| Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
Umm, there is no such thing as an ex gay person. Sorry, there isn't.
I witnessed a former gay person say this to a gay person. Seriously, I did. It was in a public place on a college campus and the two people were arguing about homosexuality. And the gay guy challenged her by saying, "You don't know what it's like to be a homosexual." To which the now straight lady said, "Yes, I do, because I was a lesbian." It dropped like a bombshell on the argument because none of us knew that about her past. The homosexual guy was so stunned he was speechless. We were speechless too.[/quote] |
| news watcher |
| ||
NBC showed an old clip of Obama as a senator stating he was against gay marriage. |
| My opinion |
| ||
|
Yeah but the question is who would be a better runner? The one who had a difficult life verses the one who was nurtured? Btw, I would like to see more than one study...also. what about the gay couple who tried to turn their son into a girl? I remember reading something about that on here a while back. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
there are plenty of straight couples who marry and do not have children. Should you then say they are not allowed to marry? That in order to get married you must have children? Homosexuality is natural in that I was born this way. It is productive in that I am a productive member of society. My partner and I do charity work together, and it is your opinion that it is not right. Why do you care if gay marriage leads to other "harmful and widely-rejected sexual behaviors". Not only does this not affect you but you are also not able to substantiate it.
|
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
You can't teach people to be gay. You can only teach acceptance. If that is who they are accept it. You can't change it, and you can't create a homosexual boy out of a straight one. The fact that you think that makes it virtually impossible to talk to you because you have no clue about being gay. The LGBT did not push for this amendment. Right wing whackos did. When someone tries to take away your rights, you fight. But straights consider this fighting to be "in your face". Well, get out of my our lives, give us the same rights as others, and we will have nothing to fight for.
I used to be indifferent to the homosexual issue. The main reason I express concern about it is because of my kids being taught in public schools. I don't want to pull them out, but I also don't want them being taught that it's normal for boys to like boys and girls to like girls. Since I have kids, it's pretty important to me. Do you have kids? Do you want them taught to be gay? So did you read my earlier post on page 2 of this thread? Why is consensual incest (in a non-child bearing situation) illegal? Society abhors that and considers it immoral. Society has the right to determine what is moral. I don't think homosexuality should be outlawed (like in times past). And homosexuals certainly should not be persecuted or abused. I just don't think it should be legally sanctioned and thereby taught in the public schools as being normal. By the way, you need to rethink about the "ten percent myth." Check out what the CDC says about the actual percentage of homosexuals in the U.S. It's far less than 10%. And that's statistics coming from a government agency, not some religious group. There is absolutely no science to indicate that homosexuality is genetic. There is no "gay gene." It's a chosen behavior. People have the right to behave that way if they want but for our government to sanction it and teach it as normal behavior to my children is overstepping the boundaries. And no, I'm not worked up about this. It's the LGBT community that keeps working this up and pushing this as an issue in state after state. And when states like N.C. respond as they did, they are the ones who are seen as intollerant. Well, why is society intollerant towards incest? Why is society intollerant towards polygamy? There are laws against that. And there are plenty of people wanting to practice that. Are their rights being infringed upon?[/quote] |
| Hello?? |
| ||
|
Charity work, really? What kind of charity work do gays do these days? |
| serious question. |
| ||
It's not as complicated as you make it sound. That's just blurring the facts to avoid the reality that homosexuality is acquired by choice. For obvious reasons, we can't do this, but take 1000 twelve year old boys and show them each a picture of a buff naked man and a hot naked woman and see which one they get a b0ner for. It's not that complicated.[/quote] What the hell are you even talking about? Goddamn, it's always the homophobes that have the most vivid pornographic imaginations. I'm glad you enjoy your little scene, with you and 1,000 twelve year-old boys looking at naked pictures. You and the rest of the gay-hating Republican party can beat off to stuff like that for hours. The rest of us? We'd rather not picture underage children being brought to arousal by you. Enough. Your comments about anal sex being taught in school and your way-too graphic description of you and 1,000 naked aroused children are over the top and frankly should get you arrested. But what they really do is show you to be physically repulsed by homosexuality. You have no reason to think that gays do any harm to their communities, partners, or adopted children: you just. don't. like. them. I'm sorry. They're here. They're real. And they're not turning straight because of your indignation. And your indignation, your hate, makes you weak. You think you're a tough guy because you're mouthing off on an anonymous running message board and voting against the rights of your friends and neighbors? Nope. All that shows is that you're fragile and defensive. So I'll say it again. We're a bigger, better country than you would have us be. We're more generous, more imaginative, more accepting, and stronger - making room for more people at the table doesn't mean there's less to go around. It means the company is more complex, the conversation more compelling. One day maybe you'll get it. Anyway, like I said: Enough. You disgust me, tough guy.[/quote] You're offended by my example that an adolescent kid would be turned by a hot naked woman? Seriously? Lol. You're acting like you have no sex drive at all which I doubt is true. But I guess you just ran out arguments and just wanted to obscure things with an ad hominem argument. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
The same kind as straights do, idiot. But if you must know we do a lot of work for a local hospice organization. Now crawl back in your homophobic hole you closet case. |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
He wasn't offended that an adolescent kid would get turned on by looking at naked women, but that you used an example of showing an underage boy pornographic pictures, which is actually corruption of a minor. If I were a participant in your illegal study, I would have gotten a b0ner at the buff guy at the age of 5, if not earlier. I knew this early that I was attracted to men. I didn't even know what gay was. Had never heard the word, didn't know anyone who was gay, yet I still turned out gay. If you show me the naked woman now there would still be no reaction. serious dude wrote: You're offended by my example that an adolescent kid would be turned by a hot naked woman? Seriously? Lol. You're acting like you have no sex drive at all which I doubt is true. But I guess you just ran out arguments and just wanted to obscure things with an ad hominem argument. |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
NBC showed an old clip of Obama as a senator stating he was against gay marriage.[/quote] He filled out a survey in 1996 which included a question on gay marriage, to which he affirmed that he wanted to see it legalized. |
| normalcy |
| ||
This is a wonderful way to give back to the community. See, I don't understand why people have such a problem with gays. I wish more people did charity work. I work with hospice in a community here in Wisconsin. What aspect do you guys volunteer in? It's very rewarding! |
| playsfortheotherteam |
| ||
|
Landscaping, gardening and meal delivery. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
I'm not sure if anyone has brought this point up, but I think it is worth thinking about: I think that people are gay (mostly) due to genetic factors. In other words they were born that way. On the other hand, I was born to find homosexuality immoral. It's not an environmental thing, just who I am. Even if I was born into a family of two dads or two moms, I would of course love them, and I would probably even end up being proactive to encourage wider acceptance, but deep inside, something just wouldn't feel quite... right, because I'm just hardwired not to think it is. So it seems that people are born to find certain behaviors acceptable or unacceptable, and while environmental factors can change their attitudes toward these behaviors much more than it can change someone born with the tendencies toward these behaviors, my *guess* is among humans: Homosexuality: 40% innately think its acceptable Incest, necrophilia: 2% innately think its acceptable Interracial relationships: 90% innately think its acceptable Like I said, despite a genetic influence, these percentages can be shifted enormously by environmental factors. For instance, until ~1970s, interracial marriage was frowned on. I think the percentage that approved of this behavior during this time period was actually lower than what it should be based on genetic factors alone, and many people were just going along with how they were raised or what their peers thought. What's interesting is that finding a certain behavior moral/immoral doesn't have a strict correlation with being born to have a tendency toward that behavior. In other words, someone can be born gay but at the same time be born to find it immoral. In fact, there are many behaviors (many horrible ones) that people are born to have a tendency toward, but because they are were born to find these behaviors immoral, they don't act on them -- thankfully, otherwise we'd have a lot more crime. Having said that, I think the government should uphold the right of people to choose for themselves which behaviors they want to act on as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights, safety, or well-being of others. So in order to be consistent, I have to support the rights of incestuous and necrophilic people. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
You know, the last sentence I wrote gave me an interesting thought. For those who are religious: if God won't force anyone to behave a certain way (everyone gets a choice), why should humans be able to force that on people? |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
Do you have any scientific evidence to back that up? |
| carrot onion |
| ||
Not that I know of, but it could certainly be tested with the scientific method. Of the actions that I instinctively find immoral, some are the big obvious ones: murder, lying, cheating -- and then some are actions that other people don't think are immoral: drugs, casual sex, white lies. Then there are those things that I think are fine, but other people find immoral: interracial relationships, kissing (yes, some people think it's immoral). You don't believe everyone is born with the exact same set of what constitutes right and wrong do you? Like I said, the environment plays a big role, but there are certainly innate feelings toward these things. |
| carrot onion |
| ||
|
I should point out that if you think people are born gay or straight, why wouldn't you think some people are born repulsed by homosexuality? |
| Jeff Wigand |
| ||
I see a contradiction here, but basically, it comes down to: does this directly harm someone? I fail to see your logic in your disapproval of the morality of homosexuality (unless you're using "immoral" as others would use "unpalatable"). Then there are those things that I think are fine, but other people find immoral: interracial relationships, kissing (yes, some people think it's immoral).
We're social animals that require working together to survive as a species. That's basically programmed into us, perhaps a few exceptions not withstanding. |
| need some clarification |
| ||
I witnessed a former gay person say this to a gay person. Seriously, I did. It was in a public place on a college campus and the two people were arguing about homosexuality. And the gay guy challenged her by saying, "You don't know what it's like to be a homosexual." To which the now straight lady said, "Yes, I do, because I was a lesbian." It dropped like a bombshell on the argument because none of us knew that about her past. The homosexual guy was so stunned he was speechless. We were speechless too.[/quote][/quote] What do you mean there is no such thing as an ex gay person? Are you saying she never was a lesbian? If so, are you saying she was actually a heterosexual all along even though she did lesbian acts? If so, then who or what is a homosexual? Is it only a mindset or orientation or does it have to involve actual homosexual acts? Or are you saying that she will always be a lesbian since she did homosexual acts, even if it was only once and she did not "enjoy" it? If so, does that always make her bisexual if she then marries and has a kid with a guy? Or are you saying that all people are neither hetero- nor homosexual, and that it doesn't really matter what sex acts they've done because we're all the same? We just do different things? What are you saying? |
| cool dude! |
| ||
|
I'm not positive what your getting at here but I see your comparing homosexuality to necrophilia. The difference between homosexuality (at least the ones up for debate now) and necrophilia is that homosexuality is between two adult individuals who want to be with each other. Necrophilia is between one adult and one deceased individual who obviously cannot choose who it can be with. A necrophilic can not legally go to a morgue and start having sex with individuals. This type of "domino argument" which says "If we allow gays to get married then we will eventually be letting humans marry dogs" is first of all very offensive since you are comparing two adult human beings to a sub human species and secondly is literally the identical argument that was used when states were banning interracial marriage. |