More Change We Didn't Need to Believe In

[elegantelliotoffen]

Homosexuality is deviant behavior. It isn't normal in my book. Since when hasn't is been deviant behavior?

 

Knocking on a complete strangers door because you have a problem with how they're displaying their flag is deviant behavior. It isn't normal in my book. Since when hasn't it been deviant behavior?

[SD Jarhead]

Are you still on that tirade little man? Get a grip loser.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

Homosexuality is deviant behavior. It isn't normal in my book. Since when hasn't is been deviant behavior?

 

To me, "deviant behavior" has a largely negative connotation and also implies that the homosexual makes a conscious choice to be that way. Maybe you have a different view on the term.

[elegantelliotoffen]

Are you still on that tirade little man? Get a grip loser.

 

Shouldn't you be busy doing something creepy and intrusive right now?

[Chilly]

Homosexuality is deviant behavior. It isn't normal in my book. Since when hasn't is been deviant behavior?

 

Arguing about the word "deviant" is a futile argument - it depends on the definition of a social norm, which will vary with no real answer by person.

 

One definition could be "Since 95% of human society is heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviant behavior". Another argument could be "since lots of species have a small group of homosexual individuals, with an increasing percentage as the species becomes overpopulated, it is rather normal to have homosexual behavior."

 

Both are valid attempts to define the word "normal", and I suspect that based upon whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage depends on which definition you pick.

[SD Jarhead]

Arguing about the word "deviant" is a futile argument - it depends on the definition of a social norm, which will vary with no real answer by person.

 

One definition could be "Since 95% of human society is heterosexual, homosexuality is a deviant behavior". Another argument could be "since lots of species have a small group of homosexual individuals, with an increasing percentage as the species becomes overpopulated, it is rather normal to have homosexual behavior."

 

Both are valid attempts to define the word "normal", and I suspect that based upon whether you agree or disagree with gay marriage depends on which definition you pick.

 

I agree with you. Call me old school, but my definition is just that. And FTR, I have a sister who is homosexual. I don't hate her, I love her. But I also need to explain that she has other issues as well and some of them deal with social adjustment and being grossly overweight. She 'discovered' her homosexuality about three years ago.

 

So before you flamethrowers jump in and start hurling your insults, you should know how my mother and family unanimously view this revelation. First of all, she is accepted by all siblings and my mother, who is our sole surviving parent. BUT, all including myself view this as an attention grab. If you knew my sister you'd understand. She would regularly fabricate drama to bring attention to herself especially around the holidays and has medically diagnosed personality disorder. This also carries over to her job, where she regularly would fabricate drama and how she held onto the job as long as she did, I don't know. But that is just her. I (we) honestly think she is homosexual because it makes her different and accepted into a group.

 

I could go on in depth about the countless reason why we have come to this conclusion, but need to go to work. I also do not apply my experience with my sister as a baseline of all homosexuals. So let me pre-emptively send out a big F-U to Ellegant Idiot and the usual flamethrowers who instead of having an intelligent discussion will resort to their usual drivel of name calling.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Wow. You need an education. Seriously.

 

Dean,

 

Let's be brutally honest here: no type of education can help these low-IQ redneck types (Dante, God Bless America, Stupid Nation, SD Jarhead, etc.) from their ingrained homophobia. Just look at how they handle scientific evidence and logical reasoning in this thread...they don't...because I suspect they can't.

[StupidNation]

Let's be brutally honest here: no type of education can help these low-IQ redneck types (Dante, God Bless America, Stupid Nation, SD Jarhead, etc.) from their ingrained homophobia. Just look at how they handle scientific evidence and logical reasoning in this thread...they don't...because I suspect they can't.

 

Care to point out the science proving homosexuality is genetic? Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist genius.

 

Scientists have been TRYING to rationalize dumb-ass talking points of the liberal anti-intellectuals and expect to have some credence, and continue to talk as if it exists. I'm actually fairly well versed in all the scientific talking points on the issue. Your stupidity is blinding you. Show me how identical twins have anomalies as homosexuals?

 

Homophobia is a label attempting to discredit reasoned arguments. Labels are an effective form of demagoguery. Why not show us this overwhelming evidence, or simply explain why 50% of homosexuals polled admit they were previously not homosexual and how cases like Jarhead can exist if it's just genetic? Didn't think so.

 

Explain how the Orthodox Jews have less than 1% of male homosexuality, or the rate of homosexuality has expanded at the same time it seems to be "ok" with sexual orientation classes and seminars in public schooling and de-neutering masculinity publicly. Explain why the biggest expansion of homosexuals happen to Caucasians in 1st world countries.

 

It's more of a social epidemic than a scientific one. Science has batted a clean .000 explaining this one.

 

Read this and then tell me who the red-neck is:

"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project

 

By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH

 

April 4, 2007 - Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."...

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

 

The AP had a great story on another geneticist recently who explained that homosexuality has no explanation for it's origins at the genetic and hormonal level. Yahoo had a video of it 4 months ago showing twins of different families.

 

Why don't you actually learn before looking like an idiot.

[Gary M]

It is broken. It makes grown men live a lie, and clearly marks being gay as something other than OK and normal. Like it or not, the military has to get into the 21st Century, too.

 

If I remember correctly in the early days of the "Gay" movement the motto was "stay out of our bedrooms".

 

I thinkt the don't ask don't tell goes right along those lines.

 

But the "gays" have changed to an in your face attitude, which just begs for attitude back at them.

[IDBillzFan]

Care to point out the science proving homosexuality is genetic? Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist genius.

Just out of curiosity; do you remember the day when you sat down and finally made the decision that you wanted to be straight? Do you remember when you made that choice on your own?

 

Neither do most true homosexuals.

 

Naturally there are people will be curious or, in the case of Jarhead's sister or the Lindsay Lohan's of the world, just look to get attention. And you can even create a stat like "50% of gays polled said they didn't used to be gay," which we both know is a ridiculous stat that probably came from The International Jerry Falwell Society of We Hate Faggots, but if you're trying to make the argument that most true homosexuals are making a conscious choice to be homosexual, you may want to just leave the discussion because it's ridiculous.

[Rubes]

I'm trying to imagine how a conversation maybe 100 years ago might have gone about a Southern black man who wanted to have sex with, or God forbid marry, a white woman. I'm imagining it probably would have sounded a lot like this thread in many ways.

 

Good to see we've come so far.

[Typical TBD Guy]

Care to point out the science proving homosexuality is genetic? Oh, that's right, it doesn't exist genius.

 

Scientists have been TRYING to rationalize dumb-ass talking points of the liberal anti-intellectuals and expect to have some credence, and continue to talk as if it exists. I'm actually fairly well versed in all the scientific talking points on the issue. Your stupidity is blinding you. Show me how identical twins have anomalies as homosexuals?

 

Homophobia is a label attempting to discredit reasoned arguments. Labels are an effective form of demagoguery. Why not show us this overwhelming evidence, or simply explain why 50% of homosexuals polled admit they were previously not homosexual and how cases like Jarhead can exist if it's just genetic? Didn't think so.

 

Explain how the Orthodox Jews have less than 1% of male homosexuality, or the rate of homosexuality has expanded at the same time it seems to be "ok" with sexual orientation classes and seminars in public schooling and de-neutering masculinity publicly. Explain why the biggest expansion of homosexuals happen to Caucasians in 1st world countries.

 

It's more of a social epidemic than a scientific one. Science has batted a clean .000 explaining this one.

 

Read this and then tell me who the red-neck is:

"Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired," Concludes Dr. Francis S. Collins, Head Of The Human Genome Project

 

By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH

 

April 4, 2007 - Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works at the cutting edge of DNA, concluded that "there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits. For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."...

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

 

The AP had a great story on another geneticist recently who explained that homosexuality has no explanation for it's origins at the genetic and hormonal level. Yahoo had a video of it 4 months ago showing twins of different families.

 

Why don't you actually learn before looking like an idiot.

 

at your arsenal of persuasion:

 

1. A link to NARTH .

 

2. A singular scientist's viewpoint, who happens to be a born-again Christian.

 

3. A dubious claim that homosexuality must be driven by conscious choice since scientists haven't yet figured out the full biochemical/genetic/social mechanisms that lead to homosexual behavior.

 

4. Random (read: unscientific) polls where 1% of Orthodox Jews are gay and 50% of homosexuals admit to turning gay out of choice.

 

5. The causation-correlation cluster!@#$ of an argument that this "gay epidemic" in Western society is due to an increase in sexual orientation classes.

 

Here's the reality for Stupid Nation and for the rest of you dumb!@#$ redneck bigots posting: homosexuality is not a deliberate choice for the 99% of people who are truly gay and not among the anecdotal attention-seeking sisters of cognitive dullards posting from SD. There is probably some genetic component, but the real creation of "gayness" likely occurs because of hormonal and biochemical abnormalities in the mother's womb. The clear majority of credible and impartial scientists believe this to be the case. If you, Stupid Nation, and your bigoted followers had spent as much time learning and studying as you do hating and fear-mongering at TBD about the vast gay-wing conspiracy, you might have all obtained your GED's by now. Then you would be able to apply to accredited 4-year universities not founded by Jerry Falwell or Bob Jones.

 

Why don't you just come out and admit it? You are gay bigots. You want to keep them out of the military because they're different from you, i.e. they're not some perceived hypermasculine ideal American, not because you find their private sexual behavior "deviant." What a !@#$ing cop-out. For one thing, what business of a government institution is it anyway to care about how people spend their private sexual lives? For another, why don't you get up on your bully pulpit and protest against heterosexual soldiers who have anal sex or oral sex (or any sex not leading to procreation) with their wives and girlfriends and fellow female servicemen? Better yet, why don't you protest against soldiers who engage in sex with fat people or old people, both categories of which I'd argue can be just as "deviant" and disgusting to you and I as is homosexual intercourse?

 

Stupid rednecks. Stupid Nation.

[KD in CA]

Just out of curiosity; do you remember the day when you sat down and finally made the decision that you wanted to be straight? Do you remember when you made that choice on your own?

 

I think it was the first day of junior high school when that 9th grade girl with the C cups got on the bus.

[StupidNation]

at your arsenal of persuasion:

 

1. A link to NARTH .

 

Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong, not what he's linked to. If he's linked to an organization which is right and you subjectively disagree isn't that an a priori error of judgment according to logicians?

 

2. A singular scientist's viewpoint, who happens to be a born-again Christian.

 

Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong. Or to use your retarded logic can a born again Christian be right or do they have be secular homosexuals to take the opposite extreme view?

 

3. A dubious claim that homosexuality must be driven by conscious choice since scientists haven't yet figured out the full biochemical/genetic/social mechanisms that lead to homosexual behavior.

 

Actually if you read it he proposed that homosexuality can be predisposed in the genome, but not predetermined.

 

4. Random (read: unscientific) polls where 1% of Orthodox Jews are gay and 50% of homosexuals admit to turning gay out of choice.

 

But when science is used it's wrong because of the organization and Christianity. When I use my memory I must be wrong because I can't source it. Well where is your proof?

 

5. The causation-correlation cluster!@#$ of an argument that this "gay epidemic" in Western society is due to an increase in sexual orientation classes.

 

It might be part of a cause, but not the sole cause. I can point to other actions that are just as linear such as Erikson's "Search for Identity" in psychology through individualism turning into rebellion from authority, the lack of logic classes being taught leading into dumb-ass statements as you put forth. If you don't think exposure to any ideology can't lead to something else you are an idiot. Care to tell me why children in the Middle East are more disposed to commit violence? Sociological facts cannot be thrown out as nothing, unless you want to believe so because facts are a B word in a debate.

 

Bigotry isn't disliking an action which is intrinsically disordered. Read above on the logic thing. Your mom can be an alcoholic so do you fight against her alcoholism and therefore become a bigot? She might be predisposed to it through heredity.

 

Your entire incoherent rambling that I'm a bigot for standing against something intrinsically disordered, which can be logically understood in the natural order, is not bigotry unless you define bigotry as "anything I disagree with" doesn't hold weight in your puny mind unless you are bigoted against Christians and Narth, and then you find bigotry to be just fine.

 

I mean a scientist that is well-respected must be wrong because he's Christian and it's NARTH. You never once addressed the video by the AP on Yahoo. I'll tell you why, because it's not Narth.

 

Answer this for me...

 

If homosexuality is genetic how can twins who are genetically identical have changes in their sexuality?

or

If homosexuality is genetic as a non-dominant gene how could it survive if it doesn't reproduce? Let me put it to you in other terms. If blacks have brown eyes 100% of the time, and cross-breaded with a Caucasian/Swedes who have a history of blue eyes the odds of them having brown eyes is over 90%, with the probability of grey eyes taking in the place of the remaining births as evidenced by fact. That child with grey eyes never reproduces and only those with brown eyes continue to reproduce. Eventually the odds of a child with grey eyes becomes a mathematically improbability especially after thousands of years. If you know anything about genetics you would know this.

 

I mean according to your world-view would evolution force homosexuals to die off, survival of the fittest and the best would continue genetically. Why is homosexuality exempt?

 

The ancient Greeks were disposed to practice pedophilia. Does it make me a bigot for pointing out it's culturally wrong and insane or are you just insane hoping I'm a bigot? I already know the answer.

 

Give me some proof or maybe you aren't the scientific one, which I know is the ruse.

[The Dean]

Just out of curiosity; do you remember the day when you sat down and finally made the decision that you wanted to be straight? Do you remember when you made that choice on your own?

 

Neither do most true homosexuals.

 

Naturally there are people will be curious or, in the case of Jarhead's sister or the Lindsay Lohan's of the world, just look to get attention. And you can even create a stat like "50% of gays polled said they didn't used to be gay," which we both know is a ridiculous stat that probably came from The International Jerry Falwell Society of We Hate Faggots, but if you're trying to make the argument that most true homosexuals are making a conscious choice to be homosexual, you may want to just leave the discussion because it's ridiculous.

 

 

Well done, LA.

[The Dean]

I'm trying to imagine how a conversation maybe 100 years ago might have gone about a Southern black man who wanted to have sex with, or God forbid marry, a white woman. I'm imagining it probably would have sounded a lot like this thread in many ways.

 

Good to see we've come so far.

 

 

Exactly right, Rubes. Bigotry always has "good reasons" behind it.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I agree. No distractions there. After a few days of seeing boobs and snapper they would get used to it. What were we talking about?

You never quite get used to it. Spent three weeks over in France after college, a week and a half on the beaches in SW France. Best snapper I have ever seen and there was lots of it, but you had to be discreet. That is the hard part (pun intended) for Americans, not one of our strong suits.

 

My suggestion if this were ever to happen, invest in sun glasses!

[IDBillzFan]

I'm trying to imagine how a conversation maybe 100 years ago might have gone about a Southern black man who wanted to have sex with, or God forbid marry, a white woman. I'm imagining it probably would have sounded a lot like this thread in many ways.

 

Good to see we've come so far.

I get the feeling blacks just don't see it that way given that more than 70% of them voted to ban gay marriage in California.

 

Not saying you're off base, just saying that if this was truly the case, blacks would have sided with homosexuals, no?

[Typical TBD Guy]

Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong, not what he's linked to. If he's linked to an organization which is right and you subjectively disagree isn't that an a priori error of judgment according to logicians?

 

Ad hominem. The question is was he right or wrong. Or to use your retarded logic can a born again Christian be right or do they have be secular homosexuals to take the opposite extreme view?

 

My ad hominem attacks weren't intended to persuade you since you're a lost cause; they were meant to highlight where you're coming from to all others reading our posts. NARTH and Dr. Collins have an ideological (read: unscientific) agenda they're trying to push with respect to homosexuality.

 

It might be part of a cause, but not the sole cause. I can point to other actions that are just as linear such as Erikson's "Search for Identity" in psychology through individualism turning into rebellion from authority, the lack of logic classes being taught leading into dumb-ass statements as you put forth. If you don't think exposure to any ideology can't lead to something else you are an idiot. Care to tell me why children in the Middle East are more disposed to commit violence? Sociological facts cannot be thrown out as nothing, unless you want to believe so because facts are a B word in a debate.

 

I won't disagree that sociological pressures can influence certain types of individual behaviors/choices/inclinations, but not all human behaviors/choices/inclinations are equal. Your argument here that gays choose their sexual preferences because of peer pressure and pressure from society is absurd. If that were the case, wouldn't it force them to be willingly heterosexual, so as not to have to constantly deal with all the homophobic pieces of sh-- Americans like you?

 

Bigotry isn't disliking an action which is intrinsically disordered. Read above on the logic thing. Your mom can be an alcoholic so do you fight against her alcoholism and therefore become a bigot? She might be predisposed to it through heredity.

 

Your entire incoherent rambling that I'm a bigot for standing against something intrinsically disordered, which can be logically understood in the natural order, is not bigotry unless you define bigotry as "anything I disagree with" doesn't hold weight in your puny mind unless you are bigoted against Christians and Narth, and then you find bigotry to be just fine.

 

Bigotry in itself isn't concerning. The troubling bigotry is that which crosses the demarcation between general disagreement and legalized intolerance. I disagree with Christianity, but I am not intolerant of it in that I will not use the state as a weapon to oppose it. I believe Christians should be allowed to marry, have public displays of Christian pride, serve in the military, have consensual adult sex in any manner they so choose, openly voice their beliefs, openly criticize non-believers, etc...

 

You never once addressed the video by the AP on Yahoo. I'll tell you why, because it's not Narth.

 

No, I'll tell you why: because you provided no link .

 

Answer this for me...

 

If homosexuality is genetic how can twins who are genetically identical have changes in their sexuality?

 

I kind of did answer this already in my previous post. Biochemical/hormonal imbalances in the mother's womb, where nutritional reception conditions aren't the same for each fetus.

 

or

If homosexuality is genetic as a non-dominant gene how could it survive if it doesn't reproduce? Let me put it to you in other terms. If blacks have brown eyes 100% of the time, and cross-breaded with a Caucasian/Swedes who have a history of blue eyes the odds of them having brown eyes is over 90%, with the probability of grey eyes taking in the place of the remaining births as evidenced by fact. That child with grey eyes never reproduces and only those with brown eyes continue to reproduce. Eventually the odds of a child with grey eyes becomes a mathematically improbability especially after thousands of years. If you know anything about genetics you would know this.

 

I mean according to your world-view would evolution force homosexuals to die off, survival of the fittest and the best would continue genetically. Why is homosexuality exempt?

 

I wonder if you will actually read this?

 

The ancient Greeks were disposed to practice pedophilia. Does it make me a bigot for pointing out it's culturally wrong and insane or are you just insane hoping I'm a bigot? I already know the answer.

 

You are now comparing pedophilia to homosexuality?! Do I really need to point out the obvious logical fallacy here? Does it really even matter anymore? Are you, by any chance, Holcomb's Arm? Because you both have the same terrible grasps of logic and science.

[The Dean]

I get the feeling blacks just don't see it that way given that more than 70% of them voted to ban gay marriage in California.

 

Not saying you're off base, just saying that if this was truly the case, blacks would have sided with homosexuals, no?

 

 

It's an interesting phenomenon (that a big majority of Blacks voted against same sex marriage) but I don't think it speaks to whether the issues are essentially the same, in any way. It points out that Blacks can be as bigoted as their White brothers and sisters, though.

 

I have not seen the data, but I'm guessing that looking at how the Black vote varied by age and some measure of religious devotion would reveal a lot.