know what really causes homosexuality....

[doniston]

How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me, and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is. We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior. You either know it's wrong, or you don't. You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them. One crowd is a very vocal little minority. The other is the vast majority. Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.

Actually, you are one of the very sick. there are three choices here. not just two.

1. There are those emphtically opposed, and many of them IMHO including you who fight toot and nail against something that should be of no particular interest to you.

2. then there ar those who are gay, or homowsexual. who want their place in the sun,

3. then there are the rest who, to varying degrees, are willing to live and let live

Those that are gay are no skin off my nose. That is their thing, and more and more it appears that it is also YOUR "closeted" Thing.

 

[doniston]

Only of you choose to put forth an argument based solely on conscious choice fo the purpose of blindly defending an aberrant behavior.

That doesn't make sense----try again.

 

[midcan5]

Does this guys deserve tenure? Or is he just a middle east wingnut.

The Columbia Professor Who Also Doesn't Think Gay People Exist in the Middle East

Queer Theory by James Kirchick

"Massad's thesis rests largely on Queer Theory, a voguish academic theory from the 1990s that stipulates that homosexuality is merely a "social construction" and not an inherent state of being. Massad writes that, "The categories gay and lesbian are not universal at all and can only be universalized by the epistemic, ethical, and political violence unleashed on the rest of the world by the very international human rights advocates whose aim is to defend the very people their intervention is creating (emphasis mine)." Thus, not only are gay rights activists unleashing "epistemic... violence" on Arabs and Muslims who have same-sex relations by claiming them to be homosexual, they are responsible for the "political violence" of the regimes that oppress them. As one illustration of his thesis, Massad chooses the "Queen Boat" incident of May 11, 2001, when a horde of truncheon-wielding Egyptian police officers boarded a Nile River cruise known as the Queen Boat, a floating disco for gay men. Fifty-two men were arrested, and many of them were tortured and sexually humiliated in prison. In a sensational, months-long ordeal, they were paraded in public, and images of them shielding their faces were blared on state television and printed in government newspapers. Most of the men were eventually acquitted, but 23 received convictions for either the "habitual debauchery," "contempt for religion" or both."

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w071008&s=kirchick101207

 

[Doug]

There is a fair amount of institutionalized nuttiness in the American Academy. "Queer theory" is one example but far from the only one. In my opinion, a lot of it is the produce of a Disappointed Left -- the 60's New Left generation who got tenure and began to move up the promotion ladder, but saw their dreams of Third World -- and someday, US -- revolutionary socialism go down the toilet.

The Old Left had a vision: the workingclass, spanning all races and nations and both sexes, would unite under the leadership of the Vanguard Party, overthrow capitalism, and end not only war and economic misery, but also various sorts of non-economic social oppression, such as national and sexual chauvinism.

By the 1970s this was looking pretty unlikely in the United States. The radicalization of the 60s had passed the traditional working class by, even in Europe where the workers were traditionally socialist.

So the impressionistic New Left looked to other "agencies" for the Revolution: American lumpen Blacks, women, youth, "the Third World", gays. And so developed "identity politics". No longer would the Left fight for a unified working class led by a single Vanguard Party, but rather each category of the oppressed was to organize itself.

But a problem then arose: often, they had competing claims. Who, for example, was the most oppressed? Women, or Blacks? Or gays? Should the rally after a march on a Black issue, have a homosexual speaker?

Some wonderfully comic scenes resulted from this: Black male militants were often not really clued up on the Woman Question, and could drive militant white feminists into a fury by their public remarks("The position of women in our organization is ... prone!"), a fury only tempered by their white liberal guilt.

Nowadays, this is all pretty much tempests in academic teapots. "Spokespersons" for militant Islam who are working the "anti-imperialist" con-game attack those feminists and gay liberationists who dare to mention the oppression of women and gays under Islam, for having a "colonialist mentality". Generally, for the Amercan Left, white guilt is stronger than anything else, and these attacks are pretty effective.

Conservatives, and sensible liberals, can just sit back and laugh at these silly people. (God knows, with the way the world is today, we can use some humor.)

 

[Diuretic]

Too right Doug. Karl Marx would have been horrified. After all he did identify the lumpenproletariat . I think he would, today, have identified the ponceyproletariat.

Or at least I hope he would have. Engels too.

I llike to think they wouldn't have tolerated that sort of stupidity.

 

[Shogun]

hehehehe..


ok, Gunny.

 

[Gunny]

If, by wanking, you mean giving you a reason not to kiss your mother on the lips tonight......


:0

I split y'all's posts and put them in the taunting arena. Also replied to ban comments. Let's leave this thread for those that want to debate homosexuality.

 

[roomy]

I split y'all's posts and put them in the taunting arena. Also replied to ban comments. Let's leave this thread for those that want to debate homosexuality.

Does that include you lovey?

 

[actsnoblemartin]

hahaha

You're laughing, shoguns wanking

 

[midcan5]

Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.

 

[Diuretic]

Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.

Depending on the numbers you might want to make it Republican Coming Out Week, but at least after it was all over the boil would have been lanced

 

[007]

Actually, you are one of the very sick. there are three choices here. not just two.

1. There are those emphtically opposed, and many of them IMHO including you who fight toot and nail against something that should be of no particular interest to you.

2. then there ar those who are gay, or homowsexual. who want their place in the sun,

3. then there are the rest who, to varying degrees, are willing to live and let live

Those that are gay are no skin off my nose. That is their thing, and more and more it appears that it is also YOUR "closeted" Thing.

What a ******* moron... *sits shaking head*.... first of all... you ******* imbecile, PLEASE LEARN TO SPELL, or DON'T POST WHEN YOU'RE DRUNK!!!

Second, DON'T POST UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY WORTH READING!!!

I swear, I'm going to have to write to that Gospel Rescue Mission you stay in at night and tell them not to give you computer privileges after a day of picking up cans and drinking cheap wine.

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Another conservative republican has come out of the closet, reluctantly, but still does this strike anyone else as funny? How many of these so called republican moralistic conservatives haven't come out yet? Not that there is anything wrong with that. Maybe we should have a national Republican Coming out Day.

What I wouldn’t give to be there when this God-bothering bigot tries to justify his get-up to Jesus!

“Ya see I had this terrible case of diarrhoea, so I…..no? Well would you believe I was demonstrating filthy Librul secshull practices to to my Republican flock ....."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"

"This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because “something went wrong,” should be just as interesting as the question, “What causes heterosexuality?” Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"

"The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or it’s genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is ‘learned’ as subtely as one’s mother tongue, or perhaps it’s a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."

"Which of these ‘causes’ would justify discrimination?"
Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. It’s a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."

"Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."

"If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"

"Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?

Hate is not reasonable.

"Hate is not a reasoned argument. Don’t pander to those who hate by trying to prove you ‘couldn’t help it’, or ‘given the choice, you’d be heterosexual’. Beware of the ‘good little boy’ syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to ‘overlook’ your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.

"The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. There’s no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. You’re just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.

"Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know you’re not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.

"And quite frankly, the only ‘reasonable’ answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."

www.scottowen.org

This is a perfect example of how stupid midcan is. He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.

 

[toxicmedia]

This is a perfect example of how stupid midcan is. He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.

What's stupid is spending time meddling in the lives of people who aren't breaking any laws, simply because you're a prudish puritanical dillweed who acts just like the bad guy in "Footloose".

If you were healthy mentally, you wouldn't care if a gay couple had a marriage license collecting dust in the skinny middle drawer of the desk in the study upstairs. Especially because they'll conitnue to love each other like everybody else no matter how fragile your sensabilities are.

I can't wait for old conservatives who hate gays to die of old age, and I can't wait for gay haters who are young to get old and die too

 

[Arthur]

"You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"

"This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because “something went wrong,” should be just as interesting as the question, “What causes heterosexuality?” Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"

"The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or it’s genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is ‘learned’ as subtely as one’s mother tongue, or perhaps it’s a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."

"Which of these ‘causes’ would justify discrimination?"
Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. It’s a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."

"Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."

"If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"

"Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?

Hate is not reasonable.

"Hate is not a reasoned argument. Don’t pander to those who hate by trying to prove you ‘couldn’t help it’, or ‘given the choice, you’d be heterosexual’. Beware of the ‘good little boy’ syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to ‘overlook’ your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.

"The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. There’s no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. You’re just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.

"Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know you’re not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.

"And quite frankly, the only ‘reasonable’ answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."

www.scottowen.org

This is a perfect example of how stupid midcan is. He starts a thread titled "Know what causes homosexuality," and then posts a long quote that basically says it doesn't matter.

And how "smart" is it to re-open a thread that's over five years old just to claim someone else is "stupid"?

 

[Moonglow]

How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.

social Darwinist...

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"You want to know what really causes homosexuality?"

"This question, which arises from an assumption that one is homosexual because “something went wrong,” should be just as interesting as the question, “What causes heterosexuality?” Think about that question for a moment, and ask yourself why nobody ever asks it. In asking this question, are you looking to change someone? To heal someone? Yourself perhaps?"

"The two most common answers one hears today is that sexuality is either a choice, or it’s genetic. Have you considered it might be neither? Perhaps sexuality (homo, hetero and anything in-between) is ‘learned’ as subtely as one’s mother tongue, or perhaps it’s a psychological reaction. It could be a result of parental hormones during conception or pregnancy or breastfeeding. It could be a result of womb-temperature, the vitamin balance in the parents, or their age. It could be a complex combination of these factors. The only honest answer to this question at the moment is that nobody knows."

"Which of these ‘causes’ would justify discrimination?"
Which would make one sexuality inferior to another? Many people believe that if homosexuality were proven to be genetic, then those who discriminate against us would have no reason to discriminate. It’s a seductive argument, but I believe it has more to do with people trying to put their own minds at ease, as they struggle with (self-)acceptance."

"Those who believe a genetic cause would make discrimination unjustifiable, clearly imply that discrimination against homosexuals is justifiable in other circumstances. More importantly, this argument relies on a belief that reason can defeat discrimination, implying that discrimination is based on reason; that discrimination is reasonable."

"If skin-colour were a choice, would racism be justified?
Would it then be completely reasonable to say that only if you are a particular colour are you allowed to marry or join organisations or visit a loved-one in hospital? If skin-colour were a choice, would it be reasonable to say that some skin-colours were sinful or evil or immoral, and others not?"

"Skin-colour is genetic, but has this fact ever changed the opinion of even one of those who discriminate against other races?

Hate is not reasonable.

"Hate is not a reasoned argument. Don’t pander to those who hate by trying to prove you ‘couldn’t help it’, or ‘given the choice, you’d be heterosexual’. Beware of the ‘good little boy’ syndrome, where you over-achieve in the hope that people will be willing to ‘overlook’ your supposed imperfection. These things only justify the discrimination.

"The cause of sexuality is really quite irrelevant, except to those who are insecure and want you to conform. There’s no need to look for some cause, as your sexuality is not an imperfection. You’re just fine the way you are, with your own potential, possibilities and set of things you have to offer to the world.

"Be yourself, inasmuch at does not bring physical harm, and know you’re not alone. History is littered with proof of the fact that it is possible for the majority to be wrong.

"And quite frankly, the only ‘reasonable’ answer to unreasonable bigots is, well, none at all."

Scott Owen

Sexual orientation (who you're attracted to) may be genetic.

Sexual acts though are always the result of choice.

Plus, sexual orientation itself may not actually exist. Who we have sex with, always being the result of having made the choice to have sex, can vary and change instantly from instance to instance.

Get drunk enough or high enough and you, a straight-identifying person may have same-sex sex. Does this mean you're not straight though? Are you then gay? What if your next sexual encounter is opposite-sex sex? Are you back to being straight, or bisexual? Or are these terms meaningless to begin with?

 

[mudwhistle]

How anyone can seriously hold the belief that any of us "chooses" our sexuality is completely beyond me.

If you're one sex and you choose to be another...that's called a choice.

 

[mudwhistle]

Some Gays have told me the primary reason they explored homosexuality is because of a bad marriage. I think the thing that effects it the most is what turns you on the most. Homosexuality is basically a taboo that some can't resist. Just like some can't resist being attracted to children. Do you on the left think being a Pedophile is genetic?