I found this posted on another messageboard, its supposedly legit...
*********************************************************************


On February 20, 2007, ESPN Books will release an autobiography titled, “Man in the Middle: My Life In and Out of Bounds.” The author is currently listed as “Anonymous.”

The book’s pre-release summary (provided by the publisher) is as follows:

An inspiring memoir by a former NBA star who is gay.

"Man in the Middle" chronicles one man’s extraordinary journey from an awkward, overweight child to a jet-setting NBA star. Along the way, he encountered endless obstacles to achieving his hoop dreams—his father’s abandonment, being cut from his first college team, a life-threatening injury, abusive coaches, the death of his mother—all the while protecting a vital secret that could end his career. He was gay.

AUTHOR BIO: Author to be revealed February 20, 2007


Man in the Middle: My Life In and Out of Bounds

ISBN: 1933060190 / Publisher: ESPN Books / Date: Feb. 20, 2007
Format: Hardcover
List price: USD 24.95

This book really is being published. All of the major book industry retailers (Amazon, Barnes&Noble, & Borders) are taking pre-publication orders.

Who is the former star that’s writing this book? Any guesses?

That's a damn cover.

"Green was married to Veronique Green on April 20, 2002"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.C._Green

I thought this part was also funny:
"On his homepage, he states that the initials in his name do not stand for anything. His given name is simply 'A.C.'"

it has nothing to do with sports ...seriously, lets focus on sports ...that is what this board is for.

Take that shit to GD and let them have fun with it

who gives a fuck ...let's talk about numbers, teams, history....A heterosexual talking about gay shit is gay...get it?

ish for him. We should be as supportive as possible, for I'm sure this is a sensitive time for him.

>it has nothing to do with sports ...seriously, lets focus on
>sports ...that is what this board is for.

yeah, you're gay: 2 bagels with no cream cheese

lol

-----------
2005
Rookie of the Year

2006
HR Derby Champ
National League All-Star
NL HR and RBI Leader
Japan All-Star Series MVP
National League MVP

although Osterfag would make sense too

If that turns out to be Ostertag... he's got some bold fucking PR people

and double LOL @ the time Z got in a fight with him

__________________________
http://malkthewalk.blogspot.com

Isn't this the dude that plays for Campbell, or some small ass school like that?



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

.

Which would suck for Chauncey Billups.

nm

I hate to go w/ the obvious choice but Rodman had an uninspierd college career.

Scottie too, but he was a ball boy, he didn't get cut I don't think.

But those mid-90's bulls were famous for their man-on-man lockeroom orgies, so it could be any one of them.

that would be some wild shit. kevin johnson would be an eas guess but it could be him

he left indiana after his freshman year

>he left indiana after his freshman year

Yeah but he didn't get cut, he left because he was homesick...

he IS having a movie made about him shortly...

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer

http://rjcc.stumbleupon.com - what I'm looking at

www.hdbeat.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

in high school he was on the water polo team.

if i was the HS coach though, i'd have been camped outside his locker every fucking day.

>in high school he was on the water polo team.
>
>if i was the HS coach though, i'd have been camped outside his
>locker every fucking day.


if i was the coach i would have paid him and got him pussy. shit, 7'4 and atheletic not playing for my team.

gotta be.

Didn't T-Mac come out like 3 years ago and say he played with a gay dude on the Magic and everyone assumed it was Penny

googled the book's subject and a few messageboards all point to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Amaechi


lol John Amaechi a "star"

I guess in England he's an NBA star

but yeah...

overweight child
raised by mother
cut from college team (transferred from Vandy to PSU)
life threatening injury

it all checks out





-----------
2005
Rookie of the Year

2006
HR Derby Champ
National League All-Star
NL HR and RBI Leader
Japan All-Star Series MVP
National League MVP

http://www.jla.co.uk/ArtistsIndex/Artists/1/AmaechiJohn1.asp?Letter=

also this article sealed the deal IMO
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FCJ/is_3_28/ai_68362617/pg_1


-----------
2005
Rookie of the Year

2006
HR Derby Champ
National League All-Star
NL HR and RBI Leader
Japan All-Star Series MVP
National League MVP

maybe you could use some of that for some f'n power rankings


-----------
2005
Rookie of the Year

2006
HR Derby Champ
National League All-Star
NL HR and RBI Leader
Japan All-Star Series MVP
National League MVP

From John Amaechi's biography: The son of a Nigerian father, he was raised in Stockport, England by his English mother. Amaechi moved to the U.S. to play high school basketball at St. John's High School in Toledo, Ohio. He began playing college basketball at Vanderbilt but transferred to Penn State where he was a two-time First Team Academic All-American selection.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/images/smiling_meech.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/john_amaechi.htm&h=150&w=148&sz=7&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=lEN4gaNOFWJZ7M:&tbnh=96&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJohn%2BAmaechi%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

----> http://www.meech.org/video.htm

with no hesitation apparently

All star? Well known? regular starter? or just anyone who made it into the NBA who loves men?

you gay-racists.

<<<Alando Tucker for Player of the Year

<<<Alando Tucker for Player of the Year

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And that's the reason we livin where they don't visit..
where the dope slangin keep swangin like Sonny Liston.." © Black Thought

Revenge of the Nerd - multi-talented John Amaechi of the Orlando Magic

Basketball Digest, Jan, 2001 by Tim Povtak

Erudite Orlando center John Amaechi relishes his standing as the most unique player in the NBA

HE CARRIES A LAPTOP COMPUTER almost everywhere he goes, updating his Web site regularly. He reads books on child psychology. He visits art galleries and museums. He looks for seminars to attend when his team has an off-day on the road. He writes poetry--and he writes it well.

Yes, John Amaechi plays basketball in the NBA, but he isn't really a basketball player. He is a Renaissance Man. The Orlando Magic have uncovered a real breath of fresh air.

Amaechi is bidding to become one of the better centers in the Eastern Conference this season, yet basketball actually bores him. He would rather be talking French with Atlanta Hawks center Dikembe Mutombo than talking trash with Detroit Pistons center Eric Montross.

He would rather be sipping tea in his favorite coffee shop than scouting one of his rivals on television. His life is too short to be consumed by a game. There is little passion to his play, but a wonderful love for his life.

"Basketball does not define me," he says. "It's my occupation for now, but it's not my definition."

Raised in Manchester, England, he is the first player from Great Britain to play in an NBA regular-season game. And he also is arguably the league's most intellectual player.

Amaechi, 29, is unique in many ways. After a stint with the Cleveland Cavaliers during the 1995-96 season, he played in Europe, before returning for a final shot in the NBA last season with the Magic. He made the most of it, surprising everyone with his success when he averaged 10.5 points, going from training-camp fodder to reliable backup to starter by midseason.

It was even more surprising last summer when he turned down a five-year, 817 million deal with the world champion Los Angeles Lakers to return to Orlando for a second season, even when the Magic could pay him only a fraction ($600,000) of what the Lakers could because of a quirk in a NBA's collective bargaining agreement. And the Lakers weren't the only ones banging on his door last summer. Decent centers were at a premium.

"Despite the 3,000 or so hate mails I received from Lakers fans, and people asking me if I was on some kind of mind-altering substance when I made the decision, I believe it was a sound one to stay," Amaechi says. "Maybe it wasn't a decision that a financial advisor would make, but that's not why I play basketball. This team needed me more than the Lakers did. This also was the first team that actually believed in me. And that should count for something. I couldn't reward their loyalty with desertion."

Amaechi is hoping to be the front-court presence Orlando needs to supplement its newly acquired perimeter game of Tracy McGrady and Grant Hill. He believes the Magic will be a serious contender in the Eastern Conference if he can produce like he did a season ago.

Although he is listed as the team's starting center, he also is the team's computer expert, ready to advise his teammates on Web sites and software. He's also willing to guide his coaches on raising their children and able to counsel anyone on expanding their horizons.

"Please don't make me out to be too big of a geek," Amaechi says. "Sure, I have some nerdish tendencies, but that's just me."

Although the NBA is peppered with players who are there only because it's a very lucrative profession, Amaechi might be the only one who openly admits it. He is a mercenary at times, knowing the money he makes now will allow him to proceed with a plan he set for himself many years ago. He currently is working on his doctorate in child psychology from Penn State, hoping to one day open his own practice when he returns to England.

"I'm going to be a better child psychologist than I ever could be a basketball player," he says, matter of factly. "In the grand scheme of things, I was never really designed to be an athlete. I don't jump very well. I'm not athletic. I watch in awe when I see some of the things these guys in the league do. Hey, I don't even like to sweat."

Although he sounds fortunate to even be in the league, Amaechi has a chance to become an NBA All-Star this season. The trade of Patrick Ewing from the New York Knicks to the Seattle SuperSonics, the season-ending kidney ailment of the Miami Heat's Alonzo Mourning, and the retirement of the Indiana Pacers' Rik Smits has left the Eastern Conference without a dominant big man.

"Who else is out there?" Amaechi asks. "Considering where I came from, being an All-Star would be an unbelievable achievement. I'd be speechless, which is pretty tough for me to do. I don't even know how that process works, but if it happened, it would be wonderful."

He might lack the overall athletic ability that others have, but he is a cerebral player who has developed a post game that can make him a reliable scorer. He is big, strong, and smart enough to play well enough to stay in the league--if he desires.

"I'm really not a fan of the game, and I'm not keen on this NBA lifestyle. I'm part of the NBA, but I've never been part of the NBA psyche," he says. "I was never good enough in basketball for it to be fun as a youngster. For me to make it, basketball had to be treated like a business."

sloan seems kinda old school about shit like sexuality.

appearantly.

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/john_amaechi.htm



"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

It was even more surprising last summer when he turned down a five-year, 817 million deal with the world champion Los Angeles Lakers


good thing we didn't get him. 164 million a year is a lil too much

I *hate* it when athletes (or non) state that they (or player xyz) isn't particularly athletic or physically gifted. That's the biggest crock of crap ever. ever.

Every nba baller is extremely gifted. No, they aren't all Jordan gifted, but a lot of these guys are out of touch with just how phenominal of an athlete one must be to play d-one ball at a school like Penn st.---let alone make a professional league.

Side-side note, this also applies to when an announcer/fan tries to act like some professional athlete who is white/short/etc. isn't a phenominal athlete--just a hard worker...etc. Sorry buddy, hard work alone ain't getting you in the pros.

Amaechi becomes first NBA player to come out
ESPN.com

John Amaechi, who played at Penn State and for five seasons in the NBA, will announce he is gay in an upcoming book.

John Amaechi
The cover for "Man in the Middle," authored by John Amaechi.

The book, published by ESPN Books (owned by the Walt Disney Company, parent company of ESPN), is entitled "Man in the Middle." It is due to be released later this month.

Amaechi, born in Massachusetts but raised in England, would be the first NBA player to come out publicly. Few other men's professional major sport athletes have announced they are gay. Among them are football player Esera Tuaolo, baseball player Billy Bean and baseball umpire Dave Pallone.

Amaechi, a 6-10 center, played for Cleveland, Orlando and Utah during five NBA seasons. He averaged 6.2 points and 2.6 rebounds before retiring from the league in 2003.

He is currently known in Britain as a television personality and for helping fund the Amaechi Basketball Center in Manchester.

He played collegiately at Penn State after transferring from Vanderbilt.

Amaechi will also be the subject of ESPN's "Outside the Lines" on Sunday (9:30 a.m. ET). The book will also be excerpted next week on ESPN.com and in the next issue of ESPN The Magazine.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2757105

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

Or does it still fail to make any kind of social impact with sports?

I don't really have a lot of faith in the ability of jocks on virtually any level to accept a homosexual teammate.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

So I'm kind of in favor of the whole idea that let's not persecute/shun someone because of how they were born. In that sense, I don't think a little more understanding and a little less homophobia would be a bad thing. I'm not a huge fan of hompohobia in general at this point, so even if there isn't a gay teammate, I don't think it would hurt if jocks on all levels started learning a little more tolerance.

Are you on the whole "It's a choice/God hates faggots" side? Because if you are, we shouldn't really even bother debating this issue, because neither one of us will believe that the other is anything close to right on the issue.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

it's a choice dude
there is no scientific evidence to support otherwise

there is some scientific evidence, although at this point it's still quite speculative.

why don't you just go ask somebody gay, they'll tell you.

btw ALL gay ppl don't even believe this
i know a lesbian wit two kids..from a man!!!!!

Or did she fuck him because she wanted kids on the "She Hate Me" tip?

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

how she gonna have two kids from a woman?

>btw ALL gay ppl don't even believe this
>i know a lesbian wit two kids..from a man!!!!!

i know of a gay preacher who was smoking meth and fucking male prostitutes... and he's been married for a long time and now claims to not be gay anymore.

self-delusion is a powerful force.

did you choose to be straight? do you look at men and women and get turned on by both, but just choose to fuck women? i don't, i get turned on by women without even thinking about it and don't get turned on by men at all. why do you think it's any different for gay people?

I don't know about you, but when I see good lookin girl with some big, nice titties and a good round ass, I just wanna get goin with her in all kinds of dirty ways. That's not me choosing to feel like that...that shit's biology.

If I see a guy, that doesn't register like that, i have no compulsion toward similar behavior with a man. That's not a choice. That's who I am as a man. That's not something I grew up to learn. How I feel about hot women is something I've been feeling, probably since the first time I discovered my dad's old Swimsuit issues and saw Elle McPherson.

I've talked with my gay buddy about that, and he never felt that, on any level, about girls. He looks at guys, and his brain tells him that he's interested in the dude, he doesn't convince himself of that. That's who he is, as a man.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

Say you're already having a bad day at work and your boss comes up and says some off-the-wall crap that really pisses you off and you "feel" like choking the life out of him but you CHOOSE not to because you need your job and don't want to go to jail, right?

That's what seperates human beings from animals, the ability to process thoughts and CHOOSE our actions rather than reacting to "feelings".

what did they say?

n/m

and said, "you've chosen to be gay"?

...there are pedophiliacs who never act on that shit because its wrong ...unfortunately there are many that do ..the problem with society is we are making being gay "a right thing to do" ...so fine, be gay ...and now they want to get married?? ..adopt and raise kids under their twisted umbrella?? ..way to confuse the shit out of kids gay people! ..and its a fact that u got gay parents raising their kids to be gay ..thats VERY wrong ..evil even

we have people smarter than you setting national policy.

> ..way to confuse the shit out of kids gay people!
>..and its a fact that u got gay parents raising their kids to
>be gay ..thats VERY wrong ..evil even

you'll never convince me that two loving gay people are worse parents than the 50% of married couples who get divorced. there's overwhelming evidence that gay couples do not influence or harm their children in any way.

if heterosexual marriage was in a decent state of affairs you would have a much stronger argument. but the fact is that it's in shambles (50% divorce rate). a loving, committed gay relationship is healthier for everyone (them, kids, society) than those 50% of marriages that end in divorce.

they're irrelevant to the point I was making. the numbers don't really exist (yet) anyway.

SP1200 was arguing that gay couples are bad for the children. but there is overwhelming scientific evidence that this is not true*. furthermore, studies show that divorce *does* affect the kids, profoundly.

* http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;109/2/341


so while all you bigots are wasting your breath arguing against gay marriage, I sincerely hope you devote the same energy towards people that have kids and then get divorced.

what's that? you don't care as much about divorced parents? hmmm, why could that be? hmmmm. hmmmm. oh yeah, there's no bigoted dislike of people based on sexual orientation involved.

nice.

divorce affects kids.
gay parents do not.

the scientific world overwhelmingly proves this.

you & SP1200 are the ones talking out of your ass.

sexual orientation of parents has no discernible effect on the kid, so divorced gay parents and divorced straight parents have the SAME EFFECT.

Divorce OF ANY KIND is NOT NATURAL!!
Divorce RUINS THE CHILDREN!!
Divorce is destroying the institution of marriage!!

where's the OUTRAGE at divorce!??!?!!

stay together forever and only awful heterosexuals divorce.

I mean how long has substantial gay parenting been in abundance?

and there's no reason to think they'll have a higher divorce rate... it will actually probably be lower.

>and there's no reason to think they'll have a higher divorce
>rate... it will actually probably be lower.

Of course, this is a moot point because until gay marriage is legal, no one can address it.

But there's no evidence to suggest gay divorce will be more likely than straight divorce.

And yes, there's no evidence to suggest it will be less likely either.

My theory is that the gay divorce rate will be lower because it's harder for gay people to meet, fall in love, and get married - they face more obstacles so they'll appreciate it more. But this is just theory and I have no evidence for it.

>this is just theory and I have no evidence for it.

I thought we were talking about the slippery slope and how gay marriage leads to legalized incest?

Oh yeah, you abandoned that losing battle.

I thought we were talking about how homosexual households negatively effect children?

Oh yeah, the scientific community proved that wrong.

Since you lost both of those points, I'm happy to talk about gay divorce rates. I actually have some numbers, but I'm so confused by your constant abandonment of losing arguments that I wasn't sure if they were still relevant.

If we're done with your two losses mentioned above, I'm happy to move on to your next loss. Say the word.

attention from the main point.

You wrongly implied that "loving gay parents" are somehow better parents than heterosexuals that get divorced 50% of the time.

I called you on it.

You LOST.

gays do not harm their children in any way
gay marriage does not open the door for incest or any other illegal act

is there something here you disagree with?

yes, I do. In fact, if you google real hard, you can find them yourself. Either way I'll provide them in a minute, I promise.

But first there's something I want to say.

Truth, I'm really worried you're going to abandon this thread the way you did with the Slippery Slope and Gays Harm Their Kids. You pick a mini tanget and use it as a smoke screen to escape the original point (slippery slope -> use of the word fag)(gay parents harm their kids -> divorce rates). It seems to be a pattern with you and it's distressing me.

I am trying so hard to educate your bigoted way of viewing gays so that you can join the progressive future of Modern Civilization (I mean hell, South Africa's constitution legally recognizes gay marriage), but you just keep running away. I'm worried about you. I'm worried about your soul. It needs saving, badly.

/intentionally patronizing-sarcastic tone

you ran away, this time will be no different.

I just can't trust your bigoted ways.

Slippery Slope: L
Harmful Gay Parents: L
Divorce rate: L

google hint: look at european countries that have legalized gay marriage

of a gay man.

I'm sorry but I don't exactly consider that scientific proof.

I'd expect nothing less.

b/c if a straight person said it, you'd actually respond right? FOH.

The Slippery Slope lost (debate of ideas which you can't deal with)
Gays don't harm kids, divorced parents do (science)
Gays don't harm marriage, divorce does (science)
Gays & straights divorce at the same rate (raw data)

Are there any other social issues you agree with Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson and the extreme Right on?

That's some nice company you're keeping there.

>I'd expect nothing less.
>
>b/c if a straight person said it, you'd actually respond
>right? FOH.

It still wouldn't be scientific proof, just one man's opinion, no different than yours or mine.


>The Slippery Slope lost (debate of ideas which you can't deal
>with)

Only time will tell, 40-50 years the the thought of two men getting married probably sounded sick and absurd. 40-50 years from now what things that are considered sick and absurd today will be considered as "normal"?


>Gays don't harm kids, divorced parents do (science)

Ask Shawn Hornbeck about the first part of the that, as for the second part, gays divorce or break up just as hetero people do so again that's a dumb argument.

>Gays don't harm marriage, divorce does (science)

see above.

>Gays & straights divorce at the same rate (raw data)

still waiting on something other than your word.

Thanks for playing.

has already divorced
i think it's only been what 3-4 yrs
lol

welcome to america

...so 2 gay parents is better than a single loving parent??? ...for real man ...you are one twisted person ..thank god not everyone thinks the way you do .

..do you not see how gay parents could be very confusing and difficult on kids?

do you not see whats wrong with that picture?? daddy & daddy kissing?? kids should not be subject to that behavior.. for the love of god.. LET THESE KIDS BE KIDS!!!

and what you so conveniently seem to forget is gays can divorce and molest and beat kids as much as anyone else.. PERHAPS MORE!!! ..how many child molesters go for same sex victims?!?!??! EXACTLY!!!!

you need to think these things out a little better man.. what gets me is every discussion in this post results in the gay person quickly throwing lame insults and weak or no arguments to back up their point of views.. unfortunately this is typical of gay activists..

>...so 2 gay parents is better than a single loving parent???

Why wouldn't two loving gay parents be better or just as good as one loving straight parent?

What evidence could you possibly have that suggests anything to the contrary?


>..do you not see how gay parents could be very confusing and
>difficult on kids?

It's nothing that kids can't handle.

Should we also decide which straight couples get to have kids, based on how "confusing and difficult" it would be for their kids?


>do you not see whats wrong with that picture?? daddy & daddy
>kissing?? kids should not be subject to that behavior..

Do you honestly think gay couples let their kids watch them get it on? There's nothing "wrong" with a kiss now and then.

Anything more than that and you should take it to the bedroom and not do it in front of your kids, whether you're straight or gay.


>and what you so conveniently seem to forget is gays can
>divorce and molest and beat kids as much as anyone else..

Yes, some gay people would get divorced. Some gay people might molest or beat kids. But if the same is true for straight people, why is this even being mentioned?


>PERHAPS MORE!!!

No evidence for this. PERHAPS LESS!


> ..how many child molesters go for same sex
>victims?!?!??! EXACTLY!!!!

Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just your own bigotry leading you to make wild assumptions and accusations?


And what does child molesting have to do with anything? Are you honestly saying that gay people shouldn't be around kids because they might molest them?


>you need to think these things out a little better man.. what
>gets me is every discussion in this post results in the gay
>person quickly throwing lame insults

Not really. There's plenty of valid points being made that you choose to ignore.


>and weak or no arguments
>to back up their point of views..

Mirror needed for this guy.


unfortunately this is
>typical of gay activists..

Another unfounded accusation.

>>...so 2 gay parents is better than a single loving parent???
>
>
>Why wouldn't two loving gay parents be better or just as good
>as one loving straight parent?

because you are still missing a father or mother in each equation... so its still a single parent.. and dont even try to tell me a mom or dad isnt important...

so you have two female guardians?? how is that better than a single mom with grandma or an aunt or older sibling in that role the way many kids who didn't have fathers grew up?

I'll take mom & grandma over two lesbians raising my kids anyday thanks...




>>..do you not see how gay parents could be very confusing and
>>difficult on kids?
>
>It's nothing that kids can't handle.


What evidence could you possibly have that kids CAN handle this??? this is fucked up man.. i really hope you think a little deeper about this..



>Should we also decide which straight couples get to have kids,
>based on how "confusing and difficult" it would be for their
>kids?


LMAO! again.. your role reversals dont work for normal situations! ..MOM & DAD is the norm!!!



>>do you not see whats wrong with that picture?? daddy &
>daddy
>>kissing?? kids should not be subject to that behavior..
>
>Do you honestly think gay couples let their kids watch them
>get it on? There's nothing "wrong" with a kiss now and then.
>
>Anything more than that and you should take it to the bedroom
>and not do it in front of your kids, whether you're straight
>or gay.


parents showing affection for each other (im not talking sexual) is very normal... in fact its good for kids to see that.. it enforces the fact that MOM & DAD love each other and in turn love THEM.. again.. this is very normal..

also, its their first exposure to love and affection.. and kids LEARN from that,, if little jenny sees MOM & MOM smooching and sharing a hug or cuddle they will likely follow.. maybe not everytime.. but surely this has INFLUENCE.. and kids should NEVER be influenced to do things that are UNNATURAL.. there are gays which have said they will rasie their kid gay.. now i dont believe every gay person would do that.. but.. how sick is that?!?!?!


>>and what you so conveniently seem to forget is gays can
>>divorce and molest and beat kids as much as anyone else..
>
>Yes, some gay people would get divorced. Some gay people might
>molest or beat kids. But if the same is true for straight
>people, why is this even being mentioned?
>
>
>>PERHAPS MORE!!!
>
>No evidence for this. PERHAPS LESS!


lol.. lets call it even for now


>> ..how many child molesters go for same sex
>>victims?!?!??! EXACTLY!!!!
>
>Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just your own
>bigotry leading you to make wild assumptions and accusations?


wow .. YOUR bigotry and accusations came across in this reply above! how is it wild?? how am i a bigot to say that??? same sex molestation are very common.. do i have the numbers?? no.. does anyone?? no.. but you KNOW its very common mr nieve...


>And what does child molesting have to do with anything? Are
>you honestly saying that gay people shouldn't be around kids
>because they might molest them?

you said gay parents (ANY GAY PARENTS) are a better fit than 50% of the single parents rasing kids... i said.. what about all the gays who molest kids??? do you think they dont exist?? do you have this dream in your head that every gay parent is a noble good person? nah man.. as many or more will be shitty parents..

>>>...so 2 gay parents is better than a single loving parent???

>>Why wouldn't two loving gay parents be better or just as good
>>as one loving straight parent?
>
>because you are still missing a father or mother in each
>equation... so its still a single parent.. and dont even try
>to tell me a mom or dad isnt important...

It's not a "single parent." It's simple math. Two people are not one parent.
Obviously this point is lost on you because you define "parent" differently than I do.

One mother + one father = two parents
One mother + one mother = two parents
One father + one father = two parents

Simple math. I have yet to see any evidence that two gay parents are any worse (or any better for that matter) than two straight parents.


>so you have two female guardians?? how is that better than a
>single mom with grandma or an aunt or older sibling in that
>role the way many kids who didn't have fathers grew up?

I didn't say a gay couple is better than a single mom + grandma, aunt, and sibling.

But why can't the gay couple also have a grandma, aunt, and sibling?

And why would the gay couple be any worse than a single mom or single dad (with or without grandma)?

I think a child needs one parent, although two is best. If there's even more family to help out, even better.

I don't see how this relates to gay parents.


>I'll take mom & grandma over two lesbians raising my kids
>anyday thanks...

Okay, that's your choice. No one is suggesting that gay people are going to run around taking other people's kids. I'm just saying that gay people have the same right to have kids as everyone else.


>>>..do you not see how gay parents could be very confusing
>and
>>>difficult on kids?
>>
>>It's nothing that kids can't handle.
>
>What evidence could you possibly have that kids CAN handle
>this??? this is fucked up man.. i really hope you think a
>little deeper about this..

Ummm, kids handle all kinds of things and turn out fine. And having two gay parents really isn't that big of a deal.

Explain why having gay parents is such a terrible thing. And don't say because they'll molest their kids.


>>Should we also decide which straight couples get to have
>kids,
>>based on how "confusing and difficult" it would be for their
>>kids?
>
>
>LMAO! again.. your role reversals dont work for normal
>situations! ..MOM & DAD is the norm!!!

That doesn't make sense.
Because what's normal is what's right and everything else is wrong?

You said having gay parents is "confusing and difficult" - there are lots of straight parents whose situations are confusing and difficult, and are not the norm. I don't see why it's any different.

And the norm is cultural anyway.


>>>do you not see whats wrong with that picture?? daddy &
>>daddy
>>>kissing?? kids should not be subject to that behavior..
>>
>>Do you honestly think gay couples let their kids watch them
>>get it on? There's nothing "wrong" with a kiss now and then.
>
>>
>>Anything more than that and you should take it to the
>bedroom
>>and not do it in front of your kids, whether you're straight
>>or gay.
>
>
>parents showing affection for each other (im not talking
>sexual) is very normal... in fact its good for kids to see
>that.. it enforces the fact that MOM & DAD love each other and
>in turn love THEM.. again.. this is very normal..

This is also cultural. Anyway, I don't have a problem with parents hugging, kissing (as I said, there's nothing wrong with a kiss), cuddling, etc. Whether gay or straight, this is no big deal. It won't "mess the kids up" in any way.

So I agree, kids seeing their parents - gay or straight - showing affection is good.

Where I draw the line is making out, groping, etc in front of your kids. And I don't care if you're straight or gay.


>also, its their first exposure to love and affection.. and
>kids LEARN from that,, if little jenny sees MOM & MOM
>smooching and sharing a hug or cuddle they will likely
>follow.. maybe not everytime.. but surely this has
>INFLUENCE.. and kids should NEVER be influenced to do things
>that are UNNATURAL..

I don't really think seeing their gay parents sharing affection will make them gay.

But I guess if you believe that gay people make a choice about their sexuality based on what they think will be more fun for the rest of their lives, then maybe seeing their parents being affectionate fits into that line of thinking.

I think it's pretty crazy. I'm not straight because I saw my parents kissing and thought it looked fun. I don't think seeing my parents being affectionate had much effect on my sexuality at all, in fact.

I'm straight because I'm just attracted to women and not men.


>there are gays which have said they will
>rasie their kid gay.. now i dont believe every gay person
>would do that.. but.. how sick is that?!?!?!

I don't agree with that, but I think that's very rare anyway. Most gay people will tell you that it's not a choice, and that it's biological, so for them to try to "make" their kid gay doesn't even make sense.

They probably just let their kid know that it's okay if they are gay, and they shouldn't feel guilty or ashamed of it.


>>> ..how many child molesters go for same sex
>>>victims?!?!??! EXACTLY!!!!
>>
>>Do you have any evidence for this, or is it just your own
>>bigotry leading you to make wild assumptions and
>accusations?
>
>
>wow .. YOUR bigotry and accusations came across in this reply
>above! how is it wild?? how am i a bigot to say that???
>same sex molestation are very common.. do i have the
>numbers?? no.. does anyone?? no.. but you KNOW its very
>common mr nieve...

I don't think it's "very common".
I don't think gay people are any more likely to molest people than straight people.

But without numbers that's where it stops because no one has any proof of anything.

Honestly though, what % of gay people do you think are child molesters?
What % of straight people?
Do you really think being gay is correlated with child molesting?


>>And what does child molesting have to do with anything? Are
>>you honestly saying that gay people shouldn't be around kids
>>because they might molest them?
>
>you said gay parents (ANY GAY PARENTS) are a better fit than
>50% of the single parents rasing kids...

As good or better, is what I said. I just don't understand how one straight man is better than two gay women, or one straight woman is better than two gay men. As long as the parents are devoted and loving, that kid will probably be okay.


>i said.. what
>about all the gays who molest kids??? do you think they dont
>exist??

They exist, just like the straight molesters.

>do you have this dream in your head that every gay
>parent is a noble good person? nah man.. as many or more will
>be shitty parents..

Of course not. Gay people are no more monolithic than straight people. Some are nice, some are mean, some are noble and good, some are scumbags. But I don't have any reason to think that they're more likely to molest their children.

I'll take the science world's opinion over yours. a *large* majority of psychological studies done show no harm whatsoever on kids with gay parents. not emotionally. not intellectually. not socially. not nothing.

furthermore, studies show a divorced household has serious effects on children in a multitude of ways. again, PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE has proven this.

I know you think your anti-gay position explains how gays harm kids and divorce doesn't, but you have to understand that I have a majority of the scientific world on my side, and you do not. You have people like Rick Santorum and George W. Bush.

The Scientific Method >>>> Your anti-gay logic

There's no really no debate here. In parenting and child-rearing, science has spoken. You lose. If you want to argue against science, go find an anti-evolution activist group to join.

Peace.

Obviously we control our impulses. I can't go around pulling my dick out, chasing after girls on Comm Ave in the middle of the day. But that doesn't always mean I wouldn't like to.

But why should a gay guy choose not to fuck another guy? He can't go around fucking any guy, at any time he likes. He may want to, but he's got self control.

I don't choose to feel what I feel for women, gay guys don't choose what they feel for men. Controlling our impulses is a shared thing yes, but why should a gay guy have to not only control the impulse to fuck whatever guy he wants whenever he wants to, but also the impulse to fuck a guy in the appropriate situation? He's not hurting people when he fucks another guy. He's not saying he wants to fuck every other guy he ever sees. He just wants to be able to fuck guys like I just wanna be able to fuck girls. On our own terms when society's rules deem it appropriate.


------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

but it was always something that was consider wrong and kept in the "closet".

Now gays are demanding their "rights" and want to be recognized as normal people and anyone that disagrees is considered a "bigot". When we step away from all of the spiritual and moral guidelines that most civilized societies were built on and start to make up new standards it sets up a slippery slope for other things to come forward.

If we are supposed to accept homosexualty as "normal" now then what is next? incest? child molestation? beastiality? It may sound far-fetched but there are well-organized and well-funded organizations that are pushing those exact agendas right now and gaining moment everyday.

How right was that?

Sometimes, it's better if more rights are given, and standards are changed to make the world a little bit more accepting.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

changes are not negative and some are required for the greater good but where do you draw the line?

The folks at NAMBLA want their rights too.

You got monsters like Michael J. Devlin and Neil Havens Rodreick II that want their rights too. And don't trying to say its not related because we all know it is.

>where do you draw the line?

any other questions?

funny thing is you'll find some gays who think incest is terrible.


where do you draw the line?

just change "consenting adults" to "consenting, unrelated adults".

>funny thing is you'll find some gays who think incest is
>terrible.

i think you'd find virtually all gays think incest is terrible. There's a clear distinction between gay sex, which has no further negative consequences than straight sex, and incest, which causes children with an incredibly high likelihood of being fucked up and dying young

>where do you draw the line?

at two consenting, unrelated adults.

you're acting as if we must be absolutists in our thinking. situations are different and require their own unique response. just because you think gay folks should be left alone and treated equally doesn't mean you think incest is okay. you're thinking is completely absurd.

>If we are supposed to accept homosexualty as "normal" now then
>what is next? incest? child molestation? beastiality?

Relations between consenting adults is a completely different ballgame than relations between kids or a dog - neither have legal rights to make any decisions for themselves anyway.

sister be allowed to be together as long as they are "consenting adults"? how about 2 brothers?

brother & sister having sex: creates biological harm for off-spring

gay men having sex: doesn't create (or harm) off-spring, doesn't affect anyone except THE TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

I know I need the government to tell me who to have sex with, don't you? I mean, 50 years ago they would have kept me from having sex with non-whites. Oh how I wish for those days.

is it OK then? Should they be allowed to marry?

yeah, that's totally realistic. i can see why you're putting that in the same boat as two men wanting to have sex which doesn't effect anyone else on earth except them.

so besides "it's been frowned upon for centuries", what other reasons do you have for deciding who grown adults get to have sex with?

SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED OR NOT?


Quit dancing around the question.

but heterosexual marriage does not? How does gay marriage opening up the door for incest?

The 'slippery slope' right? That argument is a poor one that doesn't really stand up in any true forum of debate.

I leave you with this quote from a man more articulate than me:

"The precise challenge for morally serious people is to make rational distinctions between what is arbitrary and what is essential in important social institutions. ... If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage—or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs."
-Andrew Sullivan

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

I post an intelligent quote that speaks to the heart of your opinion... and you call me names. (edit: or maybe Andrew Sullivan? either way...)

That's an L that speaks for itself.

he liked the Sullivan quote, to which you responded by calling Sullivan a fag.

that's an auto-L

>to which you responded by
>calling Sullivan a fag.

your last three posts = ignorant derogatory name calling

you're really showing yourself here man.

about the n-word?

for now let's talk about that quote.

oh that's right, you have no response to it.

run along now.

The very definition varies greatly from state to state and even more so if you go outside the US.

I'm not even touching the question of incest.

you wanna discuss incest? explain it's relevance or start a new thread.

so was racism, if in theory it's even gone today.

so was the rejection of interracial marriage.

I guess we shouldn't have gone against those 'norms' either huh?

two CONSENTING ADULTS can have all the sex they way with whomever they want and no one has the right to judge them in any way, shape or form.

Don't tell people which adults they can sleep with and which they can't.

no homo

lmao. that shit went "whoosh" over some heads.

>lmao. that shit went "whoosh" over some heads.

thats what makes it hilarious ... cuz you know SPM sittin there scratchin his head wonderin if he was just insulted.

And I'm okay with that

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

time dead the homosexuality = being black argument.

"Homosexuality has been around almost since the beginning of time but it was always something that was consider wrong and kept in the closet"

You might want to change that "always" to "sometimes"

There is more than just american history you know

>Say you're already having a bad day at work and your boss
>comes up and says some off-the-wall crap that really pisses
>you off and you "feel" like choking the life out of him but
>you CHOOSE not to because you need your job and don't want to
>go to jail, right?
>
>That's what seperates human beings from animals, the ability
>to process thoughts and CHOOSE our actions rather than
>reacting to "feelings".

So your, along with many others', argument is that people choose to be gay based on a reaction to their feelings. This would mean that homosexuals choose to act on their feelings of attraction towards the same sex, whereas heterosexuals choose not to act on those feelings of attraction towards the same sex.

Would you agree then, that as a heterosexual, you have chosen not to act upon your feelings of attraction towards the male gender? Although I may be wrong, I am going to assume that you will say no, that you only have feelings of attraction towards the female gender. You would then say that that is natural, correct, and not something that you have to force yourself to do?

Now, were someone to have feelings for the same sex, whether or not they choose to act upon them, then that would be a natural occurance, would it not? Should that be the case, then, you would have to concede the fact that feelings of attraction towards the same sex are natural, and not merely a choice, which is something those who fall on the anti-gay side of the debate refuse to acknowledge.

Therefore the question is, should people who have these feelings do what is natural to them, or should they deny those feelings because as a society we feel it "just isn't right?"

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

and attraction to the same sex. Some "feel" and a attraction to an immidiate relative. Some "feel" an attraction to farm animals. Some "feel" and a attraction to children.

Before you even try the whole "two consenting adults" argument I need you to define what exactly a "consenting adult" is.

you agree heterosexual people should be able to fuck, right? what about heterosexual incest, is that okay? if not, why not? please explain. And if your only explanation is that's the way it's always been, i would point out that's the exact same argument that was used against interracial relationships.

depending soley on geography and most of those are hotly disputed as well therefore rendering that whole argument meaningless.

otherwise we open up the door for incest

Now that gay couples want to get married, all of a sudden we have to have rules to cover every hypothetical situation that may ever challenge the status quo?

Does that mean we need a rule to define whether or not we can fuck people from other planets if we ever meet them? Wasn't it "unnatural" in the past for people of different races to have sex with each other?

It was. And how did we get over that? Common sense. That is why we elect people by popular vote who we think have it. But now that the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage has been threatened, all of a sudden we are all idiots who can't understand who adults are in the world, whether or not they are relatives, whether or not they say yes, and whether or not fucking animals is ok?

Give me a fucking break, and quit playing dumb.

But I'm glad you agree that anyone feeling attracted towards the same sex is a natural feeling. I'd be very interested to see how many millions of people in the world were born that way but are so morally strong that they force themselves to be heterosexual.

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

race and "come out" as another, you're born that way. That's not neccessarily the case with being gay.

> That's
>not neccessarily the case with being gay.

You have acknowledged that some people may naturally have feelings of attraction towards the same sex, but that they should not act on those feelings because it is wrong. Are you going to take that back now? Do you have rock solid proof that it is merely a choice? Again, if you are naturally attracted to the opposite sex, why can't someone be naturally attracted to the same sex.

And fuck no I won't stop playing the race card. There is only one difference between your race and which sex you are attracted to: you can hide one but you can't hide the other.

Let's say you could hide your race... would you? Probably not.

So why should someone have to hide who they are attracted to? Because some people think it's unnatural? Again, some people thought it was unnatural for different races to marry each other. The point here is that luckily there are people in the world who can see past prejudices and correct these illfounded conclusions.

attracted to the opposite sex as well as "straight" people who say they have been attracted to people of the same sex. Then there are bi-sexual people who claim to be attracted to BOTH sexes. Are all those people lying? Are they not "real" gays?

So some people are attracted to both sexes. There is no definition of a "real" gay person, nor is there some kind of "real" gay club. You are attracted to either males, females, or both. And like you said, you either act on those feelings or you deny them because other people in the world don't like your feelings.




-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>Before you even try the whole "two consenting adults" argument
>I need you to define what exactly a "consenting adult" is.


This is a pointless thing to do. You are never ever going to have an exact definition of a "consenting adult" that covers every applicable scenario. That is why we have a judicial system to interpret laws. The courts haven't come up with that exact definition, but they've set precedents for what it isn't. For example, it's not:

a. your dog
b. your brother
c. that 14-year-old girl next door
d. someone emphatically screaming "NO!"
etc.

This is how we have created laws against the previously listed offenses. Luckily we have had people in this country who were intellectually up to the task of coming to these conclusions, otherwise rape would be legal in the US (you know, considering we're all too stupid to know the difference between someone saying yes and someone saying no).

But again, if we let two women who love each other get married, we might lose perspective on our previous conclusion that fucking a dog is a bad thing.

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>Say you're already having a bad day at work and your boss
>comes up and says some off-the-wall crap that really pisses
>you off and you "feel" like choking the life out of him but
>you CHOOSE not to because you need your job and don't want to
>go to jail, right?
>
great analogy! jeezus.

Now we have a lot of young middle school girls paired up with another girl and they will tell you that shit is choice/fade. I believe that a lot of social factors such as child molestation and boys growing up without a strong father figure contributes to gender confusion. - 3X


WWW.PEOPLECANCHANGE.COM

Survey on Root Causes

In 2004, People Can Change surveyed the members of its online support groups to determine what they perceived to have been the most significant causes of their developing homosexual feelings in their own lives. We asked about 25 possible factors -- everything from biology to personal choice. More than 200 men responded.

1. Father-son relationship problems: In the survey, 97% said problems in the father-son relationship while they were growing up contributed to their developing same-sex attractions (SSA) -- and men usually identified it as one of the three most significant factors. (See especially page 6 of the survey.)

It seems very rare for a man who struggles with homosexuality to feel that he was sufficiently loved, affirmed and mentored by his father growing up, or that he identified with his father as a male role model. Oftentimes the father-son relationship is marked by either actual or perceived abandonment, extended absence, hostility or disinterest (a form of abandonment).

Like all human experience, this is not universal, and sometimes the father-son relationship doesn't seem to have been a problem. Rather, the relationship with brothers or male peers or male abusers may have created deep wounding. Whatever the source of the estrangement, it is a common experience for many of us to have felt a deep longing to be held, to be loved by a father figure, to be mentored into the world of men and to have our masculine natures affirmed by other men.

2. Conflict with male peers: The same percentage of men who said father-son problems contributed to their SSA -- 97% -- also said problems in their male-peer relationships contributed. And half said it was one of the "top three" factors. (See especially page 7 of the survey.)

Somehow, even as boys or young teenagers, we felt like we were never "man enough." We felt like we didn't live up to the masculine ideal. We saw ourselves as too fat or too skinny, too short or too awkward, not athletic enough or tough or strong or good-looking enough -- or whatever other qualities we admired in other males but judged to be lacking in ourselves. It was more than low self-esteem, it was low gender esteem -- a deficiency in our core sense of gender upon which our whole self image is built. Other males just seemed naturally masculine, but masculinity never came naturally to us. We aspired to it but were mystified by how to achieve it. Among other males, we felt different and lonely.

Feeling deficient as males, we pined to be accepted and affirmed by others, especially those whose masculinity we admired most. We began to idolize the qualities in other males that we judged to be lacking in ourselves. Idolizing them widened the gulf we imagined between ourselves and so-called "real men." In idolizing them, we increased our sense of our own masculine deficiency.

At the same time that we idolized certain male traits or maleness generally, many of us came to fear other boys and men. Born with unusually sensitive and gentle personalities, we found it was easy for many of us to feel different from and rejected by our more rough-and-tumble peers growing up. We came to fear their taunts and felt like we could never belong. Many of us feared the sports field and felt like we could never compete. Many of us felt rejected by our fathers and feared that we could never measure up or would never really matter to them.

So where did this leave us, as males ourselves? It left us in a Neverland of gender confusion, not fully masculine but not really feminine either. We had disassociated not just from individual men we feared would hurt us, but from the entire heterosexual male world. Some of us even detached from our very masculinity as something shameful and inferior.

3. Mother-son relationships (and the "smothering mother" syndrome): Nine out of 10 survey respondents said aspects of their relationships with their mothers contributed to their SSA. (See especially page 8 of the survey.)

Even as we perceived our fathers as abandoning, ignoring or being hostile toward us, it was a common experience for us to over-identify with or become overly dependent on our mothers. Oftentimes, we never fully cut the "apron strings" that attached our identity to hers. Mom often became our confidant and mentor instead of Dad. But Mom could never show us how to act and think like a man. So it was common for us to view maleness from a woman's perspective instead of a man's. We inadvertently adopted a woman's view of the world. The gulf between us and the world of men was widened and reinforced.
Feeling alienated from the male world, we often found comfort in female companionship. Some of us labeled women and femininity as superior to men and masculinity because we perceived females as more sensitive, accepting and loving. They felt "safer" to be with and to expose our painful emotions to. Instead of ridiculing our sensitive natures, they appreciated them. They didn't expect us to prove we were "man enough," even while we were still just boys. Many of us learned to identify with women and girls as our sisters, our buddies and, inadvertently, even our role models. Our sense of girls as the "same sex" and boys as the "opposite" sex was reinforced.

4. Sexual abuse: 48% of respondents said that, as children or youth, they had been sexually abused by an older or more powerful person. Usually it was by a male, and in those cases, 96% considered the abuse to have contributed to their developing SSA feelings. (See especially pages 8 and 9 of the survey.)

5. Other sexual experiences: 93% said they had had other sexual experiences -- including pornography, sexual fantasy and sex play with other boys -- as children or youth, and of those who did, 93% said they believed these experiences contributed to their SSA feelings. (See especially page 9 of the survey.)

6. Personality traits: 87% said they believed their personality traits were a contributing factor. (See especially page 10 of the survey.)

A great many of us were born with or developed an innate sensitivity and emotional intensity that we learned could be both a blessing and a curse. On the one hand, our sensitivity caused us to be more loving, gentle, kind and oftentimes spiritually inclined than average.
On the other hand, these were some of the very traits that caused our more rough-and-tumble male peers to taunt us, girls to welcome us into their inner circles, moms to hold onto us more protectively, and dads to distance themselves from us. Perhaps even more problematic, it created within us a thin-skinned susceptibility to feeling hurt and rejected, thus magnifying many times over whatever actual rejection and offense we might have received at the hands of others. Our perception became our reality.

Homosexual Consequences

These and other hurts were oftentimes the problems buried below the surface. Complex, interwoven and painful, they drove us to homosexual relationships in an attempt to find healing. But we found that, for us, acting on these homosexual desires actually worsened rather than lessened the underlying problems. Homosexuality, for us, wasn't the solution; it was an escape from solving the real problems that had caused the symptoms to begin with.

Time alone could never really heal these kinds of deep wounds without our going back to face them, acknowledge them, grieve them, release our legitimate anger over them, take steps to repair the damage they had caused us (to the extent we could), and finally, to forgive and move on.

that's some scientific shit right there!

give those people a PHD!

>In 2004, People Can Change surveyed the members of its online
>support groups to determine what they perceived to have been
>the most significant causes of their developing homosexual
>feelings in their own lives. We asked about 25 possible
>factors -- everything from biology to personal choice. More
>than 200 men responded.

it says a lot that you did not point out anything in the survey that you found problematic.


http://www.narth.com/menus/born.html

http://www.narth.com/docs/hallman.pdf

a group's survey based on surveying members of its own group.

what's wrong with this picture?

hmmm
hmmm
hmmm

>a group's survey based on surveying members of its own
>group.
>
>what's wrong with this picture?
>
>hmmm
>hmmm
>hmmm

SHE ADMITS IT WAS A CHOICE IN THE ARTICLE.

http://sports.espn.go.com/wnba/news/story?id=2204322

"I didn't always know I was gay. I honestly didn't. Do I think I was born this way? No. And that's probably confusing to some, because I know a lot of people believe that you are." SHERYL SWOOPS

...he presented his argument in an intelligent manor and you couldn't even come up with an excuse or lie that works for you, let alone a fact or truth to back up YOUR point of view

you can do better than that cant you?

he provided a single example (sheryl swoopes). then he provided a survey of a bunch of self-hating gays who are in a support group trying to un-gay themselves. of course they're not going to admit it is their nature, that would defeat the purpose of them being in the group. let's take a survey of members of "Japanese people who hate rice" and come to a conclusion of whether Japanese people like rice or not.

and your girl can tell you i'm not a fag, even if i did stick it in her ass*






























* - intelligent discussion

..as you are in explaining your point ..typical gay dude, lol

That's the reason why i am relunctant to debate queers on the I WAS BORN THAT WAY BULLSHIT. there is more than enough scientific evidence and testimony from queers to discredit that queer gene thoery.

>That's the reason why i am relunctant to debate queers on the
>I WAS BORN THAT WAY BULLSHIT. there is more than enough
>scientific evidence and testimony from queers to discredit
>that queer gene thoery.

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/research/working_papers/2001_04.html

just like this study i believe social factors such as child molestation and etc contributes to queer behavior not some GAY GENE. just the thought of the existence of some gay gene is funny.

is it just a zoological lifestyle choice?

white folks like you will go to any lengths to justify their UN-NATURAL wayS

... who says it was natural and not a choice.

Hopefully your (sensible) reaction to that would be, "Well, maybe one example isn't going to settle this debate afterall."

But then again, I don't have my hopes up.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

If they "choose" to be gay, that makes it worse?

Does this continue to have a minimal impact as long as the trend continues that when an athlete comes out, it's after his career? Because in that way, I can see how the impact can be minimized, and guys aren't forced to confront their own human shortcomings as a result.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

>Does this continue to have a minimal impact as long as the
>trend continues that when an athlete comes out, it's after his
>career? Because in that way, I can see how the impact can be
>minimized, and guys aren't forced to confront their own human
>shortcomings as a result.

when players come out after the fact it forces people in denial about gays to deal with reality.

also you're not going to jump from everyone being in the closet to everyone being out in the open. it's a very gradual process.

I just think it'll be a much better society once it really doesn't phase people at all. That really couldn't happen quickly enough for my tastes.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

>I just think it'll be a much better society once it really
>doesn't phase people at all. That really couldn't happen
>quickly enough for my tastes.

Went to college with him. He was always a bit eccentric. I didn't think he was gay though...

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

but maybe it's just the outpouring of conflicted emotions, considering some of their unrequited man-crushes on basaglia.

not like I'm going to read this drivel.

------------
Come back for one more, Troy.

the bigger the homophobe...

why do queers feel that it is important for the world to know about their DEGENERATE BEHAVIOR?

>why do queers feel that it is important for the world to know
>about their DEGENERATE BEHAVIOR?

.

FOH
no one cares if they have their rights
or whatever their current agenda is this year
but you will NOT label me ignorant or whatever because i don't agree with the lifestyle
i don't HAVE to
bottomline
they can fuck all night long and hold hands in public and all the other shit they wanna do
and i'll still disagree with it
and i'll still oppose the lifestyle
men produce sperm and women produce eggs for a reason
i believe it is that way for NATURAL reasons
anything else is unnatural imo
and a choice one chooses to partake in
which is in their freedom to do so
and it's in my freedom to disagree and not associate with said people

i don't want any lobbyist on my ass

our right to disagree with it.

this post has brought forth some truly ill individuals. "they can fuck all night long, but it still comes down to men have sperm and woman have eggs for a reason" ive seen this argument left and right and it still makes people look like assholes. im sure the gay community is happy that ______ thinks its cool if they fuck all night long. im sure that lets them sleep soundly at night. but cotdamn, how the hell does appendages have anything to do with love???

love is love. i love my brother. he's a boy. i love my mother. she's a girl. i love my girlfriend. she's a girl. i love my best friend. he's a guy. love is beyond procreation. love is adopting a child that two "right" people couldnt 'deal' with. that's love. let it be.

seriously.

this conversation has been had before, with similarly disheartening results from the same culprits...


36-9.
15-5.

FREE CHAI VANG!

YOU'VE READ MY FILE NIGGA (c) Jack 'Mufuckin' Bauer

http://rjcc.stumbleupon.com - what I'm looking at

www.hdbeat.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.

who does 2 gay guys fucking hurt?

in this very post we see some of the negative consequences of oberbearing religiosity

obviously u never seen bignick comment on religion,lol
talk about ignorance and hate.......

for its role in perpetuating social ills masked as "moral values," e.g. this post.

gay people fucking harms no one

>gay people fucking harms no one

I'm at the latter right now.

you choose to see one side and not the other because you think one stance is "better" than the other.

Stop that.

Just respect peoples rights to believe in what they believe in.

Why can't people just leave it at that?


"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

>you choose to see one side and not the other because you
>think one stance is "better" than the other.

i think black people are genetically inferior to whites. As such, they belong in indentured servitude and should never be allowed positions of power or influence in society. Do you think your stance of racial equality is "better" than mine?

>Stop that.
>
>Just respect peoples rights to believe in what they believe
>in.

then respect my right to believe that blacks are inferior and as a home loan banker i always refuse to give them loans, or as a corporate manage i refuse to promote them. I have the right to believe in whatever i want.

>Why can't people just leave it at that?

people can believe whatever the fuck they want. it's when they use their dumbass beliefs to adversely affect the lives of others that i have a problem (see: christians preventing gay marriage, or racist white folks hitting black folks in the pocketbook).

"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

You can't defend the following:

White People
Gay People
Rich People
Famous People
etc. etc.

I'm actually none of the aforementioned but I hate the mob mentality on OKP against these groups

And 9th Wonder's production

he sucked for the rockets, i remember that much, but he was serviceable (pause) in utah. i just remember commentators always talking about how smart he was.

there is a correlation with the degree of homophobia...and hatred even violence towards gays...with those who expouse those views actually being gay themselves..

I mean..this has been studied in various forums...folks who are ultra..ultra homophobic..and obsessed with condeming other people's actions that don't impact them....are often doing so as a way to combat those same feelings within themselves..

I'm not accusing anyone on here...I'm just saying...when you go so far out of your way to speak on this in others...it's often telling about yourself...

posts to get to that one.

"If you defend gays, then you must be gay" argument that's being used all up and down this post?

...if your a straight person there is a very good chance that you will find 2 dudes kissing repulsive ...and a good chance you will find to gays wishing to marry ridiculous ...it dont make you a bad person to hold these views, and it surely dont make you gay, lol

that fought against gay marriage thing...and then it came out he was gay...

or the guy that started the orginization that was supposed to be able to cure people of being gay....yet he eventually ran off with the man who was his "partner" in that endeavor and are now living as a gay couple....

or the guy who killed the dude from the Jenny Jones show who revealed he had a crush on him on TV...but really was embarrassed because people would have found out they had already been having some gay shit going down between them...

there's a documentary that was made some years ago that went to various prisons to interview guys in jail who targeted gays in hate crimes....them dudes where undercover gays themselves...and their acts of violence was them trying to "kill" what they viewed as being gay in themselves....

I'm just saying.....

ultra-homobia is a sign of being gay....that's just a fact...it doesn't mean that you're gay...but it's a sign one might be....

I have many of the same opinions about being with another man, that many homophobes have...I wouldn't do it..it's not my thing......I don't want any part of it.....

but the ONLY man whose sexual practices I'm concerned with is Warren Coolidge...I could give a shit what another man does.....

...its always "you must be gay if you dont understand gay behavior" ..i mean dude, its actually a good debate ive had with my girl and my gay cousin ..but if its too hard (no homo) for you to talk about, lol

why is it inherently ridiculous for 2 gays to want to get married? go.

... men & woman can naturally make babies ... take all the gay men and put them on an island ...see if they dont die out COMPLETELY with in 60 years ... gays need UNNATURAL HELP from someone OTHER than the person they love to live on ..therefore its fake ..pretend

Clearly, you've checkmated all the fags who have been unable to meet the informed, intellectual statements you have dropped up and down this post.

We're not in 1994 anymore. Click your heels 3 times, and go back to the lesson.

>... men & woman can naturally make babies ... take all the
>gay men and put them on an island ...see if they dont die out
>COMPLETELY with in 60 years ... gays need UNNATURAL HELP
>from someone OTHER than the person they love to live on
>..therefore its fake ..pretend

That's a fucked up and arbitrary stance.

I guess elderly folks can't marry. Anyone who is sterile can't marry... shit, what about people who just don't want kids?

What does having children have to do with two people loving each other?

Because they can't have kids, their life is "fake"? That's bullshit.

as the posters above me pointed out, there are many cases when heterosexual couples are unable to procreate.

should non-procreating heterosexual couples be allowed to marry? If so, then why shouldn't homosexual couples?

...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science as a helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL way ..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN involved

so until dudes can become pregnant or 2 women can get pregnent without the help from a man & science .. they should NOT be married

im telling you how it is.. your trying to tell me what you want it to be.. and honestly the opinions in this post are disturbing and they way all you gay guys talk down to anyone with a different point of view shows your weakness to debate the subject.. your wrong man..

now lets here your opinion why gays should get married... all i hear is because they "love" each other.. sorry thats not a good enuff reason man..

>...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science as a
>helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is
>okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL way
>..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET
>PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN
>involved

so what about a woman who had to undergo an ovariectomy and is physically incapable of bearing children, even with the help of science? Should she be able to get married to her man, despite her inability to get pregnant?

Since you're big on saying "you're bad at debating," here's a clear argument: you say gay people shouldn't marry because they are incapable of bearing children. (inability to bear children) --> (shouldn't be able to marry). Using this reasoning, you must conclude that women with ovariectomies should not be able to marry either. If you believe women with ovariectomies should be able marry, then you contradict your own argument.

So which option do you choose: (1) women with ovariectomies shouldn't be able to marry; or (2) provide another argument as to why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

>>...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science as
>a
>>helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is
>>okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL way
>
>>..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET
>>PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN
>>involved
>
>so what about a woman who had to undergo an ovariectomy and is
>physically incapable of bearing children, even with the help
>of science? Should she be able to get married to her man,
>despite her inability to get pregnant?


i already addressed that.. try READING instead of worrying about what your gonna say next..


>Since you're big on saying "you're bad at debating," here's a
>clear argument: you say gay people shouldn't marry because
>they are incapable of bearing children. (inability to bear
>children) --> (shouldn't be able to marry). Using this
>reasoning, you must conclude that women with ovariectomies
>should not be able to marry either. If you believe women with
>ovariectomies should be able marry, then you contradict your
>own argument.

again.. i addressed that.. MAN+WOMAN.. its very simple man.. READ.. if science helps that which is NATURAL anyway thats fine..


>So which option do you choose: (1) women with ovariectomies
>shouldn't be able to marry; or (2) provide another argument as
>to why homosexuals should not be able to marry.

your showcasing your stupidity again... i provided the argument 3 times.. and you still dont get it.. ask me again if a man & woman should get help from science to conceive and you will get the same answer i gave you the last 3 times.. you just dont like the answer..

>>>...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science
>as
>>a
>>>helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is
>>>okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL
>way
>>
>>>..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET
>>>PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN
>>>involved
>>
>>so what about a woman who had to undergo an ovariectomy and
>is
>>physically incapable of bearing children, even with the help
>>of science? Should she be able to get married to her man,
>>despite her inability to get pregnant?
>
>
>i already addressed that.. try READING instead of worrying
>about what your gonna say next..
>
>
>>Since you're big on saying "you're bad at debating," here's
>a
>>clear argument: you say gay people shouldn't marry because
>>they are incapable of bearing children. (inability to bear
>>children) --> (shouldn't be able to marry). Using this
>>reasoning, you must conclude that women with ovariectomies
>>should not be able to marry either. If you believe women
>with
>>ovariectomies should be able marry, then you contradict your
>>own argument.
>
>again.. i addressed that.. MAN+WOMAN.. its very simple man..
> READ.. if science helps that which is NATURAL anyway thats
>fine..
>
>
>>So which option do you choose: (1) women with ovariectomies
>>shouldn't be able to marry; or (2) provide another argument
>as
>>to why homosexuals should not be able to marry.
>
>your showcasing your stupidity again... i provided the
>argument 3 times.. and you still dont get it.. ask me again
>if a man & woman should get help from science to conceive and
>you will get the same answer i gave you the last 3 times..
>you just dont like the answer..
>

^^^^ all this about "help with science." I clearly said a woman with an ovarectomy. Science cannot help her conceive -- she has no fucking eggs. She would have to outsource for an egg, which is no different than a lesbian couple outsourcing for a sperm.

So, given that this woman with no fucking ovaries cannot possibly have her own child, nor can she have anybody else's child because let's just suppose she had a hysterectomy too (quite common in preventative cancer surgery to just remove the entire system), SCIENCE CAN'T POSSIBLY HELP HER BEAR CHILDREN.

now, given that SHE CANNOT EVER EVER EVER have a baby, regardless of any kind of science, should she be able to get married? If you think she should be able to, then you torpedo your argument that gays should not be able to because they cannot have a baby.

>^^^^ all this about "help with science." I clearly said a
>woman with an ovarectomy. Science cannot help her conceive --
>she has no fucking eggs. She would have to outsource for an
>egg, which is no different than a lesbian couple outsourcing
>for a sperm.
>
>So, given that this woman with no fucking ovaries cannot
>possibly have her own child, nor can she have anybody else's
>child because let's just suppose she had a hysterectomy too
>(quite common in preventative cancer surgery to just remove
>the entire system), SCIENCE CAN'T POSSIBLY HELP HER BEAR
>CHILDREN.
>
>now, given that SHE CANNOT EVER EVER EVER have a baby,
>regardless of any kind of science, should she be able to get
>married? If you think she should be able to, then you torpedo
>your argument that gays should not be able to because they
>cannot have a baby.


she SHOULD be able to have a baby with a MAN naturally but unfortunately she cant..

she would NEVER be able to have a baby with another WOMAN naturally no matter if she was healthy or not..

the fact that this woman cant conceive does not change the fact that ONLY a MAN +WOMAN can naturally make a baby...

nice try tho :)

Let's see.... you're probably against Diet Coke, right? Because they you use fake sugar that's not natural to your body.

You're probably against the use of prescription drugs, correct? Don't want anything unnatural in a woman's body when she is having her man's baby, no matter how painful it is.

I'm assuming you despise people who dye their hair. They are all better off dead, right?

People with prosthetic legs? Hop on one leg or get shot, bitches! I mean, if we start letting people use fake legs, before you know it everyone and their uncle will be fucking their dogs.

I think two women loving each other is right up there with dyed hair on the list of Most Dangerous Unnatural Things Threatening the Security of the World.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>>>..men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science as a helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL way ..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET PREGNANT!!! ..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN involved

>>>>so until dudes can become pregnant or 2 women can get pregnent without the help from a man & science .. they should NOT be married

You are saying that if something doesn't occur naturally, then it should not happen at all. You can't use this reasoning to prove your point when you want but then choose to ignore it when it makes your life easier, such as when you have a headache.

If a woman wants to have a baby with a man but for whatever reason she is not able to conceive, was it not nature that determined she could not have babies? Doesn't matter what other women can do naturally, if she uses science to help her bear a child then she has done something unnatural, because it was indeed nature determined that she couldn't have children.

If a woman can unnaturally have a baby with a man, then I'll be fucking damned if she can't have one unnaturally with a woman. And give me some evidence that gay couples aren't capable of raising a child before you give me that "But we're talking about raising a child!!" bullshit.


-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>...men & women who cant conceive and wish to use science as a
>helping hand to do what comes NATURALLY for most couples is
>okay ..why?? ..because its still man/woman that NATURAL way

Are you trying to contradict yourself? If a straight couple can't do it "the natural way", it's okay to use science because that's still natural.

But if gay people use science, it's unnatural.

That's some fucked logic right there.


>..no matter what science tries to do A MAN CANT GET
>PREGNANT!!!

This is true of straight and gay men. Is there a point?


>..TWO WOMEN cant get pregnant without a MAN
>involved

Another true, but wholly irrelevant fact.


>so until dudes can become pregnant or 2 women can get pregnent
>without the help from a man & science .. they should NOT be
>married

So the only purpose of marriage is procreation? That's a dumb argument and you clearly haven't thought it through.

Not all married people want kids, not all married people have kids, not all married people are capable of having kids.


By your logic, the only people who should be allowed to marry are 12 - 45 year old straight people, so long as both of them have fully functioning sex organs and an overwhelming desire to breed.

Is that really what marriage is about in your opinion?


So two sixty year olds shouldn't get married if they love each other and want to spend their lives together?

A woman born sterile, or a man who's infertile should remain single their whole life, because what's the point of marriage if they can't have kids?


>now lets here your opinion why gays should get married... all
>i hear is because they "love" each other.. sorry thats not a
>good enuff reason man..

Love is the best reason there is. Marriage is about love, not procreation. My wife and I haven't decided if we're going to have kids or not. I guess if we decide not to, you'd suggest we may as well get divorced because we shouldn't be married.

to have babies. you guys kill me with your logic.

...to reproduce ..and gays cant reproduce ...if you cant reproduce you die ..your legacy dies ...how is my view crazier than two dudes buttfuckin and getting married?!?!?!?

The goal of every life form?

NO. The goal of every species, yes. But not every life form wants to, plans to, or should reproduce.

That doesn't even seem worht discussing to me. Lots of people, gay and straight, don't want kids. So I guess they shouldn't be allowed to marry?


And gay people can reproduce - what's stopping them?


"your legacy dies" - what the fuck is that about?


There's nothing crazy about two men who love each other wanting to get married. Your view, which requires all life forms to reproduce, is pretty fucked up in my opinion.

>The goal of every life form?
>
>NO. The goal of every species, yes. But not every life form
>wants to, plans to, or should reproduce.

wrong.. EVERY life form is here for one thing.. the ONLY true mission in life.. TO CONTINUE LIFE!!! i know this concept throws a wrench in ur gay rights/marrage theories.. and like every other reply in here you choose to pick the .001% exception to the rule and run with it.. but this is where your argument fails each time..


>That doesn't even seem worht discussing to me. Lots of people,
>gay and straight, don't want kids. So I guess they shouldn't
>be allowed to marry?
>
>
>And gay people can reproduce - what's stopping them?

lets see.. for gay dudes its a VAGINA!!! ...for gay women its a PENIS!!! can you guys stop playing dumb for a sec?? do you not like what im saying?? get over it.. and come with some real debate here.. oh yeah YOU HAVE NONE!


>"your legacy dies" - what the fuck is that about?


you live on thru your OFFSPRING... gays couples will never have offspring.. what dont u understand? oh are u gonna tell me two men or two women can create life now???


>There's nothing crazy about two men who love each other
>wanting to get married. Your view, which requires all life
>forms to reproduce, is pretty fucked up in my opinion.

umm.. so ur saying natural reproduction is sick??? what happiness in nature is sick?? yet unnatural behavior like two men trying to fuck each other is some normal shit???

Homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and if something is unnatural it shouldn't happen. Even further, the purpose of marriage is for procreation... that's natural. If you get married, but your purpose isn't to create offspring, then you are doing something unnatural... therefore it shouldn't happen.

Now, are you getting all upset about married heterosexual people not having children? No. Because their unnatural decision not to have children isn't adversly affecting the growing population of 6 billion people across the world. Don't try to tell me that married homosexual couples would.

You can't make an argument and then only adhere to it when it proves your point.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>Homosexuality is wrong because it's unnatural, and if
>something is unnatural it shouldn't happen.

oh it happens obviously.. its the fact that gays CANT create life... they CANT reproduce.. its IMPOSSIBLE...


>Even further, the
>purpose of marriage is for procreation... that's natural. If
>you get married, but your purpose isn't to create offspring,
>then you are doing something unnatural... therefore it
>shouldn't happen.


again.. MAN + WOMAN is the ONLY possible way to create another life.. . no other way dude... men & women can get married for this reason.. if they decide later to make babies thats on them.. if not.. ITS STILL A MAN + WOMAN and they CAN create life together if they want to.. 2men or 2women CAN NEVER DO THIS!!


>Now, are you getting all upset about married heterosexual
>people not having children? No. Because their unnatural
>decision not to have children isn't adversly affecting the
>growing population of 6 billion people across the world. Don't
>try to tell me that married homosexual couples would.


married homosexuals CAN NEVER EVER MAKE BABIES TOGETHER!

i dont see you arguing "what about the gay man who gets pregnant and shits out a baby?" why? because that would be RIDICULOUS! well so is two men having a baby and getting married!

And I'm not a fucking idiot, I understand what is necessary to make a baby. You have offered long, drawn-out explanations of shit everyone on here already knows because you have so completely missed the issue we are talking about here that you haven't even come close to addressing it.





-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

but I'm with you on this argument. Its like people only want to adhere to certain shit. Like they say its ok to be gay, but I bet they wouldn't say its ok to marry their own sister. And that's what people don't get. You can argue a lot of shit and be like "why can't I do this? If I love bla bla bla perosn and want to marry them and adopt kids, what's wrong with that?" I mean, I can think of a million scenarios where I could plug in their logic and make it backfire. I agree with you man. These niggas would hate me and call me a bigot if I said half the shit I really wanted to say on OKP. lol

you need to watch colbert talk about this. its hilarious, he calls it a slippery slope because next people will wanna marry snakes, then gay snakes will wanna marry other gay snakes. It totally mocks you're stupid argument!

So I think your view of marriage is pretty wacky to begin with.

..im choose the retard every time you homo

>..im choose the retard every time you homo

who said I like dick? And why are you projecting so much? insecurity is a bitch huh?

did you read guys responses though? Come on jigga! lol!

>did you read guys responses though? Come on jigga! lol!

I've been reading this whole thing. Both sides have good arguments @ times & both sides have some seriously silly arguments as well.

It's an especially interesting situation for me as my sister came out a few years ago. Once she did I wasnt really surprised. I guess I sorta saw it comin all along when I look back & think on it but I just never bothered to for whatever reason. After that my folks started questioning me since I hadn't ever had a girlfriend @ that time. I assured them I was straight but I dont think they were totally convinced till I finally brought my girl over to the house.

But even if my sis wasnt a lesbian I still feel that homosexuals should have the same rights. And trying to equate them w/ pedophiles & rapists & the like is just plain wrong.

I wasnt even gonna bother chimin in on this but I figured I might as well since errbody else has.

>>The goal of every life form?
>>
>>NO. The goal of every species, yes. But not every life form
>>wants to, plans to, or should reproduce.
>
>wrong.. EVERY life form is here for one thing.. the ONLY true
>mission in life.. TO CONTINUE LIFE!!!

And I completely disagree. Don't you think it's circular logic to say that the only reason we exist is to create more of ourselves?

It's totally pointless. I exist to make a baby, and my baby exists to make a baby, etc. What's the point of that?

It's like saying the reason we exist is so that we exist. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't exist.

Yep, makes no sense.

I'm not here to tell you the meaning of life, but I don't believe our only purpose on this world is to procreate.

I refuse to be reduced to a 180 pound nut sac whose only purpose in existing is to make babies.




>i know this concept
>throws a wrench in ur gay rights/marrage theories.. and like
>every other reply in here you choose to pick the .001%
>exception to the rule and run with it.. but this is where your
>argument fails each time..

Well if you believe the only thing that matters in life is procreation then I guess being gay is pretty pointless.

But then again, so is art, literature, philosophy, religion, science, and everything else man has created.

It's all one big fucking waste of time when we could be making more babies.

How many kids do you have?
I don't have any so I guess my life has no purpose.


>>And gay people can reproduce - what's stopping them?
>
>lets see.. for gay dudes its a VAGINA!!!

I don't have a vagina either. A gay guy is just as capable of reproduction as I am.


> ...for gay women
>its a PENIS!!! can you guys stop playing dumb for a sec??

We all know what is required for procreation. I just don't see the point.


>do you not like what im saying?? get over it.. and come
>with some real debate here.. oh yeah YOU HAVE NONE!

None of your arguments seem the slightest bit sound to me, so I guess we're at an impasse.



>>"your legacy dies" - what the fuck is that about?
>
>you live on thru your OFFSPRING...

No, your genetic material is passed on to your offspring. You don't live on... you're dead.

Your soul might live on, if you believe in that. And if so, then that's way more important than the DNA strands you leave behind.


>gays couples will never
>have offspring.. what dont u understand?

Ummm, sure they do. They just usually don't have them in the same way that straight people do. What don't you understand?


> oh are u gonna
>tell me two men or two women can create life now???

No. But gay couples do have kids. Adoption, insemination, surrogate parents... things that you say are okay for straight people but not gay people.

And of course, two gay couples - two gay men and two gay women - could get together and have as many kids as they wanted... with or without the help of science.


>>There's nothing crazy about two men who love each other
>>wanting to get married. Your view, which requires all life
>>forms to reproduce, is pretty fucked up in my opinion.
>
>umm.. so ur saying natural reproduction is sick???

No, but saying that reproduction is the only purpose in life is sick to me. Life is more than fucking and making babies.


>what
>happiness in nature is sick?? yet unnatural behavior like
>two men trying to fuck each other is some normal shit???

Two men or women who love each other should be able to marry and raise kids. There's nothing sick about that.

Because bee drones can't reproduce. And yet they're alive. Wax philosophical on that for a few minutes.

And what about men who have low sperm counts or Kartagener's syndrome (dysmotile sperm) or women with congenital defects of their reproductive anatomy? They're life forms. They can't reproduce. Or are you ok with artificial insemination?

A species has to reproduce to survive, obviously.

But it's the goal of the species, not every individual.

Not every single member of the species is capable of, wants to, plans to, or should reproduce.


Using his argument, marriage is only justified if the couple is capable and planning to have kids. And I guess there would be a window to have kids, and if you don't have them, your marriage gets dissolved.


I also made some great points in # 354 that he can't dispute.

>A species has to reproduce to survive, obviously.
>
>But it's the goal of the species, not every individual.
>
>Not every single member of the species is capable of, wants
>to, plans to, or should reproduce.
>
>
>Using his argument, marriage is only justified if the couple
>is capable and planning to have kids. And I guess there would
>be a window to have kids, and if you don't have them, your
>marriage gets dissolved.
>

Marriage is a human institution. It was developed to offer a stable protective environment to the offspring of a MAN and a WOMAN. To provide a level of structure to a society and its family units.

BEES have a totally different social structure. You would have to study and examine closely their species-specific structure to find any deviant activity that goes on within it. Odds are, that if there were any activities that some BEES would "choose" to take part in, that was antithetical to the hives prime objective (to reproduce), that that activity would lead those BEES involved in it to a path of extinction because it is against what they were put on the planet to do.

If some BEES started a movement where they "choose" (there goes that word again!) to not pollinate flowers, what ramifications does that have across all of nature?


...

my thoughts,

peace.


----------------------------------
"BE, not foolish, as temporary king of the mountaintop."
-Com's Pops, BE 2006

>>A species has to reproduce to survive, obviously.
>>
>>But it's the goal of the species, not every individual.
>>
>>Not every single member of the species is capable of, wants
>>to, plans to, or should reproduce.
>>
>>
>>Using his argument, marriage is only justified if the couple
>>is capable and planning to have kids. And I guess there
>would
>>be a window to have kids, and if you don't have them, your
>>marriage gets dissolved.
>>
>
>Marriage is a human institution. It was developed to offer a
>stable protective environment to the offspring of a MAN and a
>WOMAN. To provide a level of structure to a society and its
>family units.

Perhaps that is the origin of marriage - I'll take your word for it because I don't really care about its origins.

In American society, which is what we're actually talking about, marriage is NOT solely about providing a stable protective environment for children.

Many married couples in America:

1 - do not choose to have children

2 - are not able to have children (and may or may not want to adopt)

3 - are too old to have children

4 - have already had children but no longer support them and/or provide an environment for them

If the sole purpose of marriage is to provide a stable protective environment for children, then people in categories 1-3 should not be allowed to get married, and people in category 4 should get divorced or have their marriage dissolved/annulled once their kids move out.

In these instances, marriage has little to NOTHING to do with children. But I still support their right to marry, just as I support the right of two gay people to marry.

You can even call it a civil union if that makes you better.

In this country, being married has economic and social benefits that are completely independent of children. Denying gay people those same rights (taxes, inheritance, visitation in hospitals, etc) is oppression.

And plenty of married people do a shitty job of creating a stable, protective environment for their kids anyway. Over half of them end in divorce, usually before the child is independent.

So the argument that marriage protects the kids is pretty fucking weak.


>BEES have a totally different social structure. You would
>have to study and examine closely their species-specific
>structure to find any deviant activity that goes on within it.
> Odds are, that if there were any activities that some BEES
>would "choose" to take part in, that was antithetical to the
>hives prime objective (to reproduce),

I'll go ahead and throw in once again that being gay is not a choice. And regardless of the prime objective of bees, I personally don't think that the purpose of human existance is to procreate. That is a circular argument, and completely irrational, as I've said in several other posts.


>that that activity would
>lead those BEES involved in it to a path of extinction because
>it is against what they were put on the planet to do.

I don't really think you can seriously say that homosexuality puts the human race on "a path of extinction." Maybe if all people were homosexuals, then maybe you could suggest we might go extinct.

But homosexuality is not, and never will be, something that affects the entire species. So we don't have to worry. Actually, more homosexuals would be good because we're seriously overpopulating the planet.

And as I pointed out elsewhere, there seems to be a link between homosexuality in men and increased fertility in female family members. So basically, having a genetic component of homosexuality makes men much less likely to breed, but it makes their female family members more likely to breed in greater numbers. So it all evens out. I'm not sure about gay women; I haven't seen any similar studies but I wouldn't be surprised to find something similar.


>If some BEES started a movement where they "choose" (there
>goes that word again!) to not pollinate flowers, what
>ramifications does that have across all of nature?

If it was just some bees, but not very many, it probably wouldn't be a big deal. If it was all bees, that would be disastrous, much like it would be disastrous if all people were gay. But is that really something to worry about?

If being gay becomes acceptable and okay, do you think everyone is going to "choose" to be gay? Would you?

I definitely wouldn't, although I didn't "choose" to be straight so it's really a moot point.

And regardless, is that a good reason to hate gay people?

and aint gonna. Should we kill them? Ever heard of adoption? man you guys are hilarious.

So where does that leave me? Is my non-reproductive heterosexual sex better than gay sex?

There's also something about life forms liking to feel good. It's why dudes in jail start banging other dudes and why the Huns, when away from home for long amounts of time, often has sex with one another (or so the story goes). My friend's dog humps pretty much every god damn thing in sight, is he going to hell?

>It's why dudes in jail start banging other dudes and why the
>Huns, when away from home for long amounts of time, often has
>sex with one another (or so the story goes).

Where did you get that?

don't waste too much time with crackas and uncle toms who want to NORMALIZE two men butt fucking. that shit is un-natural and anyone who participates in that behavior have some psychological issues.

It's the same thing for homosexuals.

Telling them to choose to ignore their own sexuality and pretend to be straight? Try ignoring your own sexuality and see how that goes.

I hate hatred and ignorance.

than once that there was a period in his life when he "thought" he was gay. I've heard many gay people say that at some point in their life they were attracted to the opposite sex. Then what about all the people that claim to be bi-sexual and are attracted to both sexes?

Are all these people lying or faking because they weren't "born" straight or gay?

>than once that there was a period in his life when he
>"thought" he was gay.

So he thought he was gay, but later realized he was straight. So?
People can be confused.

How does his confusion contradict the argument?

Did this poster make a choice to be straight, or did he just realize that he was confused and was actually straight all along?


Also, I think a lot of gay people are confused about their sexuality because who would "choose" to live a life filled with hatred, bigotry, and misunderstanding? They don't want to admit what their instincts and biology are telling them. So they may try to be straight, but it doesn't work.


>I've heard many gay people say that at
>some point in their life they were attracted to the opposite
>sex.

Don't know if I believe that. They probably just wanted to be straight because it's so much easier. But deep down they probably knew all along.


>Then what about all the people that claim to be bi-sexual
>and are attracted to both sexes?

I don't know. Some people (gay and straight) claim that bisexality doesn't really exist, and they're just confused.
I don't know what to believe about them; I've never talked to someone who claimed to be bi.
But there's no reason why they couldn't be biologically attracted to both.


>Are all these people lying or faking because they weren't
>"born" straight or gay?

So are you saying you weren't born straight?

Even if some people are lying and faking, it doesn't affect the argument for the other 99% of us.


Again, my point is simply this - if you NEVER made a choice at any point in your life to be heterosexual, what makes you think it's different for homosexuals?

I think this applies to virtually everyone, though there can be people claiming to be exceptions.

what makes it so hard to fathom the idea that people that think are gay might be confused?

>what makes it so hard to fathom the idea that people that
>think are gay might be confused?

All gay people are confused? That's a lot of people.

What makes it so hard for you to fathom that people are born gay?

ALL of them are "born" gay?

Just like you can be born straight and be confused.

People don't always (or even often) have a perfect understanding of their own attractions, desires, etc.


Maybe the confused people, and/or people who claim to have made a choice are just born bi.

I mean, you claim that Sheryl Swoopes "chose" to be gay. That's one example. But it doesn't mean anything for everyone else.


I was born straight. I assume you were too. Almost all gay people will say they were born gay. Why do you think they're lying?

> Almost all gay
>people will say they were born gay.

Should I assume that you've interviewed the majority of the gay population on the planet to arrive at that conclusion?

>> Almost all gay
>>people will say they were born gay.
>
>Should I assume that you've interviewed the majority of the
>gay population on the planet to arrive at that conclusion?

I'm basing it on... every gay person I know, and virtually everything I've read about gay people.

(except for the bullshit agenda kind of stuff that 3x or whatever posted)

nobody knows who was born what so why try and like you know this for a fact. Everyone here is killin me right now.

conslusively proven as scientific fact when that is not the case.

I just don't get why bring "born gay" is so impossible to believe.


And as I said somewhere, even if it is a choice (which it isn't), why shouldn't they deserve equal rights?

I think most believe that if you are born with completely functioning sexual organs then you are "straight" and should engage in sex simply to procreate. Those people believe that our organs our the reason why we engage in sex to begin with (again, procreation). If you're deviating from that purpose then it is for some other reason, but it cant be biological b/c you have properly functioning sexual organs. And, if you used them, they would function or attempt to function in their intended use.

The thing that fucks those people up is that they fuck whenever they want, they can even fuck their own hands, without procreating yet its wrong for a dude to pipe another dude.

Find the full article here:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=2757105


and other quotes from players.


Orlando's Grant Hill, who said he didn't know Amaechi when he was with the Magic, applauded the decision to go public.

"The fact that John has done this, maybe it will give others the comfort or confidence to come out as well, whether they are playing or retiring," Hill said.

LeBron James, however, said he didn't think an openly gay person could survive in the league.

"With teammates you have to be trustworthy, and if you're gay and you're not admitting that you are, then you are not trustworthy," James said. "So that's like the No. 1 thing as teammates -- we all trust each other. You've heard of the in-room, locker room code. What happens in the locker room stays in there. It's a trust factor, honestly. A big trust factor."

Injured Philadelphia Sixers forward Shavlik Randolph acknowledged it's a new situation.

"As long as you don't bring your gayness on me I'm fine," Randolph said. "As far as business-wise, I'm sure I could play with him. But I think it would create a little awkwardness in the locker room."

News that Amaechi had come out surprised some players.

"For real? He's gay for real?" said Philadelphia center Steven Hunter. "Nowadays it's proven that people can live double lives. I watch a lot of TV, so I see a lot of sick perverted stuff about married men running around with gay guys and all types of foolishness."

Even so, Hunter said he would be fine with an openly gay teammate.

"As long as he don't make any advances toward me I'm fine with it," he said. "As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself like a good person, I'd be fine with it."

Orlando's Pat Garrity acknowledged reaction was bound to vary throughout the league.

"They would have teammates that would accept them for being a good person and a good teammate, and there would be people who would give him a hard time about it," he said. "I think that's true if you're playing basketball or in an office job. That's just how the world is right now."



____________________________________
My Space-->http://www.myspace.com/nipseyrussell

R.I.P. Curtis Manning ? - 2006

>"As far as business-wise, I'm sure I could play
>with him. But I think it would create a little awkwardness in
>the locker room."

That's the part that requires editing.

that many of the people in this thread saying that homosexuality is wrong are the same people who are all about "'cism" throughout culture. what really irks me is that some who claim to be all about civil rights decide that gay men don't deserve this same protection.


i'm sure i'll get shitted on for making this post, so preemptively i'll state that i'm neither white nor black...


39-9.
16-7.

nobody.

Just keep your politics to yourself unless we are debating policy.

If someone doesn't favor/ abhors something they are no more wrong or right than someone that supports it.

It's just their opinion which is based off of their perspective- a human one.

If you can't respect that, then you don't respect humanity even if you dont agree.


"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

>If someone doesn't favor/ abhors something they are no more
>wrong or right than someone that supports it.

I abhor murder. Tell me how that's "no more right."

And it certainly depends on the situation. For someone that lives a lifestlye where murder is integral, I can't be mad at them for murdering someone.

If you truly abhor it, do you play violent video games? do you watch television shows or movies with murder involved?

if not, then I can MAYBE see your point. If you do?

FOH.



"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

It's not the same thing as killing.

Killing can be justified (self-defense, war) and thus depends on the situation. But murder cannot.


>lives a lifestlye where murder is integral, I can't be mad at
>them for murdering someone.

I don't even want to imagine a lifestyle where murder is integral. That shit sounds super fucked up. And I can't imagine how it's justified.


>If you truly abhor it, do you play violent video games? do
>you watch television shows or movies with murder involved?
>
>if not, then I can MAYBE see your point. If you do?
>
>FOH.

Because watching fictional accounts of something are just as bad as doing it yourself? That's some shaky reasoning.

>If someone doesn't favor/ abhors something they are no more
>wrong or right than someone that supports it.

I don't favor murder. I don't favor rape.
I don't favor racism. I don't favor gay-bashing.

These are all things that are wrong. There is no "perspective" to it. Some things are just wrong.

But I don't think we need thought police. If you want to hate gays, blacks, Jews, women or whatever, you are free to hold those views.

You just shouldn't use them to actually hurt people.

It shouldn't affect anyone's life, but it does. Gays do not have the same freedoms and rights as straight people - namely, the right to marry the person that they love.

"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

So I guess you believe right and wrong is a purely social construct and there is no universal morality.

If you believe that, good for you.

I happen to find it abhorrent to think that murder and rape aren't universally wrong. It doesn't have to do with cultural norms - those things are just flat out bad, universally.


It should never be okay to murder someone. (note the use of the word "murder" and not the word "kill" - self-defense and war are not murder, though it is killing)


It should never be okay to rape someone. Ever. In any culture or any context. If it's "not that simple" to you then that's fucked up.


The same goes for assaulting someone because of their skin color, religion, sexuality, etc.

rape was a huge part of being able to get knew gene pools started by abduction and rape of not only female but males from other communities.

Murder has a loose definition. If someone were to kick down my door and kill me then live in my home after burying me that's murder.

how different is that from conquest?

is it just because of scale?



"Its a mentality. At some point you gotta just want to want to play the game to win--want to start or revive a legacy." (c) Zorasmoon
http://www.last.fm/user/KwadwoJuma
www.myspace.com/northernarcatl
<----Sista of the month, Ms. Carter.
www.ssbx.org

>rape was a huge part of being able to get knew gene pools
>started by abduction and rape of not only female but males
>from other communities.

The human race would not exist if people didn't commit rape? Early proto-humans would have gone extinct if they hadn't started raping their neighbors? Do you have any support for this theory?


It's okay to rape someone if you're trying to diversify the gene pool? God, I hope no defense attorney wins with that argument.


>Murder has a loose definition. If someone were to kick down
>my door and kill me then live in my home after burying me
>that's murder.

Yes.


>how different is that from conquest?
>is it just because of scale?

When did I say conquest was morally acceptable? I said killing can be justifiable in self-defense or war...

But any war whose sole purpose is genocide and/or conquest is just as wrong as murder. That's not a justifiable war and I would call it "wrong" just like I would murder.

COMPLETELY SEPARATE issues.

to prove that, its a fact.

... you would suddenly be cool with it, and with them getting married?

you've made it clear that's not the case in this very post, with your distinction between innate feelings and choosing to act on them

Is your hatred of gays based on the fact that you think it's a choice?

If (when) it was scientifically proven not to be a choice, would you still hate them?

to me that sounds like hate.

it when they run to me on the street and try to sell me a DVD player for $20. Does that mean I hate crackheads? No, but do think they have a serious problem.

theres a tangible adverse effect if we allowed people to smoke crack (death, crime, etc.). Cant say the same for man on man dick fighting.

>theres a tangible adverse effect if we allowed people to
>smoke crack (death, crime, etc.). Cant say the same for man on
>man dick fighting.

Is it not true that gay men are infected with HIV at an extremely higher rate that heterosexuals?

I dont see your point.

But what does that prove? AIDS was sent by God to punish gay men for their wicked ways?


Prior to AIDS, gay men were much less likely to use protection than straight people, because they don't have to worry about pregnancy. This proves nothing.

anal sex than hetero vaginal sex.

So what the hell is the point?

This means being gay is wrong? There's a disconnect in that logic.

not sayin you're wrong but I never heard of it. two, something being more likely to occur (gay sex and aids) is quite different from something being inevitable (crack heads experiencing health risks, adverse psychological effects). Your analogy is still flawed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=9091805&query_hl=19&itool=pubmed_docsum

HIV transmission is 10x more likely to occur with penile-anal sex than penile-vaginal

which is why i believe god created AIDS to punish heterosexual couples who do anal

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=4&topic_id=3976001&mesg_id=3976001&page=#3976134

Oh wait, they're not, because crackheads have equal rights.
They don't lose the right to marry just because they're crackheads.


Although if they're buying (or selling) crack, stealing things to buy it, or accosting people on the street, they're breaking laws.

These are all things that harm society. Being gay does not.

then there would be someone saying that its a genetic defect and that we'll need a cure to hault its progress or humans we'll cease to exist, equating that outcome with global warming. It wont ever stop regardless of the findings so I'll answer for truth and say no.

Fuck cripples then. They shouldn't be able to vote, marry, or exist.

People who are sterile? Nope, can't marry.

It goes on and on.


Note - I am NOT saying that people aren't born gay. I'm saying that regardless of your stance on biology/choice - gays are still people deserving of equal rights and equal treatment. Just like people who are crippled, sterile, etc.


(and no, I don't mean to equate being gay with being crippled or sterile either, those are just "unnatural" examples for this dude)

I thought this was a sports board, how the hell did it end up as a post discussing the same ole tired debate of nature v. nurture. Fact is, and no one can argue this point, is that we dont know what causes someone to be attracted to their same sex. Does that mean we bash them or make fun of them? Naw, live and let live. Why should what someone does behind closed doors or opened doors bother you when they're not impeding upon you're right to exist freely.

Bottom line is, none of yall know shit about what causes anything whether you're against gay rights or for them, so shutup and get back to sports. Im done.

Ask Lou how he feels about gun control. There's an automatic 100 reply increase in whatever post you are in.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

but this jawn went overboard.

n/m

I must just not care about this issue very much. I see it pointless to argue it, almost like its pointless to argue about the existence of an intelligent creator. Science hasnt disproved it, believers definitely cant prove it, so its all about personal belief. I saw where yall took issue with those who use religion as a way to wage war, and thats true. Thing is, they prolly arent true believers, I really dont see how they could be. So instead of bashing the religion as a whole and saying God doesnt exist, say, you're using said belief in a God for negative pruposes that actually go against your religions cemented elements (love thy neighbor, etc.).

Bottom line is, no one can prove anything, lets discuss this in activist or GD. On that note, UNC is gonna win the NCAA's, fucka Duke.

Imagine your typical group of sports fans debating homosexuality:

"Fuck those fags!!!"
"Yeah!"
"Yeah fuck 'em!"
"Yeah dude, you're right!"
"I'm not playing with those fags!"

I'm sure being online and not in person has a lot to do with it, but at least we are trying to have a discussion here among sports fans.


-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

it just seems that cats get real emotional on here, like if they win their argument they win in life or some shit. Like, you havent proven anything, so either do some experiments or just chill. If you're clownin someone on some "you suck cause you're a lakers fan" then thats one thing.

>it just seems that cats get real emotional on here, like if
>they win their argument they win in life or some shit. Like,
>you havent proven anything, so either do some experiments or
>just chill. If you're clownin someone on some "you suck cause
>you're a lakers fan" then thats one thing.


I actually stepped in and ended a debate betwen two people once because they were just trying to win the argument and didn't care what they were saying. They were arguing about which was stupider, rap music or country music.

So I'm sitting here listening to both sides make shit up and say stuff that was just plain wrong, so I said "Listen, this is why politics are so fucked in our country now. No debates that we have are ever about reaching a positive conclusion, it's just about winning. So instead of coming to conclusions such as how we eliminate negative images and lyrics from both rap and country music, or giving them both fair amounts of negative and positive coverage in the media, we just have two people with a bunch of misconceptions who are pissed off at each other."

And you know, for once that actually worked. I'm not real hopeful for messageboards, though.

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

edit: the Shavlik Randolph shits been posted. I got to start reading what everyone else says before I post.

Are straight people worried some dude is going to make a move and they will make a mistake and fall for it? Or somehow a dick is going to end up in their mouth when their not looking? I mean if a dude steps to you and you let him know that's not the way you roll, 99.9% of the time it's going to stop right there. I mean I find sex with a fat chick pretty disgusting too but I don't hate the simple fact they exist. Sorry, but I've just never understood the anti-gay mindset. Y'all seem to put way more thought and energy into thinking about gay people than I do.

the nurture theorists want it to be a choice/psychological defect/ not genetic b/c then they wont have to embrace something that bothers them either because of their religous beliefs, their own comfort zone or some other reason (maybe their own supressed feelings) and the natural theorists want it to be genetic so that they can gain acceptance (the belief is that most be people are fair minded and if they find out that one did not choose to become the way they are or cant do anything about it because its natural as blinking your eye then we should allow them all of the rights that we enjoy). Thats the debate, but no one has proved shit either way, so until then chill out.

People choose to do all types of shit I wouldn't do. What consenting adults want to do to each other just doesn't matter to me. Outside of their sexual practices, I don't find much difference between gay and straight people. There's much more at work here than just what someone decides to do sexually. Adultery is mentioned as a sin in the bible more often than homosexuality. But I doubt anyone here would cut one of their boys off because he cheated on his wife.

but they dont, and so, fuck it.

person and God. Its none of my business. Where I have a problem is when it goes beyond what happens behind closed doors and we are expected to "accept" it as normal and "rights" are demanded.

>person and God. Its none of my business. Where I have a
>problem is when it goes beyond what happens behind closed
>doors and we are expected to "accept" it as normal and

You don't have to accept it as normal. No one cares what goes on in your head.


>"rights" are demanded.

Well fuck, why shouldn't they have the same rights as everyone else? Of course they want equal rights. Who doesn't?

But I certainly don't hold that against them. They may annoy me a bit, even most gay people I've met annoy me, but I repsect that it's their life and I can't tell them what to do. And I when I see Goth people I don't feel threatened that they are going to force me to like their music, just like I don't feel gay people are going to force me to like men.

And in no way should gay people receive any special rights. But they certainly shouldn't be denied any rights that straight people have. They should be able to marry the person they love, and they should be protected by laws against discrimination the same way non-whites, women, and handicapped people are, for example.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>person and God. Its none of my business. Where I have a
>problem is when it goes beyond what happens behind closed
>doors and we are expected to "accept" it as normal and
>"rights" are demanded.

why are you so offended at it being considered normal?

why doesnt that other *human-fucking-being* deserve rights?

does this choice (ill grant the choice defense because it makes your position even more ridiculous) harm you or anyone else? if so, enough to deny them rights?

History shows very bad things happen when people start trying to make laws based what is and isn't normal.

That fool use to request a kettle of Earl Gray tea (hot) by the bench. He'd drink that instead of water. He was such a nice guy that even when his team was visiting other arenas they would get him his Earl Gray tea.

They said he would slam 5 cups of Earl Gray tea before tip off - while on the BENCH. It use to annoy Jerry Sloan. He was slammin' Earl Gray man!!!!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm going to post happy and hard.

No Earl Grey tea isn't gay but having kettles of it by the bench during a game is silly, don't you think?

I mean damn, I love green tea but I wouldn't have asked for kettles of it in the dugout when I was playing ball in college.

That's all I meant.

Although I can easily understand the confusion.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

>Although I can easily understand the confusion.

"For real? He's gay for real?" said Philadelphia center Steven Hunter. "Nowadays it's proven that people can live double lives. I watch a lot of TV, so I see a lot of sick perverted stuff about married men running around with gay guys and all types of foolishness."

^^^^I think this one is a much more entertaining comment^^^^^

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002340883_gayscience19m.html

Born gay? How biology may drive orientation

By Sandi Doughton

Seattle Times science reporter

MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Vincent Healy, a Ballard house appraiser, is gay and has an older brother who also is gay. About 3 percent of American men and 1.5 percent of women describe themselves as gay or bisexual. Those percentages are three to five times higher among people who have a gay brother or sister.


As the culture wars rage over gay rights, a flock of sheep at Oregon State University may help answer a key question behind the controversy: Is homosexuality a matter of choice or biology?

The Corvallis herd includes a group of rams that scientists delicately refer to as "male-oriented." These animals consistently ignore females and bestow all their amorous attentions on members of their own sex.

Researcher Charles Roselli says a decade of study suggests sexual orientation is largely hard-wired into the sheep's brains before birth. Now, he's trying to figure out how that happens, zeroing in on genes and hormones. In a bold test of his ideas, he hopes to engineer the birth of gay rams by altering conditions in the womb.

Sheep aren't people, but the Oregon work adds to a growing body of research that bolsters biological explanations for sexual orientation across species — including humans.

Despite those scientific findings, some religious groups say homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be treated, if not prevented. One such group, the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family, is sponsoring a one-day conference in Bothell Saturday.

The social and political implications of the research are impossible to ignore, leading to unease on both sides of the gay-rights debate. If science proves homosexuality is innate, is there any basis to deny gays equal treatment — including the right to marry? But if scientists unravel the roots of sexual orientation, will it some day be possible to "fix" people who don't fit the norms or abort fetuses likely to be born gay?

Much of the cutting-edge research is being conducted in other countries, because the political pressure cooker in the United States makes it difficult for scientists to get money, said Brian Mustanski, who juggles studies of the genetics of homosexuality with his main work on HIV prevention at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

But controversy can't obscure the facts, he said.

"It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation."

Austrian scientists reported this month that switching a single gene was enough to make female fruit flies rebuff males and attempt to mate with other females. Swedish researchers recently found the sexual center of gay men's brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat, but didn't respond to a chemical from women.

And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females.

That the evidence comes from such disparate directions leads scientists to suspect several different biological pathways may lead to homosexuality. Both genes and hormones appear to be important. Nor do researchers discount the possibility that social factors may play a role.

"I tend not to be a nature-versus-nurture kind of dichotomist," said Roselli, of the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine in Portland. "I think there's probably a very complex interaction that's going on between both biology and the environment that is involved in determining these types of behaviors."

"Shy breeders"

Gay sheep may show

whether neurohormones

fix sexual identity

Though they don't talk about it much, ranchers have long known that about 8 percent of rams never father offspring because they only have eyes for other males. Australian sheepherders call them "shy breeders," Roselli said.

Upbringing doesn't seem to make a difference. Domestication and captivity aren't responsible, because rams with same-sex proclivities occur in the wild.

Roselli's rams come from the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in eastern Idaho, where federal researchers keep a herd of 3,000 to study genetics, breeding and grazing impacts.

They've also been quietly looking into sexual orientation, a subject so touchy the lab's U.S. Department of Agriculture boss won't allow his staff to discuss it with the press.

Roselli and his colleagues at OSU are using the gay rams to test what is called the neurohormonal theory of sexual development: that hormones from a developing fetus fix its sexual identity by orchestrating brain organization. Too much or too little of these powerful chemicals, or shifts in timing, may lead to homosexuality, the theory predicts.

Last year, Roselli found that a brain region linked with sexual behavior was twice as big in heterosexual as homosexual rams. The difference seems to exist even before birth, he said. The gay rams also had lower brain levels of an enzyme that activates testosterone and promotes typical male sexual behavior.

A 1991 study reported similar differences in the brains of gay and heterosexual men, but the findings haven't been confirmed. Human brain studies are problematic for another reason: Brain structures can guide behavior, but behavior also can cause brain structures to enlarge or shrink, making it difficult to say which comes first.

So in addition to brain studies, Roselli is waiting for a group of lambs born last spring to reach sexual maturity. Their mothers were dosed with drugs to block the action of male hormones in the fetuses. If Roselli's hypothesis is correct, rams born of this experiment will be disproportionately gay.


"I just knew"

Studies indicate

sexual orientation is

set very early in life

Hormones have long been suspect in homosexuality. Doctors used to treat gay men with testosterone injections, until it became clear adult homosexuals don't have blood hormone levels that differ significantly from heterosexuals.

But rats, hamsters, ferrets and other lab animals flip-flop their sexual behavior when scientists manipulate the hormones they're exposed to before birth. Such experiments would be unethical in people, but some rare medical conditions offer human parallels.

A high proportion of girls with a disorder that causes them to secrete male hormones before birth grow up to be lesbian. About 40 case studies have shown boys who are surgically altered and raised as girls because of genital deformities are overwhelmingly attracted to females once they reach puberty — indicating sexual orientation is determined very early in life and is difficult to alter.

That view is supported by a series of studies in the 1980s that found nearly 75 percent of young boys who dress up like girls, play with dolls and consistently choose stereotypical female pursuits will grow up to be gay. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern is found in girls who prefer trucks over tea sets.

Still, most gay people don't have gender-bending childhoods. As in heterosexuals, the majority say they became aware of their orientation at puberty.

"I just knew," said Seattle attorney Andrew Kamins, who is gay. "It's as simple as that."

Those who argue homosexuality is a choice haven't been able to dispute that fundamental point, said Michigan State University neuroscientist Marc Breedlove.

"If you're going to say people choose a sexual orientation when they reach puberty, you're going to have to find some people who remember making that choice, and there aren't any," he said. "The evidence is starting to look pretty good that hormones early in life influence the probability of who you will be attracted to 10 years later, when people start to get their first crushes," he said.


The hand test

Can the length of

one's fingers suggest

sexual orientation?

Breedlove found support for the neurohormonal theory by photocopying hands at gay street fairs.

In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure.

Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function.

"Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women," Breedlove said. "This can't be a fluke."

Patterns aren't as clear in gay men, with some hints they may be exposed to either less or more testosterone before birth.

All of the neurohormonal studies also leave a major puzzle unanswered: If hormones shape the brain and the brain directs behavior, what is controlling the hormone levels in the first place?


Slam-dunk proof?

Twin studies provide evidence that homosexuality runs in the family

When Vince Healy finally came out as gay, his disapproving Catholic family was familiar with the story. His older brother had been living with a man for several years. It didn't make things any easier, the 45-year-old Ballard man recalled.

"I was very unhappy at the prospect of being gay," he said. "I kept thinking: I must be a late bloomer."

As the youngest of three brothers, one of whom is straight, Healy illustrates the two most robust findings in the science of homosexuality: It runs in families, and the number of older brothers a man has can increase his chances of being gay.

About 3 percent of American men and 1.5 percent of women describe themselves as gay or bisexual, according to the National Institutes of Health. Those percentages are three to five times higher among people who have a gay brother or sister.

Of course, family dynamics might be the reason, not biology.

What scientists call slam-dunk proof that genes are part of the equation comes from twin studies.

Genetically influenced traits are more likely to be shared among the closest relatives, and that pattern holds for homosexuality.

For fraternal male twins, the gay-gay concordance rate is about 22 percent. For identical twins, it's 52 percent.

Based on those results, scientists conservatively estimate homosexuality is about 40 percent due to genes, said Alan Sanders, director of behavior genetics at Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute in Illinois.

But genes clearly are not the only factor, or identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation.

"That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders, who is leading a five-year, $2.5 million project for the National Institutes of Health to try to identify the genes involved.

Earlier research has pointed to several possible gene regions, but those studies were small and not definitive. With DNA from 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, Sanders' project will be much more powerful.

It's very unlikely to uncover a single "gay" gene, he said. As in most complex traits, multiple genes and environmental factors probably work together.

So far, scientists can only speculate how genes linked with sexual orientation might work. Perhaps they dictate the size of brain structures, which in turn regulate hormones before birth. Perhaps genes directly adjust prenatal hormone levels, or merely predispose people to a gay orientation.

Environmental factors could be exclusively biological, like chemical exposure or infection. One theory, backed by some evidence in rats, is that the chemical and hormonal milieu of the developing fetus can be disrupted when pregnant mothers are stressed.

Social factors may ultimately prove to play a role as well, Sanders said.

None of the psychosocial theories for homosexuality have panned out so far, including Freud's distant-father/domineering-mother dynamic.

"There have been psychological and social explanations for homosexuality for 100 years, and they haven't come up with anything concrete," said Ray Blanchard, head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

A few studies suggest a higher rate of childhood sexual abuse in gays and lesbians, though there's no evidence such experiences trigger homosexuality, said Mustanski, the University of Illinois geneticist.


Fraternal birth order

The number of older

brothers may affect your

chances of being gay

Blanchard's work on gay brothers offers an alternative explanation so odd he originally dismissed it as "obviously bogus."

But when he looked into scattered reports that many gay men have older brothers, he was astounded. The findings now have been confirmed by more than a dozen studies, including several of his own: Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. Blanchard estimates one out of every seven gay men owes his orientation to this "fraternal birth order" effect.

It's possible to argue for social explanations — bullying by big brothers, indulgent mothers. But Blanchard believes it's biology. Gay males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older brothers, hinting that something different is happening to them in the womb.

A possible explanation lies in the mother's immune system, which can be activated by cells from a male fetus.

For first sons, the effect would be slight. But subsequent boys could cause the immune response to ramp up until it somehow affects a baby's sexual orientation.

The idea is feasible, Blanchard cautioned, but still unproven.

Not all gay men have older brothers. Not all lesbians have short ring fingers. For some people, genes may be the dominant factor in sexual orientation. For others, it could be hormones. Just as sexual orientation spans a spectrum, scientists suspect there may be a range of mechanisms to explain it.

Over the next few years, scientists will begin to fit the divergent lines of evidence into a comprehensive picture of the way sexual orientation arises in both gays and heterosexuals, Mustanski predicts.

"We have these converging lines of evidence that are pointing to the importance of biology. Now we have to connect the dots."

Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com

you havent done your research b/c theres this type of bullshit on both sides.

You see how this can go on forever, just agree that no one knows shit and fall back.

http://www.narth.com/docs/istheregene.html

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ­ from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.


How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.


Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.


Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}


Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}


More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.


Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.


Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.


How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.


What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.


Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.


With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

but this jawn actually is kinda changing my belief a lil bit. I always assumed it was genetic but now I dont know.

did you even read his article? It's clearly not claiming the existence of a "gay gene." Here are some direct quotes:

"Based on those results, scientists conservatively estimate homosexuality is about 40 percent due to genes"

"It's very unlikely to uncover a single "gay" gene, he said. As in most complex traits, multiple genes and environmental factors probably work together."

"That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders"

The problem is fools (you're not a fool, are you? (c) hibachi) set up a false dichotomy between strict genetics and some gay dude sashaying in front of you and turning you gay. Hormonal balances in utero play a huge role, as virtually McDeez's entire story pointed out.

"Environmental factors could be exclusively biological, like chemical exposure or infection. One theory, backed by some evidence in rats, is that the chemical and hormonal milieu of the developing fetus can be disrupted when pregnant mothers are stressed.

Social factors may ultimately prove to play a role as well, Sanders said.

None of the psychosocial theories for homosexuality have panned out so far, including Freud's distant-father/domineering-mother dynamic.
"

^^^^^^ MAJOR POINT

I dont really care one way or the other.

first article: homosexuality has a clear genetic component, but there is strong evidence that hormonal levels in utero may play an equal or bigger role (i.e. they're born with it). There is currently no evidence for psychosocial causes (i.e. it's a choice).

second article: author thinks if something is not strictly genetic, you are not born with it (and so it must be a choice). He seems unaware of a 9 month period between conception and birth.

I just read the articles. But I dunno, everytime I see something supportin my theory I see:

http://www.answers.com/topic/biology-and-sexual-orientation

http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14222

http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/06_0712/stories/born_gay.pdf


http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html



http://www.narth.com/docs/detect.html


I gotta get outta this post, this the last time yall gonna hear from me on this issue. Cats need to just relax on gay folks regardless and allow em to live.

>http://www.answers.com/topic/biology-and-sexual-orientation
"Most scientists agree that it is unlikely that there is a single "gay gene" that determines something as complex as sexual orientation, and that it is more likely to be the result of a number of biological factors. Some scientists have suggested that either genes or hormones are the key factor, and many have suggested that both play a role.

Many also agree that social and environmental factors intersect with biology to produce sexual orientation, while many strongly believe that sexual orientation is purely biological and inborn. The view that post-natal environmental influence is the sole determinant of sexual orientation and gender is increasingly rare among researchers, as the Pulitzer prize-winning science author Matt Ridley recently summed it up "Nobody in science now believes that sexual orientation is caused by events in adolescence"."

^^^^ yep

>http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=14222
^^^^ again, confuses "no gay gene" with "not born gay". WE GESTATE FOR 9 MONTHS, SOME PRETTY IMPORTANT NON-GENETIC SHIT HAPPENS BEFORE WE'RE BORN. Idiots

>http://www.thetaskforce.org/TF_in_news/06_0712/stories/born_gay.pdf
see above. "born gay" does not necessarily mean "100% genetic". More idiots.

>http://www.narth.com/docs/animalmyth.html
this was fun to read. Plea copping extravaganza. Animals are often gay. Cry about about it.

>http://www.narth.com/docs/detect.html
"The study shows that males in opposite-sex twin pairs are twice as likely to have SSA as expected -- which is almost certainly a social effect."

Oh really? "Almost certainly?" I guess it would be asking too much for them to back up this statement.

It applies to basically how many of your non-visual genes are exhibited.....being gay is just included in that spectrum.

yes, and "being born with it" is perfectly consistent with that viewpoint, since evidence cites the uterus as the most important environment that influences sexual orientation.

and just adding to it lol.

that people are "born" gay, even though it has yet to be scientifically proven as fact, its something they have to cling onto for dear life because without it they don't have a leg to stand on.

But you can't scientifically prove that you're straight, either.

Besides, I've said elsewhere in the post that regardless of whether it's innate or a choice - though I honestly can't believe that people cling to the idea that's it's a choice - gay people still deserve equal rights and equal treatment.

Regardless of anything else, they are still human beings and deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Any sound argument for why they don't deserve equal rights?

Besides "it's unnatural" and "they can't have kids", because neither of those things has anything to do with whether someone deserves equal rights.


PS I'd still like to hear one of these anti-gay posters describe the moment when they chose to be straight.

nice try, though.

why are you side stepping the equal rights thing? because you dont have a sound argument for that defense? whether or not it has been "proved" scientifically is completely irrelevant to the importance of the rights issue. don't you go to law school? i swore i saw a post where you said you did. don't they make you guys take a logic class or something? you sitting here trying to hand people plates of red herring.

But I have just as much (more actually, but let's not belabor the point) evidence as you do. Neither one of us can conclusively "prove" anything.


Like I said, you can't scientifically prove that you're straight... so maybe you're not.

If you believe that all gay people are actually straight and have chosen to act gay because it's fun... where's YOUR proof?

You don't even have evidence! Which is at least a step in that direction.


And you still won't address the issue of equal rights - choice or not - why don't they deserve equal rights?


And you also still haven't described the moment when you chose to be straight.

to be attracted opposite sex. I believe that I was born that way as most people are. I also believe that it IS possible that a very small percentage of people are actually born genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex. However I also believe that most people that are "gay" or claim to be so were not neccessarily born with that genetic pre-disposition.

I know the next question is "why would someone CHOOSE to be gay and to be ridiculed, hated, persecuted, etc...". Personally I think homosexuality is a combination of psycological issues stemming from mental illness and self-hatred.

>to be attracted opposite sex. I believe that I was born that
>way as most people are. I also believe that it IS possible
>that a very small percentage of people are actually born
>genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex.
>However I also believe that most people that are "gay" or
>claim to be so were not neccessarily born with that genetic
>pre-disposition.

So if you admit there is a genetic/biological component, why is it just for just some gay people?

And if it's partly biological, even for just some gay people, why is it unnatural and wrong?


>I know the next question is "why would someone CHOOSE to be
>gay and to be ridiculed, hated, persecuted, etc...".
>Personally I think homosexuality is a combination of
>psycological issues stemming from mental illness and
>self-hatred.

Interesting but unfounded.

But hypothetically, if it were a mental illness, why shouldn't they have equal rights?

We don't take away equal rights from people who are clinically depressed, or have personality disorders.

>>to be attracted opposite sex. I believe that I was born
>that
>>way as most people are. I also believe that it IS possible
>>that a very small percentage of people are actually born
>>genetically pre-disposed to be attracted to the same sex.
>>However I also believe that most people that are "gay" or
>>claim to be so were not neccessarily born with that genetic
>>pre-disposition.
>
>So if you admit there is a genetic/biological component, why
>is it just for just some gay people?

I said I believe its POSSIBLE. And I addressed below what I believe the real causes of homosexuality are.

>And if it's partly biological, even for just some gay people,
>why is it unnatural and wrong?

I believe its a biological DEFECT. How do you feeling about conjoined twins? Just because they were BORN that way is it "natural"?

>>I know the next question is "why would someone CHOOSE to be
>>gay and to be ridiculed, hated, persecuted, etc...".
>>Personally I think homosexuality is a combination of
>>psycological issues stemming from mental illness and
>>self-hatred.
>
>Interesting but unfounded.
>
>But hypothetically, if it were a mental illness, why shouldn't
>they have equal rights?
>
>We don't take away equal rights from people who are clinically
>depressed, or have personality disorders.

No but some people that have mental disorders don't neccessarily have "equal rights" either. Believe it or not there are some states where they are not allowed to marry either.

>>And if it's partly biological, even for just some gay
>people,
>>why is it unnatural and wrong?
>
>I believe its a biological DEFECT. How do you feeling about
>conjoined twins? Just because they were BORN that way is it
>"natural"?

"Natural" is defined as what, exactly? Occurring in nature? Then yes, conjoined twins are natural.

It's not a good thing, certainly. There are definte health risks and impairments.

But there are none with homosexuality.
(And a higher risk of AIDS is not a health risk in the same way as being a conjoined twin is)


>>But hypothetically, if it were a mental illness, why
>shouldn't
>>they have equal rights?
>>
>>We don't take away equal rights from people who are
>clinically
>>depressed, or have personality disorders.
>
>No but some people that have mental disorders don't
>neccessarily have "equal rights" either. Believe it or not
>there are some states where they are not allowed to marry
>either.

True, but the people with a mental disorder that don't have equal rights usually have very severe mental problems.

It's not like they're just depressed, OCD, or some other personality disorder.

We're talking about seriously ill people who need constant treatment and supervision. I don't think homosexuality is even remotely similar.

>True, but the people with a mental disorder that don't have
>equal rights usually have very severe mental problems.
>
>It's not like they're just depressed, OCD, or some other
>personality disorder.
>
>We're talking about seriously ill people who need constant
>treatment and supervision. I don't think homosexuality is even
>remotely similar.

Actually there are people with various forms and levels of mental retardation including Downs syndrome but are capable of living independently as adults but in some states they are not allow to marry. Its actually a very hotly debated issue.

>Actually there are people with various forms and levels of
>mental retardation including Downs syndrome but are capable of
>living independently as adults but in some states they are not
>allow to marry. Its actually a very hotly debated issue.

Well, Down's syndrome isn't really a mental illness (which you said homsexuality was) so much as mental retardation... which is a whole 'nother issue.

With mental retardation, two questions arise immediately:

1- Can mentally retarded people consent to sex? Do we consider them consenting adults?

Children can't consent, and a lot of mentally retarded people are still at the developmental level of children.

Plus, most people think of Down's people marrying each other. But if we consider them capable of consent, non-retarded people could pursue them sexually.

I don't think they're capable of sexual consent. I don't think anyone wants healthy people having sex with people with Down's, even if they're old enough to be "adults". It's abusive.


2- Most types of mental retardation are directly genetic (though Down's people are sterile IIRC). Retarded people have retarded children. Especially if they're having children with each other. This is bad.



Neither issue comes into play with homosexuality in the slightest.

1- Two unrelated, homosexual men or women can consent to sex with each other.

2- Homosexuality does not lead to retarded or impaired children.

So mental retardation is a totally separate subject.

>With mental retardation, two questions arise immediately:
>
>1- Can mentally retarded people consent to sex? Do we consider
>them consenting adults?

I guess I never thought about it.

Wait, so what does the consent status of mentally retarded people have to do with homosexuality again?

Let me see if I follow:
- you believe homosexuality is a mental illness
- people with mental retardation are similar
- people with mental retardation can't marry in some states because we're not sure whether they are capable of consent

So homosexuals shouldn't marry because they are not capable of consent... because their brains are too mixed up?

I'm not trying to be cute, I'm just trying to follow the logic.

There is no scientific proof that people are born gay, just like there is no proof people choose to be gay. Honestly, I don't see there ever being irrefutable proof either way.

If this is the case, is it fair to say, "Well, while we wait for someone to find scientific proof, let's just go ahead and assume that people are gay by choice?"

No, it's not. The fact is we don't know. We can argue what we believe is true, but we can't make decisions, laws, policies, etc. based merely on our beliefs and without facts.

And even if there was ever conclusive studies that said without a doubt being gay is a choice and not by nature, is that really a means for taking away the rights of gay people? Let's not get it twisted, allowing gay people to marry and protecting them from discrimination is not a case of giving them extra rights that other people don't have. But not allowing them to marry, or not protecting them from discrimination, is blatantly TAKING AWAY rights that belong to them.

You may find the shit disgusting, as do I, but it is by no means a reason to attack a group of people who, by choosing a different lifestyle from the norm, do no harm whatsoever to anyone. Our population is still growing, AIDS is still being spread by people both homosexual and heterosexual, and, contrary to waht you may believe, gay people are not going around forcing straight people to be gay.

did you have a point?

brothers can produce a retarded child. Why shouldn't they be allow to get married?

I'll repeat what I said in the other post:

PART ONE
______________________________________
Disapproving of incest isn't hateful. It's protective.

People shouldn't have sexual feelings towards members of their own FAMILY. Period.

It has nothing to do with having sexual feelings for an entire gender, regardless of which gender that may be.

______________________________________
PART TWO

A brief explanation of what I mean by protective:

Are you going to tell someone who wants to fuck their own family member, "It's cool to have sexual feelings towards your own family, just wait until your son/daughter/brother/sister/niece/nephew turns 18."

No. That's never okay. People should feel safe and non-sexual towards their own family.

Family involves complicated inter-personal dynamics, and introducing sex into that equation is just fucked up.

No matter how old someone is, there is a complicated power relationship between that person and his/her family members.

Incest opens the door for coercive, abusive relationships.

Banning incest prevents someone from having sex with a small subset of people that they are connected to - biologically, socially, and emotionally.

Banning homosexuality prevents someone from having sex with an entire gender.


There is absolutely no reasonable way to equate the two.

That is why we have a judicial branch in this country, and why we elect our leaders. We can come to commonsense conclusions about what is legal and what is not, and what hurts us and what does not.

I'm still interested, though, in how you would answer what I have asked above. If gayness was proven without a doubt to be a choice, would that justify taking away rights that they already have? Is thinking something is disgusting and unnatural a good reason to discriminate against someone?

From my reply, #193:

>Before you even try the whole "two consenting adults" argument
>I need you to define what exactly a "consenting adult" is.


This is a pointless thing to do. You are never ever going to have an exact definition of a "consenting adult" that covers every applicable scenario. That is why we have a judicial system to interpret laws. The courts haven't come up with that exact definition, but they've set precedents for what it isn't. For example, it's not:

a. your dog
b. your brother
c. that 14-year-old girl next door
d. someone emphatically screaming "NO!"
etc.

This is how we have created laws against the previously listed offenses. Luckily we have had people in this country who were intellectually up to the task of coming to these conclusions, otherwise rape would be legal in the US (you know, considering we're all too stupid to know the difference between someone saying yes and someone saying no).

Becuase either:

a) you aren't reading my replies
or
b) if you actually read what i wrote, and you're still not able to derive what my answer is, then i guess this isn't going anywhere



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

doggie. you really asking these stupid questions? ya cause you know whats next dudes marrying their dogs? man oh man.

I dont get it. you;re one of those dummies that will say "whats to stop a person from marrying their dog?" you're hilarious man. thanks for replying to me a week later btw.

seriously what does incest have to do with 2 gay people wanting to be together? nothing. incest is wrong, most people agree with this. Having sexualy feelings towards the same gender has nothing to do with incest. if you cannot understand this you need to go back to school. you are seriously retarded.

> incest is wrong, most people
>agree with this.

believe it or not most people think homosexuality is wrong too.

than incest. man I can't believe you numbnuts are comparing incest to gayness. this is hilarious.

of the same sex wrong?

being legalized. you're right. so right. whats next dudes marrying snakes? bears? lizards? I can see it. you win.

I know plenty of gay people though. theres a big difference. but thanks for not answering my question! lol!

The only people who support incest are practitioners (or would like to be).

Lots of straight people support homosexuality, because it doesn't hurt anyone.


And for the record, to my knowledge the Amish don't allow "incest" in the sense of immediate family members (parents, siblings, uncles, nieces). They probably just allow cousins and such... which I don't agree with, but it's legal in some states.

The reason the Amish have problems is that it's such a tight community that you've got cousins marrying cousins, and then their kids marrying cousins... etc. It's totally isolated.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/columns/fl.grossman.incest.04.09/

FindLaw Forum: A genetic report should cause a rethinking of incest laws

By Joanna L. Grossman
FindLaw Columnist
Special to CNN.com

April 10, 2002 Posted: 2:51 p.m. EDT (1851 GMT)


(FindLaw) -- Jerry Lee Lewis is notorious for having married his cousin. So are Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. All three suffered for having violated a widely held social norm against "incestuous" unions. Yet there may be less reason for this norm, and for the laws enforcing it, than was once believed.

A panoply of state laws say cousin marriages are taboo. But a new report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, described in the New York Times last week, might send state lawmakers back to work revising their incest laws.

The report concludes that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Accordingly, the report potentially undermines the primary justification for laws that prevent first cousins from marrying or engaging in sexual relations with one another.

The laws regulating incest in different states
Incest in this country is regulated through two parallel sets of laws: marriage regulations and criminal prohibitions. Marriage laws prohibit unions of parties within certain relationships of consanguinity (by blood) or affinity (by marriage). They declare such marriages void from the start.

Criminal laws prohibit marriage and sexual relationships based on the same ties (with the necessary consanguinity and affinity usually defined the same way as in the marriage laws). They penalize those who disobey with fines or imprisonment.

Every state today has a statute defining eligibility for marriage, and each and every one prohibits marriages between parents and children, sisters and brothers, uncles and nieces, and aunts and nephews. Some prohibit all ancestor/descendant marriages, regardless of degree. Four states extend the prohibition to marriages between parents and their adopted children.

Twenty-four states prohibit marriages between first cousins, and another seven permit them only under special circumstances. Utah, for example, permits first cousins to marry only provided both spouses are over age 65, or at least 55 with evidence of sterility. North Carolina permits first cousins to marry unless they are "double first cousins" (cousins through more than one line). Maine permits first cousins to marry only upon presentation of a certificate of genetic counseling. The remaining nineteen states and the District of Columbia permit first-cousin marriages without restriction.

The origins of incest laws
Incest laws in this country have largely religious origins. In England, incest was punishable only in ecclesiastical courts, which ostensibly applied the law of Leviticus prohibiting persons more closely related than fourth cousins to marry. This ban applied equally to relations by blood and by marriage, based on the canonical maxim that husband and wife were one, and therefore equally related to each other's kin.

American jurisdictions departed from English law by declaring incest a crime, as well as a basis for invalidating marriage. However, many states only punished relationships between first cousins and closer, and others only punished relationships of consanguinity, but not affinity.

The modern justifications for incest laws
Today, the justifications given for retaining statutory prohibitions on cousin marriage (and even debating the passage of new ones) are largely based on the fear that such unions will cause genetic problems for the children they produce.

The states that permit cousin marriage only under certain circumstances make this underlying justification clear - since a common thread runs through all their laws. Each requires a showing that the couple will not reproduce (because of age or sterility) or, at the very least, that they have undergone counseling to understand the risks of reproduction.

There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."

According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."

Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.

Possible constitutional challenges to incest laws
Will the new data -- which strongly suggest, for cousins, that the genetic justification does not hold water -- mean that state prohibitions on cousin-marriages are vulnerable to constitutional attack? Certainly, the new data dramatically strengthen the basis for such an attack.

The Supreme Court, in a long line of due process cases establishing the right to make important decisions about family life, has treated the right to marry as fundamental. State laws that significantly interfere with the right to marry have, therefore, been subjected to heightened scrutiny. In other words, states must show that they have a compelling reason for restricting the right to marriage, and that they have chosen means that are closely related to their stated goals.

What will the states assert as the "compelling interests" that justify banning cousin marriage? One might be the desire to discourage reproduction when the children are likely to have significant birth defects. Another might be the desire to preserve intrafamily harmony. (The desire to replicate Levitical law would, of course, not be a legitimate interest for a state, given the Constitution's ban on state establishment of religion). These ends are probably sufficiently compelling under a constitutional analysis.

The problem comes in another component of the constitutional analysis -- the "narrow tailoring" requirement, which tests the closeness of the relationship between the state's chosen means and its desired ends. According to the recent report, children of unrelated parents have a 3 percent to 4 percent chance of being born with a serious birth defect. Children of first cousins have only a slighter higher risk--roughly a 4 percent to 7 percent chance. Thus, the ban on cousin marriages will not go very far toward the general problem of preventing birth defects.

Likewise, the concerns about intrafamily harmony are most compelling with respect to members of the same household, and thus seldom implicated in our culture, where it is fairly unusual for first cousins to grow up in close confines. The potential for family disruption is limited where cousins grow up in separate households and then marry as adults. A few courts have applied this reasoning to invalidate incest laws with respect to couples with no blood relation, like a step-sister and step-brother who became related only as adults when their parents married.

The prohibition of cousin marriages suffers from problems of both under- and over-inclusiveness--flaws that are usually fatal to a statute under heightened scrutiny. These bans are underinclusive in that they do not prohibit marriage in other cases where the risk of producing children with birth defects is significant. Carriers of diseases like cystic fibrosis, for example, are permitted to marry and reproduce with other carriers, even though resulting children have a one in four chance of developing the disease. For most individuals, the decision whether to marry and reproduce in the face of known risks to resulting children is left to their discretion.

The bans are over-inclusive to they extent they prevent marriage for the 93 percent of cousin-couples who will not have children with birth defects. Genetic testing may even allow those couples to prove that they do not carry any of the recessive genes known to become dangerous when doubled. Nonetheless, the broad-sweeping bans on cousin-marriage would still prevent them from marrying (except in North Carolina, which creates an exception for cousin couples that have undergone genetic counseling).

More generally, scientific advances that enable doctors to screen for many potentially harmful genes may render general presumptions about genetic risks, like those embodied in marriage bans, inappropriate. When a particular individual can know his or her specific risk of passing on dangerous genes to children, how can a presumption as to the average person's general risk of doing so constitutionally be applied?

Will cousins be allowed to marry?
Prohibitions on cousin marriage are unique to the United States. Most other countries permit first-cousin marriages without restriction, and the rate of cousin marriages in some countries is as high as 60 percent of all marriages. But that has always been the case, and being unique has rarely motivated Americans to change their ways.

A constitutional challenge to a state's ban on cousin marriage may well be successful, and studies like this recent one will be important to such a case. But even if legal barriers to cousin marriage are removed, the cultural taboo (the so-called "ick" factor) will be harder to remove.

The term "incest" -- which conjures an image of a sexually exploitative relationship between an older male relative and a young girl -- is one barrier to cultural change. Cousin marriages between two adults are not, of course, incestuous in this sense.

Just as the term "bastard" gave way first to "illegitimate child" and later to "nonmarital child" in the literature on unwed parenting, perhaps "incest" could be replaced with more palatable terms like "kinship marriage" or "distant consanguineous relationships."

Beyond nomenclature, cousin marriage faces other barriers. Regardless of widely reported scientific advances, many will continue to believe that cousin couples are destined to produce genetically inferior offspring. Just two years ago, one Maryland legislator spoke in favor of a proposed bill to prohibit cousin marriage, claiming that one in 32 children born to cousins has a birth defect, compared to one in 100,000 born to unrelated parents. Correcting such misperceptions will be important to the success of those advocating for cousin marriage.

sexuality??


>According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because
>certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically
>forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in
>children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate,
>close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the
>intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander
>freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their
>heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being
>tempted beyond their years."

>>According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because
>>certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically
>>forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in
>>children's minds, children can grow and develop
>affectionate,
>>close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the
>>intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander
>>freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their
>>heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being
>>tempted beyond their years."


This is actually the point I was making all along (and probably makes it better than I did) - about how incest is fucked up because it interferes with complicated family dynamics, and that your own family should be a safe, loving place that is totally free of any sexual connotations or impulses. That's why incest is a bad, bad thing.

Homosexuality? I don't think it interferes with any of this.

If a homosexual wants to commit incest, I'm 100% against that too.

So as long as incest is banned, regardless of gender, children are free to have loving and healthy relationships with family members of either gender.


No, I don't see any parallels between the above passage and homosexual relationships between two consenting, non-related adults.

Do you think homosexuality prevents men from having healthy, non-sexual relationships with each other? I think it's obvious that it doesn't.

by obvervations of the adults they are around and they are not necessarily "born" with it.

Is little Johnny going to be told that he shouldn't be playing with his sister's dolls because only girls play with dolls? And what if he responds "well dad, you daddy Twan were dressed up like dolls when you went to that party last week, why can't I play with dolls?"

Its normal for hetero parents to show affection in front of their kids. Do gay parents do the same thing or do they hide it? What happens when Johnny tries to kiss the boys at school because he saw his daddies kissing at home?

> believe it or not, a large part of people's sexual identity is formed...
>by obvervations of the adults they are around and they are
>not necessarily "born" with it.

I don't know if I agree with a "large part" - that seems hard to say.

I definitely don't think most gay men grew up around abnormal gender roles (their dad acts like a woman, or vice versa), if that's what you're implying.

There does seem to be evidence that gay people were less gender-stereotypical in their play as children than other kids, but I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that this is because they observed adults acting that way. I think whatever biological process made them gay may have also made them play differently as children.

One of my wife's cousins has always been a tomboy. She's just always wanted to play sports, and hated "girly" things. She asked for sports equipment (football, soccer ball, etc) for Christmas, and no dolls.

Her sister is a complete "girly" girl, really into makeup, dolls, dresses, manicures, and other stereotypically "girly" things.

Her parents are Republican, Christian, "normal" Americans in their gender roles and everything.
If she ends up being gay (as everyone suspects), is it because her mom was too manly? Because I know for a fact that's not true.


>Is little Johnny going to be told that he shouldn't be playing
>with his sister's dolls because only girls play with dolls?

He shouldn't be told that, IMO. If I have kids, I'm going to let my kids play with whatever toys they want (as long as they're safe and age-appropriate).

The notion that dolls are "wrong" for boys to play with is purely cultural, especially since other cultures probably see no particular distinction in Barbies and GI Joes. The accessories may be different, but the primary, defining characteristic is HOW they're played with.


There is nothing harmful about giving a boy child a Raggedy Ann doll. There is nothing harmful about giving a girl a basketball, a toy soldier, or a Tonka truck.

Let kids play with whatever they want. If you give a tomboy dolls, she'll just make them fight and play sports anyway.

If a boy has a strong desire for dolls and you deny him, telling him it's for girls and it's "wrong" for him, maybe you'll find him playing dress-up with his mom's clothes instead.

Letting a boy play with dolls isn't going to make him gay or hurt him in any way. If he's biologically straight, he'll grow out of it, just like other boys grow out of GI Joes. If he's biologically gay (which he was all along - maybe that's why he wanted the doll in the first place), the doll didn't hurt him.


>And what if he responds "well dad, you daddy Twan were dressed
>up like dolls when you went to that party last week, why can't
>I play with dolls?"

Straight people dress up on Halloween(or otherwise), does that confuse the kids?

I don't think you have any evidence that gay parents are going to expose their kids to things that are harmful to them. If the parents go to fetish clubs or something weird, the kids shouldn't see that, regardless if the parents are gay or straight. Straight people do plenty of weird, kinky stuff that kids shouldn't be exposed to.


I do think we need to move past gender stereotypes. Washing dishes, doing laundry, and caring for children is not "women's work." Playing with dolls is not "just for girls" either.



>Its normal for hetero parents to show affection in front of
>their kids. Do gay parents do the same thing or do they hide
>it?

I addressed this somewhere else in the post. I think affection is okay - kissing, hugging, cuddling. Anything more than that - gay or straight - and you should take it to the bedroom. Kids don't need to see you making out and groping each other on the couch, regardless of your sexuality.


>What happens when Johnny tries to kiss the boys at school
>because he saw his daddies kissing at home?

IMO, it depends on age. There's nothing sick about a 4 year old kid kissing his friend on the cheek. Regardless of gender, it's harmless. Kids that age are sweet and innocent and shouldn't be told anything about sexuality. Telling him it's sick to kiss a boy is just going to mess him up.

However, since you said school, you must mean older kids (6-12?).

I don't think seeing his two dads kiss is going to make him want to kiss other boys. I didn't want to kiss girls because I saw my mom kissing my dad (they were divorced) - I wanted to kiss girls because I thought they were cute (some of them, lol) and I was attracted to them. But I still knew kissing was inappropriate at school, because my mom had explained kissing. At that age I only kissed my family members (and not on the lips).

Johnny kissing a girl is also not appropriate at school. Kids that are too young to understand sexuality should not be kissing each other. A parent should explain to a child what kissing is - an expression of affection, either between family members, or between adults* who love each other (which is different than the former, obviously).

Kids should not be kissing kids, regardless of gender.
By the time they're old enough to be kissing, they'll be old enough to understand sexuality.


Plus, I don't think most gay parents want or encourage their kids to be gay. They probably explain to them (at an appropriate age) that it's okay if they are, but that most people are straight and are attracted to the opposite sex.



*by adults, I don't mean wait until you're 18, I just mean you're not a kid anymore. Teenagers are old enough to understand.

Its a KNOWN FACT that a large percentage of people that are alcohol abusers grew in a household where alcohol abuse was present.

Its a KNOWN FACT that a large percentage of people that are physical abusers grew up in a household where there where physical abuse.

Are going to honestly that kids raised in a household with a "loving gay couple" are not going to be affected or inflenced at all by that?

There's no abuse going on just because it's a loving gay couple.

And remember, while you may believe that homosexuality is a socially learned behavior, I do not. I don't think most gay people "learned" to be gay from their parents or anyone else. I think they just reached puberty (or whenever) and realized that's what they were.

I don't think gay people have parents with confused gender roles. I haven't read about any solid evidence of that, and the gay people I know all have very normal home lives and also have straight siblings who grew up in the same homes.

And I reiterate that seeing two gay men kiss is not going to make a straight kid want to kiss boys. Why would it?

Do you think most of the gay men in America saw two men kissing when they were children? I highly doubt it.

I think VERY FEW people who are currently gay in America grew up as children of loving gay couples, so I don't know how you can draw the conclusion that seeing gay couples is what makes someone gay.


>Are going to honestly that kids raised in a household with a
>"loving gay couple" are not going to be affected or inflenced
>at all by that?

They'll be influenced and affected by it, of course. Everyone is influenced and affected by their home life. But is going to "make them gay"? I don't believe it will.

the majority of a child's social behavior is developed in their home life. There's no way you can't tell me that it can't be negatively affected or skewed in a gay household. Those kids will be confused.

>Sexual preference aside...
>the majority of a child's social behavior is developed in
>their home life.

This is true, because obviously, social behavior is learned socially.


>There's no way you can't tell me that it
>can't be negatively affected or skewed in a gay household.
>Those kids will be confused.

This is absolute conjecture based on the assumptions that you make about gay people and their lifestyle.

I'll agree that some kids with gay parents could be confused. Especially if those parents do not have an open dialogue to explain everything so the kids can understand.

But the same holds for kids with all kinds of different parents. There are plenty of parents who skew their kids social behaviors, either intentionally or not.

Things that skew / confuse / or may negatively affect kids:
- parents who are bigoted / racist / sexist / homophobic / xenophobic / hateful / etc
- parents who are overly religious (Christian fundies, Islamic extremists, etc)
- parents who are themselves socially inept or dysfunctional
- parents who are swingers and have an open marriage
- parents with mental illness
- parents with drug and/or alcohol problems
- parents with unhealthy attitudes about nutrition and exercise
- parents who are NASCAR fans
- parents who are stupid
(those last two are kind of joking, but kind of not)

It goes on and on. If you think gay parents should be added to the list, then that's your opinion.

But in now way can that be used as an argument against letting them be parents, because otherwise EVERYONE's capability as a parent has to be called into question. Are we going to require a license?

catergories as it is, why create a new one?

>actually you're proving my point, there are enough bad parent...
>catergories as it is, why create a new one?

First and foremost, we have no proof that gay people ARE bad parents.

Second, my point is that all people have the right to be a parent. We can't forbid that right to ANYONE, based on whether we think they're fit for the job.

Let's think about a counter-example:

Whose kid is going to be more negatively affected/skewed/confused:

1) The child of a loving lesbian couple

2) The child of a single (straight) mother who spends every night on her back with a different man (also all straight)


If you said 2, because "at least she's not gay," then that's insane to me.

And for the record, the mother in # 2 is not doing anything illegal or "wrong" based on what a lot of ya'll anti-gay people believe. But it's still pretty harmful to the child, IMO.


Now I hate to compare a loving gay couple to a situation like that (because it's insulting to gay couples), but I want some of these anti-gay people to understand that there are plenty of (totally straight) situations in which the gay couple is a much better place for a child, even though the straight parent(s) is doing nothing illegal.

be so sure about how great parents they can be?

>and were you raised by a "loving gay couple"? If not, how can you...
>be so sure about how great parents they can be?

How can you know anything about how bad parents they can be?

You assume they're bad parents because you disapprove of them from the start.

I make no assumption about whether they're better or worse than straight parents.

is based on hypothetical theories and guesswork. You're right, nobody really knows. Meanwhile, children's lives are at stake.

>the goes back to my original point in post #358, the entire gay agenda...
>is based on hypothetical theories and guesswork.

The "entire gay agenda"? I don't think gay people are so monolithic as to have a single, universal agenda, and to think so is ridiculous.

Besides, As far as I know, any "agenda" they have is to be accepted as equal human beings and given the same rights we give everyone else.
------------------

>You're
>right, nobody really knows. Meanwhile, children's lives are at
>stake.

This is reactionary nonsense. You make it sound like gay people are murdering their children. "The kids! Protect the kids!"


AND THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND:
- Don't you think similar arguments were raised with interracial dating?

Probably in almost the exact same words that you used.

"Oh no, those bi-racial kids will be SO confused, and unhappy. They will suffer such negative effects from having parents of different races. Let's ban interracial dating! We have to save the kids!"

Are you against interracial dating too?

I can change ONE WORD in your previous post, and it's an anti-biracial argument:
"the majority of a child's social behavior is developed in their home life. There's no way you can't tell me that it can't be negatively affected or skewed in a BIRACIAL household. Those kids will be confused."
--------------------


And honestly, I don't even understand what you want out of this whole argument. You don't think gay people should be parents, because their kids "lives are at stake" and the kids will be confused and "negatively affected" by having gay parents.

So what then?

Forbid gay people from adopting kids?

Forbid gay people from using artificial insemination?

Forcibly sterilize gay people?

All of the above?

Just what are you suggesting, anyway?

And how are we going to test/determine who's gay?


Gay people are already parents, and they'll continue to do so regardless of what you think of them.

>The "entire gay agenda"? I don't think gay people are so
>monolithic as to have a single, universal agenda, and to think
>so is ridiculous.
>
>Besides, As far as I know, any "agenda" they have is to be
>accepted as equal human beings and given the same rights we
>give everyone else.

There's definitely and agenda and you touched on the surface but it runs much deeper.

>AND THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND:
>- Don't you think similar arguments were raised with
>interracial dating?
>Probably in almost the exact same words that you used.
>
>"Oh no, those bi-racial kids will be SO confused, and unhappy.
>They will suffer such negative effects from having parents of
>different races. Let's ban interracial dating! We have to save
>the kids!"
>
>Are you against interracial dating too?
>
>I can change ONE WORD in your previous post, and it's an
>anti-biracial argument:
>"the majority of a child's social behavior is developed in
>their home life. There's no way you can't tell me that it
>can't be negatively affected or skewed in a BIRACIAL
>household. Those kids will be confused."

SEE POST TITLE.
>
>And honestly, I don't even understand what you want out of
>this whole argument. You don't think gay people should be
>parents, because their kids "lives are at stake" and the kids
>will be confused and "negatively affected" by having gay
>parents.
>
>So what then?
>
>Forbid gay people from adopting kids?

YES.

>Forbid gay people from using artificial insemination?

YES.

>Forcibly sterilize gay people?

possibly.

>All of the above?
>
>Just what are you suggesting, anyway?
>
>And how are we going to test/determine who's gay?

I'm sure before long we will have a test to determine if some has the "gay gene" and was "born" gay, right?

>Gay people are already parents, and they'll continue to do so
>regardless of what you think of them.

Unfortunately you're right about that.

>>AND THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND:
>>- Don't you think similar arguments were raised with
>>interracial dating?
>>Probably in almost the exact same words that you used.
>>
>>"Oh no, those bi-racial kids will be SO confused, and
>unhappy.
>>They will suffer such negative effects from having parents
>of
>>different races. Let's ban interracial dating! We have to
>save
>>the kids!"
>>
>>Are you against interracial dating too?
>>
>>I can change ONE WORD in your previous post, and it's an
>>anti-biracial argument:
>>"the majority of a child's social behavior is developed in
>>their home life. There's no way you can't tell me that it
>>can't be negatively affected or skewed in a BIRACIAL
>>household. Those kids will be confused."
>
>SEE POST TITLE.

Your exact words are equally applicable to interracial dating, with only one word changed - gay to biracial. Explain to me why it's so different.

Your argument is that the kids will be confused and negatively affected by having an "abnormal" home social life. How is it different?

"It just is" is not an answer.


>>And honestly, I don't even understand what you want out of
>>this whole argument. You don't think gay people should be
>>parents, because their kids "lives are at stake" and the
>kids
>>will be confused and "negatively affected" by having gay
>>parents.
>>
>>So what then?
>>
>>Forbid gay people from adopting kids?
>
>YES.
>
>>Forbid gay people from using artificial insemination?
>
>YES.
>
>>Forcibly sterilize gay people?
>
>possibly.

This is seriously scary shit, man. Forcibly sterilizing people? You want to test for the "gay gene" (which you incidentally don't believe in), and then sterilize everyone who has it, or at the very least, deprive of their rights to adopt or artificially inseminate?

This is heading into some seriously frightening stuff if you ask me.

It's one thing to not believe in gay marriage, it's quite another to suggest that we need to sterilize them for being gay.


>>All of the above?
>>
>>Just what are you suggesting, anyway?
>>
>>And how are we going to test/determine who's gay?
>
>I'm sure before long we will have a test to determine if some
>has the "gay gene" and was "born" gay, right?

I thought you didn't believe in that? I don't think it's as simple as a "gay gene," although since it does have a biological component, there will probably eventually be a way to tell.

But I certainly wouldn't suggest we test people for it. That's a bit invasive.


>>Gay people are already parents, and they'll continue to do
>so
>>regardless of what you think of them.
>
>Unfortunately you're right about that.

Thankfully you're not in charge. We'd be testing everyone's brains for evidence of the "gay gene" and sterilizing them if we find it.

Sounds a bit Nazi to me.

one race an another. You can't DECIDE to be bi-racial if you can't make up your mind. You can't be one race then claim to be cured and become another race. You can't be one race then "come out of the closet" as a another race.

It's okay to hate people, sterilize them, oppress them, and otherwise treat them as inferior human beings... so long as you do it based on something that they CHOOSE.

Interesting concept. Horrible, but interesting.
What about religion?


But regardless of choice or not, I repeat:

Your argument is that the kids will be confused and negatively affected by having an "abnormal" home social life. How is it different for biracial kids?

Your horror at the notion of gay parents is primarily about how terrible it will be for the kids. And you haven't given any evidence of this claim (since there is none) - only conjecture based on how "confused" and "skewed" the kids' perspectives will be. I don't see how this is different than arguments used by people who were against inter-racial dating.

that people should be able to do whatever they want when it comes to loving anyone who's of legal age and not a relative? Right? And that some people are born with a defect that they can't control and shouldn't have to control because all they want to do is love someone of the same sex, right? And because of what they're born with they shouldn't be hated upon, criticized, or treated differently, right? And this ONLY applies to people who are born with a non-physical issue which prevents them from conforming to the "norm of society" that they should only be with someone of the opposite sex?

>that people should be able to do whatever they want when it
>comes to loving anyone who's of legal age and not a relative?

Yeah, I think so. As long as both parties consent and are capable of consent...


>Right? And that some people are born with a defect that they
>can't control and shouldn't have to control because all they
>want to do is love someone of the same sex, right?

Yes. I'm not crazy about the term "defect" but I won't harp on it.


>And because
>of what they're born with they shouldn't be hated upon,
>criticized, or treated differently, right?

No, it's not _because_ of what they're born with.

I believe everyone - regardless of what they're born with OR what they choose - should have equal rights, shouldn't be treated differently, etc.

And for the record, I don't have anything against criticizing them, as long as more open-minded people are allowed to defend them.
In other words, I defend your right to free speech, even hate speech, but I'm not going to like it and I'm going to speak out against it.


>And this ONLY
>applies to people who are born with a non-physical issue which
>prevents them from conforming to the "norm of society" that
>they should only be with someone of the opposite sex?

No. While I do believe that being gay is something you're born with and not something you choose, I don't think that's a necessary part of the argument.

Even if it was a choice, I would still support gay rights.

For example, I support freedom of religion, and equal rights for everyone regardless of their religion, which IS a choice.

position.

>It's okay to hate people, sterilize them, oppress them, and
>otherwise treat them as inferior human beings... so long as
>you do it based on something that they CHOOSE.
>
>Interesting concept. Horrible, but interesting.
>What about religion?

>>It's okay to hate people, sterilize them, oppress them, and
>>otherwise treat them as inferior human beings... so long as
>>you do it based on something that they CHOOSE.
>>
>>Interesting concept. Horrible, but interesting.
>>What about religion?

>actually this happens all the time, mainly by people that support
>your position.


People who support gay rights want to oppress others based on their religion?

I've never heard anyone who supports gay rights suggest that we should sterilize or oppress anyone.

As far as I know, most people who support gay rights believe in equal rights for everyone, thus their stance. And most of them probably believe in freedom of speech and religion, though I haven't done a poll (I don't think I need to).


Granted, a lot of gay people might not like Christians, because Christians are more likely to:
- hate gay people
- want to oppress them
- beat them to death because as they say, "God hates fags."

I can't blame them if they aren't crazy about Christians.


But I've never heard a gay person say that Christians (or anyone else) should be sterilized, oppressed, or treated as inferior human beings, which you think is A-OK for gay people.

>Granted, a lot of gay people might not like Christians,
>because Christians are more likely to:
>- hate gay people
>- want to oppress them
>- beat them to death because as they say, "God hates fags."
>
>I can't blame them if they aren't crazy about Christians.
>
>
>But I've never heard a gay person say that Christians (or
>anyone else) should be sterilized, oppressed, or treated as
>inferior human beings, which you think is A-OK for gay people.
>

>>Granted, a lot of gay people might not like Christians,
>>because Christians are more likely to:
>>- hate gay people
>>- want to oppress them
>>- beat them to death because as they say, "God hates fags."

I need evidence for this? You actually disagree that Christians are the ones leading the anti-gay brigade?
If not Christians, then who the hell is it then?

Oh sure, they're not Christians in the sense that they're not "good" Christians who actually follow the teachings of Christ. But they certainly call themselves Christians.

The whole "God hates fags" thing was definitely started by Christians, obviously.

I don't see how this is up for debate, but maybe it's not as obvious to you as it is to me.

As for beating gay people to death - I bet if you looked up the actual cases, you'd find that most of the perpetrators claim to be Christians.

Here's one example from Matthew Sheppard's Wiki:

After the attack
As Shepard lay in intensive care, candle-light vigils were held in support around the world. The public reaction and media attention focused on Shepard's sexuality.

The anti-gay Fred Phelps of Kansas and his supporters picketed Shepard's funeral as well as the trial of his assailants. They displayed signs of their protests, with slogans such as "Matt Shepard rots in Hell", "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" and "God Hates Fags". When the Wyoming Supreme Court ruled that it was legal to display any sort of religious message on city property if it was legal for Casper's Ten Commandments display to remain, Phelps made attempts to gain city permits in Cheyenne and Casper to build a monument "of marble or granite 5 or 6 feet in height" on which will be a bronze plaque bearing Shepard's picture and the words: "MATTHEW SHEPARD, Entered Hell October 12, 1998, in Defiance of God's Warning: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination.' Leviticus 18:22."

But surely those people aren't Christians, right?



>>But I've never heard a gay person say that Christians (or
>>anyone else) should be sterilized, oppressed, or treated as
>>inferior human beings, which you think is A-OK for gay
>people.

I don't need evidence for this - you're the one who accused gay supporters of being anti-religion. The onus is on you to support your position.

put all gays in the same category.

I merely said "Christians are more likely to..." - which they are.

I believe most of the anti-gay people in America are Christians. I don't have anything to prove this, but to me it's pretty evident.

>I don't have anything to prove this,

There isn't any irrefutable conclusive scientific proof on either side. Although at least there is credible evidence for many of my pointsm, which I've given several times. And my arguments are backed by sound logic and reasoning, as opposed to general feelings of ickiness and unnaturalness.

But since you claim I have no evidence, answer me these two questions, from our two most recent exchanges:

- Do you honestly disagree with the notion that most anti-gay people in America are Christians? Do I really need evidence for this? {Obviously there can't be any evidence without a massive poll, but I think it's pretty obvious.}

- Do YOU have any evidence that gay people or their supporters have an agenda that includes hating Christians, sterilizing them, oppressing them, or treating them as inferior human beings?
This is what you said - "actually this happens all the time, mainly by people that support your position."

But of course you have no evidence for such a completely absurd claim.


Just like your claims:
- that gay people make terrible parents,
- that children of gay parents will be confused and negatively skewed by their parents,
- that gay people choose to be gay,
- that they want to molest children,
- that having gay parents will make a boy want to play with dolls, which will then make him gay,
- that seeing his gay parents kiss will make him kiss other boys,
- that homosexuality and incest are equally wrong and harmful,
- that "homsexuality is a combination of psycological issues stemming from mental illness and self-hatred"
- etc...

These are all things that you have ZERO evidence for, but that hasn't stopped you from saying all of those things as if they were fact.

>There isn't any irrefutable conclusive scientific proof on
>either side. Although at least there is credible evidence for
>many of my pointsm, which I've given several times. And my
>arguments are backed by sound logic and reasoning, as opposed
>to general feelings of ickiness and unnaturalness.


>- Do you honestly disagree with the notion that most anti-gay
>people in America are Christians? Do I really need evidence
>for this? {Obviously there can't be any evidence without a
>massive poll, but I think it's pretty obvious.}

First of all you have to define for me what YOU think a Christian is.


>- Do YOU have any evidence that gay people or their supporters
>have an agenda that includes hating Christians, sterilizing
>them, oppressing them, or treating them as inferior human
>beings?
>This is what you said - "actually this happens all the time,
>mainly by people that support your position."

check out some of the posts about religion and Christianity in GD.

>Just like your claims:
>- that gay people make terrible parents,
>- that children of gay parents will be confused and negatively
>skewed by their parents,
>- that gay people choose to be gay,
>- that they want to molest children,
>- that having gay parents will make a boy want to play with
>dolls, which will then make him gay,
>- that seeing his gay parents kiss will make him kiss other
>boys,
>- that homosexuality and incest are equally wrong and harmful,
>
>- that "homsexuality is a combination of psycological issues
>stemming from mental illness and self-hatred"
>- etc...
>
>These are all things that you have ZERO evidence for, but that
>hasn't stopped you from saying all of those things as if they
>were fact.

Most of that is based on a concept called "common sense", an area your obviously lacking in at this point in your life but keep living, you'll learn.

>>- Do you honestly disagree with the notion that most
>anti-gay
>>people in America are Christians? Do I really need evidence
>>for this? {Obviously there can't be any evidence without a
>>massive poll, but I think it's pretty obvious.}
>
>First of all you have to define for me what YOU think a
>Christian is.

I think a Christian is someone who says they're a Christian, usually because they believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God, the Bible, the Holy Trinity, all that shit.

It's not my job to determine who's a "real" Christian - if someone says they're a Christian, it's not up to me to deny it, regardless of how poorly they live up to the teachings of Jesus.


>>- Do YOU have any evidence that gay people or their
>supporters
>>have an agenda that includes hating Christians, sterilizing
>>them, oppressing them, or treating them as inferior human
>>beings?
>>This is what you said - "actually this happens all the time,
>>mainly by people that support your position."
>
>check out some of the posts about religion and Christianity in
>GD.

Naw, I don't fuck with GD at all. Just because a few nuts are on a message board saying so, I hardly think that's evidence of the gay "agenda" teaching hate toward Christians.

I find it hard to believe that gay people want to sterilize and oppress Christians, or treat them as inferior.
I can certainly understand their anger towards them though.


>>Just like your claims:
>>- that gay people make terrible parents,
>>- that children of gay parents will be confused and
>negatively
>>skewed by their parents,
>>- that gay people choose to be gay,
>>- that they want to molest children,
>>- that having gay parents will make a boy want to play with
>>dolls, which will then make him gay,
>>- that seeing his gay parents kiss will make him kiss other
>>boys,
>>- that homosexuality and incest are equally wrong and
>harmful,
>>
>>- that "homsexuality is a combination of psycological issues
>>stemming from mental illness and self-hatred"
>>- etc...
>>
>>These are all things that you have ZERO evidence for, but
>that
>>hasn't stopped you from saying all of those things as if
>they
>>were fact.
>
>Most of that is based on a concept called "common sense", an

So you admit that you have ZERO proof or evidence for any of these bullshit theories of yours. Thus my own lack of scientific proof can hardly be of any consequence.


Besides, none of that stuff is even remotely "common sense." It's wildly unfounded anti-gay theory rooted in your own hatred.

Unfortunately, it's the kind of rationalizing that's required when one group seeks to oppress and dehumanize another group. But do you.


>area your obviously lacking in at this point in your life but
>keep living, you'll learn.

I'm hoping that one day you'll learn that everyone is deserving of equal rights and treatment, regardless of who they choose to love.

>I think a Christian is someone who says they're a Christian,
>usually because they believe in Jesus Christ as the son of
>God, the Bible, the Holy Trinity, all that shit.

Yes, most Americans are Christians, including many homosexuals.

But I still think Christians are _more_likely_ to be anti-gay and hateful towards gay people than non-Christians are.

And I think gay people, if they are Christian, are unlikely to fall into the above category.


Don't get me wrong, there are lots of "good" Christians, who don't hate anyone and who truly believe in loving people, and who try to follow the teachings of Jesus.

I'm not knocking all Christians; most of my family falls into that category.

I'm just saying, if someone is passionately anti-gay, that person is most likely also a self-proclaimed Christian.

all this talking about incest is pretty elementary dude. step your game up. ya becuase 2 people that are blood related that have a greater possibility of giving birth to a baby with serious health problems becuase of their blood relation is such a similar situation as 2 gay people marrying? wow. the logic on these boards is assssstounding sometimes.

I know a lot and they've all told me the same thing, they knew they were gay at a young age. Choice had nothing to do with it. I never chose to like women. it just happened. Wow, this post has exposed some real ignorance. People comparing gayness to marrying your sister? Shit you dumbfucks are the same people that say "oh no whats next marrying your dog" hardy har har. use that brain.

okps and their logic. wow.

But I don't think the reason we exist is to create more of ourselves. Talk about circular logic.

you must have babies. Shit I know plenty of straight couples that are never gonna have babies and its a choice they're making. You guys are stupid with your lack of logic.

If that's what they want to do?

what do siblings have to do with gay people? we're talking about unrelated gay people marrying. That is completely different than family. Are you stupid or something? or did rush limbaugh give you you;re arguing points? man oh man.

If its something people want to do? And no need for the names, youngin.

incest and gay people, hmmmm let me see, oh ya there is a difference. man you gumps are funny.

>incest and gay people, hmmmm let me see, oh ya there is a
>difference. man you gumps are funny.

About as much a difference as the argument using the plight/rights of Black people in America for comparison...

In fact incest is probably a better example to use in this case because it is a "choice" as well and a deviant lifestyle.


...

my thoughts,

peace.


----------------------------------
"BE, not foolish, as temporary king of the mountaintop."
-Com's Pops, BE 2006

>>incest and gay people, hmmmm let me see, oh ya there is a
>>difference. man you gumps are funny.

Of course there is a huge difference.
Incest is sex with your family - a very small group of people.
Homosexuality is an attraction to members of the same sex - roughly 50% of the entire human race.


>About as much a difference as the argument using the
>plight/rights of Black people in America for comparison...

Not even close. Both are minority groups who are oppressed, withheld equal rights, and treated as inferior human beings.
And that's wrong whether it's a choice or not (but it's not).


>In fact incest is probably a better example to use in this
>case because it is a "choice" as well and a deviant
>lifestyle.

Not at all. For one thing, being gay is not a choice, and while it is "deviant" in the sense that it deviates from the norm, it is not nearly as deviant as incest, which is almost universally reviled as being unhealthy, harmful, and abusive.


Please see posts # 492 and 521 for why incest is wrong.
None of those reasons apply to homosexuality.

people of the same sex and people in your same family are 2 different things homie, if you can't get that, you probably are retarded and should look into it.

is that being gay to a lot of us is just as obscene as 2 relatives dating.

But that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

To me, finding out my friend was gay was no big deal.

If he had told me he was fucking his mom, dad, sister, brother, or other family member --- big fucking difference.

Never in this post have I said you are not entitled to think whatever you want about gay people, even if it's terrible things (like wanting to sterilize them and treat them as sub-humans).

I just find it repugnant, that's all.

And I still maintain that regardless of how you feel about them, they are entitled to equal rights and treatment. That's not something that should be given or taken away based on someone's opinions.

they don't reproduce or abuse or coerce anybody?

It's a crime and it should remain so, as I've explained several times (posts 491, 521, 547).

There are problems inherent in incest that are not present in homosexual relationships.

When two consenting, non-related adults choose to have sex, their genders make no difference whatsoever.

There is absolutely no reason to think that homosexuals are any more likely to be abusive or coercive than heterosexuals.


I've given reasons why incest is coercive and abusive - why do you think homsexuality is?

Back up some of these accusations.

what about two consenting related adults that didn't grow up in the same household and are incapable of reproducing?

>what about two consenting related adults that didn't grow up
>in the same household and are incapable of reproducing?

I would ask the same question of you - it's a 60 year old mother and her 30 year old son, but the mother didn't raise the son and she's long past menopause.

They are "two consenting related adults that didn't grow up in the same household, and are incapable of reproducing."

Is that okay to you?

No, of course not. The ban on incest goes beyond reproduction and growing up together.

I'm not adding ANY qualifiers for homosexuality. See post # 574 - give me your definition, then we can talk qualifiers. I think you'll find that you need just as many qualifiers as I do, unless you're okay with incest in the above scenario.

intimate relationship.

>RE: I find the above scenario equally as repulsive as two adult men
>in a...intimate relationship.

Not to put words in your mouth, but you seem to want to define "acceptable sex" as "consentual sexual acts between two adults of different genders."

This definition does not prevent the above scenario of an elderly mom and her son.

Care to redefine "acceptable sex" for me in your own words?

www.rif.org

Obviously a mother and her son is not "acceptable sex" to you since it's "equally repulsive", but you won't give me your definition.

Please give me your definition of acceptable sex. It's not that hard.


I think you'll find that you need just as many qualifiers as I do... actually you need MORE because you want to rule out homosexuals.

And unless you want the above scenario (elderly mother and her adult son) to be acceptable sex, your definition has to include a "non-related" qualifier for incest just like mine does.

So it's not like my definition has to make exceptions for incest and yours doesn't, which is what you've implied.

As I've said numerous times, homosexuality and incest have nothing to do with each other.

and incest are equally repulsive and WRONG.

It would help the discussion if you would actually explain what "acceptable sex" is, since thus far all you've done is give examples of things you feel are unacceptable and wrong.

Surely you have your own definition or opinion about what is acceptable and what isn't?

So, please define "acceptable sex."

It's not a complicated request, and I'm only asking for one sentence.


I understand that you believe:
>homosexuality and incest are equally repulsive and WRONG.

But I don't see why this is an answer to my request for your definition of "acceptable sex."

> Intercourse between a man and woman who aren't related.

Now I know where you are coming from.

My definition was simply two consenting, non-related adults.

Thus, there are not any qualifiers added for homosexuality - in fact, your definition has more qualifiers because it's limited to a man and a woman.

Furthermore, as I've said all along, allowing homosexuality to be considered "acceptable" won't have any effect on incest, because both of our definitions already specifically exclude incest.

So going from your definition to mine, for example, is not a step towards incest at all.

But I know what you'll say on that.

is about drawing new lines about what is considered acceptable and what is not.

>RE: nobody said homosexuality leads directly to incest, genius...
>is about drawing new lines about what is considered
>acceptable and what is not.

My point is that drawing a new line to include homosexuality will have no effect on incest, since both of our definitions specifically exclude it.

- If the law was based on your definition
(and it more or less is - in many states "sodomy" (oral/anal sex) is illegal, even between straight people),

- and it was suddenly changed to my definition
(which allows homosexuality but not incest),

- there's no reason to think that incest is next in line. Because both definitions already exclude it.


And for the record, I am STRONGLY in favor of allowing sodomy in general, whether it's between straight people or gay people.

I think a huge % of Americans (almost all of them, if we're honest) would agree that oral sex should not be a crime. Anal sex is a bit less accepted, but I hope most Americans don't think it should be illegal.

Here's a stupid example, but are you honestly saying you'd rather watch a guy fuck his own mother/sister than watch two (unrelated) lesbians going at it?

Another question - Do you think gay sex should be a crime, one that gets you put in prison?

If you answer no, then it follows that homosexuality isn't as bad as incest. (unless you think incest should be legal)

If you answer yes, then I'm curious why you think the government should care / get involved in what people do behind closed doors, even though no one is being harmed?
And I'd also be curious to hear your thoughts on oral and anal sex, which are also "deviant" and "unnatural" behaviors.

But to humor you, let's first define "sexual intercourse," and then define "sexual activity."

To me, "sexual intercourse" basically involves vaginal, oral, or anal stimulation of the genitalia. Generally to climax of one or both partners, but not required.

"Sexual activity" includes all of the above, and also manual stimulation of the genitals (mutual masturbation, dry humping, etc).


Of course, some people might lump oral sex (and possibly anal sex too) into "sexual activity" rather than intercourse, e.g., Clinton.

But to me, there's a reason it's called oral "sex" and anal "sex". It counts as sex.

What's your definition?

To you, does it have to involve one penis and one vagina?

Because if you believe that, then what's your beef with homosexuals? They don't even have "sex".

Be succinct and precise.

Or are you done here, since you've realized that you can't define "acceptable sex" with fewer qualifiers than I can?

or some such gay hippie drivel.

.

both have been defined differently, by different societies,
in different time periods, and of course, the *same* societies
have defined them differently in different periods.

so, in reality, you don't choose to be Black OR Gay, instead
it's something that society as a whole chooses FOR you.

in other words, there were times when people behaved in
ways that today we would identify as "gay," but back
then, would not be considered "gay." there were people
we would think of as white (and so on) today, who were not
considered white at that time...

and i'm saying that having read or authored about 4 percent of the replies.

It's nothing new - time and time again whenever the discussion strays from the topic of sports on this board, everyone loses.

...lmao, u should check out some of the inboxes i got from people sayin they agree with me but they rather not get involved because of they dont want to be labeled a bigot by ignorant gay rights supporters (yes they are ignorant as shit)

..and i got hate emails from the homos too ..hahaha they mad as hell because im right!

>...lmao, u should check out some of the inboxes i got from
>people sayin they agree with me but they rather not get
>involved because of they dont want to be labeled a bigot by

Yep, it's best to keep bigotry out of the public eye and whisper about it amongst yourselves. That's never led to any bad things.


>ignorant gay rights supporters (yes they are ignorant as
>shit)

It's ignorant to think all people deserve equal rights?


>..and i got hate emails from the homos too ..hahaha they mad
>as hell because im right!

I hope it feels good. It must be nice to have a group of "non-normal" people to oppress.

>>...lmao, u should check out some of the inboxes i got from
>>people sayin they agree with me but they rather not get
>>involved because of they dont want to be labeled a bigot by
>
>Yep, it's best to keep bigotry out of the public eye and
>whisper about it amongst yourselves. That's never led to any
>bad things.


and allowing gays to marry IS a bad thing you fucking retard.. thats the whole point


>>ignorant gay rights supporters (yes they are ignorant as
>>shit)
>
>It's ignorant to think all people deserve equal rights?


so u want to give rights to ALL people?? even pedophiles?? that would be ALL people right? exactly, only when it fits your twisted desires not those of others right? dumbfuck, you cant even argue your point without a contradiction..



>>..and i got hate emails from the homos too ..hahaha they
>mad
>>as hell because im right!
>
>I hope it feels good. It must be nice to have a group of
>"non-normal" people to oppress.


i hope you get over the fact that not everyone agrees with your twisted ways dumbfuck..

>and allowing gays to marry IS a bad thing you fucking retard..
>thats the whole point

WHY? Mother fucking tell me why it's bad. You can't. Your "can't make kids" argument is fucking bullshit and that's all you got.


>so u want to give rights to ALL people?? even pedophiles??
>that would be ALL people right?

Yes, pedophiles have equal rights. They can vote, and they can marry - they can't marry children, who CANNOT CONSENT - but a pedophile can marry an adult. It's already the law dumbass.

I'm asking for gay people to be given the right to marry each other.

How is that the same thing as legalizing child molestation?


exactly, only when it fits
>your twisted desires not those of others right? dumbfuck, you
>cant even argue your point without a contradiction..

There is no contradiction. Allowing gay marriage won't bring us any closer to legalized pedophilia than legalized interracial dating did.

Almost everyone (except pedophiles) agrees that pedophilia is wrong because children cannot consent.

Two gay men or two gay women can consent to have sex with each other.

So where is the connection?


>>I hope it feels good. It must be nice to have a group of
>>"non-normal" people to oppress.
>
>
>i hope you get over the fact that not everyone agrees with
>your twisted ways dumbfuck..

I don't want to "get over" the fact that homosexuals in this country don't have equal rights yet.

I don't care what you think about them in your own bigoted mind, but I wish lawmakers would leave stupid bullshit arguments like religion and "nature" out of marriage.

I haven't seen too many of these questions, which are perfectly reasonable, addressed directly in this post yet.

Maybe we can actually have some good discourse and save this post from being the worst post in okayplayer's long history.

>Maybe we can actually have some good discourse and save this
>post from being the worst post in okayplayer's long history.

Let it go the way of Testudo and die its slow death.

And I'd like to hear someone argue logically and intelligently against my "you might be a hypocrite post" too.

>...lmao, u should check out some of the inboxes i got from
>people sayin they agree with me but they rather not get
>involved because of they dont want to be labeled a bigot by
>ignorant gay rights supporters (yes they are ignorant as
>shit)

wow, people are scared to voice their own opinions on a *messageboard* but go out of their way to send secret cosigns

that's pathetic.

It's pathetic. And it makes me think that they know something about their stance is wrong.

No one wants to be exposed as a bigot, thus everyone running away from the word when it's used.

Cuz that's what its gonna come down to. lol

.

I am so shocked. This is unfortunately why dudes can't come out while they're playing ball.

1) You believe homosexuality is wrong because it doesn't lead to procreation... yet you enjoy oral sex, masturbation, anal sex, and/or any other sexual activity that has nothing to do with procreation.

2) You believe homosexuality is a choice... but you never chose to be straight.

3) You think homosexuality is wrong, unnatural, and/or sick... but you like to watch lesbian porn or two chicks making out.

4) You think gay marriage will harm the "sancity of marriage"... but you've been divorced.

...people who aint down with the idea of gay marriage MUST believe its the right thing to do

>RE: you might be a closed minded if you believe...
>...people who aint down with the idea of gay marriage MUST
>believe its the right thing to do

I don't care if you think being gay is a choice, sick, or unnatural.

You are just as entitled to hold those views as a KKK member is entitled to his views on blacks, and a Nazi is entitled to his views on Jews.

No one is trying to regulate someone else's thoughts. Those are yours to do with what you will.


But gay marriage doesn't hurt you (or anyone else) in any way. Depriving gay people the right to marry is wrong.

It's not closed minded to think everyone deserves equal rights. You've got that backwards, buster.

Equal rights and open-mindedness go together.

,

hilarious man. You say the only point of living is to procreate yet theres tons of straight couples that will never have kids based on their choice. We should outlaw those people from getting married then according to your logic. I guess when anyone gets married that couple has to sign by law an agreement that they will have kids or else they will dissolve their marriage because that is the only point of life! Hilarious man. you need to run for some political position!

I have decided that you advocate for mandatory fucking of dogs.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

Show me where I said anything evem remotely similar.

Dogs can't consent, and I've never said anything about mandatory anything.

I'm about equal rights, I'm not pushing anything on anyone.

If you'll take a look up and down this thread, I'm arguing many of the same points you are. The previous post was a joke, meant to represent the typical response of some anti-gay posters in this thread. More specifically, how they don't read any of the points we make and simply keep falling back on wild statements about incest and fucking dogs and how intercourse works.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

I knew you had made some of the same points but I didn't know if I crossed some line or something.

Anyway, yeah, I can't help but feel like I've made a lot of compelling arguments and the anti-gay arguments are relatively baseless.

A lot of times the really good points get ignored or sidestepped.

I know this won't go anywhere but I feel like my views need to be expressed...

man people comparing gay marriage to marrying your sister? WTF? ya whats next people are going to want to marry their dog? You guys are fucking dumb.

& what's the record for the highest total?

I'm sure we can drag a platinum post out of this yet

(up)

thats about the deepness of some of your brains on this. Hilarious.

instead of offering intelligent discourse. You have brought nothing but insult.

Try making arguments based on substance.

It seems to me that science has already agreed that there is no gay "gene" or "group of genes" that cause homosexuality, similar to the genes that determine whether your eyes are blue or your skin is dark.

Science has found that there is a balance between your hormonal balance and enviornmental and social issues.

I'll swipe an interesting article that delves into this issue in great length and copy and paste portions that are relevant (even though the whole thing is relevant).

It is a study from Columbia University and Yale University that took place in 2001, yet rarely is mentioned in the mainstream media. I wonder why that is?

http://www.iserp.columbia.edu/research/working_papers/downloads/2001_04.pdf

"we find
substantial indirect evidence in support of a socialization model at the individual level. Here we
consider why our results differ from previous work. Subsequently, we consider the significance
of these results for understanding the etiology of same-sex attraction."

"Much of
what we know about the etiology of adult homosexuality is derived from life stories of selfidentified
homosexuals. These narratives often identify early same-sex romantic attraction as a
constituent element in identity-formation. In addition to attraction, opportunity has to present
itself. Since opportunity is clearly socially structured, our expectation is that social influences
should be stronger for behavior than attraction."

"This study shows that for OS twins, in the absence of strong gender socialization, the proportion
of male adolescents with same-sex attraction is twice as high as observed in the population as a
whole. If there is genetic influence on same sex romantic preference, it expresses itself within a
narrow and circumscribed social context characterized by equality."

What all of this essentially means is that our hormonal balance that may make one person more sensitive or emotional leaves them more suceptible to enviornmental influences that cause them to be gay. Basically, its how one views themselves within the framework of their society based on their personality traits.

"Here, this weightlessness, whether expressing
itself as higher or lower rates of same sex erotic preference, may be seen as the “residual genetic”
effect, given that the social shaping processes are eliminated. More plausible is the idea that
genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions4. In
contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender
identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

Here is another article that brilliantly details a potential process of this occurance in a young male.

http://www.narth.com/docs/pieces.html

It may be difficult to grasp how genes, environment, and other influences interrelate to one another, how a certain factor may "influence" an outcome but not cause it, and how faith enters in. The scenario below is condensed and hypothetical, but is drawn from the lives of actual people, illustrating how many different factors influence behavior.

Note that the following is just one of the many developmental pathways that can lead to homosexuality, but a common one. In reality, every person's "road" to sexual expression is individual, however many common lengths it may share with those of others.

(1) Our scenario starts with birth. The boy (for example) who one day may go on to struggle with homosexuality is born with certain features that are somewhat more common among homosexuals than in the population at large. Some of these traits might be inherited (genetic), while others might have been caused by the "intrauterine environment" (hormones). What this means is that a youngster without these traits will be somewhat less likely to become homosexual later than someone with them.

What are these traits? If we could identify them precisely, many of them would turn out to be gifts rather than "problems," for example a "sensitive" disposition, a strong creative drive, a keen aesthetic sense. Some of these, such as greater sensitivity, could be related to - or even the same as - physiological traits that also cause trouble, such as a greater-than-average anxiety response to any given stimulus.

No one knows with certainty just what these heritable characteristics are; at present we only have hints. Were we free to study homosexuality properly (uninfluenced by political agendas) we would certainly soon clarify these factors - just as we are doing in less contentious areas. In any case, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the behavior "homosexuality" is itself directly inherited.

(2) From a very early age potentially heritable characteristics mark the boy as "different." He finds himself somewhat shy and uncomfortable with the typical "rough and tumble" of his peers. Perhaps he is more interested in art or in reading - simply because he's smart. But when he later thinks about his early life, he will find it difficult to separate out what in these early behavioral differences came from an inherited temperament and what from the next factor, namely:

(3) That for whatever reason, he recalls a painful "mismatch" between what he needed and longed for and what his father offered him. Perhaps most people would agree that his father was distinctly distant and ineffective; maybe it was just that his own needs were unique enough that his father, a decent man, could never quite find the right way to relate to him. Or perhaps his father really disliked and rejected his son's sensitivity. In any event, the absence of a happy, warm, and intimate closeness with his father led to the boy's pulling away in disappointment, "defensively detaching" in order to protect himself.

But sadly, this pulling away from his father, and from the "masculine" role model he needed, also left him even less able to relate to his male peers. We may contrast this to the boy whose loving father dies, for instance, but who is less vulnerable to later homosexuality. This is because the commonplace dynamic in the pre-homosexual boy is not merely the absence of a father - literally or psychologically - but the psychological defense of the boy against his repeatedly disappointing father. In fact, a youngster who does not form this defense (perhaps because of early-enough therapy, or because there is another important male figure in his life, or due to temperament) is much less likely to become homosexual.

Complementary dynamics involving the boy's mother are also likely to have played an important role. Because people tend to marry partners with "interlocking neuroses," the boy probably found himself in a problematic relationship with both parents.

For all these reasons, when as an adult he looked back on his childhood, the now-homosexual man recalls, "From the beginning I was always different. I never got along well with the boys my age and felt more comfortable around girls." This accurate memory makes his later homosexuality feel convincingly to him as though it was "preprogrammed" from the start.

(4) Although he has "defensively detached" from his father, the young boy still carries silently within him a terrible longing for the warmth, love, and encircling arms of the father he never did nor could have. Early on, he develops intense, nonsexual attachments to older boys he admires - but at a distance, repeating with them the same experience of longing and unavailability. When puberty sets in, sexual urges - which can attach themselves to any object, especially in males - rise to the surface and combine with his already intense need for masculine intimacy and warmth. He begins to develop homosexual crushes. Later he recalls, "My first sexual longings were directed not at girls but at boys. I was never interested in girls."

Psychotherapeutic intervention at this point and earlier can be successful in preventing the development of later homosexuality. Such intervention is aimed in part at helping the boy change his developing effeminate patterns (which derive from a "refusal" to identify with the rejected father), but more critically, it is aimed at teaching his father - if only he will learn - how to become appropriately involved with and related to his son.

(5) As he matures (especially in our culture where early, extramarital sexual experiences are sanctioned and even encouraged), the youngster, now a teen, begins to experiment with homosexual activity. Or alternatively his needs for same-sex closeness may already have been taken advantage of by an older boy or man, who preyed upon him sexually when he was still a child. (Recall the studies that demonstrate the high incidence of sexual abuse in the childhood histories of homosexual men.) Or oppositely, he may avoid such activities out of fear and shame in spite of his attraction to them. In any event, his now-sexualized longings cannot merely be denied, however much he may struggle against them. It would be cruel for us at this point to imply that these longings are a simple matter of "choice."

Indeed, he remembers having spent agonizing months and years trying to deny their existence altogether or pushing them away, to no avail. One can easily imagine how justifiably angry he will later be when someone casually and thoughtlessly accuses him of "choosing" to be homosexual. When he seeks help, he hears one of two messages, and both terrify him; either, "Homosexuals are bad people and you are a bad person for choosing to be homosexual. There is no place for you here and God is going to see to it that you suffer for being so bad;" or "Homosexuality is inborn and unchangeable. You were born that way. Forget about your fairytale picture of getting married and having children and living in a little house with a white picket fence. God made you who you are and he/she destined you for the gay life. Learn to enjoy it."

(6) At some point, he gives in to his deep longings for love and begins to have voluntary homosexual experiences. He finds - possibly to his horror - that these old, deep, painful longings are at least temporarily, and for the first time ever, assuaged.

Although he may also therefore feel intense conflict, he cannot help admit that the relief is immense. This temporary feeling of comfort is so profound - going well beyond the simple sexual pleasure that anyone feels in a less fraught situation - that the experience is powerfully reinforced. However much he may struggle, he finds himself powerfully driven to repeat the experience. And the more he does, the more it is reinforced and the more likely it is he will repeat it yet again, though often with a sense of diminishing returns.

(7) He also discovers that, as for anyone, sexual orgasm is a powerful reliever of distress of all sorts. By engaging in homosexual activities he has already crossed one of the most critical and strongly enforced boundaries of sexual taboo. It is now easy for him to cross other taboo boundaries as well, especially the significantly less severe taboo pertaining to promiscuity. Soon homosexual activity becomes the central organizing factor in his life as he slowly acquires the habit of turning to it regularly - not just because of his original need for fatherly warmth of love, but to relieve anxiety of any sort.

(8) In time, his life becomes even more distressing than for most. Some of this is in fact, as activists claim, because all-too-often he experiences from others a cold lack of sympathy or even open hostility. The only people who seem really to accept him are other gays, and so he forms an even stronger bond with them as a "community." But it is not true, as activists claim, that these are the only or even the major stresses. Much distress is caused simply by his way of life - for example, the medical consequences, AIDS being just one of many (if also the worst). He also lives with the guilt and shame that he inevitably feels over his compulsive, promiscuous behavior; and too over the knowledge that he cannot relate effectively to the opposite sex and is less likely to have a family (a psychological loss for which political campaigns for homosexual marriage, adoption, and inheritance rights can never adequately compensate).

However much activists try to normalize for him these patterns of behavior and the losses they cause, and however expedient it may be for political purposes to hide them from the public-at-large, unless he shuts down huge areas of his emotional life he simply cannot honestly look at himself in this situation and feel content.

And no one - not even a genuine, dyed-in-the-wool, sexually insecure "homophobe" - is nearly so hard on him as he is on himself. Furthermore, the self-condemning messages that he struggles with on a daily basis are in fact only reinforced by the bitter self-derogating wit of the very gay culture he has embraced. The activists around him keep saying that it is all caused by the "internalized homophobia" of the surrounding culture, but he knows that it is not.

The stresses of "being gay" lead to more, not less, homosexual behavior. This principle, perhaps surprising to the layman (at least to the layman who has not himself gotten caught up in some pattern, of whatever type) is typical of the compulsive or addictive cycle of self-destructive behavior; wracking guilt, shame, and self-condemnation only causes it to increase. It is not surprising that people therefore turn to denial to rid themselves of these feelings, and he does too. He tells himself, "It is not a problem, therefore there is no reason for me to feel so bad about it."

(9) After wrestling with such guilt and shame for so many years, the boy, now an adult, comes to believe, quite understandably - and because of his denial, needs to believe - "I can't change anyway because the condition is unchangeable." If even for a moment he considers otherwise, immediately arises the painful query, "Then why haven't I...?" and with it returns all the shame and guilt.

Thus, by the time the boy becomes a man, he has pieced together this point of view: "I was always different, always an outsider. I developed crushes on boys from as long as I can remember and the first time I fell in love it was with a boy, not a girl. I had no real interest in members of the opposite sex. Oh, I tried all right - desperately. But my sexual experiences with girls were nothing special. But the first time I had homosexual sex it just 'felt right.' So it makes perfect sense to me that homosexuality is genetic. I've tried to change - God knows how long I struggled - and I just can't. That's because it's not changeable. Finally, I stopped struggling and just accepted myself the way I am."

(10) Social attitudes toward homosexuality will play a role in making it more or less likely that the man will adopt an "inborn and unchangeable" perspective, and at what point in his development. It is obvious that a widely shared and propagated worldview that normalizes homosexuality will increase the likelihood of his adopting such beliefs, and at an earlier age. But it is perhaps less obvious - it follows from what we have discussed above - that ridicule, rejection, and harshly punitive condemnation of him as a person will be just as likely (if not more likely) to drive him into the same position.

(11) If he maintains his desire for a traditional family life, the man may continue to struggle against his "second nature." Depending on whom he meets, he may remain trapped between straight condemnation and gay activism, both in secular institutions and in religious ones. The most important message he needs to hear is that "healing is possible."

(12) If he enters the path to healing, he will find that the road is long and difficult - but extraordinarily fulfilling. The course to full restoration of heterosexuality typically lasts longer than the average American marriage - which should be understood as an index of how broken all relationships are today.

From the secular therapies he will come to understand what the true nature of his longings are, that they are not really about sex, and that he is not defined by his sexual appetites. In such a setting, he will very possibly learn how to turn aright to other men to gain from them a genuine, nonsexualized masculine comradeship and intimacy; and how to relate aright to woman, as friend, lover, life's companion, and, God willing, mother of his children.

Of course the old wounds will not simply disappear, and later in times of great distress the old paths of escape will beckon. But the claim that this means he is therefore "really" a homosexual and unchanged is a lie. For as he lives a new life of ever-growing honesty, and cultivates genuine intimacy with the woman of his heart, the new patterns will grow ever stronger and the old ones engraved in the synapses of his brain ever weaker.

In time, knowing that they really have little to do with sex, he will even come to respect and put to good use what faint stirrings remain of the old urges. They will be for him a kind of storm-warning, a signal that something is out of order in his house, that some old pattern of longing and rejection and defense is being activated. And he will find that no sooner does he set his house in order that indeed the old urges once again abate. In his relations to others - as friend, husband, professional - he will now have a special gift. What was once a curse will have become a blessing, to himself and to others.



-Signed, your friendly random poster who cosigned secretly but did not want to be labled a bigot because I love all human beings.

Have you read # 306?

Also, this NARTH source that some people keep using - do you realize what it stands for?

"National Association for Research and THERAPY of Homosexuality"

Without knowing anything else about them, this organization obviously believes in trying to "treat" homosexuals - hardly an impartial scientific source.

They draw conclusions based on their study that is not based on hard science.


>It seems to me that science has already agreed that there is
>no gay "gene" or "group of genes" that cause homosexuality,
>similar to the genes that determine whether your eyes are blue
>or your skin is dark.

First, I don't recall anyone in this post who said homosexuality is 100% genetic and there is a "gay gene."

My link (and Soundsop's explanation) shows how biology (in utero environment), not just genetics, plays a role.


>Science has found that there is a balance between your
>hormonal balance and enviornmental and social issues.

I haven't seen any hard science proving social issues (e.g., choice) play a role.


>"Much of
>what we know about the etiology of adult homosexuality is
>derived from life stories of selfidentified
>homosexuals. These narratives often identify early same-sex
>romantic attraction as a
>constituent element in identity-formation. In addition to
>attraction, opportunity has to present
>itself. Since opportunity is clearly socially structured, our
>expectation is that social influences
>should be stronger for behavior than attraction."

So gay people recall early same-sex attraction - I don't recall ever having any, do you?

And then from this they decide that since these attractions require opportunity (you have to see someone of the same sex to be attracted to them), and opportunity is social, then there is a social effect. That's a spurious conclusion if you ask me.


>What all of this essentially means is that our hormonal
>balance that may make one person more sensitive or emotional
>leaves them more suceptible to enviornmental influences that
>cause them to be gay.

Environmental influences include in utero hormonal stuff. Which, while not genetic per se, is still biological... thus, not a choice.


Basically, its how one views themselves
>within the framework of their society based on their
>personality traits.

I don't get this conclusion.


>"Here, this weightlessness, whether expressing
>itself as higher or lower rates of same sex erotic preference,
>may be seen as the “residual genetic”
>effect, given that the social shaping processes are
>eliminated. More plausible is the idea that
>genetic expression is activated only under strongly
>circumscribed social structural conditions.

I'm willing to say that not everyone with a genetic/biological tendency to be gay actually becomes gay. But this doesn't mean their "social structural conditions" were responsible.


>In
>contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that
>the close connection between gender
>identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

"Assume"



I won't even dignify the ridiculous "hypothetical scenario" from NARTH. It has no scientific merit.

foh!

I could care less about your copying and pasting doggie. I know plenty of gay people and it aint about a choice. that shit chose them. They all tell me its just who they're attracted to it was never about choosing to be attracted to anyone.

i think thats what dudes are trying to say when they mention procreation
i mean if u believe in evolution , like most gay supporters do
then u have to admit that homosexuality is not "natural" in the sense that it goes against everything that should/would *normally* occur in a mature species
in essence it is self destructive and not to the benefit of the species

also can some one show me these "gay animals"?
i don't believe it
animals of the same sex hanging together are called a herd/pack/flock

hate to break it to you.

ppl today are built differently then ppl were only 500 yrs ago
among other things

evolution aint really happening anymore in humans, there's plenty of studies on it. Anyways what does evolution have to do with creating babies? People have brains, they can do what they want to do. They aint animals surviving in the jungle and shit. You stupid with your analogies sometimes.

I know you can't be serious?

Evolution has stopped? Righttttt.

foh. what for? we aint living in the jungles trying to survive.

Like, I know you can't be serious?? Are you? I mean we talking...like 9th grade level biology here? You just playin with me now. lol, we only needed evolution to surpass life in the jungle? lol wow.

you think we're evolving at the rate that we were evolving 500 yrs ago? hilarious.

>in essence it is self destructive and not to the benefit of
>the species

I mean, should we actually say no you can't marry that person because it is destructive to our species? Or no, we can't do anything about your homophobic boss firing you because it would be destructive to our species?

Because we are reproducing at such at rate that in the not-so-distant future the Earth may not be able to support us. I'd say that's destructive to our species.

But I digress. So this is enough for you to believe that we need to take rights away from gay people?

-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

How are bone thin women going to help us survive? Maybe there'll be a disaster and they can live on less food than most other humans? Most sexual preferences be it man/man or what men look for in women, is artificial. One could argue that monogomy isn't in line with evolution either.

science wins over anti-gay 'logic'. (again.)

Born gay? How biology may drive orientation
Sunday, June 19, 2005 - 12:00 AM
By Sandi Doughton
Seattle Times science reporter

As the culture wars rage over gay rights, a flock of sheep at Oregon State University may help answer a key question behind the controversy: Is homosexuality a matter of choice or biology?

The Corvallis herd includes a group of rams that scientists delicately refer to as "male-oriented." These animals consistently ignore females and bestow all their amorous attentions on members of their own sex.

Researcher Charles Roselli says a decade of study suggests sexual orientation is largely hard-wired into the sheep's brains before birth. Now, he's trying to figure out how that happens, zeroing in on genes and hormones. In a bold test of his ideas, he hopes to engineer the birth of gay rams by altering conditions in the womb.

Sheep aren't people, but the Oregon work adds to a growing body of research that bolsters biological explanations for sexual orientation across species — including humans.

Despite those scientific findings, some religious groups say homosexuality is a lifestyle that can be treated, if not prevented. One such group, the conservative Christian organization Focus on the Family, is sponsoring a one-day conference in Bothell Saturday.

The social and political implications of the research are impossible to ignore, leading to unease on both sides of the gay-rights debate. If science proves homosexuality is innate, is there any basis to deny gays equal treatment — including the right to marry? But if scientists unravel the roots of sexual orientation, will it some day be possible to "fix" people who don't fit the norms or abort fetuses likely to be born gay?

Much of the cutting-edge research is being conducted in other countries, because the political pressure cooker in the United States makes it difficult for scientists to get money, said Brian Mustanski, who juggles studies of the genetics of homosexuality with his main work on HIV prevention at the University of Illinois, Chicago.

But controversy can't obscure the facts, he said.

"It's pretty definitive that biological factors play a role in determining a person's sexual orientation."

Austrian scientists reported this month that switching a single gene was enough to make female fruit flies rebuff males and attempt to mate with other females. Swedish researchers recently found the sexual center of gay men's brains lit up when they sniffed a pheromone-like chemical from men's sweat, but didn't respond to a chemical from women.

And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females.

That the evidence comes from such disparate directions leads scientists to suspect several different biological pathways may lead to homosexuality. Both genes and hormones appear to be important. Nor do researchers discount the possibility that social factors may play a role.

"I tend not to be a nature-versus-nurture kind of dichotomist," said Roselli, of the Oregon Health & Science University School of Medicine in Portland. "I think there's probably a very complex interaction that's going on between both biology and the environment that is involved in determining these types of behaviors."

"Shy breeders"
Gay sheep may show whether neurohormones fix sexual identity

Though they don't talk about it much, ranchers have long known that about 8 percent of rams never father offspring because they only have eyes for other males. Australian sheepherders call them "shy breeders," Roselli said.

Upbringing doesn't seem to make a difference. Domestication and captivity aren't responsible, because rams with same-sex proclivities occur in the wild.

Roselli's rams come from the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in eastern Idaho, where federal researchers keep a herd of 3,000 to study genetics, breeding and grazing impacts.

They've also been quietly looking into sexual orientation, a subject so touchy the lab's U.S. Department of Agriculture boss won't allow his staff to discuss it with the press.

Roselli and his colleagues at OSU are using the gay rams to test what is called the neurohormonal theory of sexual development: that hormones from a developing fetus fix its sexual identity by orchestrating brain organization. Too much or too little of these powerful chemicals, or shifts in timing, may lead to homosexuality, the theory predicts.

Last year, Roselli found that a brain region linked with sexual behavior was twice as big in heterosexual as homosexual rams. The difference seems to exist even before birth, he said. The gay rams also had lower brain levels of an enzyme that activates testosterone and promotes typical male sexual behavior.

A 1991 study reported similar differences in the brains of gay and heterosexual men, but the findings haven't been confirmed. Human brain studies are problematic for another reason: Brain structures can guide behavior, but behavior also can cause brain structures to enlarge or shrink, making it difficult to say which comes first.

So in addition to brain studies, Roselli is waiting for a group of lambs born last spring to reach sexual maturity. Their mothers were dosed with drugs to block the action of male hormones in the fetuses. If Roselli's hypothesis is correct, rams born of this experiment will be disproportionately gay.

"I just knew"
Studies indicate sexual orientation is set very early in life

Hormones have long been suspect in homosexuality. Doctors used to treat gay men with testosterone injections, until it became clear adult homosexuals don't have blood hormone levels that differ significantly from heterosexuals.

But rats, hamsters, ferrets and other lab animals flip-flop their sexual behavior when scientists manipulate the hormones they're exposed to before birth. Such experiments would be unethical in people, but some rare medical conditions offer human parallels.

A high proportion of girls with a disorder that causes them to secrete male hormones before birth grow up to be lesbian. About 40 case studies have shown boys who are surgically altered and raised as girls because of genital deformities are overwhelmingly attracted to females once they reach puberty — indicating sexual orientation is determined very early in life and is difficult to alter.

That view is supported by a series of studies in the 1980s that found nearly 75 percent of young boys who dress up like girls, play with dolls and consistently choose stereotypical female pursuits will grow up to be gay. A similar, though less pronounced, pattern is found in girls who prefer trucks over tea sets.

Still, most gay people don't have gender-bending childhoods. As in heterosexuals, the majority say they became aware of their orientation at puberty.

"I just knew," said Seattle attorney Andrew Kamins, who is gay. "It's as simple as that."

Those who argue homosexuality is a choice haven't been able to dispute that fundamental point, said Michigan State University neuroscientist Marc Breedlove.

"If you're going to say people choose a sexual orientation when they reach puberty, you're going to have to find some people who remember making that choice, and there aren't any," he said. "The evidence is starting to look pretty good that hormones early in life influence the probability of who you will be attracted to 10 years later, when people start to get their first crushes," he said.

The hand test
Can the length of one's fingers suggest sexual orientation?

Breedlove found support for the neurohormonal theory by photocopying hands at gay street fairs.

In heterosexual women, the index and ring fingers are usually about the same length. In heterosexual men, the index finger is shorter, on average, than the ring finger. It's one of several differences between the sexes that seem to be set before birth, based on testosterone exposure.

Breedlove found lesbians' finger lengths were, on average, more like men's. The same holds true for other traits, like eye-blink patterns and inner-ear function.

"Every time you find a body marker that gives an indication of prenatal testosterone exposure, lesbians on average are more masculine than straight women," Breedlove said. "This can't be a fluke."

Patterns aren't as clear in gay men, with some hints they may be exposed to either less or more testosterone before birth.

All of the neurohormonal studies also leave a major puzzle unanswered: If hormones shape the brain and the brain directs behavior, what is controlling the hormone levels in the first place?

Slam-dunk proof?

Twin studies provide evidence that homosexuality runs in the family

When Vince Healy finally came out as gay, his disapproving Catholic family was familiar with the story. His older brother had been living with a man for several years. It didn't make things any easier, the 45-year-old Ballard man recalled.

"I was very unhappy at the prospect of being gay," he said. "I kept thinking: I must be a late bloomer."

As the youngest of three brothers, one of whom is straight, Healy illustrates the two most robust findings in the science of homosexuality: It runs in families, and the number of older brothers a man has can increase his chances of being gay.

About 3 percent of American men and 1.5 percent of women describe themselves as gay or bisexual, according to the National Institutes of Health. Those percentages are three to five times higher among people who have a gay brother or sister.

Of course, family dynamics might be the reason, not biology.

What scientists call slam-dunk proof that genes are part of the equation comes from twin studies.

Genetically influenced traits are more likely to be shared among the closest relatives, and that pattern holds for homosexuality.

For fraternal male twins, the gay-gay concordance rate is about 22 percent. For identical twins, it's 52 percent.

Based on those results, scientists conservatively estimate homosexuality is about 40 percent due to genes, said Alan Sanders, director of behavior genetics at Northwestern Healthcare Research Institute in Illinois.

But genes clearly are not the only factor, or identical twins would always share the same sexual orientation.

"That means there's a significant environmental contribution," said Sanders, who is leading a five-year, $2.5 million project for the National Institutes of Health to try to identify the genes involved.

Earlier research has pointed to several possible gene regions, but those studies were small and not definitive. With DNA from 1,000 pairs of gay brothers, Sanders' project will be much more powerful.

It's very unlikely to uncover a single "gay" gene, he said. As in most complex traits, multiple genes and environmental factors probably work together.

So far, scientists can only speculate how genes linked with sexual orientation might work. Perhaps they dictate the size of brain structures, which in turn regulate hormones before birth. Perhaps genes directly adjust prenatal hormone levels, or merely predispose people to a gay orientation.

Environmental factors could be exclusively biological, like chemical exposure or infection. One theory, backed by some evidence in rats, is that the chemical and hormonal milieu of the developing fetus can be disrupted when pregnant mothers are stressed.

Social factors may ultimately prove to play a role as well, Sanders said.

None of the psychosocial theories for homosexuality have panned out so far, including Freud's distant-father/domineering-mother dynamic.

"There have been psychological and social explanations for homosexuality for 100 years, and they haven't come up with anything concrete," said Ray Blanchard, head of Clinical Sexology Services at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health in Toronto.

A few studies suggest a higher rate of childhood sexual abuse in gays and lesbians, though there's no evidence such experiences trigger homosexuality, said Mustanski, the University of Illinois geneticist.

Fraternal birth order

The number of older brothers may affect your chances of being gay

Blanchard's work on gay brothers offers an alternative explanation so odd he originally dismissed it as "obviously bogus."

But when he looked into scattered reports that many gay men have older brothers, he was astounded. The findings now have been confirmed by more than a dozen studies, including several of his own: Every older brother a man has increases his chances of being gay. A man with four older brothers is three times more likely to be gay than a man with none. Blanchard estimates one out of every seven gay men owes his orientation to this "fraternal birth order" effect.

It's possible to argue for social explanations — bullying by big brothers, indulgent mothers. But Blanchard believes it's biology. Gay males with older brothers weigh less at birth than heterosexual males with older brothers, hinting that something different is happening to them in the womb.

A possible explanation lies in the mother's immune system, which can be activated by cells from a male fetus.

For first sons, the effect would be slight. But subsequent boys could cause the immune response to ramp up until it somehow affects a baby's sexual orientation.

The idea is feasible, Blanchard cautioned, but still unproven.

Not all gay men have older brothers. Not all lesbians have short ring fingers. For some people, genes may be the dominant factor in sexual orientation. For others, it could be hormones. Just as sexual orientation spans a spectrum, scientists suspect there may be a range of mechanisms to explain it.

Over the next few years, scientists will begin to fit the divergent lines of evidence into a comprehensive picture of the way sexual orientation arises in both gays and heterosexuals, Mustanski predicts.

"We have these converging lines of evidence that are pointing to the importance of biology. Now we have to connect the dots."

Sandi Doughton: 206-464-2491 or sdoughton@seattletimes.com

Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2002340883&zsection_id=2002111777&slug=gayscience19m&date=20050619

How can you hate people for how they were born?

Do people with polydactyly (extra fingers/toes) get hated on, and lose the right to marry?

* though it is insulting to liken homosexuality to a bad mutation like polydactyly.

I guess men are born with the instinct to sleep with as many broads necessary, but we can't fight it.

>I guess men are born with the instinct to sleep with as many
>broads necessary, but we can't fight it.


Asking a homosexual not to be gay is like asking a heterosexual not to be straight.

It's NOT the same thing as asking a heterosexual to be monogamous.

> So in that sense you're saying they're both natural?

Yeah, I guess. It depends on the definition of "natural."
Yes, they both occur in nature.
Yes, they are not an individual's choice.

(Any for anyone who believes in God, you must consider that, yes, God "made" that person, and made them that way. Though this is a totally different discussion that would be even more contentious)


But I'll admit that it's not natural in the sense that it obviously isn't best for the species as a whole. Not that that is a good measuring point, because lots of things aren't "good for the species."

I don't want to liken homosexuality to a mutation, or a biological mistake, but in terms of evolution, that's what it is I guess.

But that doesn't mean they are inferior as human beings in any way.


And if you believe being gay is merely impulse control, does that mean all straight people have gay urges but are able to control them?
I don't think most straight people are going to support you on that.


And really, natural or not, I still don't see why anyone would want to hate them or deny them the same rights as everyone else.

Do you think allowing homosexuals to marry would actually be harmful?

I don't really see anyone in the boards talking about anyone hating anyone who is gay. I just see people saying that they believe its wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that. I do believe people are born with impulses and choices. But when it comes to sexual orientation, that appears to be the only area where people want to create a segmented group from the norm which they deem ok.

>I don't really see anyone in the boards talking about anyone
>hating anyone who is gay.

I think Truth said something about how he never said anything about hate. My point was that if you believe it's wrong that's one thing.

But if you can't respect them as human beings, and you don't believe they deserve equal rights, then that sounds like hate to me.

You've actually been more respectful than some, though you've said you're holding back so it's hard to say. lol


>I just see people saying that they
>believe its wrong. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I've agreed with this several times. I'm not the thought police. Believe what you what.

But when your beliefs involve oppressing and dehumanize others, that's not cool.


>I do
>believe people are born with impulses and choices. But when it
>comes to sexual orientation, that appears to be the only area
>where people want to create a segmented group from the norm
>which they deem ok.

Not sure what you mean. What "segmented groups" are not okay? If you're referring to pedophilia, incest, and shit like that, clearly there's a big difference and I hope I don't need to point it out.

"And last fall, Italian scientists offered a possible explanation for the persistence of gay genes — even though evolution tends to weed out traits that discourage reproduction. The team from the University of Padua found that mothers and aunts of gay men had more offspring than female relatives of heterosexuals, suggesting genes that influence homosexuality in men may increase fertility in females."


And the same post addresses gay animals.

http://daily.phanaticmag.com/2007/02/pair-of-sixers-place-foot-in-mouth.html

Meanwhile, here's what Shavlik had to say:

"As long as you don't bring your gayness on me I'm fine. As far as business-wise, I'm sure I could play with him. But I think it would create a little awkwardness in the locker room."

Please respond below if you want this poast to *not* be archived. Move the movement.

y'all been going back and forth for over 460 replies, and no one's mind is gonna get changed. Please leave this post alone and lets get back to discussing some sports.....



Did I miss the 5 o'clock free crack giveaway?

the name of the book is "man in the middle."

has this been pointed out?

whatever your stance, that should elicit a giggle.

nm

Never seen a sport where a bunch of tall niggas kiss and hug each other night after night, and often use the word love when talking about each other

If what he said on LeBatard is any indication.

"I hate gay people" in those exact words.

After he made his statement, Le Batard gave him a window where maybe he could have down played his statement. Instead, he just stepped it up and said, "I hate gay people." At least he's not pulling punches.

I took an L for taking 30 minutes to read through all this shit.

I know I probably won't convince anyone who's already a hateful bigot. It's the people who are sort of undecided about where they stand that I hope to reach.

I just want to make my points, explain what I believe and why, and get them to think about the issue.

I think anyone who's open-minded, reasonable, and not blinded by religion and/or bigotry can learn something.

There was a time in my life when I thought homosexuality was wrong or sick, but I was just an uneducated kid who bought into the inane religious and "nature" arguments.

But I'd say everyone in this post so far, save 2 or 3 folks, has already made up their mind.

Plus with 525+ posts you have to wade through a lot of shit just to get to the even-handed discussions, which are few and far between.

I'm all for discussion, but it's mostly "I'm right, you're an idiot" in various iterations.

To officially become the most replied-to post not currently in archives. And I haven't even checked archives, so it could be highest in OKSports history, I dunno.



-----------------

www.scholarballer.org

One of my posts earlier went blank with no number, so whoever made post# 499 was actually 500.

*does Gob's chicken dance taunting all other non-500th post posters*

But actually, Drizzit did in # 499, since there's one by HiKwelity that didn't get a number for some reason (it's in between 345 and 326).

should delete it

moving along..

and i could've outed him a long time ago.....

PAOK

comparing incest to gay marriage? hilarious. man I swear I wonder what goes on in your brains sometimes.

...in here. At the end of the day people are just trying to justify what they *feel* and so though there is a clear winner and loser here, it wouldn't matter b/c nobody will concede or have an open mind in regards to the opposition's argument.

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_topic&forum=21&topic_id=11855&mesg_id=11855&page=9

.... again .... for the 8th day in a row.

lock

If you don't like it just ignore it!

you and McDeez should just inbox each other because I couldn't even find the new responses if I wanted to

the stuff I care about I read and post about it. The stuff I don't care about I just ignore. Its really quite easy.

I will now ignore this thread like I ignore what gay men do behind closed doors

.... I thought you'd all be interested to learn that Nielsen Bookscan reports sales through the first 3 weeks to be only 4,880 copies.

Bookscan only accounts for an estimated 70% of the market, which means that the actual figure is probably more like 7,500 copies, but still. Not so hot.

_______________________________________________________________________________

"They can go out and get whoever they want, sign whoever they want. I'm going to be the premier back in this offense." -- Brandon Jacobs, 2/27/07

As it stands, I imagine the book is just about the terrible things people said about gays, not knowing that he was one.

I'm a lot less interested in reading that, because as this post proves, people saying horrible things about gay people is not really all that uncommon, unfortunately.

He does seem like a cool person though.