know what really causes homosexuality....

[doniston]

Accepting something and finding it "normal" are NOT interchangeable.

I agree you will find large swatches of this country that ACCEPT homosexuals as "gasp" existing and having rights and not believing they should be prosecuted for private behavior. That does NOT equate to them thinking the behavior is in anyway NORMAL.

In fact I accept the fact that Homosexuals exist, have rights and are and should be protected in exactly the same manner as every other law abiding citizen. BUT I do NOT think they are NORMAL. And in fact since less than 10 percent of the ENTIRE human population are Homosexual ( and real statistical data indicates only 2 to 3 percent) they are IN FACT NOT Normal.

BS. normal is normal whether you think it is acceptable or not. I am 6'4" tall a very small percentge of the population is that tall. but I am in fact NORMAL. Your opinion is garbage. But like you imply in your sig. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO IT.

 

[CorpMediaSux]

I notice you completely ignored my first paragraph, I can see why, it wouldn't sit well with your assumptions made in the post.

The first paragraph of the post in question is your interpretation of Biblical law, which isn't so much relevant to me as I'm not a Christian. I appreciate your efforts to not allow your religious teachings to impact how you see the legal rights issues props.

The reality is that books and teaching tools are created that introduce homosexual couples even in our lowest grades. That is not something I want or support.

I bolded and highlighted the following because it is accurate and doesn't quite work with what you say just below.

Sex should not come up at all in school until high school, in my opinion. It is a matter for families to talk about and discuss not class rooms.

I completely agree. However in the pre-school curriculum sex ISN'T part of the discussion, or should not be if we're dealing with responsible teachers. Frankly, while I know there are books about same-sex couples for pre-schoolers I'm not aware of any school district that has implemented their use. But more to the point, can you explain the harm of children knowing about the existence of same-sex couples at a young age? No is suggesting they be bombarded with images of what lesbians and gay men do in their private bedroom. In fact, no one should be bombarded with those images unless they'd like to see them. Same can't be said for homosexual adults, we are constantly bombared by heterosexual sex in movies, television, literature and sometimes on the train, get a room people. One final aside, if exposure to a certain kind of sexuality made you into that sexuality, there's no way anyone would be gay, heterosexual sex and attraction is all around us all the time.
As far as pre-schoolers can grasp adult romantic relationships, I don't see any harm in them knowing that some people are in same-sex relationships.

Polygamy is just as "normal" as this deviant sexual practice,

Wrong and it doesn't depend on your definition of moral. Those wishing to practice polygamous relationships are a greater statistical minority than homosexuals. MORE importantly, polygamy is a kind of romantic relationship that a person can prefer or choose. Homosexuality defines your sexuality, your desire, who you fancy, etc. etc.

It is after all nothing more than the free choice of the people involved. Why aren't there demands that this sexual choice be allowed?

Your attempt to link polygamy to homosexual suggests that at the root of this debate is the choice issue. But homosexuality isn't a choice. Nor, might I add, really is homosexual sex or relationships. You have a child and can I assume you are or were married? Do you think social taboo or more could prevent you from loving your wife (sorry if I'm wrong in assuming you're a guy). If everyone in the world told you it was wrong to have the feelings you have for your wife, would that change them, would that dissuade you from being with her, having sex, producing a child being in a relationship? I seriously, highly doubt it. You "choose" to be in love as much as I "choose" to be in love with my partner. There's a certain point where love and attraction take over and human rationality goes a bit out the window (it's the reason so many movies and books and songs are inspired by people doing crazy, INSANE shit for love).

Your problem is that you refuse to accept the biological fact that homosexual and heterosexual love and attraction have the same effect on gay and straight people, they are just directed in different ways. Why? Science is still figuring that out. But what science HAS discovered is that gay brains in love work the same way straight brains in love do, which means "choice" is such a non-issue.

 

[Doug]

(1) It should be obvious to anyone who has looked into the matter that, for some males at least -- and I would expect the same is true for females -- homosexual orientation is not a question of choice. Of course, sexual activity of any sort is, insofar as any activity save reflex actions is a matter of choice.

(2) And all evidence from the experience of men deprived of the company of women -- in prisons, for example -- shows that the power of the male sex drive will overcome any heterosexual inhibitions in most males. (Reference Winston Churchill's reply to an admiral who objected to a budget cut for the Royal Navy on the grounds that it would force them to go against some naval tradition or other: "Naval tradition? The traditions of the Royal Navy are rum, sodomy and the lash.")

(3) Almost certainly, male -- and perhaps female -- homosexuality has biological roots, perhaps genetic, perhaps some biochemical insult in the womb. Our rapid progress in understanding human biology will probably, within a few decades, allow us to tell whether or not a fetus will develop as a homosexual. And since very few -- if any -- parents want a homosexual child, whatever the pious hypocrisy uttered about homosexuality being a "gift from God", we will see a lot of discreet pregnancy terminations, and thus a dramatic drop in the number of homosexuals.

With one exception: those born to fundamentalist Christians, who of course oppose abortion under any circumstances.

Another irony of history.

 

[Larkinn]

(3) Almost certainly, male -- and perhaps female -- homosexuality has biological roots, perhaps genetic, perhaps some biochemical insult in the womb. Our rapid progress in understanding human biology will probably, within a few decades, allow us to tell whether or not a fetus will develop as a homosexual. And since very few -- if any -- parents want a homosexual child, whatever the pious hypocrisy uttered about homosexuality being a "gift from God", we will see a lot of discreet pregnancy terminations, and thus a dramatic drop in the number of homosexuals.

With one exception: those born to fundamentalist Christians, who of course oppose abortion under any circumstances.

Another irony of history.

There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying **** if their kid was gay or not. Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying **** if their kid was gay or not. Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.

Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?

 

[Shogun]

uh, are gays with adopted kids equivilent to the loch ness monster in your world?

 

[GHook93]

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.

Wait to you have a buddy that was in the closet and comes out. You would probably abandon him, but its eye opening. Funny thing is very little changes.

I had a buddy in college that was jock (no pun intented). Women were all over him. The gay-radar would never have picked up this one. He was and still is a great guy. I considered him one of my bet friends. When he came out it was shocking, but honestly it didn't change anything.

 

[Doug]

There are sizable pockets of people in this country who couldn't give a flying **** if their kid was gay or not. Most gays wouldn't care, nor would many liberal progressives.

Ha ha!!! And are these the same liberal progressives who don't care what color the people are among whom they live? The ones who live in gated communities?

 

[Shogun]

do you think all liberal progressives drive limos just because sean hannity coined a neat new phrase?

 

[CorpMediaSux]

Originally Posted by Pale Rider View Post
How anyone can think that a man sticking his tool up another mans ass is "normal" is beyond me,

Your explicitly describing adult sexual activity in a public forum easily readible by kids but *other* people are not "normal" sure, OK.

and that puts me in the huge majority of the world that knows what "normal" is.

The huge majority of the world thinks alot of things that are sort of dumb.

We don't need some horse crap psycho-babble spewed at us in an attempt to legitimize deviant, perverse, unnatural behavior.

Biology, the study of the natural, is now "psycho-bable" in your world. Uh, OK.

You either know it's wrong, or you don't.

Yes, opinions exist, hurrah!

You either tell homo's that what they're doing is sick, or you try and make excuses for them.

Quite a few people don't care what consenting adults do in their bedroom, uh why do you? Is there something you want to tell all of us?

One crowd is a very vocal little minority.

The people screaming about gay sex on message boards, well yeah I would say that's a pretty small minority. Unfortunately, you are in it.

Thank God the vast majority are the ones that know right from wrong, perverse from moral, and unnatural from natural.

When you can actually define any of those terms, we'll talk.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

*sigh*...why make me school you like this?

Maybe it's time YOU went back to school so you actually had something of value to say instead of just nitpicking and biting at the heels of others. Your "debates" get nowhere fast.

1) I never said I subscribed to moral relativism. Nor have I been arguing in favor of such a view...rather RGS asserted that my thinking was relativistic, incorrectly, and me arguing that he is wrong that my arguments are not relativistic somehow seems to have made you think that I ascribe to the theory.

You're getting off track here. I could have cared less if you subscribed to moral relativism or not.

2) Moral relativism applies to morals..nothing else. What came first tolerance or moral relativism is history, not morals.

Moral relativism can most certainly apply to "tolerance".

The principle of toleration is controversial. Liberal critics may see in it an inappropriate implication that the "tolerated" custom or behavior is an aberration or that authorities have a right to punish difference; such critics may instead emphasize notions such as civility or pluralism. Other critics, some sympathetic to traditional fundamentalism, condemn toleration as a form of moral relativism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

As to what came first in history, tolerance or moral relativism, this was an ignorant form of nitpicking on your part in response to my statement that "tolerance" (originally placed in quotes to signify a particular form) was birthed in moral relativism. There are many forms of tolerance that have been "born" along the continuum of history. However, there is no denying that the leftist moral relativism of today has had its influence in the creation of today's form of "tolerance" especially in light of various sexual practices and orientation.

As a practical matter, governments have always had to consider the question of which groups and practices to tolerate and which to persecute. The expanding Roman Empire, for example faced the question of whether or to what extent they should permit or persecute the local beliefs and practices of groups inhabiting annexed territories. Jewish or Christian practices or beliefs could be tolerated or vigorously persecuted.

Likewise, during the Middle Ages, the rulers of Christian Europe or the Muslim Middle East sometimes extended toleration to minority religious groups, and sometimes did not. Jews in particular suffered under anti-semitic persecutions during the medieval period.

A detailed and influential body of writing on the question of toleration however, was first produced in Britain in the Seventeenth Century, during and after the destructive English Civil Wars. These early theories of toleration were limited however, and did not extend toleration to Roman Catholics (who were perceived as disloyal to their country) or atheists (who were held to lack any moral basis for action).

Though developed to refer to the religious toleration of minority religious sects following the Protestant Reformation, the terms "toleration" and "tolerance" are increasingly used to refer to a wider range of tolerated practices and groups, such as the toleration of sexual practices and orientations, or of political parties or ideas widely considered objectionable. Changing applications and understandings of the term can sometimes make debate on the question difficult.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance

 

[Larkinn]

Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?

Yes, there are. I personally know of/know around 20. I have no reason to think that I just happen to know all of them in existence or any large proportion of them.

And no...I'm not talking about adoptions. I'm talking about women who are in lesbian relationships having children. I also know of some male couples who have adopted or have had surrogates have children for them.

 

[Larkinn]

Ha ha!!! And are these the same liberal progressives who don't care what color the people are among whom they live? The ones who live in gated communities?

Gated communities don't allow non-whites in? Please point me to a gated community which is based on race where liberal progressives live.

 

[Larkinn]

Maybe it's time YOU went back to school so you actually had something of value to say instead of just nitpicking and biting at the heels of others. Your "debates" get nowhere fast.

Thats because people like you are too stupid to realize logic and reason.

You're getting off track here. I could have cared less if you subscribed to moral relativism or not.

Then don't imply that I do by making points which presuppose that assumption.

Moral relativism can most certainly apply to "tolerance".

You were talking about views about tolerance and how old it is, not about morals.

As to what came first in history, tolerance or moral relativism, this was an ignorant form of nitpicking on your part in response to my statement that "tolerance" (originally placed in quotes to signify a particular form) was birthed in moral relativism. There are many forms of tolerance that have been "born" along the continuum of history. However, there is no denying that the leftist moral relativism of today has had its influence in the creation of today's form of "tolerance" especially in light of various sexual practices and orientation.

Umm yes, actually there is denying it. Moral relativism isn't a strong belief on the left. Some believe it, some don't. And I apologize for taking your arguments as you stated them. Next time I'll infer some random half assed fact based on pre-judgements about conservatives. After all thats the form of argument you seem to prefer.

 

[Gunny]

No I just try not to make assumptions from what people say. As I said before, language is important...it is the only tool for communication we have online. There is no facial movements, irony, tone, etc. Even when there are those things people can be misunderstood quite easily. But I've explained all this before...you just throw out the semantics card as a bullshit term that you know has no real meaning here.



They are linked. Because when we talk about the normality of something the implication is, generally, that things that are abnormal/deviant/etc are negative/bad/etc. Of course none of your definitions of abnormal/deviant touch on those negative connotations, but thats why you use those dishonest terms...so you can imply that its bad without having to give reasons why its bad. Yes they are uncommon...but to imply that makes them abnormal/deviant is dishonest because you wouldn't call other uncommon groups abnormal/deviant.



Well if you would have committed to the definitions instead of squirming around like a ******* worm, we wouldn't need too.



Umm, no. Defining something more accurately makes it harder to have a bad argument, not easier.



I didn't say they were...in fact I never said interchangable. I was using your definition of normal. After all you basically said that society "dictates what is normal". Of course you said other incompatible things about the definition of normality before as well. Squirm squirm squirm.



Do you think being a genius is abnormal behavior?

I see nothing new here. Just you regurgitating the same stuff. Argument's over, and you have supported neither your stance, nor your accusations against me with anything of substance. I'm not going to continue this circle jerk into eternity because you can't admit you're wrong.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting debate - but I have to ask has anyone reconsidered their position, even a little?

Progress comes slowly if at all to some and it may be the person who says nothing here gains the most. And since this came up I personally know a few gay women who have had children through artificial insemination. Seems motherhood is a powerful force of nature.

 

[Shogun]

Who she was:
Gilbert is remembered as playing the Emmy-nominated supporting role of “Darlene Conner” on Roseanne. Darlene was a sarcastic tomboy who always dressed in black, and thus was love at first sight for many a teenage boy.

What you’d think she’s doing:
We’d guess something other than acting. Like how George Foreman stopped being a boxer and became a grill salesman, or how Al Pacino stopped acting and started making good money doing Al Pacino impersonations.

She had a "too-smart-for-acting" vibe, so we’ll take a stab that she writes books or columns for various magazines.

What she's actually doing:
Other women, thus shattering the hearts of many a young male who spent hours on his Sara Gilbert fan site on Geocities back in the day. Gilbert has two children with Allison Adler, the first of which her partner carried while Gilbert gestated the second.

She also supports a healthy dose of organizations like Meals on Wheels, Freedom of Speech and AIDS Project Los Angeles.

http://www.cracked.com/index.php?name=News&sid=2420

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Thats because people like you are too stupid to realize logic and reason.

Then don't imply that I do by making points which presuppose that assumption.

You were talking about views about tolerance and how old it is, not about morals.

Umm yes, actually there is denying it. Moral relativism isn't a strong belief on the left. Some believe it, some don't. And I apologize for taking your arguments as you stated them. Next time I'll infer some random half assed fact based on pre-judgements about conservatives. After all thats the form of argument you seem to prefer.

Apart from your insults, personal opinions, and purposely mangled interpretations, it appears you have nothing to say.

 

[doniston]

Yes and there are so many gay couples giving birth aren't there?

Actually there are quite a few, tho they are usually lesbian. Even so, each of the babies has two parents, tho one or both of them living with the baby, are not biological parents. SO???

 

[doniston]

Wait to you have a buddy that was in the closet and comes out. You would probably abandon him, but its eye opening. Funny thing is very little changes.

I had a buddy in college that was jock (no pun intented). Women were all over him. The gay-radar would never have picked up this one. He was and still is a great guy. I considered him one of my bet friends. When he came out it was shocking, but honestly it didn't change anything.

I have no Idea from whence you got that quote, but I do remember him say that, in the past. What I don't understand is that he thinks anal intercourse with a man is an abondomation. it is perrfectly ok to do the same identical thing to a woman. I have never felt the need or desire to do that with either male or female---(or animal) To me that is not sex, ---just disgustingly gross.