Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Bonnie said:Im just not understanding what you mean by accept it.
-=d=- said:Again, your answer to my 1st question will dictate - but it's as if you aren't privy to every other-than-religious reason to not practice homosexuality. Why do you think God wants people to NOT engage in homosexual acts? Because it messes with our minds and bodies. It's inherrently un-healthy - the reasons go along the lines of other Sins God explains to us. Too many people assume God wants to keep us from certian thoughts/activities because he's being mean - 9 times out of 10, it's to save us from ourselves. It's God's wish that we are amazingly happy and healthy; living trouble-free, long lives. Homosexuality, gluttony, among other practices are destructive in nature, and prevent us from such a life as God would have for us.
popefumanchu said:Getting back to the McGreevy issue, the more I learn about it, the more pissed off I get! This guy cheated on his wife, brought his lover back to the U.S., set up house for him, went back and impregnated his wife, and then appointed his lover to be his HEAD OF HOMELAND FRIGGIN' SECURITY!!!! And, no, he wasn't qualified AT ALL.
This isn't about McGreevy being gay. It is entirely about him being a total corrupt scumbag!! Now he wants to resign and postpone it until after the election so that the people cannot vote for a new governor. This is unconstitutional and the Republicans will fight it.
I just can't understand how all this stuff went on and nobody did anything about it.
WHAT THE F**K IS WRONG WITH YOU, NEW JERSEY??
That was my reactions too- what is wrong with these women who stand by with simpering smiles on their faces???? First Hillary then this twit. I mean, really, have some respect!lilcountriegal said:Not that it makes much difference anyway, but I thought the guy he brought back from Israel is the one suing him for sexual harassment, and he had a different lover?
and wtf is wrong with his wife standing beside him with that dumbass smile on her face while he was making the announcement? Id have pulled a Geraldo and smashed a chair over his damn head.
Moi said:That was my reactions too- what is wrong with these women who stand by with simpering smiles on their faces???? First Hillary then this twit. I mean, really, have some respect!
And I don't buy the argument that they are doing it for their kids or that life is complicated etc. They are there for power and nothing else.
:rotflmao: :teeth:Mr. P said:Come on folks...Put this McGreevy thing behind you. Well maybe not behind you, just forget it. It's just a "FAIRY-TAIL". I mean tale...no I mean Tail...
OCA said:Nice avoidance of the question, guess you couldn't answer it. You always have hope to change your CHOSEN lifestyle manner. Again can you prove with facts and evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt that just you were born queer.
First of all, homosexuals themselves use the word queer so I think it's a bit hypocritical of renounce it now.chagan said:Why would anyone want to choose to be gay? Why would they want people calling them fags,queers, and other derogatory terms that they shouldn't be called? No one deserves to be called those words, NO ONE!!!
I believe that most gay people are born gay. Some people that were not born that way chose that lifestyle because right now it is a fad. But about a decade ago, when it wasn't a fad there were homosexuals then. They didn't come out of the closet for fear of being hated or even worse, killed. Remember the Ryan White story? If you don't please go read up on it.
Moi said:First of all, homosexuals themselves use the word queer so I think it's a bit hypocritical of renounce it now.
Second, and more importantly, even if they are born gay that doesn't mean a darn thing. Alcoholics, drug abusers, pedophiles, rapists, depressed people, agoraphobics, obsessive-compulsive, murderers, pyromaniacs, serial adulterers, etc. were all born that way.
Just because they are born that way doesn't make it right or acceptable to engage in perverted behavior. Once again, that's what is supposed to separate us from animals...free will and intelligence.
Before you decide to spew your sanctimonious sarcasm on this board you should check your facts. The term queer was used on homosexuals because of its actual definition. You know, the one in the dictionary for many decades. It means different and outside normal. And that definition still applies.nakedemperor said:Homosexuals call themselves queer as an act of defiance in the face of a population which, by and large, doesn't approve of their lifestyle. Queer was originally a derogatory term, adopted by the community as an point of ironic defiance, which simply melted into the everyday vernacular. Much the same way the word "******" took its place in the black community.
nakedemperor said:Homosexuals call themselves queer as an act of defiance in the face of a population which, by and large, doesn't approve of their lifestyle.
naked said:We're not ASKING anyone to think like we do, we're merely asking others to accept and tolerate the way we think.
Moi said:Before you decide to spew your sanctimonious sarcasm on this board you should check your facts. The term queer was used on homosexuals because of its actual definition. You know, the one in the dictionary for many decades. It means different and outside normal. And that definition still applies.
That there is a negative connotation to that word is indicative of the disdain mainstream society gives to homosexuals; it is neither hateful nor derogative in and of itself.
chagan said:Why would anyone want to choose to be gay? Why would they want people calling them fags,queers, and other derogatory terms that they shouldn't be called? No one deserves to be called those words, NO ONE!!!
I believe that most gay people are born gay. Some people that were not born that way chose that lifestyle because right now it is a fad. But about a decade ago, when it wasn't a fad there were homosexuals then. They didn't come out of the closet for fear of being hated or even worse, killed. Remember the Ryan White story? If you don't please go read up on it.
HOMOSEXUALS and their sympathisers tend to assume that an explanation of biological destiny - that gays are hard-wired to be gays - will lead to greater sympathy since this would mean they 'can't help' being gay.
To my mind however, that approach is surely off-tangent. Not only has the so-called 'gay gene' proven elusive, but sexuality is also a much more complex business.
Sure, it is easier to frame the issue in biological terms, that is, in terms of a gene. After all, people tend to think of a gene as a spot on a chromosome that can be clipped off to take care of this, that or the other problem.
The dream of tracing human traits to specific single genes is an old one. Popular science speaks loosely about an obesity gene, a criminality gene, and so on. But there are no such things.
Molecular biologists will tell you that it is the whole cell, rather than specific genes, that controls human life processes.
These scientists talk to each other in terms of DNA sequences rather than genes. These sequences are involved in metabolic processes that form complex networks which result in certain proteins being made.
The sequences form genes but they are usually not even continuous. Yet it is not known how the cell knows - but it does know - that it is this sequence that really needs to be translated into parts of a protein, while another sequence should be skipped, yet another sequence is to be used, while the next one ought to be ignored, and so on.
And although the human genome has been fully mapped, we are nowhere nearer any useable knowledge about which sequences do what, something that would remain true even if we map out all the proteins which the genome makes.
This is because these processes interact with one another and with the proteins they produce, in very complex ways to form networks.
And it is all these networks taken together that control everything, that is, the whole cell rather than genes alone.
This is why research hyped as proving the existence of a gay gene has not been replicated to any extent.
Of course, there is a biological element to heterosexuality or homosexuality, as there is in the generic desire for sex, or hunger, for that matter.
Indeed, sexuality may be like hunger in the sense that what people eat when they get hungry depends on available cuisines, which can vary with cultures.
Moreover, our tastes can change over time. Some foreigners here learn to like durian. You might love kopi-o now but live in Boston for a decade, where you have only Starbucks, and kopi-o might taste like drain water when you come home.
So even if hunger is biological, the fact is, people satisfy it out of a panoply of choices that are not infinite but limited by their cultures and the market: burger or briyani, cheese sandwich or chicken rice.
The point is this: talking about a gay gene or biology is much easier than looking at the totality of an individual's life, including his or her social surroundings and cultural contexts - but it is untrue.
It is easier for gays to say they are born that way and have always been attracted to people of their own gender.
Many would protest if you said that they chose to be that way.
Yet some progressive gays argue that this is really a homophobic approach: It is defensive and implies that you would change if you could, which in turn means implicitly that homosexuality is wrong. This is something many gays vehemently deny.
Moreover, not only does this approach embrace the victim's psychology of helplessness, but it is also fixated on the 'sexual' at the expense of the non-sexual aspects of relationships.
A person's sexuality is a psychosocial complex of behaviours that can be defined in various ways by different societies at different junctures in history.
In this nuanced understanding, choice is not like picking one thing from column A but not another from column B, as in boysenberry not pistachio ice cream, or French fries not rice.
Even if a gay person cannot remember when he decided on men, not women, it does not mean he did not choose.
Rather, people choose from within their life experiences taken together as a continuous journey.
There are decision points all along the way and they decide at certain times depending on what options are available.
These decisions then mould their futures.
This choosing is a constrained one but it is still choice.
After all, we choose where to live and what to eat or wear. So why is it so hard to believe that we also choose whom we like or love?
Choosing whom to like and love, whom to feel close to - surely something emotional and psychological - seems less likely to arise from the biological traits of one's object of affections, and more likely her emotional and psychological characteristics.
In short, gays choose to be gays given their individual life histories within their cultures because they prefer it to heterosexuality.
- Andy Ho, TheStraightTimes
nakedemperor said:So if you remove the HIV/AIDS argument, which is a health crisis, not a gay crisis, and you remove the offspring friction argument, which is fundamentally frictional because of the intolerance of others, and you can get past the fact that if something is abnormal its not necessarily wrong, then all I see remaining is the fact that God said its bad.
Homosexual sex is the primary transmission route of the AIDS virus in our society. According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (with the National Institutes of Health), there are an estimated 40,000 new HIV infections each year in the United States. Seventy percent of these are men; 30% are women. Of those men who are infected, 60% of them are infected through homosexual sex; 25% through intravenous drug use; and 15% through heterosexual sex. Researchers are alarmed at signs of a new epidemic sweeping through homosexual communities as younger homosexuals engage in high risk, unprotected anal intercourse. The San Francisco Chronicle, for example, reported on January 24, 2001, that San Francisco health officials are seeing an upsurge in HIV infections. The rate of infections has risen from 1.04% in 1997 to 2.2% in 2001. A rate of 2.2% a year means that 22 of every 1,000 HIV-negative men will contract the virus. A quarter of the citys estimated 46,800 homosexual males are already infected. The rate of infection among homosexuals who also inject drugs is 4.6%twice as high as non-drug abusers. In addition, researchers have discovered in a study of HIV-infected homosexuals in San Francisco that 9% report having had high risk anal sex with someone who was HIV-negative. The Sacramento Bee reported on January 24, 2001, that part of the reason for the increase in HIV infections among homosexuals is due to the use of antiviral drugs that keep HIV-positive indi-viduals alive longer, making it possible for them to spread the virus to more people. In short, the drugs that have been developed to prolong life are having the effect of actually spreading the AIDS epidemic further. Health officials in Seattle are also seeing a resurgence of unsafe sexual behaviors among homo-sexuals. They expect to see a new wave of infections as younger homosexuals discard safe sex messages. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, March 21, 2001, health officials say there are three reasons why homosexuals are becoming lax about safe sex: Effective drug treatments have led homosexuals to believe that HIV is manageable or curable; homosexuals are suffering from epidemic fatigue, and have given up safe sex measures; and many of them are continuing to engage in the use of drugs to increase sexual pleasure. Drug use is directly related to the practice of engag-ing in anonymous sex with multiple sex partnerspartners whose HIV status is unknown.
-- TraditionalValues.org
nakedemperor said:Gays "like" when other gays use the word, but not when its used as a slur when anti-gays such as yourself use it.
lilcountriegal said:I completely agree, Moi. When the whole Bill and Hillary fiasco was happening and she stayed by him, I thought that sent out a pretty shitty message to all the women going through the exact same scenario in their personal lives. The First Lady of the White House is supposed to be a role model... what an awesome job she did of that.
Its just like telling a battered woman to "stay... it'll get better".
