A Cure for the Gay.

[Vintij]

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?

Are you sure your republican???

 

[hjmick]

Are you sure your republican???

RINO. More towards Libertarian/Independent.

Truthfully, these days it's just a means to vote in the primaries, I lean left on most social issues, and right on most other issues. Give me smaller government, lower taxes, and my guns. I guess you'd say I am a moderate. I call myself pragmatic. Either, I sometimes find my self getting run over being in the middle of the road.

 

[wiggles]

There is no gay gene

I don't think there is either, but it's one theory that exists.

those guys ("Plato, Michaelangelo, or Alexander the Great") were not gay.

Yes they were.

 

[wiggles]

If its only done by a small percentage of peple then it is indeed abnormal.

Unusual or rare is not the same as abnormal. Again with red hair and left handedness. Both rare, both normal.

GOD I wish you people would hit the google once in a while. Or just think for a second before you start click the 'Submit' button.

 

[mattskramer]

There is no gay gene, and those guys were not gay.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/diversity/assault/

List as many famous gay, lesbian, or bisexual people as you can. Does your list include historical figures, or is it dominated by a handful of contemporary celebrities? Does it include any of the names listed below? Many of these people are routinely included in standard school curricula, but the fact that they may not have been exclusively heterosexual is rarely mentioned. Why not? Would acknowledging their sexuality affect your perception of their work? Would acknowledging their sexuality affect your perception of their place in history?

Leonardo di Vinci, Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, Eleanor Roosevelt, Franz Schubert, Edna St. Vincent Millay, Lorraine Hansberry, W.H. Auden, Sir Francis Bacon, Edward Albee, Aaron Copland, Benjamin Britten, Socrates, Plato, Michelangelo, Tennessee Williams, Bessie Smith, Gertrude Stein

http://www.angelfire.com/home/qaf/quotations.html

Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc.). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime, and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.
~ Sigmund Freud

 

[wiggles]

I, for one, think that the state should stay out of the business of "marriage" altogether and leave that to religious organizations. I think the state should license civil unions for any people who want to legally join their lives, their assets and liabilities..... and churches should be able to marry whoever the dictates of their faith allow them to marry.... marriages ought not to afford anyone the rights granted by the state, and civil unions ought to be just that - and stay devoid of any spiritual, romantic or sexual component.

I disagree. I think it should be the other way around. Marriage for everyone should be (actually, in the U.S. it is) a civil contract.
Separation of church and state.


Massachusetts’ founders insisted on civil unions, not as a reluctant compromise with the state, but as a direct outgrowth of their religious beliefs. Puritans were dissenters from the Church of England, which like the Catholic Church treated marriage as a sacrament. In England, the king was "defender of the faith," bishops sat in the House of Lords, and the Church of England had legal authority over all religious matters, including marriage. Puritans strongly opposed this system. They wanted to adhere strictly to the Bible in shaping their forms of worship, but as they read it, the New Testament offered no precedent for bishops, ecclesiastical courts, and royal control over religion. What’s more, they held that the Bible sanctioned only baptism and communion as sacraments, since these were the only sacraments that Jesus took part in himself.

 

[Kagom]

Yes they were.

No, Alexander was bisexual. There IS a difference between gay and bisexual. Signior Michaelangelo was gay from what I recall.

 

[Kagom]

...Eleanor Roosevelt...

That's a name I wouldn't put out there. There's a lot of dispute and I really doubt she was.

 

[wiggles]

No, Alexander was bisexual. There IS a difference between gay and bisexual.

He had a beard.

 

[roomy]

Is there a cure for cynicism? It is killing me.

 

[glockmail]

...
Yes they were.

Proof?

 

[glockmail]

Unusual or rare is not the same as abnormal. Again with red hair and left handedness. Both rare, both normal.

....

Incorrect. Rare is a subset of abnormal.

 

[Gunny]

College level statistics.

Link.

 

[Gunny]

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.

Incorrect. Feel free to re-read my post on your statement.

 

[Gunny]

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?

What's to add to your bullshit ranting?

 

[Gunny]

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?

Try again, fool. I think RIF is still available for barely functional morons like you. The statement, and belief that homosexuality is not normal does not require any emotion, good or bad. Just logic, common sense and fact.

All of which you are willing to ignore, going on the attack trying to paint anyone who doesn't agree with your ass-kissing agenda as some kind of extremist hater.

 

[Gunny]

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".

You need to quit trying to translate for me since your shit is all fucked up from word one. Obviously, you need to concentrate a LOT more on comprehension.

I take it English isn't your first language? I wasn't aware fuckwads had their own.

 

[Gunny]

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?

 

[Gunny]

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.

Again, only for fence-riders like you. And I've refuted each and every one of your inellectually dishonest, relativist arguments over and over again for the past 3 years. They're no more correct now than they they were the first time.

Relativism has its place, but that place isn't making bullshit, dishonest analogies to support a bullshit, dishoenst argument.

 

[mattskramer]

Again, only for fence-riders like you. And I've refuted each and every one of your inellectually dishonest, relativist arguments over and over again for the past 3 years. They're no more correct now than they they were the first time.

Relativism has its place, but that place isn't making bullshit, dishonest analogies to support a bullshit, dishoenst argument.

Whatever. Keep dreaming.