The Queers are at it again!!!!!!!!

[Gunny]

IF and ONLY IF people choose to become homosexual, which common sense dictates ISN'T the case.

You've tried that argument before and got nowhere with it. Common sense doesn't dictate anything of the sort. Origin of the abnormality is irrelevant.


On the contrary. Common sense dictates that if a high percentage of homosexuals were raised in "normal" households, the orientation of the parents has no bearing in the orientation of the children.

Absurd assumption.

 

[Gunny]

What's wrong with altering the rights for the changing times? The gay community is vast and powerful. I find it sad so many people waste time on this relatively unimportant issue when there are so many crisis in the world. In our short life times is it really important to invest such energy into a cause that really is unimportant? For gods sake gain some perspective in the world. What if I told you I was gay, still want to be on staff with a gay guy?

OCA unless your a scientist of somekind you have very little credibility when it comes to claiming what is and what is not natural.

I have a feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. However if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it?

One does not have to be a scientist to know and understand that homosexuality is unnatural. That's a no-brainer.

It's as important an issue for our times as any other. It is the degredation of the moral fiber that held our society and Nation together for over 200 years. In case you haven't noticed, that moral fiber is dissolving, and our National will along with it. I'd call that a rather important issue.

Finally, one does not have to be a homophobe to consider homosexuality abnormal behavior when that is exactly what it is. Two women are as homosexual as two men engaging in homosexual behavior.

 

[OCA]

What's wrong with altering the rights for the changing times? The gay community is vast and powerful. I find it sad so many people waste time on this relatively unimportant issue when there are so many crisis in the world. In our short life times is it really important to invest such energy into a cause that really is unimportant? For gods sake gain some perspective in the world. What if I told you I was gay, still want to be on staff with a gay guy?

OCA unless your a scientist of somekind you have very little credibility when it comes to claiming what is and what is not natural.

I have a feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. However if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it?

Pardner, many decades and billions spent on research to find that gay gene and to date nothing found, nothing even remotely close so my credibility is beyond reproach.

The old if you are against homosexuality you must be afraid of getting hit on or be hiding queer feelings.............ROTFLMFAO! That one is probably the weakest of the arguments you could've found.

Most researchers put homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists at about 2% of the population, hardly a vast segment ya think? So why should we alter right and wrong to cater to a bunch of sick individuals?

No, if you are queer count me out, hard to take orders from someone whom I believe has made disastorous life decisions.

 

[MissileMan]

You've tried that argument before and got nowhere with it. Common sense doesn't dictate anything of the sort. Origin of the abnormality is irrelevant.

You were wrong then and you're still wrong.

Absurd assumption.

Absurd was your contention that merely being in the presence of homosexuals can lead to someone becoming a homosexual.

 

[Gunny]

You were wrong then and you're still wrong.

To thet contrary, it is you who were and are wrong.


Absurd was your contention that merely being in the presence of homosexuals can lead to someone becoming a homosexual.

Well, yeah, that is an absurd notion when put in that context; which, I did not. There's a big difference between being in the presence of and being raised and influenced by their beliefs.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

One does not have to be a scientist to know and understand that homosexuality is unnatural. That's a no-brainer.

It's as important an issue for our times as any other. It is the degredation of the moral fiber that held our society and Nation together for over 200 years. In case you haven't noticed, that moral fiber is dissolving, and our National will along with it. I'd call that a rather important issue.

Finally, one does not have to be a homophobe to consider homosexuality abnormal behavior when that is exactly what it is. Two women are as homosexual as two men engaging in homosexual behavior.

If you want to talk about homosexuality in the context of evolution, can nobody think of a good reason for homosexuality? It's not that hard. I'll give you some clues. Is homosexuality bad because it's a dead end? Because homosexuals don't reproduce? Do homosexuals provide any benefit, to say, the society that they live in? Can they serve any sociological role? Is their anything that will benefit a species by having a homosexual population?

Our moral fiber is dissolving because it's 200 years old! It has to evolve as our society does. We're not still using caveman law are we? Our moral fiber wasn't perfect when we constructed it (aka racisim) so why not modify it.

I'm just making the point that many homophobes would prolly still love a threesome with two women and not consider it gay.

Pardner, many decades and billions spent on research to find that gay gene and to date nothing found, nothing even remotely close so my credibility is beyond reproach.

The old if you are against homosexuality you must be afraid of getting hit on or be hiding queer feelings.............ROTFLMFAO! That one is probably the weakest of the arguments you could've found.

Most researchers put homosexual lifestyle choice perversionists at about 2% of the population, hardly a vast segment ya think? So why should we alter right and wrong to cater to a bunch of sick individuals?

Perhaps a recessive trait or complex of genes.

Who said it was an agrument, just an interesting thought and you obviously don't understand what I was saying.

We cater to all kinds of people with "illness" and "disabilities". If you think being gay is such, then why not cater to them?

 

[MissileMan]

Well, yeah, that is an absurd notion when put in that context; which, I did not. There's a big difference between being in the presence of and being raised and influenced by their beliefs.

No difference at all, as demonstrated by my earlier argument about straight couples who produce homosexual children.

 

[Gunny]

If you want to talk about homosexuality in the context of evolution, can nobody think of a good reason for homosexuality? It's not that hard. I'll give you some clues. Is homosexuality bad because it's a dead end? Because homosexuals don't reproduce? Do homosexuals provide any benefit, to say, the society that they live in? Can they serve any sociological role? Is their anything that will benefit a species by having a homosexual population?

Homosexuality exists as an aberration of nature. They exist in all forms. We don't put special laws in place that cater to other abnormal behavior, unless you want to compare homosexuality to crminal behavior.

I have not argued that they cannot otherwise be at least somewhat good citizens; although, I would always have a "?" by their judgement. Homosexuals themselves, who keep their business where it belongs don't bother me.

A law that caters specifically to abnormal and morally reprehensible behavior does.

Our moral fiber is dissolving because it's 200 years old! It has to evolve as our society does. We're not still using caveman law are we? Our moral fiber wasn't perfect when we constructed it (aka racisim) so why not modify it.

Evolve is okay. Devolving; which, is what we are doing, is not.

I'm just making the point that many homophobes would prolly still love a threesome with two women and not consider it gay.

I'm aware of the double-standard and was ensuring that you knew where I stood on the matter.


Perhaps a recessive trait or complex of genes.

Who said it was an agrument, just an interesting thought and you obviously don't understand what I was saying.

We cater to all kinds of people with "illness" and "disabilities". If you think being gay is such, then why not cater to them?

We "cater" to illnesses and "disabilities" by labelling them as such. Not quite the same as legislation that legitimizes abnormal behavior as being normal. People with illnesses and disabilities have little choice in the matter. Homosexuals can keep their crap in the house and no one need be the wiser.

 

[trobinett]

Seems to me, that the "thrust" of the thread has been lost. That being, gays are NOT OWED any extra rights, or benefits, and in fact, just allowing them access to those benefits, that are supported by the masses, is WRONG, and CONTERPRODUCTIVE to a healthy, and enriching society.

There are gays in EVER part of our society, find by me. I have no issues for them living THEIR lifestyle.

What I'm dead set againts is thinking WE the MAJORITY should have to support that lifestyle in ANY WAY.

That, my fellow board members is WRONG.

Put any spin on it you want, the basic facts don't change. By passing laws, and statues, that SUPPORT the gay lifestyle, we IN FACT are allowing, what IS considered, an ALTERNATE lifestyle to gain MAIN STREAM recognition.

Don't think THATS the message we want to send, to ANYBODY.

Am I wrong?

 

[Annie]

Seems to me, that the "thrust" of the thread has been lost. That being, gays are NOT OWED any extra rights, or benefits, and in fact, just allowing them access to those benefits, that are supported by the masses, is WRONG, and CONTERPRODUCTIVE to a healthy, and enriching society.

There are gays in EVER part of our society, find by me. I have no issues for them living THEIR lifestyle.

What I'm dead set againts is thinking WE the MAJORITY should have to support that lifestyle in ANY WAY.

That, my fellow board members is WRONG.

Put any spin on it you want, the basic facts don't change. By passing laws, and statues, that SUPPORT the gay lifestyle, we IN FACT are allowing, what IS considered, an ALTERNATE lifestyle to gain MAIN STREAM recognition.

Don't think THATS the message we want to send, to ANYBODY.

Am I wrong?

I agree for the most part. Not everyone has to condone or feel comfortable, but equal rights should not be denied. On the other hand, neither should they be given special rights, including marriage.

 

[CockySOB]

What's wrong with altering the rights for the changing times?

The problem comes from the way in which the librull left has chosen to "fight" for homosexual "rights." Since marriage licenses are state-issued licenses, then the proper avenue to change those licenses is within the individual states. But the librulls chose to take the issue to the courts in an effort to bypass existing legislative means and force change on the Federal level, and the gay community continues to feel the backlash of that action. BTW, I applaud your voting for change in your home-state. That is the correct avenue of action - through the legislature at the state-level.

The gay community is vast and powerful.

And relatively uneducated in the ways of strategy and tactics in the social and political arenas. Otherwise they would have seen the librull left (Democrats in particular) have been using them in the power struggle between conservative and liberal social ideologies. Sooner or later, the gay community will get tossed aside by the Democrats, or put back in the closet until needed later.

OCA unless your a scientist of somekind you have very little credibility when it comes to claiming what is and what is not natural.

Others have said this, but I'll reiterate: until such time as specific bio-chemical or genetic identifiers are found to support the position that homosexuality in humans is normal, it can most assuredly be treated as an abnormality/disease, or as an individual's life-choice. And whether OCA is a scientist or not is irrelevant - his opinion is still valid and whether you like it or not, is based on fairly sound logic.

I have a feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. However if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it?

Nice bit of heterophobia there. When you go around looking for something, you most often find it. And if your focus becomes too sharp, you will find your perspective is distorted from reality.

 

[CockySOB]

If you want to talk about homosexuality in the context of evolution, can nobody think of a good reason for homosexuality? It's not that hard. I'll give you some clues. Is homosexuality bad because it's a dead end? Because homosexuals don't reproduce? Do homosexuals provide any benefit, to say, the society that they live in? Can they serve any sociological role? Is their anything that will benefit a species by having a homosexual population?

Irrelevant. One cannot legislate social acceptance of a lifestyle choice. Or would you like to be grouped with Mao Zedong and his phrase-that-pays - "politically correct?" Social acceptance must come from society, and not from forced legislation. This is the way of strategy.

Our moral fiber is dissolving because it's 200 years old! It has to evolve as our society does. We're not still using caveman law are we? Our moral fiber wasn't perfect when we constructed it (aka racisim) so why not modify it.

Really? Here I thought our societal moral fiber was deteriorating as a result of our excesses. With excessive food and shelter, we turn to pleasurable pursuits, and when that becomes excessive, we have become hedonistic. Many former expansive civilizations have fallen into decline for the same reasons. But hey, if you don't want to learn from the lessons of history, then you must be fine repeating their mistakes.

I'm just making the point that many homophobes would prolly still love a threesome with two women and not consider it gay.

Assumption only, please provide substantial evidence supporting this assertion.

Perhaps a recessive trait or complex of genes.

The first intelligent thing you've said on the topic. And again I ask, where's evidence which supports this assertion? There's been tons of research done trying to find the grail for the homosexual advocates, yet I haven't heard of any successes yet. Have you?

We cater to all kinds of people with "illness" and "disabilities". If you think being gay is such, then why not cater to them?

Usually the "catering" is by way of providing medical and psychological or psychiatric treatment to relieve the symptoms of such illnesses adn disabilities. However, most homosexual advocates (at least the most vocal ones), discount this out of hand and claim that homosexuality is natural and they should be allowed to live life as they are without such "catering."

 

[jimnyc]

NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR QUEERS! Thankfully in about 20+ states so far common sense has won out on this issue and this foul shit is banned.

Agreed, and it will continue that way. Let 'em have civil unions, then let them get back to their abnormalities. There is no way that they deserve to have additional rights, whether they were born with this ailment or caught it growing up.

 

[jimnyc]

What's wrong with altering the rights for the changing times? The gay community is vast and powerful. I find it sad so many people waste time on this relatively unimportant issue when there are so many crisis in the world. In our short life times is it really important to invest such energy into a cause that really is unimportant? For gods sake gain some perspective in the world. What if I told you I was gay, still want to be on staff with a gay guy?

The importance was brought forth by the gay community. Normal people are just acting out to protect the society they know.

OCA unless your a scientist of somekind you have very little credibility when it comes to claiming what is and what is not natural.

And what did the scientists say?

I have a feeling that most homophobes (all the ones I've met are men) are really just afraid that some gay guy will hit on them at a bar and make them a laughing stock of their buddies. So in that case, God obviously hates homosexuals. However if there's the a scant possibility of a threesome with a couple of hot chicks... well than that's not really homosexuality, is it?

I wouldn't be the laughing stock, I'd be in jail for knocking the fruit loop out that tried to hit on me!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

The importance was brought forth by the gay community. Normal people are just acting out to protect the society they know.

Or maybe delusional people, homosexuality is not a new thing.

And what did the scientists say?

It's not conclusive. There may be a role for homosexuality in nature. In the more recent stages of evolution, the high status 'Society' has over individualness, means yes, it is quite possible that homosexuality has been an evolutionary biproduct in the pursuit for a perfectly stable society...

I wouldn't be the laughing stock, I'd be in jail for knocking the fruit loop out that tried to hit on me!

And you say the gay community has problems?

btw, something that affect my views is that I am agnostic and don't see marriage as a "sacred" thing in the traditional sense. Therefor if an intersexed individual experiences intimate and meaningful companionship with a M to F transexual, or a hyper "masculine" male with a "feminine" female... and the freedom of others is not being harmed, then really, what the hell is the problem?

 

[jimnyc]

Or maybe delusional people, homosexuality is not a new thing.

I'm referring to the importance of being 'married' and having the 'equal rights' that they already have. This issue didn't explode until they demanded to be recognized equally. How would you feel if all heroin addicts demanded additional rights because of their abnormalities?

It's not conclusive.

What have they found to support that it's 'in the genes'? That's right, nothing. That's because it's a learned trait, just like other sick perversions and abnormalities, and should be treated as such, with medical assistance - not additional rights.

And you say the gay community has problems?

If another man comes up to me in a public setting, and has the audacity to hit on me, then he WILL get knocked out. These abnormalities WILL DEFINITELY NOT be forced upon me.

btw, something that affect my views is that I am agnostic and don't see marriage as a "sacred" thing in the traditional sense. Therefor if an intersexed individual experiences intimate & meaningful companionship with a M to F transexual, or a hyper "masculine" male with a "feminine" female... and the freedom of others is not being harmed- then really, what the hell is the problem?

The problem is that the overwhelmingly majority of society find homosexuality to be vile and disgusting. We choose not to willingly accept such perversions as a normal part of society.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

How would you feel if all heroin addicts demanded additional rights because of their abnormalities?

That's an incredible stretch of comparison. and heroin addicts can get married.

What have they found to support that it's 'in the genes'? That's right, nothing. That's because it's a learned trait, just like other sick perversions and abnormalities, and should be treated as such, with medical assistance - not additional rights.

Where is the conclusive proof it's a learned trait? I know a pair of identical twins, one is gay, one is not. Same upbringing.

If another man comes up to me in a public setting, and has the audacity to hit on me, then he WILL get knocked out. These abnormalities WILL DEFINITELY NOT be forced upon me.

You have the right to say fuck off, but to get violent? c'mon. That turns to hate. and hate is not good for any society.

The problem is that the overwhelmingly majority of society find homosexuality to be vile and disgusting. We choose not to willingly accept such perversions as a normal part of society.

Maybe, but it's slowly becoming more accepted, especially by the younger generations. Give it 20 or so years, it will change.

 

[Annie]

Where is the conclusive proof it's a learned trait? I know a pair of identical twins, one is gay, one is not. Same upbringing.

Wouldn't this argue more against genetic? Show me any parent that treats each kid the same, doesn't happen. Different kids, different strokes.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Wouldn't this argue more against genetic? Show me any parent that treats each kid the same, doesn't happen. Different kids, different strokes.

I'm not neccessarily arguing for genetic, I agree there is no proof, but it's unconclusive all the way around. Interesting ideas and possibilities on both ends.

 

[jimnyc]

That's an incredible stretch of comparison. and heroin addicts can get married.

That's correct, they have equal rights as you and I, and they will get in trouble should they act on their impulses. My point is that you don't award someone for abnormal behavior, you take steps to correct them.

Where is the conclusive proof it's a learned trait? I know a pair of identical twins, one is gay, one is not. Same upbringing.

With all of the scientists in the world you would think they would find 'medical' proof that queers are born with their abnormalities. It's much harder to prove it's learned. Either way though, it's abnormal and should be treated, not tolerated.

You have the right to say fuck off, but to get violent? c'mon. That turns to hate. and hate is not good for any society.

When another man approaches me with visions of kissing and/or making love to me, they need to get a beating. They should be in a gay bar if they are looking for partners.

Maybe, but it's slowly becoming more accepted, especially by the younger generations. Give it 20 or so years, it will change.

Can't say for sure but I hope I'm pushing up daisies before it's an accepted part of society.