Michael Sam is out.

[#34fan]

I am not sure what you mean by having to "include a certain lifestyle as part of your everyday life nor how you went from that to "male on male" action? Have you had a problem lately where gay couples forcing you to watch gay porn or having sex on your dining room table and demanding your applause? Depending on the setting and context, our society tolerates a certain amount of public displays of affection such as hand holding, hugs and light kissing. Gay couples aren't asking for anything more than that. If you had gay neighbors or a family member, would you consider their holding hands with their loved one, hugging or exchanging a hello/good-bye kiss to be engaging in "male on male action" that grosses you out? Is that the kind of inclusion of a lifestyle in your daily life that you feel unable to endure?

 

People are entitled to their likes and dislikes, maybe you can help me understand why it is that so many people feel the need to indicate what sex they like and don't like in a conversation about the civil rights and fair treatment of gay people. Is it a way of trying to make sure everyone knows you are straight? Is it a way of being straighter than the other guys? If one guy thinks of gay sex and simply reacts "no thanks" while a second guy goes into a medically verified coma, does that mean the second guy is more straight the than the first one?

 

Gay people have long had to deal with having their identity reduced to their specific sex acts. I am not accusing you of this at all. The thinking behind this is believed to be: "what I like and do is wonderful and full of love but what gay people do is devoid of love and just some sort of creepy sexual obsession with icky body parts." All desire and no love. Two men who love each other do so for the same reason other couples do and not because of some overpowering desire for an anus over a vagina. When people talk about their straight-couple friends, they don't boil them down to intricate details of whatever sex they are imagined to be having and they certainly aren't included or excluded from social events and gatherings based on personal reactions others might have about their sex lives.

 

Help me understand how it makes sense to respond to a discussion about civil rights, prejudice and social exclusion/inclusion with comments focused on ones personal preferences or revulsions regarding specific sexual activities when no one is asking you to participate in or witness those activities:

 

"I think that people who are overweight often are treated unfairly" -----"Yeah, but when they have sex it grosses me out"

'I think women should get equal pay for equal work" ------ "Maybe but you know, when they have sex during their periods its really icky, I hate that."

"I am concerned about african americans having unfair hurdles to cross before voting ---"Maybe so but I am not attracted to black people"

Our immigration policy is outdated and inefficient, what do you think? ---- "It makes me want to puke when I think of immigrant-on-immigrant action."

Lets invite Dave and Mary to the party ---- No way, she doesn't shave her legs, when I think of them having sex with all that hair everywhere, I retch."

 

If one reduces people to a sex act one then describes as sick, dirty, disgusting and then comment about how it is simply incomprehensible that someone would actually like doing that, it comes perilously close to saying that the people themselves are sick, dirty, disgusting and incomprehensibly gross. I don't think that is how you feel about people who are gay, but if you can put yourself in their shoes, imagine what it sounds like to them when they are having a conversation about marriage equality or some other issue important to them and the immediate reaction is a discussion of hairy anuses, beautiful vaginas and how their love lives are sick and disgusting.

 

LOL, so being Gay is a mere thought with no reference to any specific acts or behaviors. And I'm a jerk for implying that those behaviors really exist, and may be repulsive to some. -You're too funny!

 

Just shows the level of intolerance here when people try to be honest. FYI pal, this discussiion is 100% about feelings... You are incredibly naieve if you think feelings don't play into things like locker-room attitudes, and fan support... No one, so far, has advocated the removal of Gay rights.. No poster has advocated blocking Gays from polling places, or lunch-counters, or public restrooms, or anything else.

 

I think the vaccum you currently reside in may be getting a little cramped. Time to step out for some air... I'm of the opinion that if a person is a little uncomfortable around loads of Black people, it doesn't make them a Klansman. If you support LEGAL, CONTROLLED, immigration, you're not automatically a xenophobe. We're ALL a work in progress. We ALL need to work our way through things. Unless of course, you're a righteous, perfectly well adjusted gay activist. -Please let us know when you've hunted down and dealt with all the heathen homophobes.

Edited February 12, 2014 by #34fan

[D521646]

Juronimo –

Which is why I don't engage you on any but the most superficial of levels. You started with the belief that homosexuality was wrong, not natural, a choice as you phrased it last time, and then turned to science to support your beliefs. That is not science. That is an agenda. An agenda which is perfectly clear given your word choice and phrasing.

 

While you may feel up to the task of teaching genetics 101, I already took that class and a few others on the topic. Your self taught brand of science where you dismiss anything inconvenient as inconclusive while simultaneously embracing a position which is absolutely fringe and, coincidentally, exactly what you hoped to prove all along, is just a bit questionable. You should stick to philosophy and theology. They suit you better.

 

Why would I be proud of my tolerance for general human beings? Is tolerance for 10% of the population an accomplishment? I'm actually decidedly intolerant, by the way. Many people here can attest. Unlike you and your FreeRepub friends, my tolerance is on a case by case basis.

Well let’s see, ok you’re of the belief that homosexuality is a normal, biological outcome, yet you dismiss that a natural aversion to homosexuality could be equally natural, or biological. That’s an interesting perspective, however inconsistent as it appears, I’ll leave you to your senses. I do have an agenda, I think that’s blatantly obvious. My agenda is to educate people who have a natural aversion to homosexuality, among other things, but argue from a religious standpoint (God doesn’t like it) and to teach them that any religious argument will not be convincing enough. I also do not want homosexuality to become mainstream in our society not because I care if adults practice it, but because I don’t want it lofted upon unsuspecting children who do not possess the critical thinking ability to avoid it. Now I know you and I will never see eye to eye on that, and I KNOW you find that distasteful as you see one, that homosexuality isn’t something you can “catch” or be influenced by, and secondly that you find it perfectly natural. (Natural in the common understanding)

By the way, I never said the words homosexuality was wrong. That’s putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that homosexuality is a phenomenon that appears to have no evolutionary positive advantages. Notwithstanding modern medicine, evolution doesn’t know about modern medicine, so gay uncles and the like are all nice theories, but don’t stand up to logic as humans have never been so overpopulated as to require any need for non-reproducing humans. This bring up another genetic anomaly of sorts, in that, homosexuals seem to still retain the intrinsic desire to procreate, almost as if evolution didn’t finish the job, which sort of blows holes in the whole gay uncle thingy, but I digress.

You state that I turn to science to confirm my bias, yet, aren’t you and the gay movement and those that support it doing the exact same thing? Unlike you however, I concede that there is some science out there that does point to biological causation, and although promising research, hardly convincing at this stage. I’d actually say that unlike me, it is you that is blind and unwilling to accept alternate arguments to the contrary. You’re tolerant for tolerance sake, and if there’s any pre-conformation bias it is you that is exposing yourself, not I. Be damn the possible ramifications of a wholly accepting society. Social ramifications take time, and are not well understood, and we should all look to ANY possible outcome that may be negative in the long run, and science should give us those answers. Not feel-good science which turns a blind eye to negative consequences. That’s rational, and it applies to any social subject, NOT just the flavor of the month.

I’ll put my self taught education on genetics up against yours any day of the week, so don’t be so quick to appeal to authority, Juronimo. I also taught myself about computer science and have made a nice career for myself, and have been a big part in designing and implementing a whole new way to approach information analysis for a large fortune 50 company. Not bad for a guy that knew nothing about computers until he was 26. I took no formal training, no schooling, just me and my ambition got me where I am today. I do spend time on a varied array of topical discussion boards not limited to philosophy, space, physics, politics, economics just to name a few. I educate myself every day, and never lower my thirst for knowledge. You can’t paint me into a corner because my room is round, and although you may try, I am not so easily frazzled. Those on the gay support train accuse those on the opposing side of being faith driven and irrational for their beliefs, yet, I contend that when you really dig down, those in support of gay rights are equally faith based and irrational. Irrational in the sense that you hold a position on the cause of homosexuality and the possible ramifications of institutionalizing it, yet, there is no solid science to support your position.

You’ve allowed yourself to succumb to a faith-based philosophy because it feels right to you. I can appreciate that because I’m in no better position for my beliefs on the subject, but that doesn’t give you the torch my good man, we’re both still running for the light at the end of the tunnel.

Tim-

[Maury Ballstein]

Are we done yet ?

[D521646]

Numark =

I already said I'm not very tolerant of bigots, racists, etc. I'm okay with that.

 

 

Nice try, but you openly mocked a man for his traditional beliefs on sex. What you were doing was mocking his religious approach to sex. You know it and I know it, and that’s why your participation in this thread has only been marginalized by you with your own words. You claim to be oh so super-duper tolerant but you’re not really..

 

 

Tim-

 

Ryan –

Are we done yet?

 

 

I hope so, I have work to do. J

 

 

Tim-

[Jauronimo]

Juronimo –

 

Well let’s see, ok you’re of the belief that homosexuality is a normal, biological outcome, yet you dismiss that a natural aversion to homosexuality could be equally natural, or biological. That’s an interesting perspective, however inconsistent as it appears, I’ll leave you to your senses. I do have an agenda, I think that’s blatantly obvious. My agenda is to educate people who have a natural aversion to homosexuality, among other things, but argue from a religious standpoint (God doesn’t like it) and to teach them that any religious argument will not be convincing enough. I also do not want homosexuality to become mainstream in our society not because I care if adults practice it, but because I don’t want it lofted upon unsuspecting children who do not possess the critical thinking ability to avoid it. Now I know you and I will never see eye to eye on that, and I KNOW you find that distasteful as you see one, that homosexuality isn’t something you can “catch” or be influenced by, and secondly that you find it perfectly natural. (Natural in the common understanding)

 

By the way, I never said the words homosexuality was wrong. That’s putting words in my mouth. What I am saying is that homosexuality is a phenomenon that appears to have no evolutionary positive advantages. Notwithstanding modern medicine, evolution doesn’t know about modern medicine, so gay uncles and the like are all nice theories, but don’t stand up to logic as humans have never been so overpopulated as to require any need for non-reproducing humans. This bring up another genetic anomaly of sorts, in that, homosexuals seem to still retain the intrinsic desire to procreate, almost as if evolution didn’t finish the job, which sort of blows holes in the whole gay uncle thingy, but I digress.

 

You state that I turn to science to confirm my bias, yet, aren’t you and the gay movement and those that support it doing the exact same thing? Unlike you however, I concede that there is some science out there that does point to biological causation, and although promising research, hardly convincing at this stage. I’d actually say that unlike me, it is you that is blind and unwilling to accept alternate arguments to the contrary. You’re tolerant for tolerance sake, and if there’s any pre-conformation bias it is you that is exposing yourself, not I. Be damn the possible ramifications of a wholly accepting society. Social ramifications take time, and are not well understood, and we should all look to ANY possible outcome that may be negative in the long run, and science should give us those answers. Not feel-good science which turns a blind eye to negative consequences. That’s rational, and it applies to any social subject, NOT just the flavor of the month.

 

I’ll put my self taught education on genetics up against yours any day of the week, so don’t be so quick to appeal to authority, Juronimo. I also taught myself about computer science and have made a nice career for myself, and have been a big part in designing and implementing a whole new way to approach information analysis for a large fortune 50 company. Not bad for a guy that knew nothing about computers until he was 26. I took no formal training, no schooling, just me and my ambition got me where I am today. I do spend time on a varied array of topical discussion boards not limited to philosophy, space, physics, politics, economics just to name a few. I educate myself every day, and never lower my thirst for knowledge. You can’t paint me into a corner because my room is round, and although you may try, I am not so easily frazzled. Those on the gay support train accuse those on the opposing side of being faith driven and irrational for their beliefs, yet, I contend that when you really dig down, those in support of gay rights are equally faith based and irrational. Irrational in the sense that you hold a position on the cause of homosexuality and the possible ramifications of institutionalizing it, yet, there is no solid science to support your position.

 

You’ve allowed yourself to succumb to a faith-based philosophy because it feels right to you. I can appreciate that because I’m in no better position for my beliefs on the subject, but that doesn’t give you the torch my good man, we’re both still running for the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

Tim-

I've never rejected that its perfectly natural to have an aversion to what is different or new. Basic animal survival instincts. Its natural and easy to fear or dislike those different from you, just not logical a lot of the time.

 

I don't speak for homosexual activists. I don't know any and I am not an activist of any sort. My only agenda in this discussion is my own amusement.

 

You’re tolerant for tolerance sake, and if there’s any pre-conformation bias it is you that is exposing yourself, not I.

I'm sure the rest of the board will be happy to hear about how tolerant I am.

 

Institutional homosexuality. You heard it here first.

 

Out of curiosity, how are you reconciling an uninterested creator with a creator who is angered by the homosexuals he created?

Edited February 12, 2014 by Jauronimo

[Kirby Jackson]

For those of you that take issue with homosexuality what would be your ideal outcome? This is meant to be an honest question, not antagonistic. Do you want to teach children that it is wrong? Do you want camps to teach people to be straight? Do you want gay couples denied the rights of spouses? I am just trying to figure out what would happen in a perfect world from your perspective?

[Mr. WEO]

."--Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)

 

Is this the guy who coapted amyl nitrite to enhance for orgasmic enhancement initially in the gay community and which then spread to avante-guard heterosexuals?

I've never rejected that its perfectly natural to have an aversion to what is different or new. Basic animal survival instincts. Its natural and easy to fear or dislike those different from you, just not logical a lot of the time.

 

I don't speak for homosexual activists. I don't know any and I am not an activist of any sort. My only agenda in this discussion is my own amusement.

 

 

I'm sure the rest of the board will be happy to hear about how tolerant I am.

 

Institutional homosexuality. You heard it here first.

 

Out of curiosity, how are you reconciling an uninterested creator with a creator who is angered by the homosexuals he created?

 

I'm guessing .......Satan?

[D521646]

Juronimo –

Out of curiosity, how are you reconciling an uninterested creator with a creator who is angered by the homosexuals he created?

Wow, that’s really far down on the list, you’ve been busy with your infatuation with me. Answer, I don’t believe in God, I haven’t for a very LONG time, but clearly you never read my whole post or you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself posting a comment from another board from years ago where I present a logical argument that man could become God-like, given enough time and luck. LOL

That said, would you like to talk about my views on the logical argument for God? Not sure how we can discuss it here, but maybe you want to go to the PPP forum? -Or- was this an attempt to bait me.. I didn’t even go back to that post but I already knew what I said because I still believe it today, nothing has changed. See, I told you sparky, not so easy, and I am way too consistent in my arguments to be goaded by the likes of you. I have to say though that, I am a little flattered by the attention.

Tim-

[Numark]

Numark =

 

 

Nice try, but you openly mocked a man for his traditional beliefs on sex. What you were doing was mocking his religious approach to sex. You know it and I know it, and that’s why your participation in this thread has only been marginalized by you with your own words. You claim to be oh so super-duper tolerant but you’re not really..

 

 

Tim-

 

Ryan –

 

 

I hope so, I have work to do. J

 

 

Tim-

 

You have a reading comprehension problem. Get it checked out.

 

I actually said the opposite of what you said I claimed. None of this has to do with religion, even though I would mock an intolerant part of a religion (human rights > a quote from an book).

Edited February 12, 2014 by Numark

[RuntheDamnBall]

It's so simple, if you guys would just listen to God's message.

 

God loves you.

 

God hates the things you're doing.

 

God won't make you stop doing the things you're doing or revoke your power to do them. God also won't stop creating people who piss Him off or disappoint Him.

 

God is all powerful.

 

God is benevolent.

 

God is wrathful.

 

God is remarkably not a psycho ex-girlfriend, despite the similarities in the ways we would characterize them.

 

Our systems of governance and law are but a trifle in the kingdom of Heaven, but God is also angry if we don't make our laws more like God's.

 

On to bigger questions:

What is a bigger mess, this thread or the Cleveland Browns?

[DC Tom]

It's so simple, if you guys would just listen to God's message.

 

God loves you.

 

God hates the things you're doing.

 

God won't make you stop doing the things you're doing or revoke your power to do them. God also won't stop creating people who piss Him off or disappoint Him.

 

God is all powerful.

 

God is benevolent.

 

God is wrathful.

 

God is remarkably not a psycho ex-girlfriend, despite the similarities in the ways we would characterize them.

 

Our systems of governance and law are but a trifle in the kingdom of Heaven, but God is also angry if we don't make our laws more like God's.

 

On to bigger questions:

What is a bigger mess, this thread or the Cleveland Browns?

 

Still the Browns.

Edited February 12, 2014 by DC Tom

[thebandit27]

It's so simple, if you guys would just listen to God's message.

 

God loves you.

 

God hates the things you're doing.

 

God won't make you stop doing the things you're doing or revoke your power to do them. God also won't stop creating people who piss Him off or disappoint Him.

 

God is all powerful.

 

God is benevolent.

 

God is wrathful.

 

God is remarkably not a psycho ex-girlfriend, despite the similarities in the ways we would characterize them.

 

Our systems of governance and law are but a trifle in the kingdom of Heaven, but God is also angry if we don't make our laws more like God's.

 

On to bigger questions:

What is a bigger mess, this thread or the Cleveland Browns?

 

:worthy:

[D521646]

Kirby Jackson –

For those of you that take issue with homosexuality what would be your ideal outcome? This is meant to be an honest question, not antagonistic. Do you want to teach children that it is wrong? Do you want camps to teach people to be straight? Do you want gay couples denied the rights of spouses? I am just trying to figure out what would happen in a perfect world from your perspective?

 

 

Fair question(s) thanks for asking them. Although the answers require way more input than I have time to present, I will attempt to reach the main points.

 

• 
  I would like sex Ed to include a module on homosexual sex and the added inherent dangers to it. Statistically gay men (Not gay women incidentally who are among the fewest incidence of Std’s) 1 in 4 gay men will contract HIV before age 30, and 100% of them will die before age 55. Gay men are 60 times more likely than heterosexual men to contract HPV before age 30.
  
• 
  I want schools to inform student that homosexuality exists, and that they really don’t know why or how someone becomes a homosexual. I want them to provide all sides of the issue in a fair and decent manner.
  
• 
  I do not want camps to teach adults to be straight, or kids for that matter. I believe that this is unethical
  
• 
  I believe accommodations can be made for civil unions, but I reserve the title of marriage to heterosexual couplings. I believe that heterosexuals are intrinsically more well equipped to add biological familiarity to the family dynamic where both parents are blood related. I think do best in this situation, and that includes single parent households, and broken or abusive homes.
  
• 
  I believe homosexuals should not be barred from adoption, and a good home, is a good home, and it matters little to me who is providing that stability. Stability being the key word for a healthy upbringing.
  

 

 

 

Tim-

[thebandit27]

Still the Browns.

 

Yep

[ALF]

Former roommate Sheldon Richardson http://www.sportingn...nk2&pLid=442138

Edited February 12, 2014 by ALF

[Justice]

For those of you that take issue with homosexuality what would be your ideal outcome? This is meant to be an honest question, not antagonistic. Do you want to teach children that it is wrong? Do you want camps to teach people to be straight? Do you want gay couples denied the rights of spouses? I am just trying to figure out what would happen in a perfect world from your perspective?

 

I just wish television, media and any of the sort would stop force feeding us this stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they should completely remove it from pop culture, I just don't want to be blindsided by it while the family and I watch television together. I don't know, maybe add a new category to the rating system. You already have R, PG, and G, add a GY or something for gay content so I can have a heads up. I would also like to see the politicians give them equal rights once and for all so we can move on to more serious topics every election period.

[Jauronimo]

Juronimo –

 

Wow, that’s really far down on the list, you’ve been busy with your infatuation with me. Answer, I don’t believe in God, I haven’t for a very LONG time, but clearly you never read my whole post or you wouldn’t have embarrassed yourself posting a comment from another board from years ago where I present a logical argument that man could become God-like, given enough time and luck. LOL

 

That said, would you like to talk about my views on the logical argument for God? Not sure how we can discuss it here, but maybe you want to go to the PPP forum? -Or- was this an attempt to bait me.. I didn’t even go back to that post but I already knew what I said because I still believe it today, nothing has changed. See, I told you sparky, not so easy, and I am way too consistent in my arguments to be goaded by the likes of you. I have to say though that, I am a little flattered by the attention.

 

Tim-

You've been consistently goaded and baited. You dropped the whole charade about objectivity and going wherever the science leads and admitted you began with end in mind and backsolved to rationalize your worldview. Your agenda is exposed (well, partially. You're still trying to save some face). Every time I engage you, you respond with another lengthy and disjointed look into your worldview. I start the music, you dance. Yet you always conclude with a remark about how can't be goaded. Cute.

[thebandit27]

You state that I turn to science to confirm my bias, yet, aren’t you and the gay movement and those that support it doing the exact same thing? Unlike you however, I concede that there is some science out there that does point to biological causation, and although promising research, hardly convincing at this stage. I’d actually say that unlike me, it is you that is blind and unwilling to accept alternate arguments to the contrary. You’re tolerant for tolerance sake, and if there’s any pre-conformation bias it is you that is exposing yourself, not I. Be damn the possible ramifications of a wholly accepting society. Social ramifications take time, and are not well understood, and we should all look to ANY possible outcome that may be negative in the long run, and science should give us those answers. Not feel-good science which turns a blind eye to negative consequences. That’s rational, and it applies to any social subject, NOT just the flavor of the month.

 

 

You don't want Jauronimo exposing himself...

[Numark]

 

 

You don't want Jauronimo exposing himself...

 

Not that there is anything wrong with that

[dave mcbride]

It's so simple, if you guys would just listen to God's message.

 

God loves you.

 

God hates the things you're doing.

 

God won't make you stop doing the things you're doing or revoke your power to do them. God also won't stop creating people who piss Him off or disappoint Him.

 

God is all powerful.

 

God is benevolent.

 

God is wrathful.

 

God is remarkably not a psycho ex-girlfriend, despite the similarities in the ways we would characterize them.

 

Our systems of governance and law are but a trifle in the kingdom of Heaven, but God is also angry if we don't make our laws more like God's.

 

On to bigger questions:

What is a bigger mess, this thread or the Cleveland Browns?

 

The Browns. We haven't started randomly firing people yet.