Various Thoughts on the Issues of Homosexuality

[GreenBean]

How many times will you ask a question that is an obvious stereotype and not true? Individual experiences are not universal truisms.

Yes, it is true . Dykes attracted to Butch Lesbianbs or Bull Dykes is very common. There have been no scientific studies done on the issue that I am personally aware of , but to deny it is a reflection of your continuos ignorance [SeaHag].

Silhouette: Just a hypothesis : Lipstick lesbians and etc... are frequently attracted to Bull Dykes as an offshoot of their natural attraction to men. This attraction was perverted somewhere along the way, perhaps they were abused in early childhood- which a very large percentage of homosexuasl were, perhaps some other factor caused their dysphoria - who knows for sure - every case is different - but what is pretty close to certain is that something occurred in their psycological sexual development which caused them to become mentally and sexually perverted - but a small element of the natural normal human lingers which is the cause of their attraction to Woman that look like men.

"very large % of homosexuals were abused in early childhood"

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. wrote the following regarding the position of sexual abuse being a contributing factor for homosexuality:

“ Many studies demonstrate a sadly disproportionate extent of sexual abuse in the childhoods of homosexual men, suggesting at the least that both homosexual unhappiness and homosexuality itself derive from common causes..] ”

In 2001, the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior published a study entitled Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. The abstract for this article states the following:

In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

In 1998, Dr. William C. Holmes, M.D. and Dr. Gail B. Slap, M.D. reported in the medical journal JAMA the following:

Adolescent boys, particularly those victimized by males, were up to 7 times more likely to identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual than peers who had not been abused

This reasoning seems to stand counter to the idea that homosexuality has a biological origin rather than a social one.

 

[Pop23]

No, procreation isn't exclusive to heterosexuals. Gays procreate all the time. We do it just like heterosexual couples do, with science.

You also need to learn a little something about genes.

Understanding Genetics

If you can prove a same sex couple having sex causes procreation, then you have me. Some heterosexuals rely on science to procreate, the vast majority do not.

Oh darlin', it's not "some" it's A LOT. From the CDC (and this is just the lady bits)

• Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to get pregnant or carry a baby to term): 6.7 million
• Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 10.9%
• Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex with husband): 1.5 million
• Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 6.0%
• Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.4 million

The boy bits

Many couples struggle with infertility and seek help to become pregnant; however, it is often thought of as only a women’s condition. A CDC study analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found that 7.5% of all sexually experienced men younger than age 45 reported seeing a fertility doctor during their lifetime—this equals 3.3–4.7 million men. Of men who sought help, 18% were diagnosed with a male-related infertility problem, including sperm or semen problems (14%) and varicocele (6%).​

Why you deflect on such a basic fact is silly.

My argument is not that the species has infertile heterosexuals, but that the species is reliant on heterosexuality. The opposite is not true of homosexuality.

If you need me to draw you a picture I am happy to do so.

 

[bodecea]

If you can prove a same sex couple having sex causes procreation, then you have me. Some heterosexuals rely on science to procreate, the vast majority do not.

Oh darlin', it's not "some" it's A LOT. From the CDC (and this is just the lady bits)

• Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to get pregnant or carry a baby to term): 6.7 million
• Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 10.9%
• Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex with husband): 1.5 million
• Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 6.0%
• Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.4 million

The boy bits

Many couples struggle with infertility and seek help to become pregnant; however, it is often thought of as only a women’s condition. A CDC study analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found that 7.5% of all sexually experienced men younger than age 45 reported seeing a fertility doctor during their lifetime—this equals 3.3–4.7 million men. Of men who sought help, 18% were diagnosed with a male-related infertility problem, including sperm or semen problems (14%) and varicocele (6%).​

Why you deflect on such a basic fact is silly.

My argument is not that the species has infertile heterosexuals, but that the species is reliant on heterosexuality. The opposite is not true of homosexuality.

If you need me to draw you a picture I am happy to do so.

Probably why 90% is still hetero.

 

[RKMBrown]

You must be a hateful bigot.... Since when does “I don't support gay marriage, agree with people being born gay, or think it's moral” the same as “I hate you for being gay.” There is so much difference there. Disagreeing isn't automatically hating. You may not believe it, but there are Christians out there who believe homosexuality is a sin and hate it, but don't hate the actual person.

The fact that you don't "hate them" but still refuse to support them in having the same right to marriage as you do, on their own terms, such as between two same sex partners, makes you a bigot. The fact that you are a bigot does not mean you must hate them. It merely means you either hate them or unfairly dislike and refuse to accept them as equal members of society. Your refusal so support them getting married and being recognized as such through a marriage license, makes you a bigot. No different than if you refused to allow blacks to marry whites.

Bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group.

Thus you appear to have drawn up a straw-man, by re-defining the term bigots to be only hateful bigots, presumably to try to exclude yourself from that group called "bigots."

FYI: Just because you don't hate gays, does not mean refusing to let them get married isn't a hateful act of a bigot.

 

[AceRothstein]

My thoughts on the issues of homosexuality is that social cons should get over it. Gay rights are here and they aren't going to go away.

 

[GISMYS]

YES!! SIN IS HERE UNTIL JESUS RETURNS TO DESTROY all evil and set up His eternal kingdom. y sexual perverts trying to force people to accept the sick abomination of sexual perversion has nothing to do with Human rights.

 

[Wake]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

Yet, the Bible is considered the Word of God. I don't believe in religion, so anything mentioned about God the Bible has little bearing to me. It could be argued that god was made in the image of man. It likely means that things like greed, homosexuality, murder, and all other things mentioned in that pamphlet aren't sins, because sin doesn't exist. My question is how exactly you state homosexuality isn't a sin, yet greed is, even though both are mentioned as sins in the Bible. Methinks God claimed nothing because "god" doesn't exist. Since the Bible was written by humans, everything entailed within it was set by fallible humans, and nothing's wrong or right, because "right" and "wrong" were concepts created by us. Another question on my mind is how you can believe in the Christian god without also giving credence to those books. Those who believe in God but don't believe anything written, like the Bible, are just as odd in my opinion.

Excellent post and excellent way to do an invite.

My opinion and $1 won't buy a cheep cup of coffee. I mostly agree with your OP. I will add more later when I get a chance. Others know my opinion. Simple enough to say that I want homosexuals to be comfortable within their own skins. That way we have a transparent society. If it is a genetic issue, transparency is best for everyone.

Thank you, my friend.

I have no hatred towards homosexuals in general. Some within their group are incredibly obnoxious, thin-skinned, and dramatic, though. That does get grating when time after time those members of that overall group create massive controversies over something as benign as a differing opinion. Whether homosexuality is naturally normal, or a natural chemical imbalance like ADHD, I do not know. Homosexuals should be treated with the same general respect as everyone else. However, no one is beyond reproach, and nobody is too special to escape inquiry and criticism. I love people as people; you can indeed dislike what you perceive to be a sin or unsettling, yet otherwise love the person. Some on the political assume people are gay and that it cannot be any other way; it is that unwillingness to consider multiple points of view that adds it's own little bit of fuel to the fire. What is uniquely precious is being able to lay down all of your arms, and anger, and contention... and try to have a very deep, respectful, and understanding discussion with one another. Calling homosexuals names/slurs is the exact opposite of wanting them to be comfortable, and I agree that needs to stop.

More people should be unafraid in civilly speaking their honest thoughts on this issue. It would not be surprising if there did exist some liberals who didn't perceive homosexuality as something being born with, or being perfectly natural or OK, etc, yet still supported gay marriage. Boy, am I rambling today.

Pretty heavy stuff. Since I'm not gay, I always feel a little out of place responding.

Gays are human beings, just like the rest of us. With their good sides and bad sides, you name it.

I've never had problems with gays, ever, so - pfft. In fact, I have had very positive, productive professional experiences with gay colleagues who excel in their field.

As far as the born gay part - no one knows for sure whether it's nature or nuture. For all I know, it may be both, but why would it be relevant, other than for one side to bang the other side on the head? But there appears to be a genetic factor in all of this, not the least of which are studies done of identical twins separated at birth, twins who did not know each other, both of whom were gay.

I did not understand the European commentary at all. That seems like a complete non-sequitor to me. I do know that most straights in Europe are far more gay-accepting, and it doesn't make them even one bit less straight. They are secure in whom they are. So, again, pfft...

Gays in the military: look to our staunch ally Israel. There, one sees 30+ years of productive military history with gay inclusion in the IDF, pretty much without problems.

Finally, I am not responsible for another person's bigotry or homophobia. But I don't automatically assume that someone who is against gay marriage is homophobic. I think it takes a pattern of behavior over time, that all can see, that could make one appear homophobic.

For me, it's mostly a complete non-issue.

Thanks. I don't think you should have to feel uncomfortable talking about it, since you're not homosexual. Topics that involve certain groups of people shouldn't be constrained to only being talked about by those same people. If our world was that way, there'd be no debate or politics at all. Gays are humans just like us, with the good and the bad. They're humans. We're humans. Them being gay shouldn't be reason enough to truly hate and hurt them, but it also shouldn't mean they can't be questioned or criticized like anyone else. Some of the healthcare professionals I work with are gay, too, and I have absolutely no problem with them or others. I have absolutely no idea if they're born that way or not, and if they aren't born gay, what would that mean? Would some on the Right attempt to get homosexuals treated, or try to pass other acts to affect them? I for one am strongly against that. Discovering/realizing homosexuals aren't born gay should change nothing when it comes to freedom. Part of me thinks homosexual people may be homosexual because of a chemical imbalance, whether it's a great imbalance in sexual hormones or otherwise. If that were the case, and any homosexual person wanted to have that imbalance fixed, I would not be against them having the freedom to pursue that avenue of their own free will.

What angers me greatly is that people in Germany can't even choose to homeschool their own children, or raise children as they see fit. It is fascistic how Germany made it so that parents must promote homosexuality while raising their children, or they'll be taken away, in regards to the Romeikes. Any American should have the right to fight and die for America, and attain glory, honor, and respect. That said, I don't want to see straight soldiers beating up on gay soldiers, or gay soldiers antagonizing/sexually harassing straight soldiers in the showers, etc. If what I was meaning to say could be summed up in one word, it's be "professionalism." As for homophobia, I think it's a word that's used too much and inaccurately much of the time. If you so much as say you find the act of homosexual sex disgusting, or that some gay pride parades are obscene, some on the Left jump on you and slander you with epithets of "homophobic," "hateful," and "bigoted." If someone's homophobic, it means they're afraid of homosexual behavior. In my case I find the act of homosexual sex disgusting; that's it. One of the problems some on the Left should acknowledge is that responding to every little slight or difference of opinion on the matter with such outrage is getting old, and paradoxically it hurts the group as a whole. GLAAD for instance keeps unloading bullets into the collective image of all homosexual people. If something truly is wrong and deserves rebuke, like calling homosexuals "faggots," by God let it be known. But don't go past the line, or blow things up. Frankly, I think many from all walks of life should follow those two bits of advice for everything that's discussed in politics.

In my religion, we are told to be accepting of all people, regardless of their religion or preferences. We are told not to try to change people or otherwise interfere by expressing dissatisfaction with another soul's lifestyle.

I don't go to gay bars, because I don't like getting hit on. That doesn't mean I don't like gays, it just means that i don't want men who are gay to think I'm available.

I think that a lot of the gay culture is unappealing to the mainstream, because most people don't go around trying to "be" something.

I don't go out of my way to promote being straight or white or pagan, etc. I'm a person before anything else - even being a witch.

Would you please share which religion that is? (I'm not religious, but I don't mock people for placing faith in one).

On the gay bar bit, that's completely understandable. Have you ever been called a hateful bigot because you, as a straight male, was hit on by a gay male, and turned him down politely? That's part of the behavior that gets me angry. As for gay culture, methinks it shouldn't be beyond criticism, much like any other culture out there, including black and white culture. Culture itself should never be beyond discussion. There are some things in gay culture I find tacky, corny, and sometimes downright stupid. Some fashion that comes from some homosexuals and like-minded, left-leaning straight people is absolutely redonkulous. Like Lady GaGa's fashion apparel. What the hell. And what is it with the obviously forced lisping, or the way some gay men change their speaking in order to try and sound feminine or fabulous? Just be yourself, damn it. Oh, and another thing about promotion; it's silly to me how some make it seem like being gay is inherently good or bad, like anything else. People should be judged on the content of their character, their credentials and work ethic, et cetera.

Witch? Are you female? I thought you were a dude. My bad.

If you are gay, be gay and shut up about it.

I have two friends that are gay and one that is lesbian. They follow the above statement and that's what I love and admire about them.

And if you're not gay, don't be gay and shut up about it.

Same rule applies.

Within a similar vein, I don't think people should get all self-righteous about supposedly being born one way or another.

ALMIGHTY GOD has the first and last word on the sin of sick sexual perversion.=== So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.

28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.
Romans 1:24-32

You, my wayward friend, have been detrimental along with others regarding this thread.

Instead of civility and respect you all traded hatred and spite. I don't appreciate it one bit.

Portrayal and reality regarding homosexuality. For some reason people have made it seem like homosexuals are happy, carefree, fabulous people. And they even took our rainbow and put it in their background. Now, the rainbow, a beautiful and natural phenomenon, has become a symbol of something that's not quite natural or beautiful. The reality is that gay men penetrate the anuses of other men with their genitalia. That means part of their body is going to have feces on it. Does that sound beautiful? No. Saying it like it is isn't a bad thing. Perhaps the “fabulous” imagery some homosexuals enshroud themselves in is compensation for the disgusting nature of their sex. As for lesbians, I've heard one puts on a modified strap that resembles male genitalia. I don't quite understand that. Do more expensive models warm up? Why a woman would prefer another woman with some modified contraption to a living, breathing man merits its own pile of questions. I don't believe in sacred cows, so I have no problem discussing any unsavory detail so long as it's done in a civil manner.

I know, right? Why do lesbians seek out other lesbians who walk, talk, cut their hair, strut and dress like men? The "lipstick lesbian"s attraction to her very masculine partner means there is a healthy subpopulation of homosexuals in denial of their true hetero leanings. Same goes for the male counterpart of the "top" gay man who seeks out effeminant "bottom" men who lisp falsetto, wear flowing dress and wiggle their hips like women. True story. A friend of mine was at a party where a pair of gay men were. One was very normal looking "dude" and the other was a lisping girly-boy. The friend caught the dude "gay" guy staring at her tatas almost the whole time. She is quite chesty and has a nice rack. The girly guy noticed and became embarassingly jealous and began body-blocking the vew of the masculine gay guy almost the entire time. Like a chic, he started trying to befriend the woman interest of his "gay" buddy, so as to undermine her. So many issues...so little time...

And while zillions of outreach outfits exist to coax people out of being hetero and into the church of LGBT, the act of the opposite is not just a sacred cow, it's an act of heresy punishable by banishment and verbal abuse. Look what they did to Anne Heche who figured out that she wanted a real penis instead of the strapon that her mannish Ellen wore. They made her name in gay vernacular synonymous with "traitor!"...

I don't really understand why lesbians do that. The feeling'd be lessened if it didn't involve a contraption that's explicitly meant to emulate male genitalia. With all due respect, why choose an imitation when you can have the real deal? This is a very sensitive issue, so it's paramount to convey these thoughts without any deliberate malice. I just don't understand, and it may be that it cannot be understood, but whatever the case the issues should be allowed to be approached, but with respectful sincerity.

Well, my opinion on this is the live and let live philosophy. I don't have a problem with anyone being gay and it is none of my business if they decide to get married, have kids, or what they do in the bedroom. I do not believe it is a sin either. I think it is as natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex as it is for heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex or bisexuals to be attracted to both sexes. It's human. We are all human.

And that's really all there is to it IMO.

Some of that I agree with you on. Live and let live is a good way to let peace prosper. Homosexuals in general don't irk me, but some in the group do with their reactions. If the Bible indeed says it's a sin, OK, but I don't believe in religion, so for me the point's moot. As for it being natural, I don't see it that way, and it turns the stomach. Likely what's behind homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, much like what's behind the ADHD I was born with is due to a chemical imbalance. The chemicals that make up our bodies is directly response for most if not all of what we are. Then again, that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole to tumble down. Whatever the case we're all human, priceless, and deserving to have equal rights (concept of rights being natural is yet another debate). If any of my children were homosexual, I'd hate them no less or more than my other children.

 

[Statistikhengst]

YES!! SIN IS HERE UNTIL JESUS RETURNS TO DESTROY all evil and set up His eternal kingdom. y sexual perverts trying to force people to accept the sick abomination of sexual perversion has nothing to do with Human rights.

Do you take your meds in the morning or in the evening?

Do they let you take nice walks over there?

Are the chess boards nice to look at?

Does the jello taste good?

I do hope the electrodes don't pinch too much.

 

[GreenBean]

Oh darlin', it's not "some" it's A LOT. From the CDC (and this is just the lady bits)

• Number of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity (impaired ability to get pregnant or carry a baby to term): 6.7 million
• Percent of women ages 15-44 with impaired fecundity: 10.9%
• Number of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile (unable to get pregnant after at least 12 consecutive months of unprotected sex with husband): 1.5 million
• Percent of married women ages 15-44 that are infertile: 6.0%
• Number of women ages 15-44 who have ever used infertility services: 7.4 million

The boy bits

Many couples struggle with infertility and seek help to become pregnant; however, it is often thought of as only a women’s condition. A CDC study analyzed data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and found that 7.5% of all sexually experienced men younger than age 45 reported seeing a fertility doctor during their lifetime—this equals 3.3–4.7 million men. Of men who sought help, 18% were diagnosed with a male-related infertility problem, including sperm or semen problems (14%) and varicocele (6%).​

Why you deflect on such a basic fact is silly.

My argument is not that the species has infertile heterosexuals, but that the species is reliant on heterosexuality. The opposite is not true of homosexuality.

If you need me to draw you a picture I am happy to do so.

Probably why 90% is still hetero.

Probably more like 95% or better - Only a very small percantage 2-5% are perverts.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Why you deflect on such a basic fact is silly.

My argument is not that the species has infertile heterosexuals, but that the species is reliant on heterosexuality. The opposite is not true of homosexuality.

If you need me to draw you a picture I am happy to do so.

Probably why 90% is still hetero.

Probably more like 95% or better - Only a very small percantage 2-5% are perverts.

Is this how you deal with your closet Homosexuality? By screaming "perverts" really loud?

Straight people who are secure within themselves don't need to do that at all.

 

[GISMYS]

GOD and believers love sinners but hate their sin,you don't like that truth do you? God WANTS all to confess and repent of all our sins,God wants us to live and not perish,you get to choose!

 

[GreenBean]

Probably why 90% is still hetero.

Probably more like 95% or better - Only a very small percantage 2-5% are perverts.

Is this how you deal with your closet Homosexuality? By screaming "perverts" really loud?

Straight people who are secure within themselves don't need to do that at all.

Pervert isn't a bad word, it's a factual one - I refuse to be polite and contribute to allowing mentally ill people to feel good about themselves - it's a disservice to the pervert as well as society as a whole.

Faggots, rug munchers and cum guzzlers need to scream "hater" and "homophobe" very loudly anytime someone dares to oppose their agenda.
Gay* Brainwashing Techniques

 

[Statistikhengst]

GOD and believers love sinners but hate their sin,you don't like that truth do you? God WANTS all to confess and repent of all our sins,God wants us to live and not perish,you get to choose!

And the LORD our G-d spoke thusly to GISMYS: "Go and disappear, ye insect with less virtue than a termite, lest thou be smitten by the fangs of the just and righteous!! Go into the land of Butthurtamia and stay there for all eternity!!!!!"

 

[Statistikhengst]

Probably more like 95% or better - Only a very small percantage 2-5% are perverts.

Is this how you deal with your closet Homosexuality? By screaming "perverts" really loud?

Straight people who are secure within themselves don't need to do that at all.

Pervert isn't a bad word, it's a factual one - I refuse to be polite and contribute to allowing mentally ill people to feel good about themselves - it's a disservice to the pervert as well as society as a whole.

Faggots, rug munchers and cum guzzlers need to scream "hater" and "homophobe" very loudly anytime someone dares to oppose their agenda.
Gay* Brainwashing Techniques

Ok, so you ARE a closet Homosexual. Got it. Thanks for the advance information.

Oh, [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] - another brother about to join the club. Want him, or not?

 

[Gadawg73]

God didn't claim that homosexuality is a sin, the Bible did.

God didn't write the Bible, humans did.

Greed is a sin, but not homosexuality, according to God in the Bible.

Yet, the Bible is considered the Word of God. I don't believe in religion, so anything mentioned about God the Bible has little bearing to me. It could be argued that god was made in the image of man. It likely means that things like greed, homosexuality, murder, and all other things mentioned in that pamphlet aren't sins, because sin doesn't exist. My question is how exactly you state homosexuality isn't a sin, yet greed is, even though both are mentioned as sins in the Bible. Methinks God claimed nothing because "god" doesn't exist. Since the Bible was written by humans, everything entailed within it was set by fallible humans, and nothing's wrong or right, because "right" and "wrong" were concepts created by us. Another question on my mind is how you can believe in the Christian god without also giving credence to those books. Those who believe in God but don't believe anything written, like the Bible, are just as odd in my opinion.

Excellent post and excellent way to do an invite.

My opinion and $1 won't buy a cheep cup of coffee. I mostly agree with your OP. I will add more later when I get a chance. Others know my opinion. Simple enough to say that I want homosexuals to be comfortable within their own skins. That way we have a transparent society. If it is a genetic issue, transparency is best for everyone.

Thank you, my friend.

I have no hatred towards homosexuals in general. Some within their group are incredibly obnoxious, thin-skinned, and dramatic, though. That does get grating when time after time those members of that overall group create massive controversies over something as benign as a differing opinion. Whether homosexuality is naturally normal, or a natural chemical imbalance like ADHD, I do not know. Homosexuals should be treated with the same general respect as everyone else. However, no one is beyond reproach, and nobody is too special to escape inquiry and criticism. I love people as people; you can indeed dislike what you perceive to be a sin or unsettling, yet otherwise love the person. Some on the political assume people are gay and that it cannot be any other way; it is that unwillingness to consider multiple points of view that adds it's own little bit of fuel to the fire. What is uniquely precious is being able to lay down all of your arms, and anger, and contention... and try to have a very deep, respectful, and understanding discussion with one another. Calling homosexuals names/slurs is the exact opposite of wanting them to be comfortable, and I agree that needs to stop.

More people should be unafraid in civilly speaking their honest thoughts on this issue. It would not be surprising if there did exist some liberals who didn't perceive homosexuality as something being born with, or being perfectly natural or OK, etc, yet still supported gay marriage. Boy, am I rambling today.



Thanks. I don't think you should have to feel uncomfortable talking about it, since you're not homosexual. Topics that involve certain groups of people shouldn't be constrained to only being talked about by those same people. If our world was that way, there'd be no debate or politics at all. Gays are humans just like us, with the good and the bad. They're humans. We're humans. Them being gay shouldn't be reason enough to truly hate and hurt them, but it also shouldn't mean they can't be questioned or criticized like anyone else. Some of the healthcare professionals I work with are gay, too, and I have absolutely no problem with them or others. I have absolutely no idea if they're born that way or not, and if they aren't born gay, what would that mean? Would some on the Right attempt to get homosexuals treated, or try to pass other acts to affect them? I for one am strongly against that. Discovering/realizing homosexuals aren't born gay should change nothing when it comes to freedom. Part of me thinks homosexual people may be homosexual because of a chemical imbalance, whether it's a great imbalance in sexual hormones or otherwise. If that were the case, and any homosexual person wanted to have that imbalance fixed, I would not be against them having the freedom to pursue that avenue of their own free will.

What angers me greatly is that people in Germany can't even choose to homeschool their own children, or raise children as they see fit. It is fascistic how Germany made it so that parents must promote homosexuality while raising their children, or they'll be taken away, in regards to the Romeikes. Any American should have the right to fight and die for America, and attain glory, honor, and respect. That said, I don't want to see straight soldiers beating up on gay soldiers, or gay soldiers antagonizing/sexually harassing straight soldiers in the showers, etc. If what I was meaning to say could be summed up in one word, it's be "professionalism." As for homophobia, I think it's a word that's used too much and inaccurately much of the time. If you so much as say you find the act of homosexual sex disgusting, or that some gay pride parades are obscene, some on the Left jump on you and slander you with epithets of "homophobic," "hateful," and "bigoted." If someone's homophobic, it means they're afraid of homosexual behavior. In my case I find the act of homosexual sex disgusting; that's it. One of the problems some on the Left should acknowledge is that responding to every little slight or difference of opinion on the matter with such outrage is getting old, and paradoxically it hurts the group as a whole. GLAAD for instance keeps unloading bullets into the collective image of all homosexual people. If something truly is wrong and deserves rebuke, like calling homosexuals "faggots," by God let it be known. But don't go past the line, or blow things up. Frankly, I think many from all walks of life should follow those two bits of advice for everything that's discussed in politics.



Would you please share which religion that is? (I'm not religious, but I don't mock people for placing faith in one).

On the gay bar bit, that's completely understandable. Have you ever been called a hateful bigot because you, as a straight male, was hit on by a gay male, and turned him down politely? That's part of the behavior that gets me angry. As for gay culture, methinks it shouldn't be beyond criticism, much like any other culture out there, including black and white culture. Culture itself should never be beyond discussion. There are some things in gay culture I find tacky, corny, and sometimes downright stupid. Some fashion that comes from some homosexuals and like-minded, left-leaning straight people is absolutely redonkulous. Like Lady GaGa's fashion apparel. What the hell. And what is it with the obviously forced lisping, or the way some gay men change their speaking in order to try and sound feminine or fabulous? Just be yourself, damn it. Oh, and another thing about promotion; it's silly to me how some make it seem like being gay is inherently good or bad, like anything else. People should be judged on the content of their character, their credentials and work ethic, et cetera.

Witch? Are you female? I thought you were a dude. My bad.





Within a similar vein, I don't think people should get all self-righteous about supposedly being born one way or another.



You, my wayward friend, have been detrimental along with others regarding this thread.

Instead of civility and respect you all traded hatred and spite. I don't appreciate it one bit.

I know, right? Why do lesbians seek out other lesbians who walk, talk, cut their hair, strut and dress like men? The "lipstick lesbian"s attraction to her very masculine partner means there is a healthy subpopulation of homosexuals in denial of their true hetero leanings. Same goes for the male counterpart of the "top" gay man who seeks out effeminant "bottom" men who lisp falsetto, wear flowing dress and wiggle their hips like women. True story. A friend of mine was at a party where a pair of gay men were. One was very normal looking "dude" and the other was a lisping girly-boy. The friend caught the dude "gay" guy staring at her tatas almost the whole time. She is quite chesty and has a nice rack. The girly guy noticed and became embarassingly jealous and began body-blocking the vew of the masculine gay guy almost the entire time. Like a chic, he started trying to befriend the woman interest of his "gay" buddy, so as to undermine her. So many issues...so little time...

And while zillions of outreach outfits exist to coax people out of being hetero and into the church of LGBT, the act of the opposite is not just a sacred cow, it's an act of heresy punishable by banishment and verbal abuse. Look what they did to Anne Heche who figured out that she wanted a real penis instead of the strapon that her mannish Ellen wore. They made her name in gay vernacular synonymous with "traitor!"...

I don't really understand why lesbians do that. The feeling'd be lessened if it didn't involve a contraption that's explicitly meant to emulate male genitalia. With all due respect, why choose an imitation when you can have the real deal? This is a very sensitive issue, so it's paramount to convey these thoughts without any deliberate malice. I just don't understand, and it may be that it cannot be understood, but whatever the case the issues should be allowed to be approached, but with respectful sincerity.

Well, my opinion on this is the live and let live philosophy. I don't have a problem with anyone being gay and it is none of my business if they decide to get married, have kids, or what they do in the bedroom. I do not believe it is a sin either. I think it is as natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex as it is for heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex or bisexuals to be attracted to both sexes. It's human. We are all human.

And that's really all there is to it IMO.

Some of that I agree with you on. Live and let live is a good way to let peace prosper. Homosexuals in general don't irk me, but some in the group do with their reactions. If the Bible indeed says it's a sin, OK, but I don't believe in religion, so for me the point's moot. As for it being natural, I don't see it that way, and it turns the stomach. Likely what's behind homosexuality is a chemical imbalance, much like what's behind the ADHD I was born with is due to a chemical imbalance. The chemicals that make up our bodies is directly response for most if not all of what we are. Then again, that's a whole 'nother rabbit hole to tumble down. Whatever the case we're all human, priceless, and deserving to have equal rights (concept of rights being natural is yet another debate). If any of my children were homosexual, I'd hate them no less or more than my other children.

Greed is often good.
And some in most every group get on my nerves and some gays are no exception to that.
Assholes know no sexual orientation.

 

[Gadawg73]

GOD and believers love sinners but hate their sin,you don't like that truth do you? God WANTS all to confess and repent of all our sins,God wants us to live and not perish,you get to choose!

So you believe all sinners should not be able to marry.
Got it

 

[GreenBean]

Is this how you deal with your closet Homosexuality? By screaming "perverts" really loud?

Straight people who are secure within themselves don't need to do that at all.

Pervert isn't a bad word, it's a factual one - I refuse to be polite and contribute to allowing mentally ill people to feel good about themselves - it's a disservice to the pervert as well as society as a whole.

Faggots, rug munchers and cum guzzlers need to scream "hater" and "homophobe" very loudly anytime someone dares to oppose their agenda.
Gay* Brainwashing Techniques

Ok, so you ARE a closet Homosexual. Got it. Thanks for the advance information.

Oh, [MENTION=20112]bodecea[/MENTION] - another brother about to join the club. Want him, or not?

I see that you understand the concept of JAMMING , which has masterfully put into play by the Gay Agenda .

Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies {Call them a closet queer} and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


Gay Brainwashing Techniques

 

[GreenBean]

Well, my opinion on this is the live and let live philosophy. I don't have a problem with anyone being gay and it is none of my business if they decide to get married, have kids, or what they do in the bedroom. I do not believe it is a sin either. I think it is as natural for gay people to be attracted to the same sex as it is for heterosexual to be attracted to the opposite sex or bisexuals to be attracted to both sexes. It's human. We are all human.

And that's really all there is to it IMO.

It's human. We are all human.
And that's really all there is to it IMO

Unfortunately brazen homosexulas are SUBHuman - IMO

 

[Silhouette]

Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies {Call them a closet queer} and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


Gay Brainwashing Techniques

What's the slang term for avoiding the conversation of why lipstick lesbians are attracted to mannish looking/talking/walking/dressing/acting "women" with strapon penises?

And, what's the slang term for inserting a fake bible thumper into each Gay Agenda thread to derail sacred-cow topics like the one I just mentioned?

 

[emilynghiem]

Forgive, live and let live, let God be the judge.

Judge not, but judge righteous judgment.

We are in the process of learning discernment and mutual correction
by comparing each other's judgment. This process is not unlike
Judgment Day when each person is called to answer for our own words.

What we condemn or reject in others, we are thus condemned or rejected.
What we forgive and correct with others, we are granted the same graces.

We get the justice we give, we reap what we sow.

If we believe in retributive justice, with a focus on judgment punishment
and rejection, we get retribution in return.

If we focus on restorative justice, with forgiveness correction and restitution,
then we receive healing and truth to restore good faith relations.
We will receive as we ask and in invest in our relations with others; we will be asked to correct problems as we ask the same of others, in learning and teaching by example.

Thus the laws of justice are established and fulfilled.