A HEALTHY political topic.

Homosexuality does exist outside of humans, and not just because of social conditions. There is, as has been explained, a genetic 'mutation' that can account for a person having attraction to his own gender.

I don't think that, for example, a boy can be born at birth, however, with a gene that tells him to be only attracted to a gender. What is attractive to us is an evolved perception, and by accident a male can be attracted to attributes that the rest of his society attributes to males.

Since for most of human civilization, sex has been primarily noted for sex and secondarily for making children, it is possible that one can 'take out' an attraction to the opposite gender upon a member of his own, for whatever reason.

However, the purpose of sexual pleasure is to of course have an incentive for having children; thus homosexuality cannot be considered a natural thing in the evolutionary sense. I don't think there's anything wrong with it being unnatural; but my opinion is no less 'evil' than one that shuns things that are 'unnatural'.

I don't know where people get the idea that all opinions are sacred and untouchable?

Based on the premise that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice

Fine. The problem is there is no evidence for this!! You people 'assume' it is a lifestlye choice simply because you do not understand that it could be otherwise, based on your own feelings. Frankly, this is where your whole 'opinion' turns into a pile of s**t. An opinion is meaningless if it is based on incorrect assumptions, generalisations and ignorance!! Just because somebody adds 'this is my opinion' to the end of an unfounded load of nonsense, it does not give them imunity to criticism - where do you get the idea that it does?!

However, the purpose of sexual pleasure is to of course have an incentive for having children; thus homosexuality cannot be considered a natural thing in the evolutionary sense.

Yeah very good, how about the fact that people desire a long term companion in their lives as well as sex? How about the fact that people can't switch their emotions on and off as they wish - You tout yourself as some kind of hunk, if this is true then maybe there are guys that fancy you - if this is the case, do you think they have any greater ability to tun this feeling off than you do with similar feelings for a girl?

[edit] In addition, plenty of species have got by for a long time with a mating process that is far from enjoyable [/edit]

Tracer Bullet said:

$loth said:
WRONG

Homesexualaltiy CAN happen during the whole birthing process, its all o do with the XX for females and the XY chromosones for males, the body is still the same for the male but with one slight problem, he is born with one extra X chromosone instead of a Y chromosone. [the opposite for females]

Sloth that is completly wrong.

There are females who are XY, but there are no men who are XX. the reson for this is that all fetuses are female untill hormones are produced which give them male characteristics. if the fetus lacks a receptor for that hormone, they fail to devlop male characteristics and are assumed to be female upon birth. these individuals grow up as women, but require hormone therapy to mature.

Also, an "extra" chromosom causes downs syndrome, not homosexuality.

Having an extra chromosome (AKA - trisomy) can cause different things depending on which chromosome you have it. Down shyndrome is NOT caused by trisomy on the sex chromosomes (XX, XY, etc) but I believe it's trisomy 13(?) Not too sure about that one.

Jeff, I have never seen convincing scientific evidence in either direction. I think your assertion that homosexuality is purely hereditary is just as ignorant as Orph?s position that it is entirely due to environmental influences. Developmental psychology is not well understood, and almost never as simple as ?it?s genetic?. There is never just one cause that can be applied to all individuals. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

So, if you want to argue intelligently, I suggest you present your evidence for the heredity of homosexuality.<o:p></o:p>

I myself am undecided on this issue. I cannot be bothered to research the topic, and therefore am far too ignorant of the facts to draw any sort of definitive conclusion. So convince me Jeff. If you can offer me credible scientific proof for the heredity of homosexuality I?ll believe it. I will not accept anecdotal evidence or simple correlation. There needs to be a clear causal mechanistic link.<B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B>

your assertion that homosexuality is purely hereditary

Tracer, where did I once say that? Did you just think that because I don't think it's a lifestlye choice that I must think it is hereditary? It wouldn't be so bad if you talked down to me about something that I had actually done.

I seem to have made an incorect inference. What is your position on the nature and origin of homsexuality if you are so vehminantly opposed to the assumption which Orph has made?

edit Sorry about the attitude Jeff. I tend to be a bit arogant, and this medium of exchange sometimes allows that proclivity to dominate

on a side note, i remember when parliament voted on whether to reduce the age of consent for participating in homosexual acts to 16. the only people i seen supporting the vote were drooling middle aged MP's. i never seen any 16 y.o.'s campaigning. strange that.

What I am trying to say is that it is totally wrong when you and Orph say that it is simply a choice that people make - you have nothing to base this on. If you were simply saying this and leaving it at that, then it would not be so bad, but based on this baseless assumption, you are making very strong judgements. This makes about as much sense as guessing that the world is flat, then off the back of that, debating what happens when you get to the edge...

My position is that nobody one day decides that they like members of the same sex any more than you or I one day decide that we like members of the opposite sex. That simply would not make any sense. You are still stuck behind the fact that you can't accept that it is possible for a guy to fall in love with another guy in the same way that you would fall in love with a girl.

Based on the premise that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic characterisitc, he has every right to discriminate against them. His point is not equivilent to racism.

Orph is wrong here because his premise is incorrect. This is my opinion yes. But where your opinion that being gay is a lifestyle choice is based on a self admited non-understanding of the whole concept of being homosexual, which seems kind of weak to me, my opinion that this is not the case is based on what gay people actually say. Did you read Monqui's post? Does it look to you like the words of somebody who just decided to be gay?

i never seen any 16 y.o.'s campaigning. strange that

Laughable! Have you ever been in a school? If you were a 16 year old boy who thought he was gay, would you want your freinds to know??

rofl, you couldnt admit to being gay as child int his country. Its extremely violent.

No I didn't see Monqui's bit, I'll search for it though.

All very resonable. My objection was that people up to this point were attacking Orphs position without reference to the assumption on which it was based.

My opinion, as I thought I had already made clear, is not in concurence with Orph's. However I can see where he is comeing from and decided to take up the gauntlet on his behalf.

Going on from there, look at it this way; but note that this is an extreem example:

Do people decided to be criminals, or do they just grow into it? Lets presume there is no concious decision. it's just what seems natural to them in much the same way that homosexuality seems natural to gays.

In this model the end behavior is the result of a complex interplay of social and and enviromental presures, yet not everyone who is subjected to those presure becomes a criminal, or a homsexual. in the case of criminals we view submission to these presures as a choice, and punish them in accordance with this interperatation. Why then does the same logic not apply to homosexuality? why can they not be held respocible for their choice as Orph does?

Note that I do not hold homosexuality to be a crime. I am equating the postulated mechanisms by which these behaviors are produced, not the behaviors themselves.

The mainstream stereotype of a homosexual is a lifestyle choice. If homosexuality was in all cases totally natural, there would be no reason for gay pride parades, gay rights organizations, etc.

Males are indeed XY. Having extra chromosomes, to my knowledge, does any number of things - the first example I can think of was a kid who was perpetually... 'over-excited', physically and mentally, because he had an extra chromosome.

Remember winona rider (spelling?)? She was caught shoplifting. She was not punished for this - why? Because they decided that she had an uncontrolable psycological condition. I am definately not saying that homosexuality is just a psycological condition, but the distinction between somebody stealing in the case of winona, and in the typical sense, is the same distinction that prevents the logic in your case being applied to homosexuality. Falling in love with somebody is not controlable - a gay person cannot turn love on and off any more than you or I can.

If homosexuality was in all cases totally natural, there would be no reason for gay pride parades, gay rights organizations, etc.

Gay rights organisations are there because of the way a lot of people feel towards homosexuals. It has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is natural or not.

The mainstream stereotype of a homosexual is a lifestyle choice

Right, the stereotype. And we all know how we can rely on what a stereotype says, don't we!

scary_jeff said:
Remember winona rider (spelling?)? She was caught shoplifting. She was not punished for this - why? Because they decided that she had an uncontrolable psycological condition.

Hey! that's called Kleptomania. It DOES exist. But I didn't know wynona rider was a kleptomaniac. haha, sweet :smile:

I think you'll notice, more often than not, with these debates the UK/US cultural divide comes into play.

Take into account each societies culture, then you can make a truly informed and wise statement.

(eg USA = whole lot more religious than UK. ok, religion isnt the debate, but religion set a lot of morals in place (IE anti-homosexuality)

Makes sense when you think about it. after all this country was founded by cast-off religous zealots from Britian.

"a gay person cannot turn love on and off any more than you or I can."

Good point.

Tracer Bullet said:
As per his point above, Orphs position is valid. Based on the premise that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic characterisitc, he has every right to discriminate against them. His point is not equivilent to racism.

Good, I'm going to start discriminating against people who choose to listen to country music. Or do they do that because they are inbred, making it a genetic defect and not their fault? :razz:

Heh I need to go back to grad school.

Cassius said:
The mainstream stereotype of a homosexual is a lifestyle choice. If homosexuality was in all cases totally natural, there would be no reason for gay pride parades, gay rights organizations, etc.

So why don't you "choose" to be gay? Probably because you don't like dick.

Being Black is natural, but I seem to remember a lot of speeches and rallies by some guy named "King" a while back.

having a "right to discriminate" still doesnt make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it true.

t_b, you have gone too far in the opposite direction, vehemently defending orph til the last call when there was a debate in progress.

i think people accept that orph has a point of view, theyre just trying to show their opinion (and the majority opinion) and "enlighten" orph. whether this happens or not is another issue.

but this is democracy! something held very dear to a certain country called the US of A :razz:

Jinx said:


</TD></TR>
<TR>
<TD height=5>
I don't find lesbians remotely arousing. I've never understood why most guys do.

</TD>
<TR>
<TD style="FONT-SIZE: 11px; COLOR: gold" bgColor=black>? posted by Gwil</TD>
<TR>
<TD bgColor=#151515>
having a "right to discriminate" still doesnt make it the right thing to do, nor does it make it true.

t_b, you have gone too far in the opposite direction, vehemently defending orph til the last call when there was a debate in progress.

I'm willing to accept that. It was a line of thought I wanted to persue although it is not my own. It's an enjoyable exercise. besides, the world verses Orph seems to happen way to often. I wanted to even up the odds, even if I might have argued against him under different circumstances.

Jinx said:

Tracer Bullet said:
As per his point above, Orphs position is valid. Based on the premise that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a genetic characterisitc, he has every right to discriminate against them. His point is not equivilent to racism.

Good, I'm going to start discriminating against people who choose to listen to country music. Or do they do that because they are inbred, making it a genetic defect and not their fault? :razz:

You'd be logicaly justified in doing so, assumeing you have a moral predliction gainst country music. :razz:

I never siad it was right, only logical. there is a big difference sometimes. However, lets not get intop a definition of "right". I think that thread would be three times as long as this one.

Jeff, I wasn't citing the stereotype as anything substantial in the least, only as evidence that there is something of a 'gay lifestyle'. If such a thing did not exist, there would be no Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, perhaps no stereotype of a gay man in general.

Reality creates stereotypes, not the other way around.

My point being that when homosexuality, or to embrace a gay 'lifestyle', is a concious decision, it cannot be defended as being a natural course of action.

That being said, I don't at all believe that most homosexuals follow the pop culture ideal of a gay lifestyle, in the same way that people should not automatically judge Americans from what they see on television.

Jinx, where exactly can I buy that shirt?

Cassius
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/tshirt.php?sku=a23

I want to get a small of the "Anorexia is Phat" shirt since I'm skinny as hell and people keep bugging me about it.

Allrighty- Fair enough. I posted at a really bad time, since I had a 5 hour drive ahead of me and haven't had a chance to post in here since my initial post. With that in mind- some of these quotes may be a bit outdated, but whatever.

Oh, and just to be clear about this- I respect Orphs views. He has every damn right to hold them, and just because I don't agree with them doesn't mean I can trash them. I feel completely opposite about this issue, obviously, but I don't really care. Holding that against him on a website about video game editing is just absurd. My 2 cents on that issue...

With that out of the way, though-

Unless Korn is right and there is something (genetic) in your brain, I can't see how being gay is anything other than nurture?

Homesexualaltiy CAN happen during the whole birthing process, its all o do with the XX for females and the XY chromosones for males, the body is still the same for the male but with one slight problem, he is born with one extra X chromosone instead of a Y chromosone. [the opposite for females]

Actually, I think there was a study that showed that "the gay" could possible be "caused" by an excess in estrogen that esentually saturated the fetus with a hormone of the opposite sex. How reliable that study was, I can't say. I just remember a little blip about it in a psych book I had for a class.

if my grandson came out, he would indeed fall into the disowned category, that is not my choice, that is how it is. if you think like i do, then it makes sense, he would know up front, and non-negotiable the terms of his decision. again its not up for debate from members of the snarkpit, its how it is in this home. my wife and i are in agreement, and since we are the ones having to pay the price, i feel it is our decision alone, not yours.

See- this is one of the problems "my people" (for lack of a better term, I suppose) face. Some people say things like "Why would they chose a lifestyle that has a high rate of suicide/depression," and the answer is something like what I quoted. Some of us (myself included) are terrified at the idea of "coming out" to our friends/family. I mean, it's all good an well, but then you tell your parents how you feel and bloop no more family to lean on. I feel that my parents and I have a close relationship, but I haven't told them about me. Call it cowardice, call it weakness, call it whatever you damn well please, but the fact is, that the very thought of them disowning/disapproving of me terrifies me. I can't even think of a decent analogy to compare it with, it's just that scary for me.

Take that same idea back out to a social setting- I only tell people that I really, really feel comfortable with (I can count on two hands how many people actually know (discluding all of you, sorry, since you don't actually know me (as in in person, I still consider some of you great friends))). The same reasons as above- I don't want to be abandoned. It's as simple as that. I know that some of my friends would probably never speak to me again if I told them "about me." You might think that that makes them bad friends, but I'm willing to bet one or two of them would be willing to catch a bullet for me, and I would do the same in their cases. It doesn't make them bad people, I just don't think they would understand.

some men might just be weak minded enuff to not only seek out the counsel of men, but want, (thru the hormonal imbalances of puberty, and ALL the confusing things puberty brings with it), more than just counseling.

I am not weak minded. As I said before, I didn't just wake up one day and just said "Welp, time to be gay."

well jeff i reckon you will 1st need to find some, preferably more than just one, that will admit they were enticed (NOT COERCED as andrew would lead you all to believe ) and ask them to tell you.

Who the hell entices someone to be gay? Seriously. I don't go walking down the street stopping every young person I see and passing out a pamphlet on "How to be gay." Nor did I ever recieve such a pamphlet. When was the last time you actually SAW someone doing anything similar to that? I mean, really, come on.

On topic again- You said somewhere that you would divorce your wife if the legislation was passed allowing gay marriage (and I realize that you would be doing it just for show, and not actually seperate with your wife). So let me ask you this- Why did you get married in the first place? I think your answer would match a reason I would site to get married to someone I love.

sounds a tad greedy if you ask me.

That actually made me laugh, thanks for that.

And finally,

Don't even get me started on how much s**t like this pisses me off (and no, this isn't aimed at you, jinx, it's aimed at society.) This kind of stuff is actually glamorized by people- and that type of hypocrisy pisses me the hell off. Hanging up in my dorm room, at this very moment, is a picture my roomate got showing two young girls making out on a bed. He's perfectly OK with that. I have heard him talk about how he hates gays though... Gah. I can't stand that. So it's OK for them because it gets you off, but it's not OK for me because it disgusts you? Hooray for double standards.

I'm done now, sorry.

Damn Monqui, words cannot express my respect for you. I know we are all hidden and protected by thousands of miles of telecom hardware, but it takes allot of guts to (figuritivly) stand up and say what you have, particularly in light of some of the things which have been said in this thread. My hat is off to you.

scary_jeff said:
What I am trying to say is that it is totally wrong when you and Orph say that it is simply a choice that people make - you have nothing to base this on. If you were simply saying this and leaving it at that, then it would not be so bad, but based on this baseless assumption, you are making very strong judgements.

if this is directed at me Jeff, could you please quote where i stated my opinion one way or another as to what causes someone to be gay. and if possible, where i made any judgements, strong or otherwise, that would warrent my opinion to be considered as nothing but a crock of s**t.

Monqui, I applaud you. I need a better clapping smiley.

Tracer Bullet said:
but it takes allot of guts to (figuritivly) stand up and say what you have

I know you probably didnt mean it like this tb but the way you put it it sounds like you think monqui has a desese. Like I said I know you probably didn't mean it and I don't want to sart anything from it I was just pointing it out.

Going back to the original question because I havent given my view on it yet.

I think that gay coupples have just as much right to get married as any other coupple just because there are men or women makes no difference to me as long as there ready for that kind of commitment then good luck to them I say.

I'm persoanly against marrage because most of them get devorced because there not ready to get married they think that they've been together for a certain time so the next thing they have to do is get married and it just ends up killing there relationship and if they have any kids it can screw them up or sometimes it can be a good thing if the parents are staying together just for the child. Any way just gone a little off track there.

and Monqui like tb said it must have taken some guts to come out after some of the things said in this this thread. I applaud you.

Monqui, I'd applaud you, but you need to learn how to use BBcode properly first :wink:

I've ever only known 2 gay people- met both of them this year. One of them has quite obviously come out, everyone knows they're gay, they even write the 'Ask A Queer' column in the UK FHM magazine, and is pretty happy with life and does well for himself. The other guy hasn't come out and I only know in confidence from a close (girl) friend of mine (although I did find it pretty 'obvious'), but he's not a particularly happy bunny as a couple of his friends know and don't cope with it well.

It doesn't bother me that they are gay and I don't act any differently towards them, but I still find the idea of gay sexual acts incredibly repulsive- perhaps that is an important reason people are "opposed" to the idea of being gay? And camp people really piss me off, which doesn't help much either :wink: (I'm not equating campness with being gay, but there is correlation)

TBH in all reality, it shouldnt really matter if a person is gay or straight, black or white, etc.

Take them on their level of kindness and humanity, and how they are as a person rather than their lifestyle.

That's how I live anyway :smile: One of my ex's was bi

good post, Monqui. :smile:

I posted that pic of those girls partially because of the funny t-shirt, since gamers use the word 'gay' constantly for some reason.

I also posted it because I wondered how many "oh wait lesbians are okay!" responses I would get. There's a rather dumb double-standard I think, since they seem to satisfy the erotic fantasies of male heterosexuals. Lesbians are okay because they are still, in our minds, sex objects. Gay men are horrifying, though, because heterosexual men see the possibility that they could themselves become the objects of a male's sexual desire, ie feminized.

I think a lot of drunk straight girls make out in bars etc., too... again, to please the men they are with. Seriously doubt the girls in that pic are actually gay or bi.

Okay, that's enough dime-store psychology for one post. :rolleyes:

The sight of two girls kissing is less shocking than the male equivalent; even girls think that (at least all the girls i asked). I think that's because women's nature tend to be more affectionate and caressing than males. Two girls making out is a very sweet sight, but two guys doing it looks kind of brutal... Of course, that's only an exterior judgement; i wouldn't know how it really feels.

gimpinthesink said:

Tracer Bullet said:
but it takes allot of guts to (figuritivly) stand up and say what you have

I know you probably didnt mean it like this tb but the way you put it it sounds like you think monqui has a desese. Like I said I know you probably didn't mean it and I don't want to sart anything from it I was just pointing it out.

Obveously this was not my intent. "say what you have said" I supose would have been more clear, but would have been somewhat redundant.

Fishy, what I said was in no way directed at you :smile:

if given a choice, a child growing up parent-less, and in a foster-home, i would chose gays rights to adopt, but only as a very last resort, then the strictest set of circumstances available to monitor the new family for deviant traits being taught or passed on, if the family remains "normal" then fine and dandy, but if the gayisms are transfered in any way to the helpless and influential children, it would be considered child abuse and charges filed.

i thought this topic was about whether homosexuals can marry or not, not whether they can adopt.
But orph, i totally agree with you, if a homosexual couple put pressure on the child or influence them into becoming a homosexual then they should be charged

same with heterosexual parents who tell their gay kids not to be gay.

you guys need to rewatch that first "Big Gay Al" episode of South Park. Orpheus clearly needs to go on Big Gay Al's Big Gay Boatride.

btw, I -think- the rerun at 7:00PM tonight of the Daily Show has the gay penguins segment, quite funny.

1st off let me stress, i am 56k at the moment, and connected at 26.4 so this thread has grown way to much for me to look at right now..

but i would like to comment and clarify a few points if i can with this stupid dial-up my dad has at his house :sad:

Monkee, although i applaud you, and respect you just as much as before, your confession was un-necessary, and i hope that my admittedly archaic outlook on homosexuality was in no way responcible for this. the very fact that you are humble about my viewpoint only makes me feel all the more like a heel, i KNOW i should avoid these topics, and most of you KNOW i won't, makes me wonder if you do them just to make me look stupid... bottomline, i would hope that we remain as good a friend as we were last week.. (admittedly, that level might not have been as much as i once considered, since you knew my stand, but i didn't know yours)

T.B. The very fact that you disagree, but defended me so hard, makes it even more impressive than had you agree'd.. it is so refreshing to have someone do so with such gusto.. it does happen, many have defended my honor while i am on the road, but very few unto death as you have.. my deepest and humblest thanx.

Jeff lets say for sake of arguement that i am utterly mistaken, homosexuality is not a taught process, how about YOU post your opinion on how, be it one theory or multiple ones i don't care, but i think its your turn to sound stupid for a while, lets see if you can manipulate text any better than i at making comments and opinions clear.

Jinxy for the last time, you do NOT have to understand my opinions for them to be viable.. no more so than i need understand why you dress funny, why you repeatedly FAIL to grasp this idea, or why relativity is even a theory, Einstien is dead, its no longer important.. and most especially, i do not need to understand why you favor homosexuality at all.. its not important i understand, i believe you, i trust you, and thats all that matters.

I am sure that there are other individuals i should mention, but this damned 56k sux.. so it will have to wait till i get home.

lastly let me attempt to elaberate a bit if possible..

monkee i would like to point out that i did not decide one day to be straight, it was a long process, and might or might not have also been a taught process, but the point is i didnt wake up one day and decide "i think i will be normal"

the taught process some of you still seem to not acknowledge.... teaching someone to be gay in not a crash course sort of deal, i doubt anyone truly believes when i said i feel it is a taught thing that i mean they bought a book on it yesterday, found it appealing and tryed it out for size :rolleyes: , also i truly doubt anyone really thinks i meant a conspiracy either, that was just plain hateful to even bring up.. teaching is subtle.. its happening right now, right HERE at the snarkpit, we could very well have a few undecided gays, or potential ones, who might be swayed by this very debate, its doubtful, but well withing probability.. also suble could mean consent.. if you are normal but have no issues with gays, then you are in reality perpetuating the problem but making it seem like much less of a deal than it really is, YOU ARE teaching it, whether you believe it or not. young minds are impressionable, my biggest fear is i might unknowingly acquire my own "groupy" bunch.. i would not curse anyone with what i have to endure.. snarkpit is not the only close minded people whom claim to be open-minded.. you think being gay is a minority, try being part of my group, its much smaller, damned few have the tenacity it takes to be like me.. whether you feel thats good or bad is not important, you must give credit to where its due.. being consistantly told you are wrong, is no picnic.

anyways, i think its someone elses turn, if i am wrong, so be it, but no one has done anything yet except SAY i am, no one has proven it yet.

Gwil said:
i think people accept that orph has a point of view, theyre just trying to show their opinion (and the majority opinion) and "enlighten" orph. whether this happens or not is another issue.

is this truly what we are after here? i was not under the impression anyone was qualified in the psycology necessary to enrich my life.

its insulting to even comprehend the idea that any of you are arrogant enuff to even attempt to enlighten me of this subject, or any debatable one that clearly has no provable outcome.

to my knowledge, there is absolutely no way to disprove my claims, all you are left with is a bunch of theories, and whomever can portray them in a light acceptable enuff to warrant serious consideration.

IMO no one here is qualified to judge me, or my stance on the gay issue, you can disagree and i would hope you do if you felt like it, but you cannot, or SHOULD NOT claim to be an authority, at least to the extent of enlightenment.. sounds more like brainwash, or browbeat, or even threaten, but not enlighten..

you wound me deeply gwil

Orph, if you admit that there is no proof either way (Whether homosexuality is natural or chosen), why can't you at least give them the benefit of the doubt?

I'm a scientist & a literary critic. I deal with data. I deal with citations. When you make a statement that you can't back up in any way, I will call you on it. Your argument against homosexuality is circular... to you it's bad because it's bad. Sorry, that doesn't hold up in a real debate.

I'm not saying you can 'prove' homosexuality to be good or bad, but you can discuss it in a rational manner, and you can suggest reasons for one or the other conclusion. When you simply state that you are completely against it, and fail to establish or defend that position in any way, you look like... a moron. Sure, you are welcome to have that opinion, but don't expect us to respect unless you can express why you hold it.

SuperCrazy said:
Orph, if you admit that there is no proof either way (Whether homosexuality is natural or chosen), why can't you at least give them the benefit of the doubt?

them? who's them SC..

i have not said anyone was wrong, in fact most have only said i was.

if you are refering to gays, benefit of what doubt?

i already mentioned at least once, that if science proves me wrong, and homosexuality is a genetic condition, i would endevour to mend my ways... but i would retain the hope of a cure. is that so horrible?

i cannot bend any more, at least not as swiftly as some of you feel i must in order to "FIT IN" around here.

homosexuality is wrong, that is not in question, what is is its cause, be it environmental, or genetics.

i am sorry, but thats about all i can concede to, but i stress again, NO ONE has proven me wrong, only SAID i was, and thats even more foolish than i blindly following my own faith.

Jinx said:
I'm a scientist & a literary critic. I deal with data. I deal with citations. When you make a statement that you can't back up in any way, I will call you on it. Your argument against homosexuality is circular... to you it's bad because it's bad. Sorry, that doesn't hold up in a real debate.

I'm not saying you can 'prove' homosexuality to be good or bad, but you can discuss it in a rational manner, and you can suggest reasons for one or the other conclusion. When you simply state that you are completely against it, and fail to establish or defend that position in any way, you look like... a moron. Sure, you are welcome to have that opinion, but don't expect us to respect unless you can express why you hold it.

jinx, shut up..

you are going to far again.. you of all people screw up quite frequently when it comes to misunderstanding concepts, on numerous occations you were sporting enuff to appologize afterward, but the fact remained, you jumped before you looked.

in this thread alone, you misquoted me on numerous occations, but i didnt fault you for it, i just chaulk it up to text issues and move on.

i will say this once more, and FULLY expect you to honor my request, i do NOT have to justify or make you comprehend anything i value.. no more so than you do for me.

consider it blind FAITH on my part, my version of a religion, i need no other proof, and NEITHER do YOU.

quite frankly you are not important enuff for me to even consider seriously whether i make you understand or not, you do NOT have to believe me, just accept that i believe ME.

please do not turn this ugly, cause you are treading thin ice by attempting to place me in a corner. i am not about to wear snarkpits version of a dunce cap. accept my answer, or ignore it, but do not call it into question again, cause then you will be the one talking circular, and by all definitions a moron as well.

I'm simply saying it's ridiculous to hate a group of people because of how you believe they got that way. We can't determine exactly why gay people are gay, so why do you assume the worst? It just seems so arbitrary.

As for everyone's hostility, it would be like you trying to comprehend the position of a racist. I realize to you there's a difference between being against gays and being against blacks (for example), but the positions appear the same to those of us on the other side of the argument. Disowning a child because they love someone of the same sex seems as disturbing to me as disowning a child because they love someone of a different race.

Jinx said:
I'm a scientist & a literary critic. I deal with data. I deal with citations. When you make a statement that you can't back up in any way, I will call you on it. Your argument against homosexuality is circular... to you it's bad because it's bad. Sorry, that doesn't hold up in a real debate.

Jinx, I have yet to see anything resembling scientific thought or comment from you. You ridicule others opinions for their lack supporting evidence, while providing none of your own. I have seen nothing of the calm thoughtful investigator willing to contemplate all sides of the issue. I see a petulant child more reliant on sarcasm than logic.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>

Orpheus said:

Gwil said:
i think people accept that orph has a point of view, theyre just trying to show their opinion (and the majority opinion) and "enlighten" orph. whether this happens or not is another issue.

is this truly what we are after here? i was not under the impression anyone was qualified in the psycology necessary to enrich my life.

its insulting to even comprehend the idea that any of you are arrogant enuff to even attempt to enlighten me of this subject, or any debatable one that clearly has no provable outcome.

to my knowledge, there is absolutely no way to disprove my claims, all you are left with is a bunch of theories, and whomever can portray them in a light acceptable enuff to warrant serious consideration.

IMO no one here is qualified to judge me, or my stance on the gay issue, you can disagree and i would hope you do if you felt like it, but you cannot, or SHOULD NOT claim to be an authority, at least to the extent of enlightenment.. sounds more like brainwash, or browbeat, or even threaten, but not enlighten..

you wound me deeply gwil

Orph, it's that medium of text again.. I mislaid my words, and they can be construed badly.. I didnt mean that in a way to say for example "orph is a stubborn bigot" - I am just highlighting to Tracer_Bullet that it's happening. I phrased 'enlighten' within the speech marks in an off the cuff way to highlight some peoples determination to engage in you "trench warfare" on the forums over the issue.

There is no deep meaning to it, I dont go for low swipes like that - I disagree with your opinion and find it quite un-understandable (is that even a word?!), but I still respect that you have, and are perfectly entitled to your opinion.

I never go for "flaming" as it were, unless it is a topic that really gets me going :smile: It's just a comment misconstrued, didn't mean any harm or malice to you at all bud :smile:

I hope you can understand and can see fit to pass it off as an error of judgement on my part to even put that phrase down in the first place :smile:

Orpheus said:
consider it blind FAITH on my part, my version of a religion, i need no other proof, and NEITHER do YOU.

if you are admitting it's blind faith, then that's fine. I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard for us to have a conversation with you about this topic when your views are based on that... you have left nothing open to discussion, you know?

Tracer, the 'burden of proof' is on the prosecution- those condemning gays.

and there's nothing wrong with sarcasm! :razz:

though I'm sorry if I've slipped from "sarcasm" to "assholism" from time to time whistles innocently

The only reason that I "confessed" anything on here is because this is the life that I live- whether it was by choice, freak accident, fate, divine intervention, upbringing, learned, or just happened, it's something that I need to live with. I did it because I, obviously, feel quite strongly about this issue and it would have been rather pointless to post my views on it without actually "revealing" my "freakishness". I didn't want my arguments to come out as mere rhetoric- in my life, these arguments are fact. They are something that make up my reality.

The bottom line is, every damn day I wake up and I face a choice- lie to the people closest to me or risk losing them. It's really that simple. The thing that really aggravates me on this whole issue is the fact that I shouldn't have to hide what I am.

Tell me how I am harming anyone (excluding me and those I choose to have relationships with- in that case, the only harm we could possibly do would be to one another, and that doesn't count) by living this way.

You said somewhere in this thread that you can't be just partially gay, or partially straight, it just goes either way. Then, you say something along the lines of me possibly swaying the minds of the young to become gay. By your logic, wouldn't they already know if they had homosexual feelings? And if they did, wouldn't that then irreversibly "mark" them as being homosexual? I guess I just don't understand how that works.

I don't see how I could therefore be a catalyst making someone gay by posting- either they feel that way or they don't.

Nobody "taught" me "the gay"- I wasn't molested as a child, I was never sat down and told "here is what you have to do to be gay."

And back on topic, you still haven't told me why you got married in the first place.

I'm not advocating that everyone in the world needs to love and cherish gay people- I just want to not be considered a freak by people like yourself because of something that I don't feel to be my fault, and doesn't harm anyone else.

If this sounds like an attack, I'm really sorry. But, as I'm sure you're feeling while reading this post, it kinda stings when you percieve people attacking your personal values. Plus, it's 12:30 and I'm way past tired.

Monqui said:
In my experience, some people are just too close-minded to step outside of their little boxes for just one minute and take a look at the world through someone elses eyes.

i think thats the main problem with people in general, not necesasarily just restricted to this topic. Open mindness is a complex compisition of maturity experience and many different manners of thinking (crictical, analytical plus others, all too varying ideas etc), as well as motivation. If someone has all these traits, with no motivation to use them they will be as closed minded as the next person.

All this requires considerable effort (liken this to the sad idea of 'its easier to hate then it is to love') and in todays world, unfortunately this effort is spent else where

then again you could have open minded but stuanch religoinist (sp?)(yes such people exsist, i know a few), brought up to disrespect homosexuals.

i think i made the point i wanted to

monkee- i know you couldnt have kept up with umpteen pages so i fully realize where the confusion might have occured..

someplace way back we talked about a line being drawn, mine is substantially later it seems than yours occures in the "creation" or "evolution" of being gay.

IMO gay occures at the point of first intercourse with the same gender, up to that point you are not yet gay. my reason? because you cannot be punished for a thought, and you, monkee (and i really do not want to know your active sex life PLEASE) are still only thinking with all the words you have posted about your condidtion.

in your opinion (from your words) gay begins at the moment of conception, the conception of the thought, "i love him" or " i am attracted to him"

my way has a salvation and a choice, your way condems a lot of innocent people to a life of evil, they have not yet committed, i am not trying to say which version is the real one, just that my way leaves more time, or room to hope for another outcome besides "i am gay, cause i feel for a man"

i hope that made some sort of sense, cause i really cannot express it much better in text.

gwil, i appologize, for falling victim to the same text bug as everyone else.. i should have known better, but this whole thread went from open (OPEN) disccusion to attack orph again, its made me edgy.

jinx- you claim i left nothing open for discussion, but i stressed repeatedly that if science proves me wrong that i would repent, why must the burden of proof lie totally with me? cause my preceptions of gay are more distructive than most? why is that? i have not hurt anyone either :sad:

monkee, gays have not harmed me, and i have harmed no gays, just because few gays know of me, but i know of many gays, that makes them innocent, and me guilty?

lack of harming, SHOULD work both ways, but because gay is supposed to be harmless, but my harsh views are considered OTT, mine are wrong.. that seems very unfair, and really a one sided opinion of exactly what harmless is..

i use my opinions of gays, to deture my future family from making the biggest mistake of their lives, the fact that gays do not consider it a mistake is secondary here, the fact remains, i must use every tool at my disposal to ensure my children and childrens children grow up the best they can be.. if i fail, its my fault no theirs i suppose, but its definately a burden i will carry for the rest of my days.

this topic should never have switch from gays rights to orphs, but many seem insistant on making it so every damed time we discuss a taboo subject.

just because my opinions appear erroneous, by no means, means they are up for debating..

consider this monkee, i am not ashamed of anything i type, nor anything i have expressed, albiet poorly sometime, so neither should you.. pick your own time with this, do not allow the snarkpit to ruin your future.. if your parents are as close minded as i am, do not ruin what you KNOW you have, in the hopes of what you feel you must have.

that may not be the best advice, but its all i can give.. if i had a secret, one as life impacting as yours, i would not be in any rush to find out how it will be accepted, its not as if you have cancer and will die in 6 months, there is no need to hurry, for fear you have little time.

Orph, I have already said my position... If somebody is gay, it's not something they can decide not to be, and it's not something that they just decided they want to be at any stage - I can't see how you can logically disagree with this statement? You are hating people for something that is out of their control, and I think this is a rediculous standpoint, especially since you don't have any reason for this hatred other than the fact that a person is gay (i.e. you never said anything that gay people do that harms you). Please explain to me how this is different from when somebody hates black people just because they are black, or thinks women shouldn't have any rights, just because they aren't men?

[edit] Just read the 'blind faith' part. This reason would be just fine if you were just saying 'I do not think gay mariage should be allowed', but you are saying that you hate gay people! Where is an example of a religion that encourages people to actively hate others? Hate is not something that should come out of faith [/edit]

scary_jeff said:
Orph, I have already said my position... If somebody is gay, it's not something they can decide not to be, and it's not something that they just decided they want to be at any stage - I can't see how you can logically disagree with this statement?

jeff, for someone who claims smart, you sure are dumb at times..

you are disagreeing with me cause of how i say gays come into being, or are you anylonger? i am not sure, but the point is, i didn't ask you if you think they are here, i asked you how they got that way ... i wanna hear your opinion on this. your whole premise for discussing this topic stemmed from my reasons.. although i have said repeatedly, that i hate them cause of the process OF their creation, which is the teaching.i consider gay to be evil, and spreading it also to be evil, so teaching people to be gay is evil, its fairly simply.. i wanna hear, or read actually, if you have any ideas, and just how forking articulate YOU can be using text, cause quite frankly, you failed miserably, just disagreeing with me using text, i cannot see how you will do any better using text to pose any ideas of your own :rolleyes:

look jeff, and everyone for that matter, its gotten old, if you have a theory to the contrary of mine, either post it, or shut up about it, cause i am tired of banging my head, against the wall so to speak.

if my opinion is soooo hard to comprehend, then you are NOT, by any definition ... open-minded.

jeff, either answer my question, or be quiet (to paraphrase your question toward me)