A Cure for the Gay.

[90K]

I guess I don't see the value in getting hung up on "normalcy". Gay folks can be great people, and some can be assholes....kinda like straight folks.... the fact that two men live next door to me does not mean my marriage is somehow less valuable or less important in my life. If they were "married" or if they were joined in a civil union, it would not impact MY life one iota, nor would it impact the lives of my children or anyone else I know. I happen to like them both because they are Red Sox fans and we watch the games sometimes in my livingroom and sometimes in theirs when my wife wants the downstairs TV... their "gayness" is a non-issue in my life...their "neighborliness" is.

I don't really think the whole issue is about who is gay or straight, but more of the gay life style forced down our throats as we have to except this and this is how it will affect us all. Putting aside morals here I say we are all affected because of the future medical problems that are part of that life style, it cost money to keep folks alive who have terminal illness, it cost us money because our public schools now have to have these new training plans that explain it is alright to be gay, and it cost us when all of the existing religious groups turn a blind eye against what they once taught in churches and the very written scripture that speaks against being gay. And remember it is love the sinner and hate the sin so I didn't bash anyone. See when I go places and I see these obnoxious gay people both being condescending or just plain rude it doesn’t give me much room for acceptance, and like the asshole straight folk I have no tolerance for them either. Personal opinion is that lifestyle is an excuse for many things of which childhood issues can be the root.
There is a lot of money behind this campaign and like Gunny said until those big monies are called down to explain there position this will continue to fester out of control.
And this issue has some very deep roots and I don’t think we will ever get straight answers regarding this subject.

 

[glockmail]

So if an accurate census puts the percentage of gays at 6% or higher then they'll be considered normal? What orifice did you pull that 5% figure out of anyways?

At 6% they would be on the fringe of normal. The 5% is a typical range for standard deviation in statistics- it is not a set number, in fact, 5% is probably the low end of the range.

 

[glockmail]

Ummm...dude.... you've pretty-much had your ass handed to you again. Not because your stance is necessarily wrong .... but because you haven't the first clue how to argue it.

Try living in reality instead of a drunk stupor for a while. It actually isn't so bad.

 

[glockmail]

Dude, WHERE on Earth did you come up with those arbitrary numbers that I sure as I read on, someone's going to hold your ass to fire over?

College level statistics.

 

[glockmail]

Normal and natural are NOT unrelated. .....

Taking out the double negative you said: "Normal and natural are related", which is untrue. They happen to coincide very frequently, but otherwise there is no set relationship.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Taking out the double negative you said: "Normal and natural are related", which is untrue. They happen to coincide very frequently, but otherwise there is no set relationship.

Removing a double negative is only common practice in grammar. In logic it's an entirely different and acceptable operative. Logically what Gunny said is true and mirrors the latter of what you said. Nice attempt at trying to one up him though.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

At 6% they would be on the fringe of normal. The 5% is a typical range for standard deviation in statistics- it is not a set number, in fact, 5% is probably the low end of the range.

A population percentage applied to the bell curve is not the common standard by which society defines norms and deviancy. Try again.

 

[Shogun]

Feel better? I would after dumping a load of shit that big. I suggest next time using the bathroom.

I take it you had nothing better to add than that?

nothing, say, relevant to the topic of the thread?

whatsa matter? is it jello night instead of pudding night at the nursing home? Having a hard time gumming those fruit pieces down? Did you wet yourself and start to chaffe "down there" while an unresponsive nurse ignores you along with the other grumble mumblers who would ***** about sunshine on a cloudy day?

 

[Shogun]

And what do you call your previous post? Intelligent discussion? Looks more like ad hominems to me.

of COURSE it looks like the boogeyman without your bifocals on, pops!

Maybe when the nurse gets done inserting your catheder you can ask her hand you your spectacles and that latest issue of playgranny....

have you responded to my points yet or would you rather cloud of the water with "nuh huh, YOUR a doodoo head" posts all day?

I guess that is a silly question when the nursing home gets as lonely as it does, eh pops?

 

[Shogun]

Try again. Who specifically is hellbent on pushing gays out of the realm of Constitutional protection? That's quite a stretch from being opposed to legislation that caters to a minority group based on aberrant sexual behavior.

And to this point, each of YOUR posts has been as "Chicken Little" as it gets.

Is this where I drop a Kathianne responce like, "nuh huh, YOUR dumb, troll!"?

yes... it sure is QUITE A STRETCH to remind you how your archie bunker hatred of anything non-you is partitioning the Constitution to include only who YOU think it applies to..


yes..


I bet you would have been rooting for ole strom in the elevator too, eh?

you know...


because who wants to pass legislation to cater to people who, by being black, are abnormal when being white is the mean average? Indeed.. the good ole boys club will ride again, eh gunny?

 

[Shogun]

The premise of your argument is stupid, and based on extremist stereotypes. Believing homosexuality is aberrant sexual behavior is not mutually inclusive with one being a gay-hating bigot.

You need to learn to separate your political opinion from fact.

Here.. let me translate your post into lingo you'd have rooted for in the 1960s...

"Your premise is stupid, and based on extremist stereotypes. Believing BLACKS and WOMEN should know their place under the white mans control is not mutually exclusive with one being racist or sexist.

You need to learn to seperate white people from everyone else."



did you just have a deja vu moment? Did I just remind you of better days and beloved times?

yes.. remind me how a dominant sample of a population wont try every way possible to rationalize their hateful opinions while re-reading your Strom Thurman handbook for a Birth of a Nation, pops.. This same routine got old when your kind were in an uproar about interracial unions using very much the same tripe as "debate".

 

[Puddles]

Hey I just thought of something. What if homosexuality was either God or nature's way of controlling population? Can you imagine what our earth would be like if everyone pro-created?? Especially when there are people popping out 4+ kids?

 

[90K]

Hey I just thought of something. What if homosexuality was either God or nature's way of controlling population? Can you imagine what our earth would be like if everyone pro-created?? Especially when there are people popping out 4+ kids?

I have a question about what "God" you are refering to? Because back in the Old Testiment in Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis speak of what happened due to these actions of the people. So I'd say it wasn't a action of God and his population control measures unless you are refering to disease and disasters due to that lifestyle. And I disagree with the idea nature would have that ability because other than primates other animals don't have a regular habits of homosexual actions I could be wrong but I don't know of any off hand.

 

[Puddles]

I have a question about what "God" you are refering to? Because back in the Old Testiment in Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis speak of what happened due to these actions of the people. So I'd say it wasn't a action of God and his population control measures unless you are refering to disease and disasters due to that lifestyle. And I disagree with the idea nature would have that ability because other than primates other animals don't have a regular habits of homosexual actions I could be wrong but I don't know of any off hand.

This was just a random thought that occurred to me while reading this thread and thought it was interesting enough to share.

I also don't buy into the biblical or religion based God so all that is irrelevant to me.

As for that nature aspect, I think some posters have mentioned about homosexuality within out species but regardless, we can't dismiss the fact that some people are naturally/instinctally drawn to the same sex.

A lot of gays have said they have felt different or knew they weren't attracted to opposite sex (or even the right gender) right from the beginning - people can't help how they feel - about anything, real feelings can't be manufactured or forced - you feel how you feel - and to me that is natural and that's what I mean.

 

[hjmick]

Not to put the kibosh on this conversation, but I was wondering, aren't there more important things in the world to worry about? Honestly. Look, I have, with a couple of exceptions, voted Republican my entire life, and, quite frankly, when it comes to love and sex, I don't give two rips about who is doing what to who or how. I don't care if it's nature or nurture. Considering the divorce rate and rate of adultery in heterosexual couples, considering the number of multiple partners some heterosexuals have, conservative and liberal alike, I'm not sure dictating how others should live is a good idea. What difference does it make to anyone how someone else gets their jollies? Gay marriage? Who cares? If they want to deal with inlaws, more power to them I say.

I'm just saying, I think there are much bigger issues to worry about.

 

[Puddles]

Not to put the kibosh on this conversation, but I was wondering, aren't there more important things in the world to worry about? Honestly. Look, I have, with a couple of exceptions, voted Republican my entire life, and, quite frankly, when it comes to love and sex, I don't give two rips about who is doing what to who or how. I don't care if it's nature or nurture. Considering the divorce rate and rate of adultery in heterosexual couples, considering the number of multiple partners some heterosexuals have, conservative and liberal alike, I'm not sure dictating how others should live is a good idea. What difference does it make to anyone how someone else gets their jollies? Gay marriage? Who cares? If they want to deal with inlaws, more power to them I say.

I'm just saying, I think there are much bigger issues to worry about.

I completely agree with everything you said - homosexuality isn't a big deal and shouldn't be an issue with anyone, but it is so that's we're discussing it on a message board...plus I don't want to particularly want to talk about libtards and repugs

I think you should start a thread on divorce rate and adultery though...that would be an interesting topic.

 

[mattskramer]

Societal acceptance could be one consideration as normal, not "the" reason. I even went so far to post an example of another determining source.

How many more considerations must there be before something (gay marriage) is not right. I already knocked your “acceptance” argument down. To summarize, you said that once upon a time, smoking was considered to be okay. Now, society thinks it wrong.

Speaking of changes in societal attitudes with respect to marriage:
- An adult man would be allowed to marry a 12 year-old girl.
- Someone could be forced into a marriage arranged by their parents.
- A person would not be allowed to marry someone of another race.
- Men could treat their wives as property to be disposed of at will.
- A husband would be allowed to have multiple wives.
- A person could not marry someone of a different religion.
- A person could not marry someone from a different economic class.
- It would be impossible to divorce, no matter how physically or emotionally abusive your spouse.

As society has changed, so too has the institution of marriage. With a better understanding of gays and lesbians, the time has come for another change to this institution.

Next argument please.

 

[mattskramer]

Using relativity as an argument is nothing more than a lame attempt to invalidate someone else's argument via intellectual dishonesty.

Using relativity, as an argument is perfectly sound since practically everything is relative. Just because you won’t intellectually refute it, does not make it invalid.

 

[Vintij]

Not to put the kibosh on this conversation, but I was wondering, aren't there more important things in the world to worry about? Honestly. Look, I have, with a couple of exceptions, voted Republican my entire life, and, quite frankly, when it comes to love and sex, I don't give two rips about who is doing what to who or how. I don't care if it's nature or nurture. Considering the divorce rate and rate of adultery in heterosexual couples, considering the number of multiple partners some heterosexuals have, conservative and liberal alike, I'm not sure dictating how others should live is a good idea. What difference does it make to anyone how someone else gets their jollies? Gay marriage? Who cares? If they want to deal with inlaws, more power to them I say.

I'm just saying, I think there are much bigger issues to worry about.

It is an issue with republicans because they dont want secular government to take over the traditions of the bible. Its more of a symbol than an actual issue. Ofcourse we are human and some of the decisions we make are going to be based on our faith. Thats understand-able. Though I dont believe the bible says anything about forced values. You can definitely try to convert people and speak the word, but you cant force someone to follow your lifestyle, especially if being gay is nowhere in the ten commandments.

Personally I dont believe lifestyles should be forced onto anyone, because nobody is forcing a christian to be an athiest, so why force gay couples to stay out of a life of eternal love and loyalty sealed through marriage?

Infact most gay people are christian and believe that god made them that way. If that is truly what they believe, who are we to pass a law saying otherwise? If I believe the mothership is going to pick me up tomorrow morning and we are going to fly away to heaven, nobody is going to change my mind. Supressing gay people, wont make them go away.

 

[hjmick]

It is an issue with republicans because they dont want secular government to take over the traditions of the bible. Its more of a symbol than an actual issue. Ofcourse we are human and some of the decisions we make are going to be based on our faith. Thats understand-able. Though I dont believe the bible says anything about forced values. You can definitely try to convert people and speak the word, but you cant force someone to follow your lifestyle, especially if being gay is nowhere in the ten commandments.

Personally I dont believe lifestyles should be forced onto anyone, because nobody is forcing a christian to be an athiest, so why force gay couples to stay out of a life of eternal love and loyalty sealed through marriage?

Infact most gay people are christian and believe that god made them that way. If that is truly what they believe, who are we to pass a law saying otherwise? If I believe the mothership is going to pick me up tomorrow morning and we are going to fly away to heaven, nobody is going to change my mind. Supressing gay people, wont make them go away.

Well, this is one Republican who doesn't have an issue with it. Of course, I am that rare agnostic Republican, hoping for legalized pot, no prayer in school, and that they quit ******* around over the abortion issue. Crazy, ain't I?