are now in their 20s are generally not homophobic. Once all the oldies start dying off, their out-dated values dying with them, I think we'll see much wider acceptance of gay people.

Barrister
09-05-13, 04:41
Live and let live. Why are some people so much against this? What people do in their bed rooms is their own business.

That's the issue, it's not confined only to the bedroom anymore. This gives rise to a whole new level of social and cultural issues.

toyomotor
09-05-13, 04:59
That's the issue, it's not confined only to the bedroom anymore. This gives rise to a whole new level of social and cultural issues.

I agree with the concept of so-called "Gay Marriage". Why should two people not be able to legally commit to each other? But Gay Marriage leads to a far more important area, that being the right of gay couples to adopt children. OK, so they can love their children as much as hetrosexual couples, but my view leans toward a child having parents, one of each gender, for the childs proper mental and sociological development.

LeBrok
09-05-13, 05:20
but my view leans toward a child having parents, one of each gender, for the childs proper mental and sociological development.
You are assuming that average heterosexual parents can do job raising kids better than average homosexual ones. Otherwise, do we have a proof?
Are you're concerned that homosexual parents can skew child sexuality? I'm sure they can't, it is hardwired in our genes. You can't say to the adolescent boy, "Look, here is a beautiful man, you have to like him, erect your penis now"? It just doesn't work this way. It is not a cultural phenomenon.

nordicwarrior
09-05-13, 06:07
1. Government has no business telling a gay couple whether or not they can get "married".
2. Government has no business telling a heterosexual couple whether or not they can get married.
3. Government should stay out of marriage, period. It's not their concern.

That being said, I feel it's better for the child to have both a mother and a father. Biology has designed it like this... there must be valid reasons or advantages for having such a time tested arrangement.

Is polygamy going to be acceptable now? Where is the line? Can a man or woman "marry" another species? There has been a very clever word shift surrounding the term marriage. Can a person now "marry" a lawn chair?

Altering word meaning, especially one as basic to society as marriage, does have far reaching repercussions.

LeBrok
09-05-13, 08:34
That being said, I feel it's better for the child to have both a mother and a father. Biology has designed it like this... there must be valid reasons or advantages for having such a time tested arrangement.

Biologically only man and women can have a child the natural way. The big question is if gays can raise adopted kids proper way, as good and valid members of society. I don't think there is science indicating otherwise.
Mostly people are against because it is not a traditional way. It is something new, and usually new scares people a lot.

ElHorsto
09-05-13, 12:03
What scientifically to prove, actually that's the question. Do we need proof that it is harmless for the kids before we allow gay parenting, or do we need proof that it is harmful before we forbid gay parenting?

nordicwarrior
09-05-13, 13:32
...Mostly people are against because it is not a traditional way. It is something new, and usually new scares people a lot.

This "gay" thing really isn't new. Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.

I have no problem with two adults doing whatever they want to each other (or three adults-- however they float their boat)... but when kids are brought into the picture, we are talking about a different situation.

Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth.

Luan
09-05-13, 13:39
I personally don't agree with it. To me, its between man and women.

hope
09-05-13, 15:09
=nordicwarbler;408005]This "gay" thing really isn't new.

This is true, there are proofs from different times in history that show not only that but also, same sex partnerships existed. For example Nero is said to have married two different men.



Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father.

To the best of my knowledge NW studies on children raised by same sex parents show they are no more prone to psychological problems than those raised by different sex parents.
In my opinion a child raised in a loving and secure environment will benefit from this, regardless of the sex of parents.

hope
09-05-13, 16:47
You are assuming that average heterosexual parents can do job raising kids better than average homosexual ones. Otherwise, do we have a proof?
Are you're concerned that homosexual parents can skew child sexuality? I'm sure they can't, it is hardwired in our genes. .

Good points, LeBrok. There are less studies on gay parents than lesbian parents, however on both, it seems children suffer no more or less than those raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers.
Also we should note, the majority of gay or lesbian people were raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers, which did not influence them to be heterosexual. Likewise, why should being raised by same sex parents result in a child being gay or lesbian?

LeBrok
09-05-13, 17:15
This "gay" thing really isn't new. Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.
Do we have ancient records telling us how they raised their kids? Well then, this is new and scary.



Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth. Again, how do you know that they fare better in comparison with two loving fathers or mothers scenario?

LeBrok
09-05-13, 17:28
Also we should note, the majority of gay or lesbian people were raised by heterosexual parents or caregivers, which did not influence them to be heterosexual. Likewise, why should being raised by same sex parents result in a child being gay or lesbian?
Sometimes when busy looking into the details we miss the obvious. Thanks for bringing it up.

What? Heterosexual parents are not perfect either?! (sarcasm)

Barrister
10-05-13, 04:03
This "gay" thing really isn't new. Other societies have experimented with these cultural mores throughout time-- the most famous example probably being the ancient Greeks.

I have no problem with two adults doing whatever they want to each other (or three adults-- however they float their boat)... but when kids are brought into the picture, we are talking about a different situation.

Children fare best when raised by a loving mother AND father. I don't care whether or not this sounds politically correct... it is simply the truth.

I agree, but did ancient gays actually live their entire lives gay? Or did they fool around with men, and then marry women to procreate??

The difference is, many gays today want to live their entire lives gay in marriage to another gay, and then artificially bring children into the mix.

'Gay' has become something much more than just sexual preference. It's become an entire cultural and social identity and a movement.

LeBrok
10-05-13, 04:28
'Gay' has become something much more than just sexual preference. It's become an entire cultural and social identity and a movement.
Well put, Barrister.

LeBrok
10-05-13, 04:35
I agree, but did ancient gays actually live their entire lives gay? Or did they fool around with men, and then marry women to procreate??

The difference is, many gays today want to live their entire lives gay in marriage to another gay, and then artificially bring children into the mix.


It might be a definition of free societies. Gays were always amongst us, coming out off closets only during times of personal liberty, personal safety.
There were no gays during middle or dark ages, or pretty much till 20th century. It is still hard to be openly gay in small European of American villages, ...village justice is always close by...around the corner.

Nobody1
11-05-13, 11:31
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1U7MLr5eSU

hope
11-05-13, 11:49
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1U7MLr5eSU


Nobody 1,I`m not at all sure what point you are trying to make here by posting this clip of a television series. Do you perhaps have concerns regarding "dogs"?

Nobody1
11-05-13, 12:10
Nobody 1,I`m not at all sure what point you are trying to make here by posting this clip of a television series. Do you perhaps have concerns regarding "dogs"?

its just a clip, dont take it too seriously.
and since its Tony Soprano, not a scientist or politician, me posting this clip was just a joke; obviously you didnt get it; too bad

On a serious note, since all western societies have established that all their citizens are equal no matter what gender or what race, now its time for the 3rd dimension: no matter what sexuality.
And since science has taken a clear stand that homosexuality is not a choice but given by birth, should be no problem to give them all the equal rights.

But that does raise the question why dog effers and incestus siblings are excluded.

hope
11-05-13, 13:05
me posting this clip was just a joke; obviously you didnt get it; too bad



No, you see I still don`t "get" it. Explain it to me..what exactly are we "laughing" at here?

Also what has this clip to do with this thread ?

Nobody1
11-05-13, 13:14
No, you see I still don`t "get" it. Explain it to me..what exactly are we "laughing" at here?

Also what has this clip to do with this thread ?

just take it the way it is,
you dont get it and i think its funny.

Barrister
13-05-13, 09:58
It might be a definition of free societies. Gays were always amongst us, coming out off closets only during times of personal liberty, personal safety.
There were no gays during middle or dark ages, or pretty much till 20th century. It is still hard to be openly gay in small European of American villages, ...village justice is always close by...around the corner.

I agree, for sure.

Boss
13-05-13, 12:23
I don't agree with people who believe "genetics" can justify homosexuality. Whether or not homosexuality (or heterosexuality or any other sexuality) is a choice is irrelevant. Perhaps pederasty or bestiality are not chosen either. That doesn't mean they're justified (i.e. surely we think that pederasty is immoral whether or not the pederasts themselves chose to be pederasts or they simply just can't help it). Nor is of course equal rights (for a similar reason).

To me the justification of gay marriage has to do with several different facts that together build a cumulative case for gay marriage, rights and so on. Homosexuals are not mentally unstable. They are capable of forming loving, long-term relationships. They are as capable of raising children together as heterosexual persons are. Their acts are consensual and generally speaking, they do not harm anyone.

So IMO, it is not because homosexuality is innate (dunno if it is and as I said I think that's irrelevant) that we should be in favour of gay marriage. It is because homosexuals are doing nothing wrong, they are not harming anyone and as such they deserve to enjoy the same benefits everyone else does.

nordicwarrior
13-05-13, 15:19
The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

That being said:

Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.

When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

LeBrok
13-05-13, 16:32
The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here. In case of polygamy technically you can have two women and man in same union. If man dies there are only two women left in it. I think the definition of marriage already encompasses it even in many old conservative societies. Nothing new to be afraid off.




For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.
Oh but we know. Tony told us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q1U7MLr5eSU

nordicwarrior
13-05-13, 16:53
I'm not talking about how ancient Greeks treated canines, I'm talking about how they viewed children.

sparkey
13-05-13, 17:33
The word marriage is being hijacked. Marriage is historically attached to the union of a man and a women. If you understand the power of word use-- you may see what's going on here.

I hate word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.


Government(s) have no business in adult romantic relationships.

I agree with this.


When children are involved, this rule does not apply. That is where this issue will get very tricky.

For those of you who think this is all brand new, look at how the Greeks treated their youth. You may then have an idea of what is next on this political agenda.

That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.

nordicwarrior
14-05-13, 03:58
I hate word redefinition in political philosophy (misuse of the terms "rights" and "justice" really get to me), but I don't think that is what is happening here. "Gay marriage" is simple a specification of "marriage," like "straight marriage" and "polygynous marriage." What we're looking at is instead the recodification of marriage, which has been traditionally codified (in the developed Western world's case) to be between one man and one woman.

I agree with this.



That's a highly inflammatory example. Ancient Greek culture allowed for certain sexual practices with young boys, but that's obviously not part of modern culture, including modern gay culture. If we want to have a discussion about the relative qualifications of average single men or women vs. average gay or lesbian couples, let's have that discussion, and we can get into the minutia of adoption policy. That's the only place I expect this to "get very tricky." But what you're suggesting seems to be that acceptance of gay marriage will lead to acceptance of legalized pedophilia, an idea you're presenting without evidence.

I agree that this is a highly inflammatory example Sparkey. Please allow me to clarify (and also site examples).

Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males. However, compared to women... both male groupings probably commit these crimes much more frequently than their female counterparts. The recent highly publicized trend of female teachers seducing their male students might eventually effect these numbers on a macro level, but I don't think we're any close to this point yet.

Secondly, our complex societies would not be able to function without laws and contracts. Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract. This is THE historical binding agent between a man and a woman in the West. Altering this building block of society will have huge consequences.

Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life.

I've noticed that whenever a man (or group of men) decide that these laws don't apply to them-- big problems seem to pop up from every corner. You asked me to site examples other than the Greeks-- the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly.

Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chambers.

So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?

The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.

hope
14-05-13, 14:20
Firstly, I don't think homosexual males are any more likely to molest children than heterosexual males.

The "abuse" or "molestation" of children is a seperate issue and is not driven as result of ones gender preference.




Ask most any social scientist what the most basic legal contract is-- odds are he or she will say the marriage contract.

I`m not so sure about that. In essence, all that is needed for a "contract" , is that both [ or all] parties are in agreement and it contain mutual "consent" and "agreement".
Party A may say, "I will give you four eggs if you give me a jug of milk".. therefore an offer is made. Party B may say, "Yes, okay" , thereby the offer is "accepted"...thus contract between the two is made. Now back in history this happened .."barter".. [and oral contract may still occur to-day] It happened before even the invention of marriage. I think this shows as a good example of both a "basic" and "historical" form of contract. And yes, oral contracts may be binding as long as they contain mutual "consent" and "consideration". The only thing here is mutual consent can sometimes be difficult to prove with an oral contract.


Thirdly, (and this is where it gets controversial-- I don't want to get banned so I will limit my statement to this comment)... the Western World has been constructed on Judeo-Christian values. We have looked to the Bible to determine what is acceptable behavior and what isn't.. The Bible has served as our collective set of directions to living life.

Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.


the most obvious is the Catholic priest situation. These priests started thinking they were above Biblical Law, or that these laws no longer applied to them and they abused their authority terribly.

I think these priests you speak of disregarded "legal" laws and "moral" laws also { as do many who commit offences,} so I`m not sure why you speak only of Biblical law here N.W.



Another example of someone who mistakenly believed the laws no longer applied to them... Michael Jackson. He became so rich and powerful he thought he could do anything, or anyone unfortunately. We all watched that train wreck-- a weird theme park, questionable sleep-overs, multiple pay-offs, plus pet monkeys and oxygen chamber.

Not sure which laws exactly you are speaking of here..Legal or Biblical?


So the crux of my point is that when we have members of society that start to veer off the roadmap provided to us by God... I don't see positive things happening. What happens if the whole of society decides to go off-road?

The nuclear family has served us well in raising our children and I think society works best with men and women together raising the next generation. Each compliments the other and frankly I don't see another system that will work better.

Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?

Do not think I am making little of your beliefs N.W. for that is not intended.

gyms
14-05-13, 14:37
Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!

nordicwarrior
14-05-13, 14:49
...Yes, but not every individual looks to the Bible or religion. Therefore there must be laws and directives to cover all individuals..this is one reason we have seperation of church and state.

Now N.W. we both know that those who govern you, are [ for the most part at least] people who like to be seen as God fearing, Church attending men or women, who are likewise products of the "Nuclear" family. And are you not always one of the first here, to say how bad a job they are doing..and how in general they conspire against the people for their own purposes? Have they, as you say gone off-road, even though they seem to display those characteristics you deem ultra important to humanity?...

Fair criticism Hope. And yes I'm all for the seperation of Church and State. Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly, I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

If the State insists on regulating adult sexual relationships (gay or straight)... I think the best option for same sex couples is a civil union. But again, the State should stay out of it.

Regarding the ultra-elites, in my opinion most of them are avowed humanists. I don't think they could obtain their power or position otherwise in today's framework.

hope
14-05-13, 15:37
Lest you think I'm a heartless hillbilly,

Believe me N.W. I think nothing of the sort:smile:


I think homosexual partners should have the financial and legal rights heterosexual couples have (property, visitation, tax benefits, etc.).

Agreed.

sparkey
14-05-13, 18:04
NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.



You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)
(1) is not because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.
(1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.
(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become easier to follow when more things are legalized?)
(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)


All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.

Boss
14-05-13, 18:18
Gay:OK. Gay marriage:OK. But:...gays leave them kids alone!

Are you referring to adoption or something else? (or maybe just wanted to pay tribute to Pink Floyd?)

Grubbe
14-05-13, 18:43
I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.

LeBrok
15-05-13, 03:56
I don't have anything against gay marriages per se. What I do worry about is that this certainly seems to have given more demand for children - and how can a gay or lesbian couple have children? Through surrogaty (I am not sure if that is the right term in English, but it means that a woman gives birth to a child that is genetically not hers) and (anonymous) insemination. Especially insemination I am against, as I think that every child has a right to know who both their parents are. In Norway this situation has gone so far in the last couple of years, that a child who has a mother and a"co-mother" no longer is allowed to have a father! I think this has nothing to do with gay rights anymore, but is pure madness. Needless to say, it has been quite a heated discussion about this.

Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.

Grubbe
15-05-13, 09:51
Good point. Everything would be so simple if there were only straight women and men, and all fertile, I must add. Plus human nature is eager to compartmentalize and an label everything, just to make sense of all, or develop adequate laws. However, life is not that orderly, life always give us curve balls, life gives us infertile couples to deal with, homosexual people, asexual people (we have these too, people who never feel sexual desire), etc. Now, somehow we have to figure it out to live in harmony and peace with all, in lieu with basic human right, the pursuit of human happiness.

Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that.

My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children.

Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?

nordicwarrior
15-05-13, 13:19
NW, let me try to understand your argument better, because you said you'd cite examples, but I'm having trouble pulling anything specific out of your screed.



You believe that explicitly legalized (i.e. state-supported) gay marriage will lead to an increase in sexual abuse of children. (Correct?)
(1) is not because homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children.
(1) is partly because more men will adopt children in general with gay marriage, and men are more likely than women to sexually abuse children.
(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will interfere with contract law. (I'm having trouble following this line of logic--why would contract law alterations lead to abuse of children? Just an "ignoring the law" rationale like (5) below? But doesn't the law become easier to follow when more things are legalized?)
(1) is partly because legalizing gay marriage will strike at the Judeo-Christian pillar that Western law is founded upon, and that pillar keeps people from running rampant. (You offer some examples, but isn't that looking at the effects of Judeo-Christian influence on law through rose colored glasses? I mean, the Bible has been used to justify atrocities, just as it has been used to justify reasonable laws. Why can't we strive for upholding Judeo-Christian-influenced laws where they work, and removing them where they hurt, like how gay marriage restrictions prevent equal treatment of homosexuals?)


All said, we're probably arguing semantics here, since I seem to have the same prescription to the issue as you: Simply drop marriage as a legal concept. Our only difference is that we disagree on whether or not gay marriage should be legalized as long as marriage is a legal concept. I say yea.

I realized after I read my own comment it might be difficult to follow. I'll address your questions numerically.

1. If we as a society distance ourselves from Judeo-Christian values-- I have no doubt that the baser elements of mankind will fill the void. It may take fifty years or 200 years, but if we erode our traditional structures and mores... the simple answer to your question is yes. Over the course of time the sexual abuse of children will increase-- but it may not even be viewed as wrong at that point in the future because we would have abandoned our "instructional guidebook".

2. Again, the increase or even acceptance of children used as sexual objects will come from the fact that we now seem to be moving away from Biblical teachings and traditional structures.

3. Not an easy question to answer. It is my opinion that women are better equiped to raise children than males. I don't want to sound sexist (probably unavoidable here), but I feel women on average are more patient, caring, and nurturing than men. This is dealing with typical male/female observation-- excluding outliers which of course we see on an almost weekly basis.

4. This is where everything comes into sharp focus. I believe marriage is a religious covenant more than anything else. Calling a union between two men or two women a marriage does not compute in my world view. I know this may seem harsh or selfish-- there isn't another way to say it though.

I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.

5. This is another difficult question Sparkey. My answer is that those with my mindset should strive to take the high road at every junction and help those less fortunate than ourselves. We are our brother's keeper. It doesn't matter if this brother (or sister) is gay, straight, black, white, yellow, red, or purple. We all have to try and love one another.

nordicwarrior
15-05-13, 14:13
So to recap Sparkey, this is a complicated situation and there are no easy answers. If you apply strict logic to my viewpoints, you will soon see that they are not fully logical. For me, this is where faith takes over.

Hopefully this last screed is more an example of informal writing than diatribe. :)

Grubbe
15-05-13, 14:51
I can imagine a future where certain groups demand a re-write of key segments of the Bible so that they feel no discrimmination. This may sound far-fetched or even laughable, but in the U.S. we now have a legal development called "hate crimes". I'm old fashioned though and view crime as crime. Hate crime to me smacks of thought control or at least thought patrol.


I wouldn't be surprised. In Norway (and Sweden, maybe in other countries as well) they are now rewriting children's books, and especially take away words such as "negro" and "gipsy", which are now considered very offensive to use, even though there were no offense meant when these books were written in the 1950'ies and 1960'ies. I am myself grown up with these words. And if they can't rewrite things, as with songs, they simply ban them. But what is political correct now can very well turn around again, as it has before: If somebody read "The Dark Tower" books by Stephen King, they will perhaps remember the african-american woman who were transported from her own time in the 1960'ies and to the 1990'ies. She was appaled by the word "black", and insisted that she be called a negro, because to her, "black" was the "no-no" word. It could happen again. And then they are going to rewrite again?? Can't they see how idiotic this is?

Boss
16-05-13, 22:17
Yes, we have human diversity, and I am not against that.

My point is that somebodys rights (two concenting adults) should not violate other peoples rights (children, who have not asked to be born). Or to rephrase it: It's not a human right to have children.

Sometimes we make choices in life that have consequences. Perhaps, if children feels so important, that you ought to have them the "usual" way, that would mean to sacrifice a same sex relationship. If, on the other hand, the relationship is more important, then it would be better to live without children, for the children's sake. I went to school with a girl who was adopted (ethnic Norwegian) and who was extremely frustrated because she could not know who her biological parents were. Now adoptees have the right to know when they are 18 years old. Why would we now create a society where many would never ever know of their originis because of anonymous insemination? Do governments know what a "Pandora's box" they have opened? And what mental pain and despair it could cause for future generations?

Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).

You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.

But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).

Read this (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_adimpact.cfm) by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.

Grubbe
16-05-13, 23:36
Heterosexual couples already do that. If you believe people should not be free to "sell" sperm or "rent" a womb then, okay, fine. But it's not something new, I don't think, and I am not sure anecdotal examples (like the one you cited) are helpful in establishing anything because other people may report quite different cases (e.g. I know a girl from my neighborhood was adopted from Bulgaria when she was a baby and she was raised by a single (and quite old) mother. She's nearly 25 now and I am sure quite happy with her life so far).

You mention artificial insemination which is not quite the same as adoption. One of the biological parents is usually the actual parent. Lesbian & gay couples might do that. Now this is far more new but, in your sense, less "dangerous" than adoption. After all, the child knows at least one of her biological parents is her actual parent.

But I admit I do not know whether adopted children are worse off or better off than non-adopted children. I am saying though that adoption is not something new (so, in my opinion, your point about unknown consequences is not right).

Read this (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_adimpact.cfm) by the US Department of Health & Human Services, for example.

You are of course right that neither adoption nor insemination is new. When I think that insemination is more "dangerous", it is because it is usually not known who the sperm donor is, and the firms that offer this service, have the policy to keep it unknown indefinetely. Adopted people usually have a paper trail, and the information of who their parens are can be known when they reach 18 years of age.

You are also right that some adoptees live quite happily without knowing who their biological parents are, but then again: Today most adoptees can know if they so choose.

My worry now is that making gay marriages legal has created a much larger market for insemination (and surrogaty) than it was before, because earlier gay people would marry to "hide" their nature, and then often had children in their marriages, while now they go to these clinics abroad instead, if they want children, even if their home countries maybe have laws at least against surrogaty. So I think that the governments have not thought far enough ahead to see what could come, when they made their decisions. Gay marriages will probably not see such increase in adoptions; not because they are not allowed to adopt (at least they are in Norway), but because the countries where the adopted children come from will not give their children to gay couples, as far as I understand.

Sennevini
16-07-13, 21:01
I think not a lot will change when legalizing gay marriage.
Here in the Netherlands we have this institution since 2001;
records say about 2% of marriages is a gay marriage. In overall,
the number of marriages is declining, whether straight or gay.


The principal key to marriage is equality. If two people consent to each other
to share their life for as long as possible, why deny some of them rights like financial
constructions in for example assurancies and hereditary rights?


If one says marriage is to be destroyed, then that's not the case. For straight
people nothing changes at all.
If one says it will open the road to legalize stuff with children and animals,
then that's hopefully not the case: marriage is built upon consent from both spouses.
If one says it is bad for children to grow up with gay parents, well, it may raise confusion in some circles,
but I think it depends on how caring the parents will be.
For now, what I see, many children are born outside of a marriage (maybe half of them in these days!),
or are raised by single mothers, or by step-parents.
I think divorces or severe arguments between parents are a larger problem for children then
the single fact of having gay parents. Also, think of all adopted children, thank god they find someone
who agrees to care for them. And hopefully, they will grow up in a stable, loving environment.
If one says marriage is all about the raising of children, you are welcome, because raising children should be
in a stable environment. But don't forget that a fundament for a good, stable marriage is a good relationship
between both spouses.
For the record, I am talking here about the juridical marriage, not about the religious; religion is not quite strong
in my area.

Fire Haired
16-07-13, 22:29
sorry if i said some inappropriate things it is the only way to make my point. please to abolish my account i said these things because their what make my argument.

No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. gay men use testosterone they have the same behavior(i dont want to get specific) as straight men. They dont have some strange sexuality with diff hormones they also dont have a woman's sexuality. it does not matter if a man has less testosterone or more estrogen than average he uses his balls, pennis, and testosterone for sexual suff. If a man has testosterone, balls, pennis he is straight not gay those body parts are made for many things one of them having sex with a human female not other men and this is how humans and other species reproduce. If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing. If a man uses testosterone, pennis, and balls for something that is not a human female that is unnatural and perverted and a sin.

The same goes for gay females they have the same sexual behavior as straight females they are just using it on women when they should be using it in men.

In evolution homosexualty is one of the worst things for a species. Think about it a gene that does not allow some members to reproduce reproduction is the key thing for s species survival. If a homosexual gene popped up there would be two different ones for men and women also it would be killed off by natural selection because homosexuals would not reproduce. Also it would be extremely recessive like red hair. my uncle and aunt both have brown hair but had two redhead kids but if redheads stop reproducing eventualley red hair would die out. My brown haired aunt and uncle got the red hair gene from past redheads who reproduced so if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.

also i dont see how a homo gene would pop up. how could a man use testosterone, pennis and other things made to be attracted to women and somehow get a gene that totally goes against natural selection that makes him want to do the reproductive processes with a another man. and how could another gene do the same for woman on woman. that sounds very impossible to me mainly the natural selection and hormone parts.

I think homosexuality can easily be explained in psychology. It is not a surprise sexuality towards the same human gender is more common than towards animals(which does exist). Because humans are very social we spend alot of time together our same geneder has some of the same features as the oppiste gender so it would make sense some people would pervert and be attracted to the same gender. Also people treat it like a new thing which would add another reason why it is more tempting.

In my opinon homosexuality is not natural at all and is a sin. i dont really think people of the same gender should marry like i said it is unnatural and is unmoral. but then people say america is made to let people do whatever they want. No that is not true that does not mean u against or natural sexulaity and live a perverted life.

sparkey
16-07-13, 22:43
If a man humps another man that is a clear sign he is straight because that is made for reproducing.

I think I see a flaw in your argument.

:laughing:

Fire Haired
16-07-13, 23:55
I think I see a flaw in your argument.

:laughing:

What flaw. Humping is a reproductive process mens sperm is suppose to go in womens egg to make children. if men hump other men they are doing a action that is suppose to be done on women and for reproduction obviosuly they are confusing their body from the natural way. since gay people are known for having add's and they do this it proves many are just perverted.

i know what i am saying sounds sick but it is the only way to explain my point. we cant just assume people are born gay i haven't seen any legit evidence for people being born gay i think it i absolutely impossible.

hope
17-07-13, 00:35
Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.





No one is born gay it is gay
Quote your sources or reference the studies.




people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people.
FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons.
1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.
2.Why must there be any debate?
We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice? Why should it matter to you at all?
3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?

Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.


if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out.
Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.

Ike
17-07-13, 02:39
I don't have anything against gay marriages per se.

I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...

They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.

LeBrok
17-07-13, 07:20
No one is born gay it is gay people use the same hormones and same behavior as straight people. .
Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion? Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?

To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 08:43
Aside the fact that you rewritten decades of research, how did you get to this conclusion?

i know gay men use their private parts for sexual stuff and that they hump i knwo that is sick but it is key to my argument. they have the same sexual behavior as straight men wouldn't u agree so they dont have differnt hrone they dont have pink balls. thee have been no gay hormones or body parts discovered that i know of. what research are u talking about i would love to see it.

The fact gay men and women use the same bady parts and hormones for sewual things as straight men and women and have the same behavour. i cam up with the conclusion they dont have a dffernt sexuality they are perverting the natural human sexuality that is why they do the reproductive stuff but dont create kids.


Are you citing the bible as ultimate authority on truth and universe?

i thought of these idea on my own. when the bible mentions homosexuality which is rarely does it just says it is perverted they dont say we will kill all gays like people say modern Christians do. it does say it is a hated sin and they almost always put sexuality towards animals with homosexuality and lust. it says the same things in the new and old testment. People in the ancient world like Romans and Greeks where not exactly the greatest moral people in the world neither where Jews but the Jews where as good as they got and their laws where good just the people rarely followed them like the bible mentions many times.

Roman traditional law which went back to Italic tribes says homosexuality is against the law but Romans went into Greek culture and did it anyways. Nero who was bisexually i think also motorsexual(animals), insane, mass murder is not a good argument for gay marriage.

Also Roman gay men used to dress and try to act like women to suduce roman men. well of course their going to act feminine that will trigger male hormones. if they act like john wayne and had hairy chest. i doubt the roman men would giggle like girls or be attracted to them.


i cant find this source it had books and bookd and books of very anceint roman and greek writting. I rember one talking about Celtic tribes aound the alps and other Gaulic tibes. they said war like people only allow sexual relations with men and women and the toughest guys gets more women, but starngly these Gauls allow sexual relations of men with men.

ancient homo relationships where out of lust not love the modern gay marraiges thing from what i know i may be wrong did not exist in the ancient world. also in the ancient world men could have many wives does not matter if they are not involve men could also have conkbines aka prostutes. It was Christians and Jews who stopped these things they only allowed men to have one wife who they married out of love(this all marriages where suppose to be out of love but usselly not some whee for political and economic reasons) and that people can choose who their husband and wife is before it was ofentlly arranged.

also since ancient people where so lusful why does the fact some where gay help the argument for gay marraige. i know u did not say anything about this just it reminded me.


To open your eyes, let me give you a little memory exercise. Remember the time when you hit puberty (it shouldn't be too difficult in your age). One day you saw a beautiful woman or naked woman. How did you know how to get erection when you saw her? Who taught you this trick? (I'm assuming you're a straight man).

It came naturally i cant speak for other guys. it kind off starts around 4th grade 10 years old. i dont want to get specific but the first time it just came naturally. then the next step is around 12 and 13 when ur voice gets deeper and u start to grow body hair. like i said before it came naturally literally the first time i dont know about other people. and i saw that what i thought was a good looking female is what all other men did too. i as kind of surprised. i started to realize weather women on the news alot of the time where not real weather experts.

again i really dont want to get specific but i taught myself like in kindergarten before anyone told me about certain things. Of course i dont know the whole human psychological procces for me before anyone told me i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct and "gay" ones perverted the natural way and use the same behavior on the same gender.


that was a extremely personal question

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 09:24
Well let`s make the phone call now, tell all those people who have been studying this to pack up and finish early for the week-end, because Fire Haired has nailed it.

RIGHT ON!!!!!!!!!! I will start calling them now give me their numbers.






Quote your sources or reference the studies.

I dont because i thought of it on my own. but what i do know is gay men use their privets just like straight men they hump just like straight men and have the same sexually behavior. so they dont have a different sexuality there has been no gay hormone i have heard of that causes homosexuality. Also gay men an women would have different hormones and the fact it would be impossibly for that to survive and that it would survive twice seems very unlikely.





FH. I`m not going to debate this at length with you, for a few reasons.
1. It is clear you have not researched this subject and are giving your opinions based only on a personal conviction.
actulley i have researched this subject i looked and looked for any mention to a gay gene or hormone non. all i could find is they use perverted animals as a argument and something about babies being born upside down and their moms had gay milk crazy stuff like that.

Why must there be any debate?
We have gay and lesbian people and we have heterosexual people..and we have shades between even these. Why do you feel any particular group needs to be explained or judged.? Do you not think it a bit arrogant to stand judge over an individuals personal choice?

Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural and if it is unatural i dont want in our society. we are not just suppose to let people do whatever they want. i dont want people talking to chairs or babies thinking a bird is their mum that is unnatural. i have had this born gay argument with many of my teachers in school i have a very libearl school. All of them had no response to my main argument about people being born gay. all they said is we will never know or it doesnt matter. also when i brought up the other shades of sexuality like animals they said that is wrong so they do have a limit to sexuality so why cant homosexuality be that limit.


Why should it matter to you at all?

if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say it is not natural i am not going to ignore that. i dont think it is arogent to judge peoples personal choose all of what u are saying is of post 1960's philosophy origin. it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. humans are naturally very socail we are suppose to communicate and care about our tribal members where not animals. like i said human society is naturally tribal we are suppose to live in somewhat small family groups. that is why we feel so natural and so much love for our sports teams, families, school classmates. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.




3.There has assuredly been gay people always with us. It is not a new phenomenon. I haven`t seen the human race declining or perishing because of it..have you?

that is true it is not a new phenomenon but how does that change anything from my argument. When did i have mention human race declining because of it well i guess if less people reproduce hey it does decline in survival. I think it causes tension within the society between gays and not guys because gays have been known in history to be sexually aggressive like in ancient Rome men would dres as women to try to seduce other roman men. this again proofs even more no one is born gay they saw the best way to seduce men is be like women a feminine attitude wakes make hormones up. The Roman men would defintley not be attracted to big strong and hairy macho man like women are(well i cant say from experience i am not a girl but i assume).

why do u think homophobes exist homo stuff gets people angre. Also that is why there is a liberal stereotype homophobes are gay because sometimes fear and that it is differnt causes them to have gay temptations.


Try researching some studies on the subject. Have a look on-line even, you can find lots written on this topic. When you have read some of it, considered it, perhaps then you may feel better placed to make a more informative announcement on it..if you indeed feel one is needed.
thanks for the advice i have tried this once and got lazy. i always wanted to do a huge research project on this. maybe i will now possibly make a thread about it in the next few days or weeks i suck in information very quickly.


Bit of advice here..homosexuals do not reproduce but nice to note you`re now inclined to think a gene might be responsible..very quick turn-round there.

i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source. i would love to see what ur opinon on the topic of are people born gay.

LeBrok
17-07-13, 09:25
i was doing the normal straight things. Which shows me it is in my instinct and i am sure it is in ever guys instinct...

Thanks for the novel, but I just needed this line above. So hold on to this thought. If you agree it is an instinct it means, that from two things that makes us - the nature and nurture, you think that our main sexual behaviour is controlled mostly by Nature. I completely agree with this too. If it is Nature then it means that it is in our DNA. DNA dictates architecture of our brain and basic instincts. Therefore this simple exercise tells us that our sexual instinct, our sexual preferences (whether woman's body excites you, or man's. one) is coded in DNA and brain architecture (we are born with).
In short, we are born with our partner's sex preference. It is simple like that, you hit puberty and you automatically know. No classes needed.
If you strictly straight man only female body can sexuly excite you, so there is no way you could hump man.


that was a extremely personal question Not really, billions of man on this planet had same experience. You made it personal with your long post. ;)

hope
17-07-13, 15:30
Because i dont want guys and guys doing it or girls and girls doing it. that is just wrong and sick and unatural
And who are you to say what you want other people doing or not doing? Who do you think you are to say how people should live their lives?


and if it is unatural i dont want in our society.
How do you know if it is natural or not? Have you not said you are just too lazy to do the research? Oh no wait..you tried it once.


if one group is doing what is not natural i am going to say

it is not natural

Your opinions and again not based on research but on personal feelings.


it matter to me because i care about my society it is not always about the indivdual it is about the tribe the scoiety. we are not just suppose to let each other go and do whatever they want we work together as a team.

This is a rather unsettling statement in my opinion.










this again proofs even more no one is born gay

i am saying a gene or something in DNA is the only possible source.

Okay, well here you seem to be contradicting yourself. Which one are you going for?



My problem with your post is this. Everyone has opinions..and this is good. We live in a society that allows us to express our opinions..and this also is good. However, there are ways to give your opinions and when you start using terms such as .."not natural", "wrong", "sick" etc..that becomes very insulting and sounds somewhat prejudiced.

hope
17-07-13, 16:13
I find it somewhat opposite. I have nothing against gays, but have a lot against gay marriage. It's like they subconsciously feel they are not 'regular' but by obtaining this right they will be equalized with others. What's next? Trying to legalize holy gay matrimony? And then somehow import it into Bible, so that they could finally sleep well because they won't go to hell for their diabolical acts...

They were already given too much attention and space, considering that they are just a statistical deviation, and that there are no more obstacles for them to lead an open gay life.
You start off by saying you "have nothing against gays"..then go on to say they have been "given too much space"..that they are a statistical "deviation" and imply they will "go to hell" for their "diabolical" acts and they are not "regular" [ although to quote correctly, these you did put in as way of what they might be thinking]
Indeed, it sounds like you really have nothing against gays.

ebAmerican
17-07-13, 17:59
Today's society categorizes sexual acts and relationships. This has not been the norm throughout history. If Fire Haired was born a Celt or Roman 2000 years ago his chances of having a homosexual relationship would be very great. Celtic culture had a very open sexual society. The chief or big man had first priority over all the women in the clan. It was not uncommon for cousins, brothers, and fathers to share wives, as long as they were not mother to son relationships. The war bands that traveled and raided settlements consisted of single men. They would form tight bonds, and even sexual bonds. The type of sex "Prison sex" was very common in ancient cultures. The definition of "Prison sex" - anal sex as a means of dominate power over another individual. It was common in Roman society to give it to a guy, as long as you were not the one getting it. Sex has always been looked at from a power perspective. In modern culture we have soften the views and blurred the lines of dominance. Sex is natural, love is natural, and it doesn't matter if it's between two women, two men, two women one man, four women two men, or just a man and woman. I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years. Woman are beautiful, and I'm not gay, and do not have any homosexual feelings, but I can't say that if I was a Roman I wouldn't have participated in the cultural norms of the day (religious orgies and homosexual acts). What is funny about the bible is it was so common and pervasive that it had to be mentioned as a sin.

LeBrok
17-07-13, 18:48
I don't believe homosexuality is genetic, because I don't believe sexuality is genetic. I think we have an instinct to multiply, which leads us to the opposite sex for obvious reasons. I believe social conditioning and human development through your mailable years pushes ones choices in later years.
I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.

I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

ElHorsto
17-07-13, 19:09
I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Nobody teaches you how to swallow, how to feel hungry, how to salivate when smelling good food. Do you have to teach kids to like milk or sweet candies? Try putting piece of lime in their mouth. All without any education.
Same with our sexuality. It is strong and primal, and we are born with it. All you can do is to polish it here or there, and make it more sophisticated.

I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

It all makes sense, but I don't understand why homosexuality is not extinct if it is genetic. Instead it keeps existing by about 10% (or some other minor percentage, have no source at hand right now) in most vertebrates.

ebAmerican
17-07-13, 19:13
Sexuality, not Sexual characteristics. You forget we are all female at conception, and the amount of testosterone determines sex. The Y chromosome has a big part to play in the amount of testosterone that develops. If there is a genetic link to sexuality, then it is hormonal. I strongly believe that if sexuality is open socially people would have no problem experimenting. At the end of the day genetics might steer one back to the opposite sex, but it doesn't stop one from trying; society does that. The common disgust, and revolting attitude towards homosexuality is all social and not genetic. A person learns to hate, they are not born with it.

sparkey
17-07-13, 20:34
I guess we are not talking about penices that they are mailable, because everybody can see with their own eyes that this is strictly genetic form. If it comes to sexuality and sexual feelings, for some reason, people are so fast to conclude that they are mailable in nature, and DNA has nothing to do with it. I'm always extremely surprised for these kinds of views.
Actually there are no grounds to assume that, through 500 million years of sexual evolution, nature wouldn't engrave sexual feelings in our DNA. Sexual feelings are the most ancient and most primal of they all, together with feeling of hunger.

Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality#Twin_studies) . IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice (http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality). That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.

sparkey
17-07-13, 20:39
What flaw.

Gee... it may have to do with the fact that if I walked in on two men humping each other, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aha! A clear sign that these men are straight!"

Sennevini
17-07-13, 21:47
There is indication that the orientation is determined by the brain structure. As brain structure is mainly developped in a child who is still in the womb, the environment of the womb - hormones - may play a significant role in structuring the brain of the unborn baby. In that way, the baby is born with it's sexual orientation, but without a gene as single cause.

hope
17-07-13, 21:58
Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality#Twin_studies) . IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice (http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality). That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.



I agree..I think at the moment this is indeed the most compelling. I was actually going to quote the same study sparkey. I think "probably" in the next few years epigenetic studies may well give answers. [ however please to note I said probably..I`m not going to the guillotine for this just yet]


EDIT: Strike the last two sentences above..your Friberg and Rice link is more up to date than the one I had, seems they are much further along :)

hope
17-07-13, 22:01
I think we are paying a high price for fallacy of 70s in psychology believing that people are born as clean slate. More precisely that our brains are in state of clean slate at birth. Meaning all we are, we learnt from parents and environment.

Yes, I would go with that LeBrok. I think however it is fair to say most have now adapted to the notion of nature and nurture..some perhaps more to nature.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 22:41
There is indication that the orientation is determined by the brain structure. As brain structure is mainly developped in a child who is still in the womb, the environment of the womb - hormones - may play a significant role in structuring the brain of the unborn baby. In that way, the baby is born with it's sexual orientation, but without a gene as single cause.

then why do gay men use their privets and testosterone like straight men. There is no evidence they use differnt hormones they used female estrogen they would not hump there is no evidence gay men use estrogen for sexuality or that gay women use cornerstone if gay women dont have pennis their not lesbian. i think it is possible though but extremely unlikely that maybe a man could get more estrogen that may make them have some female sexuality. but it wont really effect his sexuality if it was estrogen that cause gay men they would not hump they would act like women when it comes to stuff like that and they would not be men that makes them women too.

i know that stuff is sick and unappropriate but it is needed for these arguments. i have not seen any good evidence for people being born gay.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 22:50
Thanks for the novel, but I just needed this line above. So hold on to this thought. If you agree it is an instinct it means, that from two things that makes us - the nature and nurture, you think that our main sexual behaviour is controlled mostly by Nature. I completely agree with this too. If it is Nature then it means that it is in our DNA. DNA dictates architecture of our brain and basic instincts. Therefore this simple exercise tells us that our sexual instinct, our sexual preferences (whether woman's body excites you, or man's. one) is coded in DNA and brain architecture (we are born with).
In short, we are born with our partner's sex preference. It is simple like that, you hit puberty and you automatically know. No classes needed.
If you strictly straight man only female body can sexuly excite you, so there is no way you could hump man.

people can still dictate their sexuality why do some people attracted to animals u really think that is natural. People can defintley pervert and it is most likely they can do it on the same gender because the same gender looks more similar to the oppiste gender than a dog.

also do u think people might be naturalley more attracted to their race. if u think about europeans ancestors have been separated from sub sharen Africans ancestors for over 100,000 year we already know some evolution happened so it is possible.

humping is for reproduction so why would if there was a homosexually hormone which there is not from what i know. would it cause them to try to reproduce. I think that shows they have normal male instinct but they are perverting it.


Not really, billions of man on this planet had same experience. You made it personal with your long post. ;)

i always make long posts and i thought that is what u wanted.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 22:53
Gee... it may have to do with the fact that if I walked in on two men humping each other, my first reaction wouldn't be "Aha! A clear sign that these men are straight!"

what i am trying to say is it shows they have nromal male insict. they use the same hormones they dont have a gay hormone and their body is trying to reproduce which is suppose to be with a female. they are just perverting their nature.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 22:56
Proof that sexual orientation is not genetic is that identical twins can have different sexual orientations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality#Twin_studies) . IMHO the most convincing evidence is that it is primarily epigenetic, per Friberg & Rice (http://www.nimbios.org/press/FS_homosexuality). That indicates that it is (primarily) nature rather than nurture, so gays are born that way, but it is not (strictly) hereditary in the sense that there is a persistent gene. It solves the issue of how people cannot seem to choose their orientation, as well as the issue that a theoretical "gay gene" would be suicidal.

Since the gay gene does not exist no one is born gay. men have the same sexual hormones and behavior as straight men same with gay women and straight women. i think gay people just pervert what they are suppose to do. i think it is choose and the source is psychological.

Sennevini
17-07-13, 23:01
Well, main point in this theory - which is quite popular in my country these days -
is the structure of the brain. It's not that gay people use more female hormones, it's that their
brain structure differs slightly from straight people.


I don't think one chooses his own brain structure and size.


I think the brain governs the personality of a person, and therefore
the brain structure may hold the key to that.
Here it is important to make difference between what one feels, and how one acts


I think the brain governs what one feels, whom one is attracted to, whom one would like to "hump". I think that is
a innate, inborn thing. If one acts on that feeling, as to say, chooses to "hump", then that is a behavioural thing, not written in the brain.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 23:02
Sexuality, not Sexual characteristics. You forget we are all female at conception, and the amount of testosterone determines sex. The Y chromosome has a big part to play in the amount of testosterone that develops. If there is a genetic link to sexuality, then it is hormonal. I strongly believe that if sexuality is open socially people would have no problem experimenting. At the end of the day genetics might steer one back to the opposite sex, but it doesn't stop one from trying; society does that. The common disgust, and revolting attitude towards homosexuality is all social and not genetic. A person learns to hate, they are not born with it.

well people are born with the ability to hate learn to do it to a extreme. also people are born with sexuality but can pervert it. Also some people might have a better chance to be tempted by homosexuality based on their past live experiences.

Also since from what i have seen there is no good evidence anyone is born gay it seems abosultly impossible. So that makes me disagree with gay marriage why let people do what is unnatural why let a little kid think a bird is his mom. and homosexulaty is more sick and serious than other perversions. Also it in huge war and crisis it hurts are chances of survival.

Also falling in love and sexualley things is for a man and a woman.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 23:11
Well, main point in this theory - which is quite popular in my country these days -
is the structure of the brain. It's not that gay people use more female hormones, it's that their
brain structure differs slightly from straight people.


I don't think one chooses his own brain structure and size.


I think the brain governs the personality of a person, and therefore
the brain structure may hold the key to that.
Here it is important to make difference between what one feels, and how one acts


I think the brain governs what one feels, whom one is attracted to, whom one would like to "hump". I think that is
a innate, inborn thing. If one acts on that feeling, as to say, chooses to "hump", then that is a behavioural thing, not written in the brain.

i still dont think that is good evidence i have heard in science class and tv that scientits know the sexuall parts of the brain. I am pretty sure they have not found a gay brian. Also humping is a straight thing it is for reproduction gay men use the same hromones and behavour as straight men same with gay women and striaght women.

So what i have concluded is that gay people have the same sexuality as straight people. Gay men dont have straight womens sexuality and gay women dont have straight men's sexuality. Also gay men and women dont have their own form of sexuality so all they are doing is perverting the naturall way. Also people do convert to being gay or straight i think that is more evidence gay people are gay out of choose and past life experiences.

I still think there might be something very complicated in the brian that might somehow cause homosexuality. but i am extremely doubtful all the evidence points to that not being the case and if it was it counts for a small minority of gays. so do most people in the Netherlands think that gays are naturally gay i am intrested on what their arguments are if they do think that.

Fire Haired
17-07-13, 23:29
I agree..I think at the moment this is indeed the most compelling. I was actually going to quote the same study sparkey. I think "probably" in the next few years epigenetic studies may well give answers. [ however please to note I said probably..I`m not going to the guillotine for this just yet]


EDIT: Strike the last two sentences above..your Friberg and Rice link is more up to date than the one I had, seems they are much further along :)

Frib & breg seem to be saying tha homosexuality is caused in the womb and some how male babies can be somewhat femalized and vi versa with females. but my orignal argument i think defeates that male gays and female gays use the same sexuality as starght people. If gay men wbecame gay in the womb because they where femized then why do they use pennis testostorne and act like straight men obvisouly they dont have a females sexuality.

I have heard the argument they gay men have females sexuality and gay women have males sexuality. and it is not true so i think that study is wrong. In my opinion that is not good evidence but i am open to see more arguments if u have some. Also i just want to say these studies are most likely biased and want to say people are born gay.

i think three needs to be a hige unbiased serious study on homosexuality. they nned to not just assume if some men have more estrogen their gay look at their behavour if they sexualley act like men then they dont have womens sexuality. Study the psychological back round of people. I think they will come up with the conclusion that most likely no one is born gay. My orignmal argument has still not been defeated. If gay men hump and use testosterone and have the same sexuall behavior estrogen is not the source of their gayness. So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense.

i think my orignal argument makes alot of sense. i gave this argument to my very very pro gay science teacher he is actulley a hig expert ins cience. He could not give a response his only argument was the estrogen testosterone stuff which mty argument proves incorrect. He said something that i think anyone including gay people he said there are 1-2 billion natural gays, 1-2 billion natural straights, and the rest are bisexual where is the scientific evidence he had none.

Sex is for making kids why on evlotion would there be so many gays. also he said well i am naturally straight i am attracted to wmen but that is what like every man would say and they have the same experiences as him but he thinks most are bi sexual or gay. His thoery is absloutley extreme and has no evidence.

LeBrok
18-07-13, 04:27
people can still dictate their sexuality why do some people attracted to animals u really think that is natural. There are very few people sexuly atracted to animals. It is in realm of DNA mutation, or brain damage/malnutrition. Do you personally know someone like this? Me neither.

Can yo tell me why there are Asexual people? People who never been sexuly atracted to anyone. Never felt a sexual need or desire. What does bible say about these people?
Why homosexuality exists in animal kingdom? Is this unnatural too?
Why there are siamese twins, or cows with two heads, or 5 legs? Wouldn't you say unnatural?
Why people are born deformed and sick? Do you think it is all environmental? Or is it god's will to punish parents?
Why half of all fetuses are aborted naturally by mothers' body? Half of human population is naturally killed before conception. I wonder why. (yes there is research about this, I just don't have time to find it)



People can defintley pervert and it is most likely they can do it on the same gender because the same gender looks more similar to the oppiste gender than a dog. I'm not in your brain and can't follow your thoughts. Please try to be clear with your writing.


also do u think people might be naturalley more attracted to their race. if u think about europeans ancestors have been separated from sub sharen Africans ancestors for over 100,000 year we already know some evolution happened so it is possible. I thought when two humans have sex and it is culminated with a kid, you would call it a natural way, right? So what is this example about?!
When two races mate is it a perversion or deviation for you?


humping is for reproduction so why would if there was a homosexually hormone which there is not from what i know. would it cause them to try to reproduce. I think that shows they have normal male instinct but they are perverting it.
You mixing some things, that's why they don't make sense for you.
Hormones like testosterone can't decide who you going to like. They can give you full erection and lots of strength when you find a person (or dog) that you like. The brain wiring is actually responsible for finding this person. Your eyes catch the light reflected from her, they send impulses to visual cortex to make sense of this light and work with patterns. Once, the pleasant/sexual patterns, are recognized it is send to Amygdala where all emotions are located. And only then you will feel the sexual desire, after this, the right hormones are released and you get an erection.
First brain (pattern, desire), then humping. If your brain doesn't get the right pattern (female body) there is no humping, not even with most handsome man. (unless you have wiring for that too)
The decision about desire starts in your brain, based on neuronal connections. Brain is the biggest sex organ. And when it comes to sexual preferences, what excites you, it is mostly hardwired, stuff you're born with. It all starts in brain.

I would like to remind you that, when we did this puberty exercise, you admitted that sexual excitement came automatically in natural way. It pointed us to hardwired functions of brain and DNA role in sexuality. Unfortunately, instead of following this development, you disregarded it and went along with your previous convictions. It doesn't really sits right with scientific mind, wouldn't you say?

Sennevini is right. There are research based on brain scans showing that gay man has different brain from straight man brain. Gay brain is, how should we put it, more feminine. Well, it explains a lot, it explains why gay man want to have sex with man, isn't it? And no, you can't change so much brain architecture by learning and environment. They are born with female brain in man's body. One of nature's many screw ups.




i always make long posts and i thought that is what u wanted. No, I never asked you this. You acted on your natural instinct, which makes you talk a lot and write a lot. Can you stop this natural instinct?
Perhaps with difficulty and dislike (we'll see in the future), and we are not talking about strong primal sexual instinct.

LeBrok
18-07-13, 07:13
My orignmal argument has still not been defeated. If gay men hump and use testosterone and have the same sexuall behavior estrogen is not the source of their gayness. So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense.

It's been defeated long time ago by decades of research, you've just never read it.
Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.


So then the other possibility is something in their dna causes them to want to try to reproduce with a man with makes no sense. You are on the right track here. Surely it is confusing but it doesn't mean it is not true.
Homosexuality exists also in animal kingdom. Isn't it confusing? but I guess, it makes it natural.
People with very short 'useless' penises, or having both genitals, or ones with third nipple are confusing too. Why the hell something like this happened? It doesn't make sense.
Well, it doesn't make sense only from point of view of functionality of normal human being. But nature doesn't give a shit about what we think or feel about this. From dawn of life on Earth, nature uses blind changes, mutations, mistakes, mixing genes of different species, etc, to find out the best combination for new successful life forms. If billions of deformed unfortunate individuals dies unhappy in this process, so be it. She doesn't care. Loving mother nature? Think again. How about "cruel beach"?
If god had made us, or any other conscious logical being, even scientists, we all would have been smart, good and beautiful. Unfortunately we are in hands of blind natural selection, the forces of nature, hence the mess, confusion and less than perfect people.

Going back to gay issue. As I mentioned before, it is not only human phenomenon. Homosexuals or biosexuals exist among other animals too. This actually proves that it is not cultural thing but a easy to make genetic mistake. Looking at science, it is a mistake made during brain development. Individual is getting female like brain in man's body, and vice versa for lesbiens.
However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.

Here is my take on this cause:
For a very long time people lived in small patrilocal societies with arranged marriages. Also in small groups any deviation from normal is not tolerated very well, if at all. The disfigured, the gay, the odd looking always got the short end of a stick. Somebody had to be sacrificed for gods, or was kicked out of village for bringing bad luck. Let's be honest, they would be proclaimed unnatural by folks like yourself. The point is that being openly gay wasn't an option (it is still not an option in small European villages). You either pretend that you're straight and marry or you're dead.
Well good amount of social and family pressure, scare of being unnatural and eternity in hell, and gays got married too, and with opposite sex. Some more family pressure and they managed to make kid or two, and their gay mutation could survive in DNA.

To prove my hypothesis I will make a prediction. If I'm right, in open tolerant societies, where gays don't hide their sexuality, the number of homosexuals will fall sharply during next generation or two to the level comparable to gayness among other animal species. Which I think is no more than 1 percent. The number is still sort of big, but I think, it shows that this genetic/brain architecture mistake is a very easy to make. I guess, brain development is a very complicated process.

I hope the nature make a bit more sense now. :)

alibaz
19-07-13, 08:42
What I am finding very interesting about this very difficult subject is the assumption that you know what 'normal' is and that there is a 'normal' way for people to behave and that this is a mutation.

LeBrok
19-07-13, 09:55
What I am finding very interesting about this very difficult subject is the assumption that you know what 'normal' is and that there is a 'normal' way for people to behave and that this is a mutation.

If you're referring to my post, I used word "normal" as defined/used by Fire Haired, mostly meaning a natural way, and not invented by people as cultural phenomenon. Not necessarily as common definition would imply.

PS. Don't be shy, elaborate you point. :)

ebAmerican
19-07-13, 18:45
Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.


Your missing the point of the hormone homosexual theory. It's testosterone levels during fetal development, not after birth. Testosterone controls sexual desire. It is proven by all the horny teenagers after puberty. It is a powerful hormone. It can affects emotion, sexual libido, and development. I read the study that was posted earlier about epy-genes, and it make some sense. I think I would have to agree that homosexuality to an extant, and really any sexuality, is strongly governed by both Nurture and Nature. I still strongly believe that all people are capable of forming tight relationships with both sexes. It doesn't always mean they will turn sexual, but have a good chance if certain circumstance prevail. Like I said earlier, the reaction of repulsion to homosexual activity is strictly social and religious. If, as a society we can become desensitized to violence, and encourage violence, then we surely can be tolerate of the sexual act. Lets face it, most of the disgust coming from homosexuals is their feminine traits and the thought of anal sex in a society that values masculinity in men and disproves of anal sex. Ask any guy and he has no problems with "lip stick lesbians ", but add a butch lesbian and it's a different story. We value femininity in our woman, and not masculinity (modern definitions). The conditioning of attraction is strictly social and has very little to do with genetics. The genetic part is strictly reproduction with someone who is different. It cares less what that individual looks like, as long as they can produce a genetically diverse child.

Even in the hormone homosexual theory, there are many fetus' that show abnormal hormone levels that grow up heterosexual. There are just as many individuals that show the specific homosexual brain image patterning as adults, that are happily heterosexual.

I recently watched a program on History or Discovery (can't remember) called the Science of Attraction, and how pheromones play a large part in sexual attractions. They did an interesting experiment with vaginal secretions. They took the secretions in very low levels where they couldn't be detected, but were present and gave them to male participants to smell. They showed a series of photos to the men before giving them the secretions and asked them to rate the woman on a scale of 1-10 for attractiveness. They then gave the male participants the secretions and asked them to rate the same woman again on a scale of 1-10. Prior to the secretions they rated the woman all over the board. After they gave the men the vaginal secretions (which was in a breathing apparatus, and they didn't know if it was on or off) they rated all the women in the upper range.

A similar experiment using male sweat was performed on women. The woman's job was to rate the smell on a scale of 1-10 of different towels, that had different male sweat on each. They took the DNA of each participant. both male and female, and found out that the towels woman choose as having the best smell were least genetically similar. The scientist concluded this was a protection mechanism against inbreeding, and allowed a more diverse genetic offspring. They found that homogenous groups of people have less protection against disease . It was natures way of insuring survival.

What happens when nature doesn't need those survival tactics (population control) and these genetic protection markers are shut off? Until there is a smoking gun I have to believe that if the markers are shut off, then the individual is free to choose (social conditioning). I would argue there is more evidence of a genetic disposition to being heterosexual (survival of the species), then an actual homosexual gene that makes one homosexual. My theory is this heterosexual gene is turned off, and the child bonds to the same sex while developing through puberty. He/she doesn't have the same response to the opposite sex pheromones. As homosexual behavior is accepted, and child conditioning allows for equal tolerance in picking a mate, then we will see an increase in homosexuals in society as more children born with the heterosexual gene turned off pick same sex partners.

I would like to see a study using homosexuals and pheromones, and see if there is some type of correlation of attraction. Maybe homosexuals will choose more sweaty towels belonging to men, then women, or be repulsed and find women less attractive if exposed to vaginal secretions. I believe the tests would be inconclusive because the pheromone detectors in the brain are shut off in homosexuals. They are not trapped by the biological need to multiply. The question is what governs homosexual attraction within the homosexual community? I think the answer is social trends, similar to heterosexual attraction behavior. Most gay men find the same men that straight females find attractive. It is the same in the lesbian community.

I believe the trend in answering the question "Did you know you were gay as a child?" by answering yes is a modern trend in the gay community to help legitimize the movement. I wonder what the answer would be 20 years ago. I suspect it would be something on the order of "when I reached puberty I found the same sex more attractive", or "after having an opposite sex relationship in high school I realized I liked the same sex better", then any answer regarding early childhood. As far as I'm concerned girls had Kooties until middle school. I looked at my dad's playboys in fifth grade and found them more funny, then sexual. It wasn't until seventh grade that something changed (puberty). I know people will say "I had a crush on a girl in 3rd grade, or I had my first kiss with a girl in 5th grade", so the attraction was there. I will respond, be honest, you also were very close to your best friend (same sex), and had a few moments of curiosity, which is absolutely normal. My point being we are socialized at an early age by our different sexed parents, that this is what should be, and we gravitate to duplicate the mother and father relationship outside of the home. Real attraction, and sexual urge happens during puberty, everything before is driven by curiosity.

alibaz
19-07-13, 20:42
Hi LeBrok - I have a lot of posts to wade through before I can comment properly but what I would like to say is what is NOT natural. An unnatural sexual relationship is one where one party (maybe both), are either non-consenting or have been coerced in some way. Apart from the obvious ones like rape, brutality, child abuse, it could even extend to a loveless hetrosexual marriage.

This is such a subjective discussion. Some people may be afraid of facing their own sexuality and become agressive, some may think that gay relationships threaten society, some may feel it goes against any religious faith they have.

I see you are exploring nature vs nurture - I yet to have to read all this properly.

I would like to ask a question. Does a prisoner consider himself to be gay when he forces his cellmate to submit to his sexual advances?

hope
19-07-13, 22:29
I see you are exploring nature vs nurture - I yet to have to read all this properly.



Forgive me alibaz, I see your are in conversation with another member but I think the nature-nurture sentence might have been something I wrote. There are a few posts yet I have to read but as far as I am aware [ and I may be wrong] the actual nature-nurture question, wasn`t being debated, per say.


By the way, interesting question at the end. It could be worded a little clearer however. Do we know if the prisoner is a heterosexual man, are we to assume you mean he is?
You are asking a speculative question, it is hard to say what another person may feel regarding himself. Also why ask if we think he might think himself gay..why not ask if he might rather think himself a rapist, seeing as you say, he forced the other to submit.

Fire Haired
20-07-13, 01:22
It's been defeated long time ago by decades of research, you've just never read it.

Right now it seems there is no way anyone is born gay and now ur saying it is a fact some are ur coming to quick conclusions


Again, testosterone doesn't have anything to do with sexual orientation. Only brain architecture does. Testosterone controls sexual libido, but not orientation. Women also have testosterone and actually it is rising with age. And yet older women don't turn lesbian.

We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations. Tell me how brain architecture is the reason. well then gay people dont just use testosterone for sexual libido they do the same actions like humping which involves the brain if they had diff brain architecture. They would not do that they would make totally different sexual actions.

Aslo i made the point earlier more testosterone in a woman or more estrogen in a man does not make them gay or lesbian. Because to be attracted to women like men are u need male gentiles also if u use male gentiles in sexual things u cant be attracted to men the way women are.


You are on the right track here. Surely it is confusing but it doesn't mean it is not true.

No offense but it is not confusing for me because i am trying to argue no one is born gay. It is confusing for u to find a answer in science for gay people.


Homosexuality exists also in animal kingdom. Isn't it confusing? but I guess, it makes it natural.

That does not make homosexuality natural. Click here (http://deadlykingdom.blogspot.com/2013/03/do-animals-rape-humans.html) it talks about the very rare occurrence of ape rape on humans uselly apes who grew up with humans meaning it is a psychological thing even though apes don't have much of a brain compared to humans. A famous chimp named Oliver at first suspected of being half human attempted more than once to rape the female owner he grew up with. (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/oliver-chimp/) u will have to search the links and vidoes to find it. click here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1873360/posts) DNA proves a pitbull raped a 2 year old as sad as that is..

Animal rapes or anything like that on humans is extremely extremely extremely rare but it does happen. Animals would have a better chance feeling attraction for their same gender than a human but what this shows is animals can pervert and dont work like robots. maybe u should read this article about homosexuality amoung animals sometimes it has nothing to do with sex just play that looks like sex at least for dogs here is a link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals). The article says most animals are not exclusively gay the ones that show homo sides are not 100% homo they mate with the oppiste gender too which in my opinon means their straight just they can pervert it would make more sense with the same species.'It does not matter if their are gay animals animals animal species have choose (click here (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10001.full)) many scientist have said animal sexual choose is key to natural selection.

I think u also need to understand people who study this are going to be very pro gay and want to say homosexuality is a bigger deal in animals than it may be. Same with the people who try to find a science reason for homosexuality. That is why no one has done a study on gay animals to say that it is also not natural every study has tried to say it is natural. It does not matter if their are gay animals u need to have string scientific evidence which u dont have.


People with very short 'useless' penises, or having both genitals, or ones with third nipple are confusing too. Why the hell something like this happened? It doesn't make sense.

We are talking specifically about homosexuality u need to give scientific evidence for why it is natural.


Well, it doesn't make sense only from point of view of functionality of normal human being. But nature doesn't give a shit about what we think or feel about this. From dawn of life on Earth, nature uses blind changes, mutations, mistakes, mixing genes of different species, etc,

The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING. The most important part of evloution and changes in a species is having a good amount of offspring which homosexuality does not have so that makes it impossible to be a gene or mutation. Also most homo animals are not homo they have sex with the same gender and the oppiste gender which i said before shows they have choose and that they are born straight but pervert. There are very few completely gay animals but very biased studies have said in domesticated rams 10% of the males are only gay but if it was a gene that caused that gayness it would not be passed down because they dont have offspring so that means they are just perverting or i guess u can think of another scientific reason but again they HUMP like straight rams so they don't have a diff sexuality or brains structure.


best combination for new successful life forms.

well homosexuality is one of the worst things for evolution and to say homosexuality is natural in a none gene mutation way is extremely unlikely.


If billions of deformed unfortunate individuals dies unhappy in this process, so be it. She doesn't care. Loving mother nature? Think again. How about "cruel beach"?
If god had made us, or any other conscious logical being, even scientists, we all would have been smart, good and beautiful. Unfortunately we are in hands of blind natural selection, the forces of nature, hence the mess, confusion and less than perfect people.

Dont u believe everything is chance so why are calling chance mother nature. U don't know who God is why do u except him ti make ur life perfect or the world perfect. That whole argument if God is real why does my life suck is a terrible argument for no God. God lets us make our own decisions he lets us go i think most things in the world are chance but many things are controlled but in a way u wont notice as much.

cant say if there was a God this is how the world would be U DON'T KNOW HOW THE WORLD WOULD BE NONE OF THAT PROVES THERE IS NO GOD. u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to. the ones who think God is just this big powerful guy with a beard in the sky. U DON'T KNOW WHO HE IS none of us truly do u cant define who God would be.

I know miracles do happen God has shown himself to human. Why do u think 99.9% of the world in the world except in recent times believes in a God. All religions around the world are similar and have similar traditions on who God is creation stories and flood stories. Since South Africans and Ancient Celts who genetically had been separated for at least 150,000 years had such similar mythology stories is not just random. It is in Human instinct i think to believe in God. i have been talking about natural human society but i forgot about religion which is very important in 99.99% of human soceites.

My family has witnnissed probable miracles but we dont say it was for sure a miracle and dont talk about it alot because we are not suppose to make miracles the base for our faith in God that is what the Bible says.

i would give u examples in another post but right now it would take up to much room.


Going back to gay issue. As I mentioned before, it is not only human phenomenon. Homosexuals or biosexuals exist among other animals too. This actually proves that it is not cultural thing but a easy to make genetic mistake. Looking at science, it is a mistake made during brain development. Individual is getting female like brain in man's body, and vice versa for lesbiens.
However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.

Homosexuality is impossible to be genetic because they don't have offspring at least in the animal kingdom. Bisexuality animals do have offspring but where is the scientific evidence for bisexuality. All u are saying is brain structure well then why do bisexual male animals hump like i have said many times they have the same sexual behavior. If a gay or bisexual male humps and has the same behavior as a straight males it is not just testosterone humping takes eyesight and brain's not just feeling. I want to make that clear how canu take male gentiles which are made to make kids and some how change them to be attracted to males that would take an extreme evolution which would make no sense why hump if it does not make kids it does not help their survival it hurts it.

If they had a female brain they would not hump how many times do i have to say gay humans and animals have the same sexual behavior as straight ones. Meaning they dont check each other out like females check out makes they check each other out like males do to females. Humping is not just at testostorne feeling it takes eyes and brains.


However, unlike in animals situation, homosexuality in people happens on bigger scale. We don't know exactly the cause of this increase, and it doesn't make sense from point of view of natural selection, being evolutionary dead end.

This is most likely because gays are known to be aggressive it is true. Also fear of gay's may cause people to be tempted. So if u think homosexuality is natural u have to admit most human gay's probably are not naturally gay u can explain it psychologically but i think u can do that with all of them


Here is my take on this cause:
For a very long time people lived in small patrilocal societies with arranged marriages. Also in small groups any deviation from normal is not tolerated very well, if at all. The disfigured, the gay, the odd looking always got the short end of a stick. Somebody had to be sacrificed for gods, or was kicked out of village for bringing bad luck. Let's be honest, they would be proclaimed unnatural by folks like yourself. The point is that being openly gay wasn't an option (it is still not an option in small European villages). You either pretend that you're straight and marry or you're dead.
Well good amount of social and family pressure, scare of being unnatural and eternity in hell, and gays got married too, and with opposite sex. Some more family pressure and they managed to make kid or two, and their gay mutation could survive in DNA.

Finally someone besides me think's natural human society is patriotical and in small tribes or family groups. I have argued this in history class everyone accused me of being sexiest when i have nothing against women and the type of patriotical i am talking about is not suppose to oppress women.

It does not matter what very smart human society does with arranged marraiges and stuff we are talking about brainless animal society. True animal homosexuals are not natural because they dont produce offspring so they dont pass on a gay gene it is purley mental or another strange mix of up of genes or something i dont know but i dont think it is natural at all.

u cant say all pre historic human societies where the same that is being a bad historian but u are partly right about many ancient societies but probably not most and not all marriages where arranged.

hope
20-07-13, 06:05
We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations ..
Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe patterns of enduring emotional,romantic and sexual attraction. The criteria for this is one thing with heterosexual men and women and another thing for homosexual men or lesbian women. We see this in life, it is there, ergo it exists.
.

Because to be attracted to women like men are u need male gentiles also if u use male gentiles in sexual things u cant be attracted to men the way women are. .
No and No. [And can we leave the Gentiles out of this one]


No offense but it is not confusing for me because i am trying to argue no one is born gay.
How do you know this? Where have you read this? And to quote yourself .."give scientific evidence". Your opinion just wont do here.



That does not make homosexuality natural ..
You are talking about one of the most basic human instincts..the wish to love and be loved, the desire to care and be cared for. This need has no notion of colour or gender.


I think u also need to understand people who study this are going to be very pro gay .
How do you know this..it`s quite a statement.



We are talking specifically about homosexuality u need to give scientific evidence for why it is natural .
Why? Who is to say what is and what is not natural?


The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING.
Yes, I recall recently pointing that out to you when you said this:

if homosexuals did not reproduce the gene would die out. .



well homosexuality is one of the worst things for evolution
In what way? It has been around for quite some time and society has not been affected


u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to. the ones who think God is just this big powerful guy with a beard in the sky
Please, spare us the religious lesson and don`t presume to know what other people think about God or if they have or have not read the bible..that is just too arrogant


u can explain it psychologically
No, you cannot. Being homosexual or lesbian is not a mental health health issue whatsoever. There are many who suffer some psychological problems because of it however, due to how they are treated by some sections of society or made to feel different. Many are isolated and do not know where to turn for counsel. At least 30 times more homosexual men will attempt suicide compared to heterosexual men. At least 6 times more lesbian women will attempt suicide than heterosexual women. Now it is a sad thing when a human feels their only option is to take their own life. It is also a poor reflection on our society IMO.


On a final note, before I leave this thread. You have been given links to studies here, you have heard other members tell you of findings from MRI scans [ I am not sure to which study the poster was referring but it may have been that carried out at the Stockholm Institute] and you have heard other very good opinions. And your response to all of this has been to stamp your foot and insist only you have the answer. You have done this while using very negative semantics regarding homosexual or lesbian people. Could I remind you Eupedia is a very large forum, it has a large number of members and also visitors to its pages. Do you really think [ or care] that perhaps not all are of the heterosexual lifestyle and many seeing some of your "finer" pieces may be much insulted.


.

Fire Haired
20-07-13, 07:02
..
Sexual Orientation is a term used to describe patterns of enduring emotional,romantic and sexual attraction. The criteria for this is one thing with heterosexual men and women and another thing for homosexual men or lesbian women. We see this in life, it is there, ergo it exists.

what i am trying to say is we dont know if homosexuality or any sexuality besides hetrosexuality is natural.
.
.

No and No. [And can we leave the Gentiles out of this one]

Sorry i have to use words like gentiles in this subject. If some uses male gentiles for sexuality he is using testosterone and if this person humps he has male sexual brain structure it is not just a sensation. male genetiles and humping is not made for two males if it used that way it is perverted i just cant see in anyway that would be natural. I dont think u can think of a way either.


How do you know this? Where have you read this? And to quote yourself .."give scientific evidence". Your opinion just wont do here.

It is alot easier to say no one is born gay and give evidence than to say people are born gay. Lebrok was saying it is confusing because he was trying to find a natural reason for homosexuality and i was pointing it out to him it is not confusing for me to say it is not natural.


..

You are talking about one of the most basic human instincts..the wish to love and be loved, the desire to care and be cared for. This need has no notion of colour or gender.

what does color have to do with it that is a whole different subject. Gender does have to do with this the most basic human instict i am talking about is sex not falling in love that does not have to do with the argument of if homosexuality is natural.

.

How do you know this..it`s quite a statement.

Lebrok was mentioned deformaties and that not everyone has the perfect human shape. That is off subject we are specifically talking about is anyone born naturally gay.


.

Why? Who is to say what is and what is not natural?

when i say natural i mean someone is pre destined to do something it is in their nature. For example it is in my nature to talk it is in a bear's nature to hunt. I am talking about instinct things that are unlearned.



Yes, I recall recently pointing that out to you when you said this:

I think that point is key we need to stop searching for a gay gene or muatation because it would not be passed down to offspring. Purley gay rams dont have offspring so they either are not naturally gay or there could be another explanation.
.




In what way? It has been around for quite some time and society has not been affected


Evloution is about survival a new gene may be better for survival and out survive the old gene so far that is the best explanation for evolution. Homosexuality does not produce offspring so it is just about the worst gene for survival it would only survive one generation and it would not survive in evolution. What about homosexuality in animals animals dont have human society so saying that does not change anything.



Please, spare us the religious lesson and don`t presume to know what other people think about God or if they have or have not read the bible..that is just too arrogant

Lebrok mentioned religion so i responded. Come on every services in Church till 1490's was in Latin why do u think martin Luther was so PO'ed. Why do u think christian leaders from 300-1900's forced so many people to be christian and where so corrupt and went against jesus's teachings. There where still some people who understood Christianity back then but very few and still very few today. also i know many everyday Americans that is what they think and that is what people in the middle ages thought. Why do u think people in the mid ages where so scared of God and made up stuff about purgatory and paying for dead friends and relatives so they can go to heaven.

It is a fact the vast majority of Europeans in the mid ages did not know how to read or understand Latin so they did not really know who the bible said God was. Martin Luther was shocked after reading the Bible once he learned how to read Latin. The Pope was corrupt and mis treated the people in my opinion martin luther brought Christianity back to live but he was not a perfect guys either none of us are.


No, you cannot. Being homosexual or lesbian is not a mental health health issue whatsoever. There are many who suffer some psychological problems because of it however, due to how they are treated by some sections of society or made to feel different. Many are isolated and do not know where to turn for counsel. At least 30 times more homosexual men will attempt suicide compared to heterosexual men. At least 6 times more lesbian women will attempt suicide than heterosexual women. Now it is a sad thing when a human feels their only option is to take their own life. It is also a poor reflection on our society IMO.

I nenver said being gay is a mental health issue but i think u can explain it through psychology. the Pschology thing is a whole diff argument i live in a very gay area of america okay and i have witnessed people going form having kids and being married to being gay AS SICK AND WRONG AS THAT IS it is a choose u cant say it is all natural.

There is a new movement that trys to hide the dark side of homosexuality. There is a reason why they have been known as perverts and child molesters they gave themselves that reputation. My brother friends dad who is actulley okay with gay marriage witnessed a gay pride parade before the whole USA court gay marriage stuff he said it was sick men who are half naked making out and touching each other in places they should not flirting with men walking down the street. Throwing used condmes but of course the media wont show that. If they here in my neighborhood a would first politely ask them to leave if they did not i am bringing out some type of club and chasing them out that type of stuff really gets me angre. I guess that might be the right thing to do but i don't want them in my neighborhood the gay pride parades are sick. In the Gay areas of my city they where absolutely sick clothing they are not as innocent as the media portrays them and the gay lesbian part of Netflix is almost all porn. I can give u examples

I think a reason why gays might commit suicide is the used to not be gay then a life experience changed them, don't just shot me down and say that is not possible it happens. I can show u psychological reasons if u want. I know homosexuals are miss treated but that does not make it natural.



On a final note, before I leave this thread. You have been given links to studies here, you have heard other members tell you of findings from MRI scans [ I am not sure to which study the poster was referring but it may have been that carried out at the Stockholm Institute, and you have heard other very good opinions. And your response to all of this has been to stamp your foot and insist only you have the answer. You have done this while using very negative semantics regarding homosexual or lesbian people. Coul I remind you Eupedia is a very large forum, it has a large number of members and also visitors to its pages. Do you really think [ or care] that perhaps not all are of the heterosexual lifestyle and many seeing some of your "finer" pieces may be much insulted.

I will study this more and i might send u some messages on what i find. I have always been very confident in my opinion and insisted im right and arguing with people offenlley since i could talk my family understands how u feel i know i am very stubborn and can get annoying.

I still think my whole argument about gay people having the same sexual behavior as straight people shows a female brain structure in gay men is not the source because they hump. there is no gay hormone found. Also a gay gene could not be passed done in humans animal ancestors because they dont have offspring. So if homosexuality is natural then they would have to use the same sexual resources that exist in heterosexuals and in someway mix it up but that does nit explain the whole sexual behavior thing.

If u think about Homosexuality being natural in a scientific way it seems impossible. Also those studies try to find a reason for homosexuality not a reason why it is not natural i cant find exact references which shows their bias but trust me they are totally biased. The fact all studies on gay animals tried to say it is natural and relate to humans show they where pro gay.

In what way have i offended homosexuals in anyway i can have an opinion that what they are doing in unnatural. I do know gay's might be insulted but they shouldn't i have a opinion they have a opinion. I am offended by their lifestyle and gay pride parades in my city where they do very inappropriate things so what. I can say to Lebrok for saying God does not exist offends my faith but i dont. Maybe people are too sensitive.

I do care about offending them but i am not going to hide my opinion.

alibaz
20-07-13, 11:07
I do care about offending them but i am not going to hide my opinion.[/QUOTE]

Thats good Fire Haired - so you won't mind me making these observations....

1. You are NOT gay - OK, we get it - you're a red blooded hetrosexual male - your mother must be so proud. Though 'Thou dost protest' a little too much.
2. You are a God fearing Christian who reads the Bible - great, its good to have a faith. So it is a mortal sin for a man to lie with a man (or beast) - and you would NEVER do that. Presumably you also dont eat shellfish, have a tattoo, touch anything to do with pigs etc etc. Perhapsl this was really good health advice when the Gospels were written and maybe should be (unselectively) rethought now our medical awareness has improved. (Its far more interesting to read the gospels which James II left OUT of the bible - but thats another thread).
3. The sexual drive or urge to reproduce is natures strongest urge. Males with a high sex drive will 'hump' (as you call it), pretty much anything.
"Why did you sleep with your sister/horse/goat/sheep? ..... Because the nearest village is 10 miles away." (Old joke but I like it.)
A friend of mine who was in the Merchant Navy told me that using a tin of beans to gratify themselves was commonplace. I presume you masterbate - your argument forbids all this and leads me to believe that if you want 'unnatural' - find yourself a hetrosexual male who is gagging for it.
4. Have you not heard of IVF and turkey basters? Of course same sex couples can have children and pass their genes to the next generation. All they need is a good friend of the opposite sex in there somewhere.

alibaz
20-07-13, 23:50
Hi Baron - thanks for your comments on my post. I was trying to catch up with what was going on with this thread and to be honest, its quite an annoying journey!!!! I really cant get my head around the logic (if there is any) of whats being said by certain contributors and regular members are being very valiant in trying to be reasoned and rational, and very interesting. I decided in the end to simply list my observations (#422) in response to one particular contributor and leave it at that.

Fire Haired
21-07-13, 00:52
Thats good Fire Haired - so you won't mind me making these observations....

1. You are NOT gay - OK, we get it - you're a red blooded hetrosexual male - your mother must be so proud. Though 'Thou dost protest' a little too much.
2. You are a God fearing Christian who reads the Bible - great, its good to have a faith. So it is a mortal sin for a man to lie with a man (or beast) - and you would NEVER do that. Presumably you also dont eat shellfish, have a tattoo, touch anything to do with pigs etc etc. Perhapsl this was really good health advice when the Gospels were written and maybe should be (unselectively) rethought now our medical awareness has improved. (Its far more interesting to read the gospels which James II left OUT of the bible - but thats another thread).
3. The sexual drive or urge to reproduce is natures strongest urge. Males with a high sex drive will 'hump' (as you call it), pretty much anything.
"Why did you sleep with your sister/horse/goat/sheep? ..... Because the nearest village is 10 miles away." (Old joke but I like it.)
A friend of mine who was in the Merchant Navy told me that using a tin of beans to gratify themselves was commonplace. I presume you masterbate - your argument forbids all this and leads me to believe that if you want 'unnatural' - find yourself a hetrosexual male who is gagging for it.

all of that defends what i am saying that people can pervert and unlike what lebrok and others say that people who do stuff with animals have a brain issue. They ignore that it is totally possibly for people to pervert.
4. Have you not heard of IVF and turkey basters? Of course same sex couples can have children and pass their genes to the next generation. All they need is a good friend of the opposite sex in there somewhere.[/QUOTE]

but totally gay animals dont reproduce. for example pro gay studies say 10% of a certain type of domestcated ram males are completly gay and dont have offspring that means they dont have a gay gene because they cant pass it down. So before human society and the IVD turkey basters gay people had no offspring i have seen that even pro gay people admit homosexuality would not be passed down and is terribly in evolution.

Ike
21-07-13, 04:21
Hasn't anybody posted breaking-the-thread link yet?

http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/

p.s. Read the warnings before you proceed.

alibaz
21-07-13, 09:17
Ike - I only got to the warning page on your link, there is no way I am going to view anything like that. Why would you post a link like that? We dont have stuff like that going on in the UK where people (gay/straight whatever) are openly performing sexual acts - presumably to shock everyone - because it is simply ill mannered (how British!!!!). Good grief - the US has some weird and extremely unpleasant ways of expressing themselves. Please repost on the "Is America the Land of the Free" thread as I think its probably relevant there!

Fire Haired
22-07-13, 00:39
Ike - I only got to the warning page on your link, there is no way I am going to view anything like that. Why would you post a link like that? We dont have stuff like that going on in the UK where people (gay/straight whatever) are openly performing sexual acts - presumably to shock everyone - because it is simply ill mannered (how British!!!!). Good grief - the US has some weird and extremely unpleasant ways of expressing themselves. Please repost on the "Is America the Land of the Free" thread as I think its probably relevant there!

i know my country recently has gone nuts in many ways.

my on teacher said that there are more gays than straight people and everyone is hiding it but of course he is straght while half of the country is not what a freak. He think if people have gay temptaions that makes them gay but if gay's have straight temptations their not gay. He is one of the most close minded and biggest freaks i have heard in my life i have to listen to his long political speeches everyday when i correct him he calls me close minded when he is not open to any opinions but extreme liberal ones. And when it comes to ancient dna and other types of history he knows alot for a average person but compared to people like maciamo he claims Germans mainly Germanic tribes are the most evil people in history.

also i live in the most gay city in america san fran and i have only seen gay people holding hands. well my firends dad said and a gay pride parade they did many very very very sick things.

LeBrok
22-07-13, 03:33
Sorry guys, not much time to argue my points recently, not even to read everything. Here is in short:


Right now it seems there is no way anyone is born gay and now ur saying it is a fact some are ur coming to quick conclusions


Gay gene in fruit flies discovered:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm

Featherstone, associate professor of biological sciences at UIC, and his coworkers discovered a gene in fruit flies they called "genderblind," or GB. A mutation in GB turns flies bisexual.
It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. They even attempted copulation.
I know there is a far cry between humans and flies, but this is interesting. This mutation blocks repulsive pheromone smell males produce to let other males know, don't copulate with me. Otherwise fruit fliies are hardwired as bisexual.
Fruit flies don't have ability to learn, so this is definitely not a cultural thing, no perverting.

In humans there is no one gay gene (yet) but there are few strong candidates, all the clues point of hereditary nature:

What might be the origin of biological differences underlying male sexual preference? In 1993 Dean Hamer and his colleagues at the National Cancer Institute discovered a preliminary but nevertheless tantalizing clue.[9] Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html


The gay gene or mutation would not be passed down because they DONT HAVE OFFSPRING.
I personally know to gays that left their families and kids (yes their genetic kids) in late 40s. They said they were sick and tired hiding their real sexuality all their life. It make sense as we are mostly susceptible to peer or family pressure in young age, and we go with our true nature later in life. On other hand I'm in later 40's myself and when I see two men kissing (sexually) I find it very repulsive, as repulsive as i've seen it the first time. I can't change it, but I can understand, tolerate, even though I can't look at it.


We dont even know if there are diff sexual orientations. If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.



u are going of the philosophy of Europeans from the 300-present who never read the Bible either because it was in Latin or don't care to.

I'm sorry but it only shows your young age and vast experience with real world. For 35 years I was a devoted catholic, I know the bible, and I know how world works on both sides, believer and atheist. My change of spirituality was strictly based on inability of bible to explain the world. Science explains it much better and more completely without need for miracles or any extra natural phenomenons. Actually science can explain spirituality and religion, but it doesn't work in reverse.

Fire Haired
22-07-13, 08:07
Sorry guys, not much time to argue my points recently, not even to read everything. Here is in short:



Gay gene in fruit flies discovered:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094541.htm
.
I know there is a far cry between humans and flies, but this is interesting. This mutation blocks repulsive pheromone smell males produce to let other males know, don't copulate with me. Otherwise fruit flies are hardwired as bisexual.
Fruit flies don't have ability to learn, so this is definitely not a cultural thing, no perverting.


"Homosexual courtship might be sort of an 'overreaction' to sexual stimuli," he explained.

which means it is just because they became more sexual.


"It was very dramatic," said Featherstone. "The GB mutant males treated other males exactly the same way normal male flies would treat a female. .

So their gay sexulaity came from the same source as straight male sexuality it is not its own. So it is either its own sexuality mutated out of straight make sexuallity or a over reaction to sexual stimli.


To test this, he and his colleagues genetically altered synapse strength independent of GB, and also fed the flies drugs that can alter synapse strength. As predicted, they were able to turn fly homosexuality on and off -- and within hours.

so they used more than the GB gene to strengthen the sexuality of the fruit flies which made them bi. I dont exactly understand the other things they said. Their b sexuality was not a female source from what these guys said because they treated males like they did females. It was of male sexual source so it is not a specific gay gene or comes from a unique gay brain part. It comes from the same source as male sexual attraction to females. I cant decide if it is a overreaction to sexual feelings which is what the head of the study suggested or if somehow it is a mutated straight gene but then why would it cause them to be attracted to the same gender. That would not evolve from natural selection and how would it pop up there is no reason for it. I dont understand all of the science behind it i dont think u do either before we come up with conclusions i think both us need to study more. right now it looks like a over reaction to sexual stimli not a gene that specifcally causes them to be bi.

it is not a gay gene if anything it is a bi gene. also i think there needs to be more studies on this and compare this to other animals.


In humans there is no one gay gene (yet) but there are few strong candidates, all the clues point of hereditary nature:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/genetics/nyreview.html

u need to realize this is all bias research and the writer of the article obviously shows is pro gay opinon much of the research is very questionble and not relible. Like studying families with gay people and their realtives i dont trust that one. How many have they studied and they just asked the people if they have had homosexual temptaions many people have so that doe snot make them gay it can totally be explained their their past life.

and they say the females had more homo sexual temptation then that the gene was passed from the mother. Where is the DNA evidence those are just speculations. Also gay men like i said have the same sexual behavour as straight men so it could not come from the mother it coems from the same source as striaght mens attrcation to women.



I personally know to gays that left their families and kids (yes their genetic kids) in late 40s. They said they were sick and tired hiding their real sexuality all their life. It make sense as we are mostly susceptible to peer or family pressure in young age, and we go with our true nature later in life. On other hand I'm in later 40's myself and when I see two men kissing (sexually) I find it very repulsive, as repulsive as i've seen it the first time. I can't change it, but I can understand, tolerate, even though I can't look at it.

then why did they get married they fell in love with women orignally and spent many years with them had kids. falling in love is one of the strongest emotions a human can have and it is completly willing. they defintley where very hetro sexual to commit to all of that and their homo stuff can be explained in temptaions and since they where so diff thought that is who they where. This stuff defintley is from more recent times they probably saw the homo temptations fearfully and diff so it made it more tempting.

trust me people influced by gay stuff like child rape have a much better chance of becoming gay. i have argued this with many of my teachers they just ignore the whole life experience thing.


If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.



U cant just say if someone has homo temptaions that makes them 100% gay. And many of u people just ignore obvious phscological causes of homosexuality. u always assume everyone goes 100% from instinct that is not true. I know a very sick and perverted side of homosexuaiy i have seen and been flitered by homo's in my town which has many gays. It is very sick dont lie and act as if they are exactly the same and are perfect little angles they have a perverted side which is not natural.

Stop asking saying stuff like why question sexual orientation. of course u can question it that makes no sense that u cant. U cant defintley explain homosexuality and bisexuality with past life experiences stop ignoring that it is so true not every sexual feeling people have they where born with. and if people have a little temptation towards something that is not their gender does not mean they are homosexuals or motor sexual u need to read the biased pro gay articles with caution.

honestly i can not believe u support those 40 year old men and women who left their family for the same gender. That get me so angre and i have the right to dont say i am a bigot that is just plain wrong. They probably said they where hiding their sexuality because they had those temptations for a very long time and they felt since it was gay it somehow meant they where 100% gay and pro gay people like u probably encouraged them. stop taking past life experiences and mental reason for homosexuality out of the picture they defintley matter.

i have seen pervert mental cases one threaten to kill my father and raped children now he is in prison. Which reminds me every heard of the saying dont drop the soap u think those prison rapist arent perverts and are naturally gay. Maybe they are gay for the same reason as those fruit flies over sexual stimli meaning they are extremly horney. These are people who say well i am just gay it was the way was born,. gay pride parades in my city with guys making out and touching each other in the wrong places throwing condoms and i have heard many people support them.

what the heck it does not matter if u support gay marriage that is sick. it shows a sick side of homosexuality the media does not let us show and when people like me who have wittnessd it say stuff about it. We are called haters of gays. u have to consider the perverted and sick parts of homosexuality dont ignore it.


If you don't see the difference yourself I have a suspicion that you are bisexual man. It is not an accusation or ridicule, by all means, just observation. Perhaps for you it is a perversion, because you know by yourself, that with some encouragement of attractive male you would be tempted to go to the other side.
Otherwise I have no idea why would you question sexual orientations?
We also know that few strongest opponents of gay marriage and homosexuality in US Congres turned to be homo or bisesuals, and were cought in such acts.

when i say difference i mean we dont know if any one is naturally any thing but straight which is made for reproduction which is what sex was made for egg meets sperm not the other way around. i dont understand why u would think i am bisexual i guess now u want call everyone bi or gay i have noticed many people in recent times have been accused of being gay. Like any in the office since everyone though he was gay that made him consider if he was gay which he said gave him gay tempation again a good way to explain it in life expernces.

so in ur opinion if someone has any gay temptation their gay or bi. have u considered that it could be from life experiences. there maybe needs to be a not pro gay study on gays personal sexual history. Also i would like to say female attitude has alot to do with male sexuality and vis versa with females so i wonder how many gay men like hairy chests and hairy men. or would be attracted to a big bearded beast viking( i cant speak for girls it seems like this is true). this is just from what i have experienced it seems girls like the athlete or a tough guy the majo man or other distinct personalty traits. girls change their opinion quickly based on personality while guys choose who they like before hearing a word come out of the girls mouth and also their femine attitude. also guys are the aggressors and stay stubborn to a girl till he losses interest or is constantly rejected.

why do people accuse men of being unfaithful that gets annoying its the girls who are unfaithful and cheaters. Guys make quick decisions while girls are picky and break alot of guys hearts. girls reject way more guys than guys reject girls.

i bet if their was a study they would see gay men sexual feelings for other men is based on the straight mans feelings for women. They show the same mental and other complicated sexual traits and like i said they have the same sexual behavior and i would guess same brain sexual behavior it is defintley not just testosterone like u said before. like the leader in the study said the fruit flies treated the men the same same way as the women. their sexual source was from male hetrosexuality the attraction to the male fruit fly may be over dose of sexual feelings like the lead of the study said or another reason but is unrelated to female sexuality.

the reason those supreme court people probably turned gay. is reasons i have metioned fear and angre from the world they see they are the small minority to oppose gay marriage. i would not be supirsed if they have been attacked by gays i am not suprised this occurs in high ranking people against gay marriage it is totally mental and can be explained by life experiences. i am sick of people who want them to be gay and act as if one gay temptation makes someone gay. u completly ignore the life experiences factor.



I'm sorry but it only shows your young age and vast experience with real world. For 35 years I was a devoted catholic, I know the bible, and I know how world works on both sides, believer and atheist. My change of spirituality was strictly based on inability of bible to explain the world. Science explains it much better and more completely without need for miracles or any extra natural phenomenons. Actually science can explain spirituality and religion, but it doesn't work in reverse.

majority of Americans are Christians technically. The vast majority i have meet throughout the country are in no way show signs of being christian(i cant say for sure). Catholics in my opinon are defintley the most unfaithful i go to a catholic school not one kid is a christain. when asked if they are atheist they almost always say yes they say they are Catholics too.

since u are catholic there is a chance u grew up mainly around left winged people who only showed their side on the bible. u never got to see the other side well u where probably only shown the extreme bad parts of the other side.

well u think miracles dont happen well i can show they do if u would like but that would take a new post(dont worry it is not extremely long). where did the first matter come from did it just pop up and i think so many amazing scientific thing s in our world are not completely chance. '

u cant dis agree catholic people are very un catholic. also that Christians from 300-1900ad defintley did not have a great idea on what the bible was. mainly because much of that time it was in Latin. the prove they where going against Jesus is the crimes, killings, and corrupt things so called christian Europe did for over 1,000 years.

Fire Haired
22-07-13, 08:22
sorry about my long message repeated alot of my points.

LeBrok
23-07-13, 08:39
sorry about my long message repeated alot of my points
You can't help your nature, can you? I'm sure "this lot of blablabla" is hardwired too. You just can't go against your nature, well with huge difficulty.




So their gay sexulaity came from the same source as straight male sexuality it is not its own. So it is either its own sexuality mutated out of straight make sexuallity or a over reaction to sexual stimli.
Whatever..., this is an example of genetics influencing sexual orientation. One gene mutation and natural animals developed homosexual predispositions.
Instead of this lot of blabla, can you finally admit that genetic mutation can lead to homosexuality in animals (fruit flies in this case)?



u need to realize this is all bias Because they don't agree with your biblical point of view?
Can you say Copernicus and Galileo?




then why did they get married they fell in love with women orignally and spent many years with them had kids. falling in love is one of the strongest emotions a human can have and it is completly willing. they defintley where very hetro sexual to commit to all of that and their homo stuff can be explained in temptaions and since they where so diff thought that is who they where. This stuff defintley is from more recent times they probably saw the homo temptations fearfully and diff so it made it more tempting.
It was the point to show you that homosexuals can have kids. You didn't believe it.
He is bisexual from birth. With family pressure and woman (his future wife) was loving him and he got married to this woman. Later in life love evaporated, and it happened that he met a guy that he fell in love with. Being bisexual he could have sexual relationships with both sexes. He's sexual orientation was bisexual from puberty. Actually it wasn't 50/50 he always liked men more than women.
Simple biology in action to explain it all. We don't need devils, temptations, miracles, perverting, influencing, all this mumbo jumbo. Sexual orientation at genetic level and manifested at puberty, makes a choice for us, what sex we are attracted to.


trust me people influced by gay stuff like child rape have a much better chance of becoming gay. Are you insane? It is like saying that raping a women will make her loving and wanting men even more. You don't really get psychology, nor understand people.




if people have a little temptation towards something that is not their gender does not mean they are homosexuals Yes it does. I'm a straight man, I never in my life found any man sexually attractive, not even Brad Pitt. I find homosexual acts mentally repulsive, can't watch it even in mild form in movies. From puberty I was only attracted to women, and it is still the case. And I had no sexual education at all, and when I was growing up TV was very asexual. It all came in natural way to me.


or motor sexual u need to read the biased pro gay articles with caution. Tell me why would I like to read gay pro biased articles?
The articles that I cited explain sexuality in simple scientific understandable terms, that's why I like them.


honestly i can not believe u support those 40 year old men and women who left their family for the same gender. That get me so angre and i have the right to dont say i am a bigot that is just plain wrong. They probably said they where hiding their sexuality because they had those temptations for a very long time and they felt since it was gay it somehow meant they where 100% gay and pro gay people like u probably encouraged them. stop taking past life experiences and mental reason for homosexuality out of the picture they defintley matter. For god sake man, get a grip on yourself. Nobody did this on purpose to make you angry. You're not that special, lol. Grownups made their life choices, and life is too short to get stuck with person one hates.
If you let them be gay and marry men they wouldn't need to pretend for years to love women and make them both unhappy. Unfortunately biggest like you is screwing peoples lives with hatred and social pressures.
But I guess you read your bible and you know the truth. Can you say again Galileo and Giordano Bruno.


i have seen pervert mental cases one threaten to kill my father and raped children now he is in prison. Which reminds me every heard of the saying dont drop the soap u think those prison rapist arent perverts and are naturally gay. Maybe they are gay for the same reason as those fruit flies over sexual stimli meaning they are extremly horney. These are people who say well i am just gay it was the way was born,. gay pride parades in my city with guys making out and touching each other in the wrong places throwing condoms and i have heard many people support them. So what if their orientations are genetic, it still doesn't mean they can break the law and hurt people. 90% of killers in prisons (according to one study) have brain abnormalities, either from birth or accidents. It doesn't mean we let them loose.



what the heck it does not matter if u support gay marriage that is sick. it shows a sick side of homosexuality the media does not let us show and when people like me who have wittnessd it say stuff about it. We are called haters of gays. u have to consider the perverted and sick parts of homosexuality dont ignore it. Any study showing that homosexuality ruins society in any way, economy, sociological, politically?
Actually the most prosperous countries on this planet have the biggest numbers of homosexuals out of closets. How is this possible? Bible says otherwise.






so in ur opinion if someone has any gay temptation their gay or bi. have u considered that it could be from life experiences Yes I did. You can't change sexual orientation. If you had slightest temptation for a guy, at least you are a bi. What I can assure you is that if you are 100% straight this thought would never cross your mind.


there maybe needs to be a not pro gay study on gays personal sexual history. Also i would like to say female attitude has alot to do with male sexuality and vis versa with females so i wonder how many gay men like hairy chests and hairy men. or would be attracted to a big bearded beast viking( i cant speak for girls it seems like this is true). this is just from what i have experienced it seems girls like the athlete or a tough guy the majo man or other distinct personalty traits. girls change their opinion quickly based on personality while guys choose who they like before hearing a word come out of the girls mouth and also their femine attitude. also guys are the aggressors and stay stubborn to a girl till he losses interest or is constantly rejected. I'm sorry you can't find true love.




i bet if their was a study they would see gay men sexual feelings for other men is based on the straight mans feelings for women. Of course the mechanism is the same. But you can't change what gender exites you sexully. Of course life experiences have effect on our sexuality, but they can't change your sexual orientation. This primal instinct is set in stone from conception.





the reason those supreme court people probably turned gay. is reasons i have metioned fear and angre from the world they see they are the small minority to oppose gay marriage. i would not be supirsed if they have been attacked by gays i am not suprised this occurs in high ranking people against gay marriage it is totally mental and can be explained by life experiences. i am sick of people who want them to be gay and act as if one gay temptation makes someone gay. u completly ignore the life experiences factor.
Woohoo, conspiracy to get you. Again, you're not that special.




majority of Americans are Christians technically. The vast majority i have meet throughout the country are in no way show signs of being christian(i cant say for sure). Catholics in my opinon are defintley the most unfaithful i go to a catholic school not one kid is a christain. when asked if they are atheist they almost always say yes they say they are Catholics too. Oh yeah, you're the only real christian, you are the chosen one!


since u are catholic there is a chance u grew up mainly around left winged people who only showed their side on the bible. u never got to see the other side well u where probably only shown the extreme bad parts of the other side. Bad part for one is beautiful for other.


well u think miracles dont happen well i can show they do if u would like but that would take a new post(dont worry it is not extremely long). where did the first matter come from did it just pop up and i think so many amazing scientific thing s in our world are not completely chance. 'I don't care for miracles, I don't need miracles. Human mind is making miracles every day. Look at your computer screen with internet connection or penicillin. I guess god didn't give us instruction how to make these in the bible. Too bad, maybe I would have a believed then.


u cant dis agree catholic people are very un catholic. also that Christians from 300-1900ad defintley did not have a great idea on what the bible was. mainly because much of that time it was in Latin. the prove they where going against Jesus is the crimes, killings, and corrupt things so called christian Europe did for over 1,000 years. Sometimes I think you ignoring scientific facts because you think that Holy Spirit is showing you the truth and the only way. Can you say Giordano Bruno and Darwin?

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 05:38
You can't help your nature, can you? I'm sure "this lot of blablabla" is hardwired too. You just can't go against your nature, well with huge difficulty.

no i think it is the way a grew up but partlly in my nature i can still stop it though it was my mistake. something that is in my nature is to beat the crap out of dis respectful people who think their smart like u.



Whatever..., this is an example of genetics influencing sexual orientation. One gene mutation and natural animals developed homosexual predispositions.
Instead of this lot of blabla, can you finally admit that genetic mutation can lead to homosexuality in animals (fruit flies in this case)?

the only non human species i heard about was fruit flies. uu do know they used drugs
The team led by University of Illinois at Chicago researcher David Featherstone has discovered that sexual orientation in fruit flies is controlled by a previously unknown regulator of synapse strength. Armed with this knowledge, the researchers found they were able to use either genetic manipulation or drugs to turn the flies' homosexual behavior on and off within hours.
Genetic manipulation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7563/) is scientists messing with their genes click on the link it explains i dont completly uunderstand it u have to understand this was an experiment.

I dont think either of us understand the Fruit fly gay gene thing. The leader of the study said it affected how they responded to Pharmone Pheromones are powerful sexual stimuli," Featherstone said. "As it turns out, the GB mutant flies were perceiving pheromones differently. Specifically, the GB mutant males were no longer recognizing male pheromones as a repulsive stimulus."

can u explain exactly what the GB gene is i doubt it. U need to understand it for some not completly known reason causes the male fruit flys to sexually treat male and femlae fruit flys the same why they tried to put sperm or whatever fruit flys have into the male furit flys. that means their bi sexuality is caused by the same source as male heterosexuality it is not its on gene it works with the male sex genes. i think the leader said it may be a overreaction to sexual stimil i dont completly understand what stimil means.

Before u said well science is complicated and just because gay men and gay women sexual behavior is like straight men and straight women their might be a very very complicated answer in science. but now that they say they found a GB(that scints created and added drugs) bisexual gene in male fruit flys u automatically call it a total gene like a gene for red hair when u dont even understand how it works. U don't study it further.





Because they don't agree with your biblical point of view?
Can you say Copernicus and Galileo?

Well if u want evidence i will give u evidence.

Take, for example, the lugubrious statements of-once respected investigators. Here is Sandor Feldman, a well-known psychotherapist, in 1956:

It is the consensus of many contemporary psychoanalytic workers that permanent homosexuals, like all perverts, are neurotics.[1]

the author of the article called them lugubrois statemenst maki his or her opinon very clear.so the person who wrote that article was pro gay.


Simon LeVay, Dean Hamer, and a small group of researchers concerned to distinguish biological and genetic influences on sexual behavior has discredited much of the loose rhetoric that has been used about homosexuality. In August 1991, LeVay, a neuroscientist who now directs the Institute of Gay and Lesbian Education in southern California, published in the magazine Science findings from autopsies of men and women of known sexual preference. He found that a tiny region in the center of the brain--the interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH) 3--was, on average, substantially smaller in nineteen gay men who died from AIDS than among sixteen heterosexual men.[7]

simon was obviously trying to find evidence people are born gay all they said was a part of the brain was smaller. he was a biased researcher and did only one study and besided female and male homosexuality is unrelated.


The most convincing evidence he puts forward to support his view comes from women with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. This condition, in which masculine characteristics, such as androgenized genitalia, including clitoral enlargement and partially fused labia, become pronounced in women, is caused by excessive testosterone production and leads, in adulthood, to an increased frequency of lesbianism affecting up to half of all the women who have the condition. The theory, still unproven, that is proposed to explain these behavioral effects of hormones is that one or more chemical signals act during a brief early critical period in the development of most males to alter permanently both the brain and the pattern of their later adult behavior. Unless this hormonal influence is switched on, a female pattern of development will follow automatically.

earlier both of us agreed this could not be the case. because lesbian women dont hump or adore women the same way straight men do. also they dont have a pennis.i think it is clear the guy who did this study wanted to say that and that was his goal he was a biased researcher.


Hamer began his painstaking search for a genetic contribution to sexual behavior by studying the rates of homosexuality among male relatives of seventy-six known gay men. He found that the incidence of homosexual preference in these family members was strikingly higher (13.5 percent) than the rate of homosexuality among the whole sample (2 percent). When he looked at the patterns of sexual orientation among these families, he discovered more gay relatives on the maternal side. Homosexuality seemed, at least, to be passed from generation to generation through women.

once agian they where looking for something like that a biased reseach. that is just one family and how would a gay egen that cause men to want to hump men be passed down from the mother also gays use the same hromones as straights. all they asked is if they had a gay temptation well i am sure all of them had a straight temptaion. someone being attracted to a dog at some point does not mean they are motor sexuals or that it is natural. this article was made to say homosexuality is natural u know its biased.

I think u also know that the american educational world is very liberal. the american media is very libearl. my father has almost been kicked out of his universty when getting a phd and been given bad grades because of his opinion plus it was catholic. it is people like u the run american education all of this studies where defintley pro gay. I KNOW UR GOING TO BE STUBBORN ABOUT THIS LIKE U HAVE THIS WHOLE TIME AND SAY I LIE. i am sure u where great catholic same reason u insult the bible Catholics i have meet are atheist and Catholics.








It was the point to show you that homosexuals can have kids. You didn't believe it.
He is bisexual from birth. With family pressure and woman (his future wife) was loving him and he got married to this woman. Later in life love evaporated, and it happened that he met a guy that he fell in love with. Being bisexual he could have sexual relationships with both sexes. He's sexual orientation was bisexual from puberty. Actually it wasn't 50/50 he always liked men more than women.
Simple biology in action to explain it all. We don't need devils, temptations, miracles, perverting, influencing, all this mumbo jumbo. Sexual orientation at genetic level and manifested at puberty, makes a choice for us, what sex we are attracted to.

[QUOTE=LeBrok;412447]Are you insane? It is like saying that raping a women will make her loving and wanting men even more. You don't really get psychology, nor understand people.



Yes it does. I'm a straight man, I never in my life found any man sexually attractive, not even Brad Pitt. I find homosexual acts mentally repulsive, can't watch it even in mild form in movies. From puberty I was only attracted to women, and it is still the case. And I had no sexual education at all, and when I was growing up TV was very asexual. It all came in natural way to me.

[QUOTE=LeBrok;412447]Tell me why would I like to read gay pro biased articles?

humm...... are u kidding me BECAUSE UR PRO GAY AND HAVE A POSSSBLY BI SEXUAL ACCORDING TO UR THEORYS

The articles that I cited explain sexuality in simple scientific understandable terms, that's why I like them.

stop lieing ur biased their biased american media is biased too. come on man i know where u are coming from i have seen so many so called Catholics like u almost everyone in my city.


For god sake man, get a grip on yourself. Nobody did this on purpose to make you angry. You're not that special, lol. Grownups made their life choices, and life is too short to get stuck with person one hates.
If you let them be gay and marry men they wouldn't need to pretend for years to love women and make them both unhappy. Unfortunately biggest like you is screwing peoples lives with hatred and social pressures.

u act like u know everyones life story and u understand psychology of sexuality we u dont u know just as well or worse than i do. see i know who u are ur are made of 1960's hippie mindset ur like a scientific creation. obviously u have some hate against me you biget. u think in this liberal mind set wow tolernce well we cant allow people to do whatever they want. hey u are a biget towards people who like animals but of course u are going to say that is much more rare but according to what u say we cant go agianst our nature then why are some people attracted to animals and did u see that article i showed a pitbull raped a little girl is that natural too.

u guys don't know me or my people u think where just haters when we are not(i know i seem to angre sometimes i apoligize). i have meet gay people i dont dis respect them but when the subject comes up i wont lie i think what their doing is wrong. u guys have blinded yourself and ignored the psychological factors and people attracted to animals to fit ur perfect world. u make ur selfs think there is not a sick side to homosexuality.

we cant have a compeltly tolerant society there are wrongs and rights. u need to realize ur people rule Americas media ur people rule our education systems. my people's voice is not shown we are shown in the way u want us to seem as bigets. u create this fixed idea of what society is as tolerant when the rules of tolerant constinley change. i accept other people but i have rules just like u i don't want to hate people.

i have a 68 year old teacher who is like u times 10 i have to listen to his speeches about tolerance when he is not tolerant. he says he is open mined no he isn't at all he believes is the extreme liberal opinion and hates any thing to do with religion just like u. i am 15 u think i am the smartest person with my opinion. u know what u and other have made me want to become a politician and wake this country up. maybe do some studies on this subject. trust me this country will be changed and i will help it happen.

i know that i seem very angry sometimes i apologize ur dis respectful attitude, insults, and over confidence got me angry. i am defintley not a good example of a good person.



So what if their orientations are genetic, it still doesn't mean they can break the law and hurt people. 90% of killers in prisons (according to one study) have brain abnormalities, either from birth or accidents. It doesn't mean we let them loose.

The guy i am talking about had mental problems one of his problems was he was a pervert apart of that was he was attarcted to other men and raped little kids. u are going to call anytype of gay act comepltly natural arent u dont even consider anything else. Why do u think men act more gay when in prison they say that they raped other men because they had not had a woman for so long theyw here desprite it was not natural. when u see a attractive girl on tv that is not a woman it is electronic stuff on the tv scrren so ur body does not say wait no that is not a phiscal human being. the male and femlae body has so many similraties that u should except homosexuality to be more popular than motorsexuality and perversion is defintley possible. U ARE SO STUBBORN ON THAT POINT EVEN THOUGH U HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT UR NATURE SAYS.



Any study showing that homosexuality ruins society in any way, economy, sociological, politically?
Actually the most prosperous countries on this planet have the biggest numbers of homosexuals out of closets. How is this possible? Bible says otherwise.

i never said homosexuality will destroy society u just wanted me too. obviosuly u dont know the bible well(Catholic for 35 yearsaka athiest but modertley dis like Christianity) the bible just says it is going agianst our nature and what humans are made to do it never mentions its affect on society. The reason the most proporus countries alloow homosexuality is because their western nations which began to allow it in the last 30 years when they where already powerful.







Yes I did. You can't change sexual orientation. If you had slightest temptation for a guy, at least you are a bi. What I can assure you is that if you are 100% straight this thought would never cross your mind.

WHERE IS UR EVIDENCE U HAVE NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!! i have a teacher u ignored the fact people have CHOOSE stop ignoring it. how do u know ur not gay because the culture has made u straight see if everyone started putting that in ur mind u have a better chance of having gay temptations. u say that because it goes along with ur argument i am sick of ur dis respectful attitude and how u think ur all smart do u realize i am 15 wait till i am 25 so how much i know i might do some studies myself.

gay men and women have the same sexual behavior as straight men and women they dont have a unque sexuality. so if there is a gay gene it is based on hetrosexuality of that gender either they are just [perveting because they have very big sexual feelings. or somehow something in the dna causes some weird think that is hard to explain that somewow makes a man want to ump another man i really dont know how to explain that and why would it help in evolution. like alcholics there are no natural alcholics but there are people who have bodies that will become more addicted to alchol than other people it might be something like that with gay people.

the scientists created the so called fruit fly gay egen the leader said it might be a overreaction to sexual stimili and that they really dont know exactly why it causes them to also be attracted to male fruit fly's. u know they also used drugs and probably put all male fruit flys in a box for about one hour i am just saying it could be the same case with those guys in jail their desperate. then later they put females in.

i think there needs to be more study in this and there needs to be studies.


I'm sorry you can't find true love.

wow u are so respectful and mature. i dont understand it is women who pick which guy they want and reject like 50 and why do u think guys are so defensive because women are cheaters too.




Of course the mechanism is the same. But you can't change what gender exites you sexully. Of course life experiences have effect on our sexuality, but they can't change your sexual orientation. This primal instinct is set in stone from conception.

the way the act and the way they check each other out the way they think about sexual stuff is the same. i dont understand how naturally a man could want to treat another man like he is a woman which is for reproduction which is what sex is for. whatever this gay gene is u think exists it is based on hetrosexual sexuality in every way not just hormones which is why i dont think it exists. this sexual orientation thing is just a word and yes life experiences can change ur sexual orientation why are u so stubborn on that.

show me evidence it is completely set in stone that just a saying. primal instinct u dont know what that is when it comes down to DNA ur not a expert neither am i on this both of us are biased on one side. if there is a so called gay gene it would not be passed down then it would have to be a bisexual gene also i still don't understand and i dont think u know how to explain why gay men and women have the exact same sexual behavior then how could they have a diff sexual orientation


if it is not female genes that make gay men attarcted to other men then what does. they are attracted to other men the same way straight men are attracted to women how can u make a gene that switches it that makes no sense to me. can u explain that.

u should watch the office episode where andy thinks he is gay because Micheal his boss made a rumor he was. andy said he had only been attracted to women but when they called him gay he reconsidered and said he wanted to explore it obviously shows a how someone can change their sexuality. any pschologist who is not completely biased and has dealed with perverts would say ur wrong we can change our sexual orientation it is not all natural.

why do some men rape little girls who did not go through puberty and dont have those female markers that technically is unnatural well i guess maybe u could find a way to get around that. what about men raping little boys men who said they where straight their whole life or people raping dogs i bet men have i higher rate i know from the studies i read and the wikpedia page animal homosexuality said the rate is higher in males.






Woohoo, conspiracy to get you. Again, you're not that special.

when did i ever say i was special id di not really beive it but if it was true that was what i thought the cause was.




Oh yeah, you're the only real christian, you are the chosen one!

i never said that. what i know is Catholics and former Catholics like u are not Christians and are very left winged and hateful towards people like me because i have experienced that hate they are usually Christian by culture. i really doubt u where a serious catholic based on what u are saying and the dis respect u show towards Christianity u should be ashamed of ur self. u say i am spreading hate u spread hate agianst people like me. there are limits in society i think homosexuality is one of them just like u think motor sexuality is one does that make u a bigiot.


Bad part for one is beautiful for other.

so u did grow up left winged catholic that explains alot.


I don't care for miracles, I don't need miracles. Human mind is making miracles every day. Look at your computer screen with internet connection or penicillin. I guess god didn't give us instruction how to make these in the bible. Too bad, maybe I would have a believed then.

u show alot of respect for Christianity don't u what a model citizen of a tolerant society and a former catholic. why should the bible show instruction on making a computer obviously u don't understand the bible. that totally goes with Christianity and the bible on how amazing humans are. u show the same hate for Christianity my catholic school does including or priests so i guess ur still catholic.

and miracles do happen and u would care if God himself went up to u anyone would care. I can give u some examples now my family would not like me to tell it as if it was a miracle because we are not suppose to base faith on miracles they might not be miracles and we should not give them alot of attention.

mu uncle in law not by blood(my dads family is not christain anyways) total redneck says he wants nothing with God. while on his truck route has a vision of Jesus telling him who he is. Says the vision lasted for about 10 minutes while he was on the highway. he knew specific stuff about the Bible after that vision he never learned plus he was not in a accident his truck was fine. Says he never remembered waking up became a chrsitain becuse of the vision.

my friends family from Zion Illinois family orignalley moved there because they said themselves dowie healed them from a deadly disease and many people say they where healed by him. That is why the city was started. dowie went very crazy and trusted on his miracles but it seems he really did heal people their are many witness.

my father when he had just became a Christian was ministering to a old old man at a retirement home the guys yells at him tells him to believe says the Bible is a bunch of lies. then while my dad is leaving the old man is crying like a little baby my dad comes in to help he is touching his head so my dad prays for him the second my dad says amen the pain is gone the old man became a christian.

my greate grandmother giving birth to my grandmother in 1936. she died when giving birth my grandpa named my grandmother after her. then about 10 minutes later she jumped up out of her bed automatically and sang in tongue(she lived to be 103 i am not saying thats a miracle just saying). the doctor is dead but my family did know him and from what i hear he did not deny it. my great grand parents my grand parents and my mom almost never talk about it i asked today just for u. u could just say their a bunch of liers but i doubt that they are not the extreme bigets u might think they are. that may be a mircle.

i have many more examples some in my own life put that might be to personal and tell more about my self. i dont know if these are miracles but it gets convincing after a while where people witness things like someone speaking in tongues in a language he never learned stuff like that has happened i have meet people saying they have seen that. people say they have seen mircles just like in the bible i know u are really going to criticize on this and be 10 times more stubborn than before.

the fact the disciples followed Jesus and died for him because they say they saw him be raised from the dead. If they never did it why would they face rejection from the Jewish people and gentiles and be persecuted made fun of and then killed why would they lie to themselves. and why does Christianity spread so much in ancient Rome and just ancient people period. i know far left people who truly do hate Christianity give the excuse to as earthquake or try to say it was all forced conversions even though Christians where heavily persecuted the new testament makes it so clear so many times Jesus is for all nations and one day all nations will hear of him and at least some from every nation will convert look at Christianity today and how spread out it is. i doubt Paul every considered the Germanic tribes or Irish to be major Christians or convert.

people try to make Christianity seem as small as possible but it is pretty amazing simple Jews 2,000ybp where able to spread it and make it so large that may be a mircle in it self. i can give u more examples if u would like. also how do u explain nearlly everyone in the world except recent modern atheist. Believe in a God and every religion is so similar we all got it from the same source i also think it is in our instinct to believe in God.



Sometimes I think you ignoring scientific facts because you think that Holy Spirit is showing you the truth and the only way. Can you say Giordano Bruno and Darwin?

when did i ever say that i am not ignoring scientific fact what i am doing is studying science unlike u. i think u are ignoring a scientific fact that gay people have the same sexual behavior as straight people gay men treat men the same way straight men treat women they have the same sexuality. how could that twist if they dont have any signs of a woman sexuality because they treat men in every way the same as men treat women even the fruit flys also did u know they had a scientific experiment the fruit flys where not born with it they changed the synpess strength in the fruit flys i bet u dont even know what that means.

Fire Haired
24-07-13, 05:40
sorry man i wont be able to respond till maybe tomorrow i am busy making a huge thread bout Germanic tribes historically and Genetically. i think u will like it i will edit if there are mistakes which there probably will be. i have been responding to posts and it has really slowed me down.

LeBrok
24-07-13, 09:51
no i think it is the way a grew up but partlly in my nature i can still stop it though it was my mistake. something that is in my nature is to beat the crap out of dis respectful people who think their smart like u. By length of this post it is obvious you can't control your nature. You can say, in your standard long blablabla, that it is not true, but your actions speak louder.

Anyway without much of my blabla, didn't they turned flies gay or bi by switching GB gene? Can you give me a short answer? We don't need a novel again.


Well if u want evidence i will give u evidence.
And you cited all contrary to your views material and called it biased. How come all the scientists don't share your point of view? Is it a case that at age of 15 you are not understanding all facts and implications?


humm...... are u kidding me BECAUSE UR PRO GAY AND HAVE A POSSSBLY BI SEXUAL ACCORDING TO UR THEORYSAside the fact that your sentence makes little logic, you didn't explain why I'm pro gay if I can't even look at two gay kissing.



stop lieing ur biased their biased american media is biased too. come on man i know where u are coming from i have seen so many so called Catholics like u almost everyone in my city.
That's what I mean that you are special. Everyone else thinks different than you.



u act like u know everyones life story and u understand psychology of sexuality
Maybe because I'm old and have seen a lot and you're just 15 and mostly full of christian dogma.


pitbull raped a little girl is that natural too. Did you show the dog perverted movies?


u guys don't know me or my people u think where just haters when we are not(i know i seem to angre sometimes i apoligize). Yes, we know your people and left them in times of Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition. I guess some escaped...


u i don't want to hate people. Shit, you've broke your rules again.


i have a 68 year old teacher who is like u times 10 i have to listen to his speeches about tolerance when he is not tolerant.Have you ever considered the fact that actually you might be wrong?





i am 15 u think i am the smartest person with my opinion. u know what u and other have made me want to become a politician and wake this country up. Congratulation on a visions but it is not going to happen. First of all, you can barely communicate with people using words. Not a very good trait to excite people to action.
Secondly, most people will hate your vision of the country.


i know that i seem very angry sometimes i apologize ur dis respectful attitude, insults, and over confidence got me angry. i am defintley not a good example of a good person. More reason to reflect on your points of view. Overconfidence and erratic thinking had lead you to wrong conclusions.




U ARE SO STUBBORN ON THAT POINT EVEN THOUGH U HAVE NO EVIDENCE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO GO AGAINST EXACTLY WHAT UR NATURE SAYS. If you were 100% heterosexual you wouldn't have any difficulties to understand that it is impossible to change sides. If you think you are, try to get an erection thinking about handsome man. How did it go?
If it comes to your blabla nature it is very hard to write something short to the point, but not impossible.





i never said homosexuality will destroy society u just wanted me too. Well then, what are you afraid of? Otherwise read again your sentence. When you are a politician (on a mission to change the rotten world), Jay Leno and others will eat you alive first.



i am sick of ur dis respectful attitude and how u think ur all smart do u realize i am 15 wait till i am 25 so how much i know i might do some studies myself. I can't wait till you're 25, perhaps your logical part of brain can catch up with your hyperactive memory and lips.


gay men and women have the same sexual behavior as straight men and women they dont have a unque sexuality. so if there is a gay gene it is based on hetrosexuality of that gender either they are just [perveting because they have very big sexual feelings. How many times I have to point you into understanding that movements of humping is one thing and what you hump is completely different.
Sexual act - humping.
What you hump - sexual orientation.
Can you see the difference between these two concepts and definitions?



the scientists created the so called fruit fly gay egen the leader said it might be a overreaction to sexual stimili and that they really dont know exactly why it causes them to also be attracted to male fruit fly's. u know they also used drugs and probably put all male fruit flys in a box for about one hour i am just saying it could be the same case with those guys in jail their desperate. then later they put females in. I'm glad you still contemplating this research. Perhaps there is a gay gene?


i think there needs to be more study in this and there needs to be studies.
You can bank on it. But wait, they will be all biased.



show me evidence it is completely set in stone that just a saying. primal instinct u dont know what that is when it comes down to DNA I'm the walking evidence. After 50 years bombarded by liberal christian and other liberal media and liberal movies I'm still 100% straight man with not even one temptation with same sex.
Tell me how is this possible?


u should watch the office episode where andy thinks he is gay because Micheal... Excellent material to learn psychology.


why do some men rape little girls who did not go through pubertySimilar thing. Wrong neuronal connection making men sexually excited on sight of little girls. Also psychopaths are people getting sexually excited on sight of human torture and suffering. Brain hardwired the wrong way. Genetic mistake.
We don't need devil or perversion. Just stupid nature playing roulette.





when did i ever say i was special id di not really beive it but if it was true that was what i thought the cause was. Another Jay Leno special...






i never said that. So maybe you better spend more time writing what you say, and be clear, and double check. Just be courteous towards other people reading your posts.


fact what i am doing is studying science unlike u. Ouch you got me, that hurts, lol.



i think u are ignoring a scientific fact that gay people have the same sexual behavior as straight people gay Let's try the definitions again. Humping - sexual act, who you hump - sexual orientation.


the fruit flys also did u know they had a scientific experiment the fruit flys where not born with it they changed the synpess strength in the fruit flys i bet u dont even know what that means. I'm glad you still contemplating fruit flies. Keep thinking.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 06:58
By length of this post it is obvious you can't control your nature. You can say, in your standard long blablabla, that it is not true, but your actions speak louder.

Anyway without much of my blabla, didn't they turned flies gay or bi by switching GB gene? Can you give me a short answer? We don't need a novel again.

I can control my nature ur not a Psychologist why are u using that to help ur argument. I apologize for being so angry towards alright i will stop now. U know humans have free choose like with controlling how they talk dont u i dont think we need to argue about this.

What they did was change the regulator in the synpass by genetic manipulation or drugs. The fruit flys where not born like that the Scientists did it to them. I dont know exactly what they did also they did not turn them gay they said the fruit flys treated male fruit flys excatley the same as female ones when it comes to sex thats all.

I dont think either of us understand Genetic Manipulation or Synpass strength. What i can conclude on this is that the attraction those male fruit fly's had for other males was based on male attraction for females. They where not using female anything from what i know. Everything they did to the males is also what they did to females so it is male sexuality.

The leader of the study said it may have been a overreaction to sexual stimil what ever sexual stimil is. I think there needs to be way more studies on this the article called it a gay gene when it was put in by scientists not by nature. also it was not a gay gene it caused them to use their male sexuality on each other it was not a diff type than they already had.

plus the study was done by people from UIC. That is a very liberal college they are going to want to go more on the gay side. That is very true not matter how much u want to deny it. I am not saying their liers but u need to study it on ur own don't believe a title(which is trying to get attention like all media titles) to a article really figure out on ur own what the study showed.



And you cited all contrary to your views material and called it biased. How come all the scientists don't share your point of view? Is it a case that at age of 15 you are not understanding all facts and implications?

The article was made to say homosexuality is completely natural with no choice. Of course it was biased dont u agree. That is not all scientists that was just the ones that one author showed. I think i understand the facts about this study from what i have seen all u do is quote the title of a article that trys to get attention and u did not actulley study what it was.


Aside the fact that your sentence makes little logic, you didn't explain why I'm pro gay if I can't even look at two gay kissing.

Ur pro gay because u say people are born gay. u try to make every little thing fit ur perfect world. U say all sexual choose is 100% natural when it comes to gender u say it is impossible to pervert so that the idea that gay people are not naturally gay is not possible. Every psychologist who studies perverts would dis agree with u. Then when i bring up humans who have sex with animals or people who rape little kids or animals that rape humans. U either ignore it or say they have a mental problem but how does a mental problem cause people do do something u say is impossible.

I want to make this clear people have alot of sexual choose they can be attracted to the gender they are not biologically suppose to be. U argue that is not true because if it was it would hurt ur argument. U also want to take out the perverted and sick side of homosexuality that has always been there. U want to say they are all 100% innocent even that guy who had mental problems and threaten my dad's life and raped a child u still dont belive he is a pervert. Or those guys who rape other men in prison even though they where completely straight and say they do it because they had no women. u still say their gay or bi u make ur own definitions based on psychology u mad up to fit ur idea about homosexuality.

u have no Psychological evidence that if someone has one tiny gay temptation their at least bi. Do u think sandusky is bi for raping little boys i think he is just a pervert. U say u belive in sexual choose but when it comes down to diff gender it is impossble the only reason is it does not fit ur argument u are being very stubborn about such a simple fact perverts exist. U theory will cause u to defend sick perverts throughout history like Nero or Sandusky from Penn state.




That's what I mean that you are special. Everyone else thinks different than you.

No u and the liberal world thinks everyone is like u. U know that almost half of the voter did not vote for Obama. There are many many people who would agree with me. The media uses its power to make america more libearl. and u think that is okay. When people with my opinion are possed as un tolerant bigets who want to cut the heads off of gay people and are raciest. even though all of that is not true. Dont u think it is wrong such a large portion of the american population is mis represented on american media. Why would u support that if every station was like fox news i would not support that. i dont support fox new period i dont like how they are biased.

This shows u grew up in a liberal world u think everyone thinks like u. I grow up in one of the most liberal world i am used of being the only person with an opinon.




Maybe because I'm old and have seen a lot and you're just 15 and mostly full of christian dogma.

U can say i am full of Christian dogma and u are defintley full of Liberal dogma and anti Christian mind set. I thought of all of these arguments on my own i have argued this issue with my family so many times they think there is some type of gay gene but are against gay marriage. I had a huge argument with 3 of my brothers, 1 cousin, grand parents, my mom's cousin, and sister. On this issue they all pushed towards some type of gay gene at the end some agreeed with me. What i am trying to say is no one taught me this argument sure the motivation behind it is from my Christian backround in a way.

I have heard ur exact arguments from other people before so i know it is not completely original not saying that makes it worse. U are going off of Liberal rules and dogma in ur opinion there is no way anyone can pervert because that destroys ur idea on homosexuals because that means they might be perverting. u ignore people who are attracted to animals or little kids and give the excuse of a brain issue but how does that explain the sexual part it destroys ur idea people cant pervert. i have heard people give those exact arguments. U ignore the creepy history of homosexuality and those people in prison to fit ur perfect world. U try to make everything fit ur ideals.


Did you show the dog perverted movies?

no i gave u a link of a dog who raped a two year old girl and the cops found his seman in side of her after the mom called the cops. U try to ignore human motor sexuals because it does not agree with ur idea about it is impossible to go agianst ur nature.


Yes, we know your people and left them in times of Dark Ages and Spanish Inquisition. I guess some escaped...

I dont know what u know who i call my people. We are not raciest, not hateful against different people like u think. Christianity like the most non hateful religion and not raciest at all it repeats in the Bible so many times it is for all nations. U think ur more tolerant than me ur tolerance is just different. I think homosexuality is wrong that does not make me un tolerant. U think a grown men having relationships with 5 year old's is wrong would if someone though different. U think someone in a loving relationship with a dog is wrong maybe some dont. They can call u un tolernt maybe now u get my point.

Think we are archaic or neanderthal. People like me think u guys went way to far ur ideas and hatefulness against tradition and religion go way to far. Ur mind set is just wrong u control our media but u blame us and don't even care. u are so hateful of the past and forget about all of it. u barley care about morals just look at modern tv shows and ur over confident.

I don't want to be like people in the dark ages i want to take out the mistakes u guys made and bring back the good from the past u want to take out. And make a better world. and this world is not full of prejudice, hate, and un tolerance like u think. It does want to get ride of terrible morals, high divorce rate, high suicide rate, and extremely individualistic(letting everyone do what ever they want with no limits when they go to far), hate for the past the 1960's created.

i want to make it clear i am not about just destroying other people and prejudice. u guys blame us for that even though i see u doing the same against us.


Shit, you've broke your rules again.

i know i have. It is not like u have not u have been insulting me this whole time acting like a stubborn know it all. and througing insults left and right. form the stuff u are saying and ur whole mind set if is like u learned from so many people i have meet.


Have you ever considered the fact that actually you might be wrong?

not that much but i have researched unlike u. I know u have not considered u are wrong mainly with the Psychological factor to Sexual orientation. Which u ignore because it destroys ur idea about homosexuality. We have two diff opinion i dont think either of us have really considered being wrong.





Congratulation on a visions but it is not going to happen. First of all, you can barely communicate with people using words. Not a very good trait to excite people to action.
Secondly, most people will hate your vision of the country.

I guess people like u wont agree. But others wont well i guess u think everyone has ur opinion.


More reason to reflect on your points of view. Overconfidence and erratic thinking had lead you to wrong conclusions.

No they have not. Just look at the way u talk almost everything u say is a snobby insult. Plus u ignore the psychological impact on homosexuality which is so obviously true. u ignore anything contrary to ur liberal mindset.




If you were 100% heterosexual you wouldn't have any difficulties to understand that it is impossible to change sides. If you think you are, try to get an erection thinking about handsome man. How did it go?
If it comes to your blabla nature it is very hard to write something short to the point, but not impossible.

It is not impossible to change side u are stubborn about this part of the human mind but i doubt u are on other issues. i know this goes against ur liberal world i have heard these same arguments from other lifetime liberals. u cant win this side of the argument basic knowledge will go against u. I have given u so much evidence yet u ignore. also can u stop accusing me of being gay or what ever and u say i am insulting u looks like u doing alot of insulting too. it is people like u who accuse the whole world of being gay just like one of my teachers or if anyone is against gay marriage u say their a homophobe then say their gay. u think every gay or bi person is going by their nature and ignore anything that says their not perfect.







Well then, what are you afraid of? Otherwise read again your sentence. When you are a politician (on a mission to change the rotten world), Jay Leno and others will eat you alive first.

I dont care what jay leno or ur media says. There the ones i would show the world first their the main problem(not really jay leno). I am not saying our world is totally messed up what i am saying is people from the hippie mind set like u have gone way to far. U are so anti past and hateful against religion and morals. Ur whole mind set in my opinion causes alot of hate towards people like me and and is too controlling reminds me of communism.

Plus people from ur mind set rule our media and make my people look like haters when i dont want to be and i am not. I see a insult against people with my opinion every day on almost every tv show. We are mis repented they want to control the country in that way. all u do is give a snobby response even though u know un justice is happening. U show just as much hate and prejudice as u say i show u are not as tolerant as u say. Please dont give another one of ur snobby anti religious remarks to this. and ignore what i am telling u by assumptions and criticize on off subject things and not directly respond to what i am saying


[/QUOTE]How many times I have to point you into understanding that movements of humping is one thing and what you hump is completely different.
Sexual act - humping.
What you hump - sexual orientation.
Can you see the difference between these two concepts and definitions?[/QUOTE]

first of all sexual orientation is just what someone is attracted to. Also the fruit flys they put those drugs and other things into where treating males sexual exactly the same as females. Not just humping that is not my only point their mental attidue they way they look at each other all of that is the same as straight. Gay's have the same sexuality not just the humping action or hormones as straights. They dont get it from a female think or the other way around. So in my opinion that means there is no gay gene it bases its sexuality on normal heterosexuality. which also means in my opinion there is no way they are naturally gay. They are just doing something to the normal heterosexuality.



I'm glad you still contemplating this research. Perhaps there is a gay gene?

i am not exactly complementing it i am studying it. i study this stuff instead of just listening to what goes with what u think.



You can bank on it. But wait, they will be all biased.

Yey they probably will. libearls ignore the fact of how biased our media and education system is. and say it is all fox news.



I'm the walking evidence. After 50 years bombarded by liberal christian and other liberal media and liberal movies I'm still 100% straight man with not even one temptation with same sex.
Tell me how is this possible?

Of course that is possible it is more likely than the other way. The fact is that people can pervert i dont why u ignore the evidence. where do u think the word pervert came from oh wait let me guess hateful people from the 1800's who wanted to defend their children or sisters agianst rapist. The psychological factors of sexual orientation are very obvious.


Excellent material to learn psychology.

i know it is easy to say that about a TV show. I have had friends who say they never had a gay thought but after hearing my 68 year old teacher say well how do i know i am not gay samething happened with Andy it eventulley gave him gay temptatins. it is one of the many psychological factors i think that office episode repents it pretty well.


Similar thing. Wrong neuronal connection making men sexually excited on sight of little girls. Also psychopaths are people getting sexually excited on sight of human torture and suffering. Brain hardwired the wrong way. Genetic mistake.
We don't need devil or perversion. Just stupid nature playing roulette.

U dont have enough evidence to say that is what all perverts are. and where is the evidence a type of brain would natural be attracted to human torture that is just a mental problem added on to sexuality like someone with that problem is more likely to talk to a chair or whatever. Or like no one is naturally a alcoholic just some people have a personality type or something in their body that makes them way more addicted to alcohol.

Maybe the human body adapted to alcohol but i think it is only been hear since farming so native Americans did not get it till like 300 years ago and their huge alcoholics from what i know actulley there is a hug native american center by my house. My parents know people there my dad said the native american guys are alcoholics and are wicked bar fighters.



Let's try the definitions again. Humping - sexual act, who you hump - sexual orientation.

the fact is that humping is for males to put sperm in female egg it is heterosexual. also the bi fruit flys(they where not born bi scientific drugs and other stuff) treated females and males the exact same way sexually. So their sexuality is from the male side not female. gay's don't have sexuality it seems from the other gender either they perverted it psychological or a way i see as impossible they for some reason want to do reproductive stuff on the same gender.

Which creates no offspring i dont see how that can happen in nature or how it would help evolution. Possibly their is something that makes them more likely to be more sexual or it is some how like alcoholics. Or like what that guy said over reaction to sexual stimili.


I'm glad you still contemplating fruit flies. Keep thinking.

i will also i apologize for my attitude it is hard to stop but i am not letting my self stop sorry. i dont want to create hard feelings between us.

LeBrok
25-07-13, 08:17
Sorry I don't have will nor time to go through your novels again. What is the problem keeping this stuff short to the point?

[QUOTE]U can say i am full of Christian dogma and u are defintley full of Liberal dogma and anti Christian mind set. I thought of all of these arguments on my own i have argued this issue with my family so many times they think there is some type of gay gene but are against gay marriage. I had a huge argument with 3 of my brothers, 1 cousin, grand parents, my mom's cousin, and sister. On this issue they all pushed towards some type of gay gene at the end some agreeed with me. What i am trying to say is no one taught me this argument sure the motivation behind it is from my Christian backround in a way.I'm so tired of your whindy arguments, super long posts, and incorrect observation that I'm considering the same as your family, to agree with you just to stop you talking.




first of all sexual orientation is just what someone is attracted to. Duh, finally.


not that much but i have researched unlike u. I know u have not considered u are wrong mainly with the Psychological factor to Sexual orientation. Which u ignore because it destroys ur idea about homosexuality. We have two diff opinion i dont think either of us have really considered being wrong.
This is a perfect example of your jumping to conclusions, not realizing all possibilities, and pure arrogance.
In my life I was on both sides of this issue. Did you?
I've analyzed this problem, and guess what, I went against my original supposition.
This is how research and science is done. You go where the clues lead you to, against your feelings, religion, wants and wishes.
On your defence you have your extremely young age with feelings overwhelming logical functions of your brain. Plus 15 years of biblical education, and we know how bible helped science through history.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 08:46
Sorry I don't have will nor time to go through your novels again. What is the problem keeping this stuff short to the point?

I'm so tired of your whindy arguments, super long posts, and incorrect observation that I'm considering the same as your family, to agree with you just to stop you talking.


This is a perfect example of your jumping to conclusions, not realizing all possibilities, and pure arrogance.
In my life I was on both sides of this issue. Did you?
I've analyzed this problem, and guess what, I went against my original supposition.
This is how research and science is done. You go where the clues lead you to, against your feelings, religion, wants and wishes.


u have had a clear biased since the begging. windy arguments i give very real arguments i can say the same to u. for making so much stuff up about human psychology to fit ur idea of homosexuals and not taking the fact that they have the same sexual behavour into any consideration. it has been good arguing with u honestly hopefully ur not finished but it is alright if u are.

frankmiller11
25-07-13, 09:47
i am completly fine with the same sex marriage.
if the two persons like each other and then there is no problem. They are build that way what can we do about it.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 10:33
i am completly fine with the same sex marriage.
if the two persons like each other and then there is no problem. They are build that way what can we do about it.

the argument is are they really built that way. There has to be limitations like on attraction to animals on children why not limitation on gay marriage. I am fine living in a country that allows it but i defintley oppose it i guess that kind off goes along with freedoms but might be pushing it a little to far from freedom to un moral.

Sennevini
25-07-13, 13:24
Maybe I should let the subject rest, but, there is a difference between gay relationships and things with children and animals The first one is, as a straight relationship is, built on consensus between both partners.
You can't have consensus from children, from animals. Therefore such combinations are not ok. From all law, there will and can never be a further legalisation of such combinations, because it does not involve consensus from both sides; the child or animal is abused in such.
People can only marry of course if both are able to agree.

Fire Haired
25-07-13, 20:28
sennevini

see u guys are saying exactly what almost every american would say in 1950 gay marriage are u kidding me that is just wrong. I think about gay marriage as wrong just like u think a 10 year old having a relationship with a 40 yea old is wrong. u cant just say that is unrelated. Would if the 5 or 10 year old agree's would u still think it is wrong i think u would.

some people think their being all tolerant when they don't realize they just have diff rules on what is tolerant and what is not. I am against gay marriage that does not make me hateful and un tolernt i just have a different opinion on what the limits should be.

Sennevini
25-07-13, 22:20
Well, I don't suppose you are very hateful. We have a different limit on what to tolerate and what not. That's ok, we're humans.


You are right, a 5 to 10 year old can say "yes", but is it really an agreement? Does it know what it is doing?
It is too young to be in a "real" relationship. It needs to grow, to learn about everything. Only when entering adulthood
one is assumed to possess some sense of knowledge about the world, people, a lot of things. Before that, a child should not be involved in things it does not know enough about. In that way only the adult takes advantage of the child. That's immoral. You can't let a child marry; all kind of laws are connected; for example, how would such a couple buy a house? It's impossible; laws make difference between adults and children.


Same for animals. That doesn't work. Laws are for people. Animals can't agree, can't sign documents, can't earn money. How can it look after it's "partner"?


These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.


I can say, in my country gay marriages are held since 2001; since then, only 2% of all marriages each year is between gay people. That leaves 98% of the marriages between men and women. A constant percentage, which I think is quite stable. I don't think it ruptures society. You might say, "if all people get gay married, human race dies off", but this isn't happening. Moreover, I think there are more straight couples consciously without children, or single people, than married gay couples. What about them? Can you blame them for consciously not starting a family?
I think people are not very changeable, and the majority of society will start families in a traditional way, anyway. So I don't think it's lot of a problem.


Do you know the Edith Windsor case in New York? She and her female partner were together for at least 40 years. Then, becoming a widow, The state asked her to pay very much money to inherit from her longlife partner, who had designated her to inherit from her. If she was a man, Edith wouldn't have to pay anything - or a lot less. I believe that's unfair to her. Such things in the law are exactly the reason that support for "marriage equality" arose.

LeBrok
26-07-13, 07:06
These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.

Well said.

Fire Haired
26-07-13, 10:46
i dont ever remember saying gay marriage will led to those things. all i was trying to say is just because i am agianst gay marriage does not make me hateful i just have a diff opinion on the limits and what is right.

As an American with most of my ancestry going back to settlers who came in 1630 and pre 1750's(i dont feel apart of any other country since it has been over 250 years). I think the biggest parts of being a true american is loving baseball and being all for equal rights. Our country in many ways was founded by very strong Evangelical Christians who belived in equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, allowing people to make their own decisions. So to say protestant christainty makes u more un tolerant of people and not about equal rights is not true. I am not saying any of u said that but i have heard that before.

Also i have noticed in the libearl mind set it ignores many morals. Just look at family guy(which seriously i think it is so sick which makes it not funny that is why i dont watch it) and compare that to TV show's before the 1960's. For school i had to watch i movie about girls getting pregnant in highschool and it crtized the town they grew up in because it was conservative and religious and was very against these girls. well what is so bad bout not wanting them having sex not in marriage or acting like hors. I think with modern libearlism from the 1960's has brought alot of bad morals into the modern western society.

Also they are against Americas wars in the mid east just because it reminds them of vietnam and becuse it also reminds them of american patriotism and power. What did america do wrong we took down saddam a dictator who was a threat to his people and our world(does not matter if we did not find weapons of mass destruction). Also we fought to stop terrisom in the mid east which hurt their people's and us. when u think about america did not have bad intentions and the war was just the only thing is was it worth it money wise.

What did we do bad in veitnam we fought against the expansion of soviet supported communism which was a huge threat to the whole world. we fought for the saftey and freedom of south vietnam. what did we do wrong we where fighting for justice yet hippies and my teachers in school pose america as the aggressor. The reason i bhelif they where aginst that is hatred towards the american cowboy type of character and western power.

same reason why Conservative are against helping the envirmont i dont see what is wrong with that it only helps but i dont like going looney and calling all of humanite evil and other radical stuff. the reason conservatives are anti envirmont is because it has a hippie feel to it and seems anti human at times. I think both conservatives and libearls have their biased and have mistakes on their ideas of a good socety. we basically agree put we dis agree on what the limits are.

Sennevini
26-07-13, 23:59
It must have been unpleasantly for a generation who did it's duty for country and society, for example WO II and wars you mention to keep the world free from evil to be confronted by a 60's youth criticizing them and starting a laissez-faire life.
Yes, in that time a lot of liberal ideas went too far. I don't object sexual intercourse between high school people, but it has to be done with a feeling of responsibility, as to say: don't have sex with everyone if you already are in a relationship, and use protection for your own sake.



But the time of very free moral, that's over now. I was raised mostly in the 90's. That was a nice time, alas already 20 years ago. From the 80's on, upbringing was more focused on "the family" than "the self". Liberal ideas were profound, but there was a sense of responsibility which was taught to me. My parents forbid me what was abundant in their generation; drugs, drinks and rock and roll. Thank god they forbid me.
Now, I'm in my 20s and what now? Time of plenty is over, it's time of "crisis". I and my generation (maybe not everyone) realize it's crisis and it needs to be solved. We worry about jobs etc. That also brings a feeling of responsibility with it. We know we can't have everything, like a nice car.


Your generation - I assume you grew up in the '50s? - has done a lot to save the world, to stand for values of liberty etc. But why can't a sense of duty go hand in hand with a sense of liberalism? It's important to have both. Under duty and moral behaviour I understand being a nice person to your neighbour, family and friends, do the best you can, keep an eye on people who might have troubles and such things, and defend your values. Under liberalism I understand having the freedom to choose your house, job, studies, partner, to vote, to freely speak without getting sent to Siberia. Gay marriage is something which I view as a part of liberalism. It's not immoral in my eyes, no, marriage is the ultimate moralizing of gay people. They are in that way totally able to be involved in society, and are encouraged to marry, and having a lifelong partner. It's better than saying it's immoral, because that will lead to people having sneaky, secret relationships, which are not healthy for everyone.
The most important thing in marriage is responsibility toward each other. It's serious business. I think people who want to marry are fully aware of that, and that's something you shouldn't forget.

Fire Haired
27-07-13, 00:13
it seems we agree on everything except gay marriage. so now we understand each other. i grew up in the 2000's i am 15. i am not in my 50's i guess it might seem i am by my opinion on some things. how do u think i have so much time to make long posts i dont have as many responbilities.

errantbit
03-10-13, 00:36
Glad to see France joining the "gay marriage" club.Homosexual couples are not going to disappear whether they're allowed to get married or not.

American Idiot
04-12-13, 02:39
It's pretty obvious Jesus was gay.

Ok, first let's assume for argument's sake, he did actually exist.
Yeah, I know he was the son of god or whatever but he was human too and unless he was born with a deformity (limp-dickism ?), he would have had the natural physical human tendency to want sex.

Ok, he never ever gets married which was extremely unusual in his day for any man to never have been married by the time he died (at about 30yrs old, according to most scholars.)

Going by the Bible, He spends most of his adult life surrounded mostly by men, and all that it talks about is how he goes fishing with his buds all the time and hangs out with his guy friends but nothing about him meeting women or hooking up with women.

Then, when he is about to die, and knowing that he is about to die, he spends his last night on earth drinking wine, surrounded by men and his guy friends.
No women, no strippers, nothing.:shocked:

If I was Jesus and I knew I was about to die the next day, I would tell Peter to go fetch me that Mary Magdeline b*tch ( you know, the former prostitute according to most Christians), and have her show me some of her skillz because who the hell wants to be crucified and die a lonely 33yr. old (?) virgin?

and dont give me that "he was the son of god and had better things to do with his life", B.S...... what?, the guy can raise the dead but he cant get laid?:confused2:

and going by this view, probably most of the apostles were queer as folk too. ( never married, no mention of women, liked to be around men more than women, etc...)

I think even at one time , it may have been either Peter or Paul, who said he was "married to God"-:laughing:. ...............what a loser!

Sorry, but God cant give you what a woman can give you!

Sile
08-01-14, 12:00
Question in australia is , If gay marriages are allowed then de facto gay relations are also ( similar to man- woman defacto) allowed . If rules apply for man-women defacto then same rules for both sex de factos relationship- End result, gays will not get social services relief if both are not working ( only one can get it ) same as normal defacto/marriages. This is upsetting to the gay community as income is halved ( loss that normal marriages have had for many many years) .

But the other issue is, what constitutes a gey defacto relations? .....Are males ( or females) living together as they leave home early classified as defacto? The Government are grinning all the way ,as they stop paying social services money to the unemployed who live with either, their parents, are married or in a defacto relationship.

toyomotor
09-01-14, 02:36
Sile: I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.

Sile
09-01-14, 04:53
Sile: I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.

agree with you.
Knowing Australians......to get a vote to change on any part of the constitution would be a miracle. The best was the vote to become a republic ( 53 to 47% was the vote). Anyway a failed vote , means a minimum of a decade wait for another vote for that topic.
Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women. It does not say a marriage is between 2 persons/people.

LeBrok
09-01-14, 06:01
Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women.
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?

Sile
09-01-14, 06:19
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?

Unsure, you mean a genital test?

I know someone who I worked with had no distinguishing sex organs ( i forget the term ), born man in a women's body, had a sex change............he/she ( still confuses me ) was not allowed to marry.

toyomotor
17-01-14, 03:53
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?
No, the Constitution doesn't define what a man or a women is. In Westminster legal systems, where a law does not define something, the common law and generally accepted view of the people is accepted. In this particular case, this would mean that a person born with male reproductive organs is a man, a person born with female reproductive organs is a woman. In those exceptionally rare cases where a person is born with neither or both sets of reproductive organs, possibly the dominant (most developed) organs would be the determinant. If all else fails, the matter would be decided by a court.

toyomotor
17-01-14, 03:55
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?

LeBrok
17-01-14, 04:48
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?
Let me ask bluntly so I understand. If person is born a man and undergoes operation and hormonal treatment and at the end looks more like a woman than a man. Can this person be classified as a woman?

shaadisankalp10
17-01-14, 12:18
I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle

John123
17-01-14, 12:54
I for one was born looking like a girl. Nowadays most people say I look like a woman as well. It's not a bad thing, girls find it very attractive actually (large eyes, big lips, soft yet defined chin, great athletic body-type). I also have a very manly packet as well, I'm deffinetly anatomically male. But the world is changing from what I see, people can acquire these good looking features via plastic surgery and other methods that take away from the 1-2% of elite people that are legitimately good-looking (3/4 of my old high school friends are fakes now, that's for sure.) as for me, I just continue working out.

Sile
17-01-14, 20:35
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?

As far as I remember ( as the person resigned 3 years ago ), they had a sex change due to having smallish/miniture male parts but having breasts as she/he aged. after sex change, she is now classified as a woman, but cannot marry because born as a male. ( due to genitals seen at birth )

LeBrok
17-01-14, 21:30
, she is now classified as a woman, but cannot marry because born as a male. ( due to genitals seen at birth )
I'm not sure if civil rights can be written the way to reconcile this duality. I think for the law to be transparent and easy to follow the latest classification should matter only.

toyomotor
19-01-14, 02:28
Sile: The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

Sile
19-01-14, 04:20
Sile: The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

I like it how it is, and if we want to change , we need a referendum ( which will never get up in my life time).

There are gays who do not even want similar recognition ( for gay marriages) as married people, because they loose too many privileges

Ike
04-02-14, 14:25
I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

What about bisexuals? They may wanna form a union of three, because one part of their personality and sexuality is not fulfilled in a simple dual union. That way we could have mother father and himher.

hope
04-02-14, 15:30
What about bisexuals? They may wanna form a union of three,.
That would be polygamy or polyandry.

Sylvari
04-02-14, 16:35
that would be polyamory

hope
04-02-14, 17:08
that would be polyamory

The relationship itself would be polyamorous ..... marriage would be polygamy or polyandry.

Sylvari
04-02-14, 19:33
Hmm... good point!

What if it was two men and two women? What would we call that? (Besides a huge headache)

Ike
04-02-14, 19:33
That would be polygamy or polyandry.

So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?

hope
04-02-14, 20:34
So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?
Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?

hope
04-02-14, 20:38
Hmm... good point!

What if it was two men and two women? What would we call that? (Besides a huge headache)
How about.. a group wedding :laughing:

No, I believe it is still seen as polygamy or polyandry, Sylvari...I never thought about that to be honest.

Sennevini
05-02-14, 02:11
Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As most other people they fall in love with one person at the time. If straight people marry, they are still attracted to women in general, and see nice women walk at the street apart from their wife. Is that mere attraction a reason to extend marriage to more partners than the one they fall in love with? Then everyone would marry more times a week.

Sylvari
05-02-14, 03:00
No matter their sexual orientation many people have found themselves falling in love with more than one person. If all parties agree and they write out a contract detailing everyone's responsibility to the relationship then why not let people marry more than one person? Love is not a finite resource.

Also- I was raised by two women and I am (mostly) sane and normal. What is the fear for kids who are raised by same sex couples?

Ike
05-02-14, 05:13
Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?
No, I'm wondering why would someone be bashing anti-gays for their backwardness, while doing the same thing to the other sexual groups?

What's the point of calling yourself liberal or open-minded and talking about all wrongs of the lines that had been drawn, when all you have done was drawing the line elsewhere. LOL - right on the mark where you find it convenient. It interests me why have liberals agreed to act like in this neo-religious way? It looks like same old "keep the bridge up down until I pass over it" story.



Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As most other people they fall in love with one person at the time.

You mean 'most' like 99%? What about the other 1% or to be more precise 70.000.000 people who may think different? You think they don't deserve their rights to live in threesomes, foursomes, multiplesomes or free-love?

Sennevini
05-02-14, 13:11
OK, if three or more people agree to each other to live with each other in love, that's fine to me. It's their agreement to each other. My definition of what relation is acceptable is if all parties involved gave their consent to it.
Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".

Sylvari
05-02-14, 16:06
"Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".

This truth is going to disappoint a lot of people.

In the end I think that any artificial constraint on how consenting adults conduct their relationships with other adults should not be the business of government. If three people want to marry each other, if two people of any gender want to be wed then it should not be up to governments to tell them they cannot.

hope
05-02-14, 16:54
Well now Ike, that`s a strong opinion, and I think, unjustly given.
I am not for bashing anyone, and I certainly have never accused anyone of being backward.
I may have said some opinions were poorly given, without anything to prove them reliable, or that throwing certain terms at people was unnecessary....is this bashing anyone for their opinion? I certainly don`t think so.
Regarding lines that had been drawn. There was a time when a line was drawn at the point where only men could vote. There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were. I can think of other lines but that would be rambling so these will suffice as examples.
Regarding gay marriage, the actual topic of this thread that was begun ten years ago, a new line has now been drawn there.
Whatever your opinion on the matter Ike, our society includes people who are gay or people who are transexual, or bi-sexual besides those who are heterosexual. Should we, who are heterosexual draw the lines of union so they stop at us?
I do not seek to bash you into changing your beliefs or opinions, they are yours to keep or not. I simply say, we should allow everyone the freedom to make their own choices, be it regarding their sexual orientation, their choice of religion, or their political views so long as it is not harmful to others, and in my opinion gay marriage does not threaten or devalue heterosexual marriage.
You talk about building walls and drawing up bridges. I speak of inclusion and sensible laws. We see things differently, Ike...and that is our privilege.

Ike
05-02-14, 21:36
No, I'm not quite accusing you. Yes, you sometimes seem to be on "that" side, but I'm not quite familiar with your detailed opinion so I wouldn't go in there. I was talking more in general.


There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were.

1. That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is like giving the right to black people to sit in front of the bus, but not letting yellow. That is what I don't understand. If we've disregarded the Bible considering LBGT, why don't we do the same it the case of all sexual matters?

2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever?

p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
http://www.slideshare.net/indiafuturesociety/slideshelf#

LeBrok
05-02-14, 23:58
2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever?

p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
http://www.slideshare.net/indiafuturesociety/slideshelf# What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her?
It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.

Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples. On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society. To the degree that we forbid such conduct even on our enemies or animals. Especially in today's "sick western world" where happiness of citizens, equality and inclusiveness are cherished.
That goes for the rest of your silly examples. The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.

If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552084/Afghanistan-effectively-legalises-domestic-violence-new-law-bans-testifying-against-relatives.html
Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing her all together for the old and traditional honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional families.

Ike
06-02-14, 01:40
What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her?

Dude :) I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships, with no harm on the other side. Where have you gone....



It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.
I don't know how things have been in Soviet era, and I don't care about Soviets. Never had here been a denial that gays don't exists. There's been a consensus that their doing is sexually deviated, but they were not persecuted, unlike for example USA from where we heard hideous stories about electro-convulsive therapy...


Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples.
Silly? You seem to be in some form of denial here.


On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society.
What's this got to do with any my text? Have I advocated violence anywhere up?


The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.
OK, so what with polygamy?


If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2552084/Afghanistan-effectively-legalises-domestic-violence-new-law-bans-testifying-against-relatives.html
Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing here all together for the honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional setting.

Wanting to call things the right name doesn't make someone a taliban or terrorist. Acting like one does.

Those are just some (probably half-impotent) sexual perverts that are hiding under the mask of what's traditional and conservative. Yes, the concept of their society lets them mask better and more easily but it' not the reason to break it and destroy their country. It would be more proactive to concentrate on helping them make violators more transparent and their judicial system up to the task.

FBS
09-02-14, 14:37
http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/same-sex-parenting-does-not-harm-children-research-review-finds.php

LeBrok
09-02-14, 18:41
http://www.spring.org.uk/2014/02/same-sex-parenting-does-not-harm-children-research-review-finds.php
Thanks for posting it. More and more it looks like that people, who are against same sex marriages and adoption of children, base their opinion only on fear of unknown or different, which boils down to what they consider going against "traditional family" values (which can be defined as a the state of social order of their youth).

Ike
15-10-14, 16:14
Thanks for posting it. More and more it looks like that people, who are against same sex marriages and adoption of children, base their opinion only on fear of unknown or different, which boils down to what they consider going against "traditional family" values (which can be defined as a the state of social order of their youth).

It is very well know. We base our opinion on the disgust we have towards the people who abuse children by incorporating them into their own little pervert dual communities, thinking that more similarity with a classical biological family would give them more legitimate and normal look and that with the acknowledgement would come the right to exercise their sexual peculiarities in public.

FBS
15-10-14, 17:04
When compared to those with more favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative attitudes:

1. are less likely to have had personal contact with lesbians or gay;2. are less likely to report having engaged in homosexual behaviors, or to identify themselves as lesbian or gay;
3. are more likely to perceive their peers as manifesting negative attitudes, especially if the respondents are males;
4. are more likely to have resided in areas where negative attitudes are the norm (e.g., the midwestern and southern United States, the Canadian prairies, and in rural areas or small towns), especially during adolescence;
5. are likely to be older and less well educated;
6. are more likely to be religious, to attend church frequently, and to subscribe to a conservative religious ideology;
7. are more likely to express traditional, restrictive attitudes about sex roles;
8. are less permissive sexually or manifest more guilt or negativity about sexuality, although some researchers have not observed this pattern and others have reported a substantially reduced correlation with the effects of sex-role attitudes partialled out;
9. are more likely to manifest high levels of authoritarianism and related personality characteristics.
Sex differences in the direction and intensity of attitudes have been observed fairly consistently. It appears that heterosexuals tend to have more negative attitudes toward homosexuals of their own sex than of the opposite sex. . . .

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/roots/overview.html

FutureEarth
26-02-15, 17:26
People against gay marriages is just a temporary nonacceptance towards change. Eventually there will be gay marriages everywhere and people will look back on all of this with shock. It's just a matter of time. Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to love and nobody has the right to govern what they think proper marriage is. Even though I think the concept of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, it is the joining of two beings who feel a strong enough connection with each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's nobody's business who one person chooses to do that with.

Ike
26-02-15, 18:35
It is no change. Gay behavior was known throughout the history and although sometimes treated with limited acceptance, and sometimes persecuted, it was always considered as a perverted and deviated thing. It is no problem if you want to accept or not accept perverts as legits considering their private business, but why trying to redefine the reality? It's just a NLP experiment on the people which will not stop there.

Maleth
26-02-15, 21:49
People against gay marriages is just a temporary nonacceptance towards change. Eventually there will be gay marriages everywhere and people will look back on all of this with shock. It's just a matter of time. Nobody has the right to tell someone else how to love and nobody has the right to govern what they think proper marriage is. Even though I think the concept of marriage is outdated and unnecessary, it is the joining of two beings who feel a strong enough connection with each other to want to spend the rest of their lives together. It's nobody's business who one person chooses to do that with.

Well said Future Earth, Same with women rights, who would ever think that women will get a vote or even have a job without being perceived as evil, and perverted not till a few decades ago and many women actually believed it too (meaning they were just a baby and cooking machine. Not many people can imagine that (although many countries still struggling with the issue)

Maleth
16-05-15, 08:15
http://www.euronews.com/2015/05/15/gay-wedding-for-luxembourg-pm-a-first-for-serving-eu-leader/

Congratulations of course.

Maleth
24-05-15, 02:15
Well done Ireland

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32856952

pacificbreeze
24-04-16, 10:56
I don't care about marriage but if they want why not??

draj
07-10-16, 23:23
Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..I don't see heterosexual parades so why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..

LeBrok
08-10-16, 00:10
Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..I don't see heterosexual parades so why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..Go ahead and organize one. How difficult it can be? Does it bother you when others are organized and having fun?
Perhaps we should be bothered by cultural and religious parades too if it is not our ethnicity or our religion?

gyms
08-10-16, 08:18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

The paper lays out a six-point plan for a campaign:

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.
Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
Give homosexual protectors a just cause.
Make gays look good.
Make the victimizers look bad.
Solicit funds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ
Milo Yiannopoulos - Homosexuality is more nurture then nature and he wants to be cured

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obw4Y_xfNAo

LeBrok
08-10-16, 08:47
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_agenda

The paper lays out a six-point plan for a campaign:

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.
Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
Give homosexual protectors a just cause.
Make gays look good.
Make the victimizers look bad.
Solicit funds.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgoyQevEhhQ
Milo Yiannopoulos - Homosexuality is more nurture then nature and he wants to be cured

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obw4Y_xfNAo
And I thought you were playing the victim all the time.

bicicleur
08-10-16, 09:37
Nothing against gay marriage but what I don't like about the subject matter is parades and stuff like that..I don't see heterosexual parades so why would there be homosexual ones..be what you are in your personal space, could care less..

it's narcisism

gyms
08-10-16, 10:36
Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 1)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFWWIXWP0g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEFWWIXWP0g)

Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 2)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLqYXaGoGM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsLqYXaGoGM)

Stockholm Pride Parade 2016 (Part 3)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3SbEreRy8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj3SbEreRy8)

srdceleva
08-10-16, 11:41
Though i agree that all people should be respected and free to do and live as they choose, and also that homosexuality in anyway should not be criminalzed or homosexuals ostracized and punished in any way. I coud never support gay marraige regardless of religion, i could be an atheist and never support it. The problem in this day and age is that no one wants to be intolerant or offend good people by saying that their "actions arent good," even if that would mean stating the truth. I just want to list totally objective, non religioius reasons why I could never support the whole modern gay agenda, which funny enough even after the legalization of gay marraige in the u.s, has not calmed down.

1) Its a scientific and biological fact that the human specias has a male and female variety specifically to engage in sexual activity with eachother and not with members of their own sex. Its interesting because most people like to yell and scream at religious for being irrational, and unscientific but when something so clear and evident as the relationship between men and women comes into play, they almost begin to start speaking spiritually about love and tolerance, things that have no weight on the actual fact that all children even gays have a mother and a father, and this is literally the only way to keep the human existence going. Marraige may be a social construct and even a religious one, but what it does is it reflects and stabalizes the most natural, healthy and biological form of the sexual relationship and ensures for the well being of the members in this relationship ( the parents and children). To say that " Oh this doesnt affect me, they should be allowed to be married" is completely false as it changes all of society and comes into complete contradiction with the most basic facts of life. It equates a relationship that is totally fruitless and makes it equal to a relationship which is literally the cause of all of existence. With out homosexual relationships the world would go on thriving and developing as it always has, with out heterosexual relationships humans would cease to exists. It doesnt theoretically affect me if everyone claims the sky is red, but the fact is, is that its blue and im scared to live in a soceity that denies the most simple basic facts of life.

2) the argument that homosexuality does not lead to other declines in morals that regardless of religion have a negative impact on society is false. The acceptance of homosexuality as a healthy practice has always been a hallmark of declining socieities. The Romans were able to conquer the greeks because the ancient greeks became so morally in want that their population fell while the ancient romans grew. Homosexuality had a large part to play in this, funnily enough the exact same thing occured to the Romans when because of so much moral depravity ( homosexuality, the killing of children, there are literally hills of baby bones found outside the city walls of Rome because romans were killing their children so much) the population fell and romans didnt have enough men to fill the ranks in their military while germanic tribes to the north had a population boom and then easily destoryed the ancient roman empire. Im not blaiming personally homosexuality for the falling birth rates in western countries but simply saying that when the most basic family unit isnt held with esteem and respect and is placed on the same level as a relationship that is fruitless this is what happens. The complete schism in rational thinking in society when we accept these things to be equal becomes so great that a society begins to slowly collaps. A proof of the opposite is the fact that Russia is the only european country which now is having a growing population rate can directly be attributed to Putin outlawing homosexual propganda and instead filling Russia with propoganda promoting the classic family. Putin is no dummy he knows just as I know how much of an effect these things have on society really do have.

3) classical arguments in favor of homosexuality fall under real scritiny. I really read extensively to see if there was scientific backing of homosexuals being born this way or some how homosexuality being normal to the human experience and not just a mental gearing of sexual desires in a wrong way and could find no strong support of the homosexual agenda. there is no scientific evidence that homosexuals are genetically different in any way than non homosexual ones and that any study claiming this, has essentially been extremely pseudo scientific and counter intuitive. things like ' the youngest brother tends to have lower rates of testosterone than older brothers could have an effect on sexual orientation" are not proofs in favor of homosexuality. Lower testosterone would mean a lack in sex drive not that someone is gay, and gay people do not have a lack in sex drive and many gay men are extremely masculine. there are hundreds of other so called studies stating similar nonsense. The argument that animals also exhibit homosexual behavior is extremely weak and down right one of the worst arguments in favor of gay marraige. Humans are actually the only species to exhibit exclusive homosexuality as animals exhibit all sorts of sexual behaviors. You only have to observe how a dog may mount a human leg, another male dog, an object or lastly a female to realize sexual desire is sexual desire it can be geared in many ways. Animals also exhibit traits such as rape, murder, and incest. we do not want to use animals as an example of how humans should behave. there is no real reason to believe gays were born that way and did not become that way through some type of mental complex. Its very easy for me to see that someone may have been molested as a chid and now has a mental complex towards the opposite sex but still wants to be in a relationship so they naturaly feel comfortable in the gay community or that the opposite may occur. I once knew a person who worked with young teenage boys who had been molested and they told me that one of the main questions they had always was they think they may be gay now, as though the experience of being molested was horrible, still because sexual experiences are some how pleasurable in a way they found it somehow attracitve, almost a stokholm syndrome thing in a way. Im not sayng all gay people are this way because of this but there are many many normal mental processes that can lead someone to consider themselves gay.

3) If two adults who give consent and arent hurting eachother is the only requirment for what should be legal and accepted then why dont we accept incestious relationships? There are many cases each year of grow daughters and sons who are adults having sexual relationships with their parents. If they are both adults and consenting who are you to say these people should not be married? most of you would claim that was sick and gross, but guess what thats exactly what people were saing ten years ago and you called them intolerant for it. All of the exact arguments can be used in favor of incest. If you dont admit this and support both gay peoples rights to marry as well as parents and children who are adults then you are a hypocrite.

these are just some of my thoughts on this topic. I really dont mean to offend anyone especially if you are gay, no body is perfect, im definitely not but I wanted to just put a different perspective out there than what everyone these days is doing.

gyms
08-10-16, 12:11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/
"Sexual attraction is such a fundamental part of life, but it's not something we know a lot about at the genetic and molecular level.
“I hope that this research helps us understand ourselves better and why we are the way we are."

srdceleva
08-10-16, 12:49
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/
"Sexual attraction is such a fundamental part of life, but it's not something we know a lot about at the genetic and molecular level.
“I hope that this research helps us understand ourselves better and why we are the way we are."


yes Ive read the study as well before its interesting. The fact is I believe that nobody is really born gay or straight, we are genetically born with a sexual desire, this can however be affected by many things. Sexual desire is very maluable and can change after certain influences and time. Some people may have not been attracted to a specific type of person before a sexual encounter but after they are ect. The adolescent mind is particularly sensitive to this and events that may occur to a person at that age are highly influential to their orientation. thanks for sharing the article

gyms
08-10-16, 13:29
And I thought you were playing the victim all the time.

Roger Scruton; Why The Left Hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ)

"Here are the differences between the right and the left;If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a supporter of the Left is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone."

LeBrok
08-10-16, 19:20
Roger Scruton; Why The Left Hate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJOawompuJQ)

"Here are the differences between the right and the left;If a Conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a supporter of the Left is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone."
You read what I write for years but you don't get zip what I am. I'm a libertarian at first! Get it through your thick skull finally!!! In case at hand, I love my heterosexualism and I "let" everyone to decide who they are, homosexualism included. Freedom of choice. Did it finally register in your head?!!!

On other hand you are the one who tells others what they are and how they should feel about their sexuality. If you are heterosexsual, you want everyone to be heterosexusual, " he wants all meat products banned for everyone." It exactly fits your personality.
Let me explain it better for you. If a Conservative is a heterosexual, he doesn’t do gay stuff. If a supporter of the Left is heterosexual, he wants all gay way of life to be banned for everyone."
According to analogy/logic that you posted, I'm behave here as conservative, "live and let live", and you are behaving like socialist. You see, the simple definitions are very often misleading. In reality you are conservative, who is scared of all the changes in society, therefore forcing others to stick to old world order. Some sort of conservatism mixed with tyrannical tendencies, with intolerant and hateful undertone, combined with your depressing personality.

Stop telling people how to feel about their sexuality. Stop forcing them into your lifestyle. Don't make them do what you do. Let them live.