Homosexuality is Preventable?

[Schwitzer]

I don't expect many of you to take the time to read this (http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000175.cfm), but I personally found it offered a fascinating insight into a possible cause for homosexual behaviour in males.

And please, if you don't even bother reading the overview than don't waste others' time by posting whatever tripe comes to mind.

[singo]

Why should it be prevented?

[LinkTheGameFreak]

singo has my vote on this - just because something is condemned by Christianity then it shouldn't become law or be condemned by the whole of the Western world for no discernable reason whatsoever other than "Teh bible sez it's rong!"

[B.A.Baracus]

I don't expect many of you to take the time to read this (http://www.family.org/lifechallenges/A000000175.cfm)
Is that supposed to encourage us? Anyway I almost didn't take the time to read after the blatant anti gay biases in the first line "good news for millions of families".
Now what makes a man gay? I thought men were born gay or striate, but this article goes on to say its early childhood that is the key player that influences sexuality. However things like "Negative spiritual influences" being a factor of homosexuality lead me to believe this article is at least somewhat bullshit.

The whole coming out of the closet and "being bad" thing makes alot of sense though. I also read trouble with your father is a major influence in gayness, I was going to contest this until I read "Again, the primary cause of homosexuality is not the absence of a father figure, but the boy's hurtful experience with his father", which seems to fit with me.
I never knew my father but that didn't hamper me from chasing every cute girl I see;)
Anyway, interesting read, but I still don't think someone can "overcome" homosexuality.

[SpeedyWorm1]

In my personal opinion, homosexuality is a choice that every person makes. Scientists try and blame it on genes, parental figures, friendships, and while they all might be factors, in the end it comes down to what you believe and what you choose.

[SilverCrusader]

I don't like it, it isn't in any way logical.

[Ktan]

What? Homosexuality or the article?

[singo]

Probably the article, applying logic to personal relationships of any kind is a bit silly.

[p3ngu!n]

This is retarded.

#1 Homosexuality is not bad.
#2 It is not always a choice. Many times it is simply genes, and you can't control that.

[OboeGuru]

I personally find it absolutely hilarious that their research was entirely focused on homosexuality in males with absolutely no notice given to homosexuality in females.

"Let's just try and reverse the homosexuality that we find disgusting and leave the one we find tantalizing alone."

[LinkTheGameFreak]

"Let's just try and reverse the homosexuality that we find disgusting and leave the one we find tantalizing alone."
OboeGuru, you warm my heart :)

[Darkslayer633]

I personally find it absolutely hilarious that their research was entirely focused on homosexuality in males with absolutely no notice given to homosexuality in females.

"Let's just try and reverse the homosexuality that we find disgusting and leave the one we find tantalizing alone."


Its amusing how he says what I thought

[Epyon94]

This is a joke right??
some of those reasons just seem ludicris...
I mean, pornography???
Hell I'm striaght and I've watched/looked at porn since I was like 14, that was alsmot 6 years ago...
and I fail to see how media and culture influence it, hell if anything western media, seems to push people to being straight not homosexual...
Also I don quite understand what failure of leadership has anything to do with this...
I apologise, but I just can't take this seriously.

[EvilEggCracker]

I personally find it absolutely hilarious that their research was entirely focused on homosexuality in males with absolutely no notice given to homosexuality in females.

"Let's just try and reverse the homosexuality that we find disgusting and leave the one we find tantalizing alone."

The system works.

[TheListener]

#1 Homosexuality is not bad.

Is it good though? It's not biologically viable at all and gay parenting has been shown to lead to psychological disadvantages such as sexual uncertainty and lack of confidence.


#2 It is not always a choice. Many times it is simply genes, and you can't control that.

What research is this based on?


I really don't have any problem with homosexuality in the sense that I won't openly persecute gays on any level however I don't agree with what they perceive as natural as it isn't, it is completely contrary to nature in fact. I do, however, find that the popularisation of gayness is ludicrous.


"Let's just try and reverse the homosexuality that we find disgusting and leave the one we find tantalizing alone."

Could not agree more at all!

[Spartan-II]

What the fuck.

Let people do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt other people.

@ Listener: How do you know it isn't natural? Nature has it's own means of population control.

[VigilanteV]

wait..porn causes you to be gay?....all kinds of porn?

right then...i guess every guy is gay...

but all in all people can be and do what ever the hell they want.

doesn't consern me any what the hell people do.

[Darmago]

As far as science is concerned, Homosexuality is "caused" by an imbalance of sex-hormones in utero. Respectivly, "curing" homosexuality would be as easy as having the mother consume a case-specific drug cocktail that stimulates her brain to produce more of the "correct" hormone.

Aggression is also caused by an imbalance of sex-hormones, So aggressive people could just be injected with a testosterone-reducer and suddenly be less aggressive.

The question is, should we treat homosexuality? I find this idea, and the people who think this idea should be followed through, is just as abominable as those who thought being "black" should treated, or being non-aryan should be treated.

Godwin's law ftw.

[U-238]

@ Listener: How do you know it isn't natural? Nature has it's own means of population control.

go back to the early 1900s (1930'ish) and you see that finding a gay person was harder than finding Eldorado. This, to me, indicates that this is not a natural thing. (B) another indication is that humans are the only species that are gay. You don't see two male cows fucking, nor dogs, cats, swine, you name it. The entire homosexual movement is a large fad that everyone is doing because it's "cool" to be gay. Same thing as it's "cool" not to be "religous", and it's "cool to watch porn" and it's "cool" smoke weed. The media doesn't help with its blatant advertising of it either.

/entirely off-topic post.

[Protogod]

(B) another indication is that humans are the only species that are gay. You don't see two male cows fucking, nor dogs
/entirely off-topic post

<-- has seen male dogs fucking. Next argument, please

[RavenCrusade]

The question is, should we treat homosexuality? I find this idea, and the people who think this idea should be followed through, is just as abominable as those who thought being "black" should treated, or being non-aryan should be treated.

You said it.
And @ The Argument above, the one concerning if Homosexuality is natural, the only way you can make any sense of the argument is to define Natural. For example, considering that Nature* created us, and Nature* created apes, I find that anything we or the apes do is essentially natural.
And that is my opinion.

*For those of you who are religious, just pretend I had said the respective diety who created humans. Frankly, I don't want to start a religious debate here.:shiftyl:

[Darmago]

go back to the early 1900s (1930'ish) and you see that finding a gay person was harder than finding Eldorado. This, to me, indicates that this is not a natural thing. (B) another indication is that humans are the only species that are gay. You don't see two male cows fucking, nor dogs, cats, swine, you name it. The entire homosexual movement is a large fad that everyone is doing because it's "cool" to be gay. Same thing as it's "cool" not to be "religous", and it's "cool to watch porn" and it's "cool" smoke weed. The media doesn't help with its blatant advertising of it either.

Ha! Homosexuality has been around since before written history! Just because the christian church squelched the histories of it doesn't mean it wasn't there. Why didn't you find gay's in the early 1900s? because homosexuality in 1900's negative stigma was 1000 times greater than it is now, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Link to disproof of A (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#History)
Lastly, that thing about only humans, well too bad, humans aren't the only species with homosexuality. And I quote from This article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1589/is_n735/ai_20164884) "Researchers have long known that same-sex erotic contact is common among apes"

it gets even better with This link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Non-human_animals)

try not to see the wikipedia links but the scources behind them

Plus My friend has a dog that prefers members of the same sex.

[Ender]

I would really love to see the details on the sample they used. Anytime no one publishes the details of the sample I immediately call bullshit, and anytime someone publishes something as "100%" for a side they are trying to prove I DEFINITELY call bullshit on it.

...gay parenting has been shown to lead to psychological disadvantages such as sexual uncertainty and lack of confidence.

Source? I'd like to see you back THAT shit up, especially since I know a guy at school who was raised by two gay men and is pretty damn straight and is doing pretty damn well. Even if you do have a credible, unbiased source, I just showed there are exceptions to "the rule."

go back to the early 1900s (1930'ish) and you see that finding a gay person was harder than finding Eldorado. This, to me, indicates that this is not a natural thing. (B) another indication is that humans are the only species that are gay. You don't see two male cows fucking, nor dogs, cats, swine, you name it. The entire homosexual movement is a large fad that everyone is doing because it's "cool" to be gay. Same thing as it's "cool" not to be "religous", and it's "cool to watch porn" and it's "cool" smoke weed. The media doesn't help with its blatant advertising of it either.

Finding a gay person wasn't remotely impossible, it just wasn't publicized as much. Women didn't even really have rights back then; there was barely a women's rights movement. You think homosexuals would have been able to get anything done before women could? Please. I also implore you to do some research before you make claims about such things. First off, you weren't even close to alive back then and I HIGHLY doubt you are an expert on their culture and have done anything close to the history of homosexuality. Trying searching for it, especially in the context of ancient Greece and Rome. Should be a laugh, all the "liberal-swung bullshit" you're going to find.

And there ARE gay animals. I too have seen two male dogs going at it, and here's a little article for you.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/politics/2005-410.html

Don't give me crap about it being "pinknews;" because here is the same story from a unbiased news source! ZOMG
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/04/nflaming04.xml

*wipes hands off* gg

[Chibiabos]

I vote homophobic posts be banned from Warbirds along with posts for or against abortion and all the other political "everyone's made up their minds" type stuff, no one will ever be swayed one way or another and its only going to cause strife ... gonads and strife! Just ask the squirrel ... :P

[Modred]

And there ARE gay animals. I too have seen two male dogs going at it, and here's a little article for you.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/politics/2005-410.html
How cute! Except for the whole "stealing other birds' eggs" part. That's not cool.

I vote homophobic posts be banned from Warbirds along with posts for or against abortion
Ah yes, let's rear the old hate speech demon and sic it on everything we disagree with...

[Ragnarox]

The article in the thread starter post sure does a good job of portraying homosexuality as a disease to be eradicated; I'm surprised I could even bear to read an article that relates the words "homosexuality" and "preventable" in such a way. I almost choked when I saw this article on a website with its subtitle stating "Nurturing and Defending families Worldwide". On top of that its factual foundations are in serious doo doo as Ender has eloquently pointed out.

Some of their allegations are incredibly confusing and detached. For instance, I personally fail to see the relationship between a individual's sex preference and the "failure of leadership". I personally wouldn't call telling a young man which gender he can and cannot have sex with "leadership", more like indoctrination. Same goes for the argument that parental adultery contributes to the development of homosexuality; where does that come in? And spousal abuse...thats a very strange argument on the part of this article considering how spousal abuse was a Euro-American institution enjoyed by heterosexual men dating back nearly a century. Aside from that, isn't it true that young boys who grow up under heterosexual parents and patriarchal spousal abuse are more inclined to emulate the actions of the father?

[GenocideAlive]

In my personal opinion, homosexuality is a choice that every person makes. Scientists try and blame it on genes, parental figures, friendships, and while they all might be factors, in the end it comes down to what you believe and what you choose.
Representative.

"My personal opinion is that homosexuals have a choice. I am not homosexual, I have no experience with homosexuals, and I have no knowledge pertaining to homosexuality. Accepted science has myriad facts and studies on this, but I have not bothered to educate myself. I am openly close-minded for no reason I am willing to admit."

[Chibiabos]

How cute! Except for the whole "stealing other birds' eggs" part. That's not cool.


Ah yes, let's rear the old hate speech demon and sic it on everything we disagree with...

Umm, this whole thread is stemming from hate speech, hate to break it to you hon. Wake up and smell the burning cross ...

The article in the thread starter post sure does a good job of portraying homosexuality as a disease to be eradicated; I'm surprised I could even bear to read an article that relates the words "homosexuality" and "preventable" in such a way. I almost choked when I saw this article on a website with its subtitle stating "Nurturing and Defending families Worldwide". On top of that its factual foundations are in serious doo doo as Ender has eloquently pointed out.

Some of their allegations are incredibly confusing and detached. For instance, I personally fail to see the relationship between a individual's sex preference and the "failure of leadership". I personally wouldn't call telling a young man which gender he can and cannot have sex with "leadership", more like indoctrination. Same goes for the argument that parental adultery contributes to the development of homosexuality; where does that come in? And spousal abuse...thats a very strange argument on the part of this article considering how spousal abuse was a Euro-American institution enjoyed by heterosexual men dating back nearly a century. Aside from that, isn't it true that young boys who grow up under heterosexual parents and patriarchal spousal abuse are more inclined to emulate the actions of the father?

Some are still trying to get their heads around the world being round and Galileo not being a heretic. Its hard to not get frazzled about it, hon, but its best to pay such Laura Esslingerisms as little heed as possible.

[Neo]

I stopped reading and/or caring after this list:

* Sexual violation or experimentation with men or boys
* Incest or molestation
* Exposure to pornography
* Negative spiritual influences
* Media influences
* Personality temperament
* Negative body image
* Peer labeling, harassment or alienation
* Fear of — or an inability to relate to — the opposite sex

Sorry, but these "events" can also create murders, psychopaths, rapists, and any other kind of fucked up individual, either with mental issues or just outright insanity.

I strongly doubt any article that put forwards that "Gay can be reversed" and/or that "its bad" and/or that "its preventable"

Yes Gays have been known to marry and have kids (omg did you prevent you son from being gay?) but eventually they come out, and couldn't be happier for it. (I assume)

This reminds me of that quack of a doctor who tried to raise some boy up as a girl trying to prove that its all environmental, even though it wasn't working. Hell, the doctor brought in a transvestite to talk the kid into getting some surgery to remove his/her penis.

Then eventually the kid grew up more fucked up then ever, alienated his brother (learning your sister is now your brother at the age of 12 or whatever -- wtf?) and then dieing must just be awesome.

There are some key issues that parents have to face to successfully “move beyond” the paralyzing grief-stricken state of having a gay child.

The loss must be faced.1 Having a gay child entails the loss of future dreams, loss of control, loss of security, loss of relationship. These multiple losses trigger a grief reaction that can last for months or even several years.

Even if your child comes out of homosexuality, you will always live with the reality that your child has struggled in this area, that something profoundly wrong has occurred in his/her life that will leave a scar — even after healing. You will never see them in quite the same way again. And, in that sense, the way you look at that person has changed forever. This is a loss of great magnitude.

I'm sorry, this article is full of fundamentalist bullshit. I mean, after-all, once you come out, that means your future, plans, goals, etc... are just completely null and void!

-Neo

[Modred]

Umm, this whole thread is stemming from hate speech, hate to break it to you hon. Wake up and smell the burning cross ...

Ah yes, I forgot that James Dobson and the KKK were more or less on the same playing field. Thank you for correcting me with your gross over-simplification and blatant disregard for history. Please provide some linkage that shows Focus on the Family advocating guerrilla terror against homosexuals in the same vein as the KKK. Where have are the lynchings? Where is the vandalism, with rocks thrown through windows and houses tagged with derogatory slang? Think twice before making such stupid generalizations, please.

Its hard to not get frazzled about it, hon, but its best to pay such Laura Esslingerisms as little heed as possible.

Just a note: you suggested we ban comments that you personally disagree with (or that you deem homophobic). That's a little stronger than giving them "as little heed as possible". More like "shoving down throat". Aside from that, your comments really added nothing in terms of a reply besides a failed attempt at wit.

[B.A.Baracus]

I posted a quality post in the first page, so I get one spam post, and without further adue...
banned from Warbirds
xD
It must be because its 12 at night here and I'm still packing shit up to move, and tired- but I found that exceptionally hilarious for some reason.

[TheListener]

I think this should probably be moved to the intellectual roundtable.

I personally find that the article is wholly idiotic and was most likely written by someone who was both unqualified and actively searching for a "cure" for a preventable "illness". However, I don't necessarily agree with homosexual practises, it isn't because I'm homophobic or I find it disgusting or because my religion deems it wrong; it's because it doesn't serve any purpose at all. Human beings, from a non-religious perspective, are alive in order to procreate, that is by far our most prevalent instinct, the urge for sex.

@ Listener: How do you know it isn't natural? Nature has it's own means of population control. If it is, it sure as hell isn't working, even with estimates of 1%-10% of the population being gay, the world population is still exploding.

EnderSource? I'd like to see you back THAT shit up

The American Psychological Association states:

"There is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children," and that "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

Never mind, I was wrong.

[KexMex]

Why would homosexuality be bad?

Why necessarily among males?

Why would anyone feel the need to prevent it?

How in hawks would they do that?

There. My typical, ever-so-generic post finished.

[Schwitzer]

My motivation for posting this was to explore a possible cause for homosexual behaviour. Nothing more. I apologise if others misinterpreted my intent to indicate anti-homosexual sentiment (despite me defending homosexuality quite adamantly in several debates here, nontheless).

[Pisces]

However, I don't necessarily agree with homosexual practises, it isn't because I'm homophobic or I find it disgusting or because my religion deems it wrong; it's because it doesn't serve any purpose at all. Human beings, from a non-religious perspective, are alive in order to procreate, that is by far our most prevalent instinct, the urge for sex.


Why should our lives be solely about instinct? Surely your not advocating fighting anyone your jealous of, why should you do so in the realm of sex? Besides, homosexuality is perfectly natural, in New Zealand we have lots of critically endangered species, in one case a population was reduced to a single breeding pair which later recovered via conservation. If that pair were gay then the species would be screwed but humans aren't at risk. Homosexuality (which is fairly common wherever studied) can be a bit annoying in conservation but the individuals play an important role in the community, taking care of young, sort of like a not entirely understood secondary k-selection strategy. Over population and lack of parenting are big problems in humans, we need more homosexuals!

[TheListener]

Why should our lives be solely about instinct? Surely your not advocating fighting anyone your jealous of

Perhaps, why not? I suggest you read the novel Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.,

Homosexuality... play an important role in the community, taking care of young, sort of like a not entirely understood secondary k-selection strategy. Over population and lack of parenting are big problems in humans, we need more homosexuals!

Since when were homosexual proven care takers? You can't really generalise like that, much like one can't state that homosexual males are fashion gurus and are the best dressed...

I personally understand your view that an increase in the world population is not good for us at all, and I once again point you to Ishmael, however, is there not some other way to reduce the population aside from increasing the number of homosexuals in the world? I don't think it's very realistic, and on top of that I don't think the gay community would like the be used as a "sterilisation tool".

In truth though, I'm really not sure about my stance on homosexuality, in actuality, I'm not really for its existence nor am I willing to act out against homosexuality because I don't think that is necessarily the right thing to do. I certainly am not willing to take the stance of "if it doesn't hurt anyone, let them do it", because that view is usually taken in concern with short term effects, who knows what could happen in the long run if there were to be a large influx of homosexuals? Not me!

[Pisces]

Thats excuse not justification.

Since when were homosexual proven care takers? You can't really generalise like that, much like one can't state that homosexual males are fashion gurus and are the best dressed...


I was talking about in animals, birds more specifically. I was pointing that out because you seem so concerned that humans should follow simple instincts.

[TheListener]

Thats excuse not justification.

The justification is in the book. I know it sounds like a horrible cop out, but I'm sorry, it's really hard to justify it without having had you read the novel... I'm being ambiguous... and a troll... I'm sorry :(

[Schwitzer]

I certainly am not willing to take the stance of "if it doesn't hurt anyone, let them do it", because that view is usually taken in concern with short term effects, who knows what could happen in the long run if there were to be a large influx of homosexuals? Not me!
A large influx of homosexuals from where? Planet fagular? Get over yourself. They don't have a secret army lurking in the shadows waiting to come forth and saturate society with festivities, bright lights and hair product.

But I s'pose this ties into the whole, "Tolerance vs. Acceptance" issue, and if that's how you feel than that's the way you're wired.

[TheListener]

A large influx of homosexuals from where? Planet fagular? Get over yourself. They don't have a secret army lurking in the shadows waiting to come forth and saturate society with festivities, bright lights and hair product.

Do me a favour and point out where exactly I made any mention to an army? Great attempt at trying to detract attention from your supposed homophobia by striking someone else down while at the same time reinforcing your own idiotic generalisations of homosexuals. Oh, and planets are usually considered as proper nouns and therefore should have their first letters capitalised.

I was using the world "influx" not in the sense wherein it means "arrival from a foreign place" but simply increase; considering that estimates of homosexuals (although may be quite inaccurate) have increased in the past few decades.

[Modred]

A large influx of homosexuals from where? Planet fagular? Get over yourself. They don't have a secret army lurking in the shadows waiting to come forth and saturate society with festivities, bright lights and hair product.
Oh, but they do have a secret army. But it's largely peaceable in intent, occasionally marching on major cities but doing no damage in the process.

I was using the world "influx" not in the sense wherein it means "arrival from a foreign place" but simply increase; considering that estimates of homosexuals (although may be quite inaccurate) have increased in the past few decades.
Then the whole misunderstanding was because you made a poor word choice. Considering the poor diction, Schwitzer's response looks fine to me. I'm not really sure how we were supposed to know that you didn't mean to use the word in it's normal meaning, which implies an inward flow from somewhere.

[OboeGuru]

@ TheListener

You have no reason to antagonize Schwitzer, he was just creating a hyperbole on your misuse of the word 'influx.' If you meant that the number of "out of the closet" homosexual could increase over the coming years, then you shouldn't have used the word 'influx' which means to increase numbers en masse to a specified location from another. I'm sorry but you were asking for it when you used the word incorrectly. No one could possibly understand that you meant 'to increase' if you didn't use a word with that meaning. Inventing definitions and then expecting others to know your definition is just plain silly.

Also, if you're going to be the grammar police: 1) police yourself before you police others 2) doing so in the course of argument is juvenile 3) start policing every post everywhere, not just where you want to belittle the arguments of others.

[TheListener]

@ TheListener

You have no reason to antagonize Schwitzer, he was just creating a hyperbole on your misuse of the word 'influx.' If you meant that the number of "out of the closet" homosexual could increase over the coming years, then you shouldn't have used the word 'influx' which means to increase numbers en masse to a specified location from another. I'm sorry but you were asking for it when you used the word incorrectly. No one could possibly understand that you meant 'to increase' if you didn't use a word with that meaning. Inventing definitions and then expecting others to know your definition is just plain silly.

I shouldn't antagonize someone because of they are picking at my choice of words? He told me to "get over myself" which isn't a very pleasant way of telling me to look over my choice of words...


Also, if you're going to be the grammar police: 1) police yourself before you police others 2) doing so in the course of argument is juvenile 3) start policing every post everywhere, not just where you want to belittle the arguments of others.

Since when was I grammar policing? He was the one that belittled me in order to get across the point of my poor use of the world "influx".

I don't see the point of you coming out and pointing this out when this could have more easily be done through a private message; this is completely disregarding the fact that I haven't done anything wrong at all aside from I chose a word which could have been more easily replaced with another. You're the one being silly.

[Battlecruiser]

The source of the article is so biased, I just can't take this serious. Read up about them at Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family

That just about destroys any credibility the article had. When you can cite a respected scientific journal or an article from a major news source, then we can examine the content.

[Darmago]

Since when was I grammar policing? He was the one that belittled me in order to get across the point of my poor use of the world "influx".

Do me a favour and point out where exactly I made any mention to an army? Great attempt at trying to detract attention from your supposed homophobia by striking someone else down while at the same time reinforcing your own idiotic generalisations of homosexuals. Oh, and planets are usually considered as proper nouns and therefore should have their first letters capitalised.

I was using the world "influx" not in the sense wherein it means "arrival from a foreign place" but simply increase; considering that estimates of homosexuals (although may be quite inaccurate) have increased in the past few decades.

Changing the topic of this post, why does the govt' care about same sex marraiges anyways, How are they any different from working couples that are sterile. They allow sterile citizens to marry. They allow Elderly couples to marry, I don't see the issue here. I don't understand why fundamentalist values must be shoved down other people's throats.

[TheListener]

Changing the topic of this post, why does the govt' care about same sex marraiges anyways, How are they any different from working couples that are sterile. They allow sterile citizens to marry. They allow Elderly couples to marry, I don't see the issue here. I don't understand why fundamentalist values must be shoved down other people's throats.

I agree, the separation of Church and State is supposed to be celebrated in the US when instead although the divorce of the two entities may be official, the state does most assuredly share "Christian" (generalisation, I know) values.

[Neo]

you know, as Nuts loves to say, the "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution.

Listener, you're trolling. Stop.

-Neo

[Darmago]

you know, as Nuts loves to say, the "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the constitution.

Listener, you're trolling. Stop.

-Neo


er... unless he edited, he wasn't implying anything like that, he was saying that church and state are supposed to be separated but the lines are blurred a little in america...

[SilverCrusader]

I was talking about homosexuality. If we we're all one gender we'd be A-Sexual all you dumbass people that think that they can reproduce with the same gender.

[Chibiabos]

Ah yes, I forgot that James Dobson and the KKK were more or less on the same playing field. Thank you for correcting me with your gross over-simplification and blatant disregard for history. Please provide some linkage that shows Focus on the Family advocating guerrilla terror against homosexuals in the same vein as the KKK. Where have are the lynchings? Where is the vandalism, with rocks thrown through windows and houses tagged with derogatory slang? Think twice before making such stupid generalizations, please.

Just a note: you suggested we ban comments that you personally disagree with (or that you deem homophobic). That's a little stronger than giving them "as little heed as possible". More like "shoving down throat". Aside from that, your comments really added nothing in terms of a reply besides a failed attempt at wit.

News flash: The American Medical Association stopped diagnosing homosexuality as a disease in the 1950s and stopped trying to force cures on those with a non-heterosexual identity at the same time. You propose to bring those back ... if you still don't get how asserting that something proven to exist in nature as "unnatural" and some sort of disease requiring a cure, decades after such medieval barbarism was established as a horrific malpractice and travesty, then take your nose out of "Whatever someone else tells me God says is the way it is and no other way is acceptable to me" thinking and go read some actual history, hon.

Here's another news flash for you: More innocent blood has been spilt in the name of Christianity than any other religion, including Islaam. In fact, more in the name of Christianity than all other religions combined. Between the Crusades slaughterings, done in the name of Christianity, to the Spanish Inquisition, also done in the name of Christianity, to a 20th century product of centuries of Christian preaching including Martin Luther -- this product? Adolf Hitler. That's millions of deaths from that man alone.

How many deaths were done in the name of homosexuality? Surely, there are some ... jealous lover's quarrel here, Matthew Shepherd there -- err, except that was one of MANY deaths done in the name of Christianity to help "cure" the homosexuality "disease." As were the rednecks who shot at me when I apparantly lost my ability to not look non-heterosexual after living there for about a year when they shot at me.

It seems to me Christian fundamentalism -- along with, yes, all the other religious extremists out there regardless of what name they refer to their deity -- should be classified as a disease needing a cure.

Any organization which seeks to take away rights of consenting individuals to form, maintain and grow family relationships is NOT a pro-family group. You can use all the Christian propaganda you want to claim homosexuality as a disease, that Jews deserve to be slaughtered or that Galileo was wrong after all -- but its all utter hogwash, hon, religious extremism and proven in the 1950s to be hateful, hurtful and a serious problem. You're more than half a century behind the times.

I think this should probably be moved to the intellectual roundtable.

I personally find that the article is wholly idiotic and was most likely written by someone who was both unqualified and actively searching for a "cure" for a preventable "illness". However, I don't necessarily agree with homosexual practises, it isn't because I'm homophobic or I find it disgusting or because my religion deems it wrong; it's because it doesn't serve any purpose at all. Human beings, from a non-religious perspective, are alive in order to procreate, that is by far our most prevalent instinct, the urge for sex.


Sex is a highly social activity in many species, from dolphins to elephants. Humans are no different in finding enjoyment in it outside of procreative sex. Some species have a natural high rate of same-gender sexual activity and many have a majority of their sexual activity to be non-procreative in nature ... bald eagles, for instance, are known to commonly have intercourse well out of season (when they cannot produce eggs, etc.) Some species (again even outside of homo sapiens) are even known to use sex to trade for other things like food.

And ... you must find masturbation, oral, anal and sex-using-contraceptives to be equally disgusting then.

The source of the article is so biased, I just can't take this serious. Read up about them at Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family

That just about destroys any credibility the article had. When you can cite a respected scientific journal or an article from a major news source, then we can examine the content.

Oh, and anything from Laura Esslinger doesn't count either. Her doctorate's is in Biology, not Psychology, not that it matters -- she doesn't accept the principles of evolution either, so she's apparantly against her own degree. :P

[Modred]

Dear Chibiabos:

This post may cause you to think you have won an argument, but rest assured, no one else here will see it that way. But regardless, our conversation is over, as I have no desire to continue dialog with someone who, rather than answer a simple challenge on a faulty comparison, goes on long tirades about how I'm wrong to hold views that I have not professed at any point in the conversation and do not hold.

Thank you for the entertainment.

EDIT: Also, for future reference: Use the "multiquote" button in the top left corner of posts to mark posts you want to reply to. Then when you click "post reply" it will include all of them so that you aren't triple posting. ;)

And just for good measure, I'll renege on the withdrawal if your make your argument a little more relevant and readable.

[RavenCrusade]

I personally find that the article is wholly idiotic and was most likely written by someone who was both unqualified and actively searching for a "cure" for a preventable "illness". However, I don't necessarily agree with homosexual practises, it isn't because I'm homophobic or I find it disgusting or because my religion deems it wrong; it's because it doesn't serve any purpose at all. Human beings, from a non-religious perspective, are alive in order to procreate, that is by far our most prevalent instinct, the urge for sex.

If it is, it sure as hell isn't working, even with estimates of 1%-10% of the population being gay, the world population is still exploding.

@ TheListener
Does nature only have one species of bird to eat worms? no.
Does nature have only one method to do anything? not really.
So why say that being gay "isn't working"?
Maybe it's just another part in all the desease, war, murder and other methods of population control?

^^^
The above isn't my view on this subject, but when my friend replied to me aloud on that post, I thought I would mention it.

[Darmago]

I think this should probably be moved to the intellectual roundtable.

I personally find that the article is wholly idiotic and was most likely written by someone who was both unqualified and actively searching for a "cure" for a preventable "illness". However, I don't necessarily agree with homosexual practises, it isn't because I'm homophobic or I find it disgusting or because my religion deems it wrong; it's because it doesn't serve any purpose at all. Human beings, from a non-religious perspective, are alive in order to procreate, that is by far our most prevalent instinct, the urge for sex.


Ultimate Frisbee doesn't do much to help the genetic future of the human race, should I stop playing it then? I personally think this explanation is just a rationalization of beliefs you got when you were young, but that's just pure speculation on my part.

[singo]

go back to the early 1900s (1930'ish) and you see that finding a gay person was harder than finding Eldorado. This, to me, indicates that this is not a natural thing.

That had nothing to do with the fact that being homosexual was punishable by hard labour? I cant think why people might have wanted to hide any homosexuality they might have felt...

A large influx of homosexuals from where? Planet fagular? Get over yourself. They don't have a secret army lurking in the shadows waiting to come forth and saturate society with festivities, bright lights and hair product.

There are people who do believe that though, a mate of mine ran into a bloke who was absoluley convinced that homosexuals (he used the word "fruits") were plotting to take over the world by giving everyone AIDS.

I am not taking the piss, he really did.

[Schwitzer]

There are people who do believe that though, a mate of mine ran into a bloke who was absoluley convinced that homosexuals (he used the word "fruits") were plotting to take over the world by giving everyone AIDS.
Yeah. Doesn't it make you cringe to be slapped in the face by how incredibly stupid people can be?

[singo]

Yes, I am however reasonably good at letting my eyes glaze over and thinking about something else should I get trapped in a conversation with an idiot.