US set to abstain from UN vote

Now serious. My guess is that Natoma dont need the society recognition in the form of government/law but he want recognition because in some way it is opressive to him the lack of society recognition. Of course he can say F@ck the society but he want to be an integral part of it. He already is a citizen, working menber, taxpayer, son, brother, friend, etc... but not officially a "partner" (lets forget the term married for a moment).

Just substitute "afirmation" by "recognition".

He probably see the US stance as a lack of society recognition then He has this chest pressure and want to be complete menber of the society.
This is more a psycological thing and words will probably not explain it.

The legal side is a plus.

Now I have to go to a dinner, have a nice weekend all.

 

I'm very disappointed in you, Natoma. I give you every chance to explain your contradictions, and the best you can do is throw the personal insults? (*shakes head*).

And I'll wager that despite this "serious" stance of yours, that you WILL from time to time respond to me in the future "when it suits you." Because you can't resist trying to battle logic and reasoning with emotionally charged rhetoric. That's what leftists do.

And you say that my posting style doesn't add value to this board? Do YOU see the irony in this situation, Natoma?.

If there was ever a use for this emoticon, it's now:

Sigh...If you spent 1/10th of the effort to address my points than you do evading them with misguided attempts to personally discredit me, you might make for a sensible poster.

And this might be a first time that you actually mean what you say. Given the fact that you never seem to be able to explain the contradictory things that you actually say.

And that's no joke either.

 

Indeed.

What are you doing "guessing" what Natoma meant? Shouldn't it be unquestionably obvious?

He may want to be an integral part of the Boy Scouts also...but if they don't want him, why does he want them? What's stopping him from creating the "Gay Boy Scouts" with his own values?

That may be...but what important aspect? The only thing he's SAID so far is the aspect related to the affirmation of love not being as it is with "heteros", because he's not legally recognized by the federal gov't.

He said:

And

It's clear to me that the federal government not legally recognizing his "marriage" doesn't allow in his mind the affirmation of love "just like heterosexuals."

And I'm saying that THIS hetersexual doesn't care about the federal government legally recognizing THIS heterosexual's marriage, in terms of affirmation of love.

In what context?

What do you mean "probably?" Isn't he clear?

You also have to define "society". You are saying that he's defining "society" by U.S. government terms. That's one way to do it, and one that I don't agree with in general.

I'm sorry to break the news here, but having his marriage legal wouldn't make him any more "accepted" by "society" than he is now. Those that accept it now, still will, those that don't, won't.

 

I don't even know where to start with this morass, so let's just go right on down the line ....

There now that is a nice start.

Pot calling the kettle black, apparently. Your arguments are very inconsistent and riddled with half-truths and stereotypes. Who is the uneducated one here? A degree does not make one intelligent or capable of decent discourse.

Is that right. Just where are these "inconsistent" "half-truths"? I didn't imply that a degree makes "one intelligent or capable of decent discourse" but rather the quality of the arguments presented were of novice quality. Like yours.

It's widespread because plenty of people enjoy it despite your distaste of it, and it's not a law that is easily enforceable. Why keep a law on the books that is mostly religious in nature, and only serves to repress, not protect or enhance?

Plenty of people liked cocain. People like all sorts of things but that doesn't make it all right or does it?

We as a humanity are partially the sum of our history, so it's not wrong to look to our past to see mistakes and learn how to not make them again.
Women who stay at home these days by and large choose to raise their family over having a career. While it's not the choice I would make, that is their choice to make and I respect them for that. I don't hold it against them because it's not my choice. What you are advocating is holding things against people because they don't choose as you do.

Yes I didn't suggest that the past was wrong only that he must go back there to find the inequalities he needs to find the justifications for the things that he wants now. I don't really have a lot of problems with mothers whom are not stay at home care givers. I have no problem with that really, what I am advocating is that both parents be responsible for their childrens well being. If they can do the optimal thing and have a stay at home mother and father working as a provider I think that it is a good thing. There was that so difficult?

Is a crack-addicted mother and an absent father better for a child than a loving gay couple simply because they are a child's biological parents? Hardly. By denying gay couples the right to adopt, you strip them of their humanity, which is criminal in my estimation. Slavery strips people of their humanity, and thus it has been made illegal. Do you propose that there are humans who are less human for the purpose of satisfying your morals? Are we not all equal in the eyes of of the law, according to the consistitution? Why you do think you are justified in imposing your morals on those that don't choose to live as you do? Don't like homosexuality or homosexual acts? Don't engage in homosexual activities, and don't associate yourself with homosexuals. Your loss, their gain.

lol, no. But a far better solution is to put the child in a home with both a male and a female as role models. Your hypothetical situation does not give me the option even though there are far more willing heterosexual couples in the world to offer such an environment. Even the psychiatric community would indorse a family with both genders to offer over a homosexual set of adopted parent. There isn't even any contest. So I would put the child of crack addicts with one of the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual parents waiting on a list for an adopted child before a "gay" couple. As for the later part of your argument it looks a bit more like a childes rant who has been denied candy or something. I don't impose my morals on anyone. In fact the reverse is being done. They are the ones imposing their morals and I don't like it one fucking bit, you get it? I don't want them teaching their garbage social science to my children. I happen to know it as I am a massive turncoat.

Now who's uneducated? It's "psuedo" not "suedo"

Pathetic nit pick.

Oh, so because it's always been that way is a valid argument to keep it that way. Bullshit. That kind of argument keeps humanity in stagnation, and leads to eventual decay. Society is the way it is because people worship materialism, greed, and shallowness. Until people in general find something to fill the spirit (which is not necessarily religion), then people will remain empty, and fill that emptiness with hatred, intolerance, ignorance, and fear of that which is different from themselves. Humanity has potential to move beyond such things, and people like you would have us crawl in the dregs because that's what we have always done.

My sakes your a real lefty aren't you. Wow, some real gumbos in there. Don't know where to start on this one. Are you implying that we have been decaying or something? WTF are you talking about? What is this materialism stuff? Do you mean to say that humans are materialistic, greedy and shallow? I wouldn't disagree with them ideas, but you think it is simply a matter of socialization isn't that right? Just what sort of tyranny would you need to put in place to rid ourselves of these horrible human conditions? Or shouldn't people just do it themselves rather then have the government force them..... Hate is a human emotion like it or not and no amount of social engineering will remove it. Ignorance is often a chosen state of mind, try to get a mass of people to watch news coverage. If by intolerance you mean that I do not tolerate then we have a matter of words. If by tolerating you mean accepting then I have a problem with the word usage. tol·er·ate: to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with. I tolerate homosexuality but I do not accept it. Stop using the word tolerate out of context. lol, I love your portrail of me, I would have you "crawl in the dregs". I never suggested that anyone crawl anywhere just that you ought to keep your crap science away from my children and am begging your sorts to not parade down the public streets as if everyone approves of your morality. Lets get this straight (no pun intended.) You can do what ever you want in you god dammed bedroom, just fucking leave it there.

He has a point, you know. He is a member of a minority that has been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion, and has had members tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I would say that he does have some insight in the laws and how they are becoming the say on whats morally right. Since the religious right has a large influence politically, it could be argued that laws are defining morals.

lol, more ignorance. Blacks have not been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion where do you get that crap? Every race has been tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I don't give a dam if he thinks that Affirmative Action is appropriate or not and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the argument. Certainly he wouldn't be discriminated against any more then a fat or ugly persons for example. There is nothing particularly impressive about the victimization of groups for the sake of political egalitarian motive. Equality of biblical proportions is what it amounts to. The religious right only has influence on the political scene in terms of whom it is that Christians will vote for any other sort of influence is founded in conspiracy theory.

It's NOT a damned affliction. You argue like gays hate what they are and wish they could change. The only wishing they do is to wish for acceptance in this narrow-minded, puritanical, and un-free society. Some attempt to change not because they hate what they are, but because others hate what they are, and no one wants to be hated. Some don't have the strength to live an ostracized life, and I can't blame them for wanting to find some acceptance.

There are all sorts of genetic inheritance that humans are afflicted with that a parent certainly would avoid if they could help their child. But this is not to say that it is necessarily a genetic affliction and I wouldn't argue as you have implied that I have that they "wish they could change" but many do and there are examples of them actually changing and being very happy about it. Further if it is not a genetic affliction they choose their way of life and should not expect the government to intervene. I don't blame them for not wanting to be "gay", I certainly wouldn't wish the affliction on anyone.

So you would leave a mother to die before you would allow an abortion after the first trimester to save her life? If performed correctly, she can always have other children.

It's not their humanity that is in question, it's their rights, and current law dictates that a fetus has no rights, or rights that are less than a born humans'.

I personally find it offensive when you imply that women are stupid for having sex with people that they might not want to have children with, and should always bear the consequences even when they act responsibly, (use condoms, take birth control, etc.). However men get to screw around as much as they want and they are admired for the notches on their belt. If anything is disgusting, it's that.

In how many instances does a woman need to have an abortion to save their lives? Would you murder hundreds of thousands of innocent children to save one woman? This is not to say that if a womans life was in danger that I wouldn't recommend an abortion only that you suggest that the slaughter of thousands for the sake of one womans life. Clearly a C section would save both in many cases.
I don't give a dam about when the child has "rights" they are alive inside the womb and don't need to be taken out to magically receive "rights". Personally I see rights as something that we have and the state should not need to confer them on to us but rather that we have them. You imply that in order to be human you must have rights conferred to us by the state.. That is a sad argument.
I don't think that men running around is a good thing at all ether. Sex should not be as trivialized as it is and people ought to take it much more seriously then they do. Just ask someone on their death bed with AIDS and see what they have to say about promiscuity. I don't approve of promiscuous behaviour at all. So it isn't just silly women running around getting pregnant as you say. Both men and women are being ill responsible in my opinion.

Do you realize how patently STUPID you sound when you say you have no homosexuals in your family because you came from heterosexuals? Homosexuals can biologically reproduce. Just because they prefer same sex partners doesn't mean that they can't be the father or mother of a child. You don't KNOW that there are no homosexuals in your family, because you and probably your entire extended family breed such an air of intolerance and hatred of homosexuals that they may be afraid or unwilling to come out. You don't KNOW either way. So stop making your purist claims that the "taint" of homosexuality isn't your family.
You keep your political agenda out of MY life. Societal values are not writ in stone, nor are they some high and untouchable code that cannot and should not be altered.

Oh.... my sakes, now not only are my arguments "inconsistent" and full of "half truths" but now I am being straight out stupid. Great. BTW you have a rather weak argument. First off you are wrong all together with your pretext here. The basic argument of the "gay" movement is that they are genetically inclined to be "gay". Otherwise they are not homosexual but rather bisexual and that they can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. I wouldn't argue with a great many of them being able to swing .... hence we have bisexuals. But the problem is that they are not arguing they are bisexual they are arguing that they are exclusively homosexual. That is what being a homosexual is. There are very few homosexuals that are exclusive and I would hardly call this something that is normal.
Thanks for filling me in on my family and that I don't know them. BTW you couldn't be more wrong there are none that I know of. All have children and are quite heterosexual. lol. I love this garbage about how we don't know if someone in our family is "gay" or not. Yeah that is great science. Heck I am surprised you are not trying to tell me that I can't tell if I am or not. What a pile of crap


I don't buy that at all. Your attitude screams fundamentalist zealot. Only in religious doctrine does one see the argument that homosexuality is "wrong". I can buy that a non-religous person can be opposed to abortion, but to be non-religious and as virulently opposed to homosexuality as you are, that I do not buy.

You know something I don't give a dam if you "buy" it or not. I am not a Christian and I resent the notion that you have to be a Christian to dislike this particular political movement. Just where is in my posting any reference to the Bible or any religious material? You can't find any and that is hard to deal with I realize but like it or not I am not a Christian. I don't have anything against Christians though. I bet you do.


Sterile heterosexual couples are screwed then. They should get a divorce and find someone else because they are not reproducing. That just gives more strength to my notion that marriage on the outside is naught a church-sanctified excuse for screwing and breeding.
Every time you have sex with your wife, you think about reproducing? I feel sorry for your wife, to be afflicted with a husband who is more concerned about reproducing than giving and sharing in mutal enjoyment of the act.
Let me let you in a little fact, since you seem incapable of grasping anything different than what you do. I am heterosexual, and I do not want to have children. By your fallacious logic, I am hurting myself and my partner every time I have sex, because neither one of us has intent to reproduce. WRONG. I am not hurting anyone, nor is my partner, because we are not bring children into this world we dont want just because some obsolete text tells us to.

lol, they try to reproduce just the same don't they? I didn't insinuate that sex between a man and a woman always end in pregnancy but rather humans when they have intercourse are doing so because we are hard wired for reproduction just like every other form of life in the world does. Only the combination of both sexes can actually reproduce, no others. So basically it is simple other forms of attempting to reproduce are naturally less natural. You don't have to want children to ejaculate and spread your seed.


Now I know you know nothing about anal sex with this little gem of ignorance. For most men, it is about the whole dominant/passive mentality that men are forced to accept from this society. A man who isn't totally aggressive and dominant is seen as weak and inferior. Anal sex implies passivity in this society, hence why so many heterosexual men are hysterically homophobic like you are.
Do like it? Don't do it. But don't force your morals down other people's throat because you don't like it.

lol, that is quite a peace of work you have there something about passivity... BTW where do you get that garbage? Homophobia is not a real phobia rather an intimidation tactic. Men are generally not wanting to be seen as afraid of anything and when they express their disgust with homosexuality they are labeled "homophobic". This gets under their skin and they say I am not homophobic. I personally have a fear of heights but I wouldn't confuse my disgust with homosexual activity as something that is fearful. lol. As you can tell I am not afraid of the label "homophobic" because it has no real scientific backing. It is simply an effective debate stifling tactic nothing more. Again I am not trying to force my moral on anyone but rather it is the "gay" movement trying to force their mentality on me and mine through political channels and I am not happy about them doing it at all, so get your argument straight.


You mean they actually might come to the conclusion that it isn't as horrifying as you make it out to be, which seems to lead the the conclusion that you don't want your children to think differently than you do, and to accomplish that you would rather keep them ignorant than let them choose what they think and feel about things.
You can homeschool your children if you so choose. It doesn't have to be you who teaches, either. My boyfriend was homeschooled, and he had a teacher who was not either of his parents that he submitted his homework to and learned from. Do some research.

Well I have and in Canada the rules for homeschooling are obviously different. I am upset about the idea that they will teach these "gay" morals to my child even if I don't consent, is that so hard to grasp? Further they are teaching it not because there is overwhelming evidence that they are right but that because the "gay" political movement has managed to convince courts using charter law that indeed they ought to be teaching in schools because to do otherwise is discriminatory in some way. There is no reason for a grade 7 student to wonder if they are "gay" particularly after the teacher tells them they can't tell, which BTW happened to my niece. So I have told it to Natoma and I will tell it to you keep your fucking garbage social political agenda away from me and mine.


You have been TOLD what marriage is SUPPOSED to be and you accept that. The problem is here is that you refuse to accept that other people have different definitions of what marriage is, and what it means to them.
Another instance of "stagnation is better than progress because I can't handle change or difference, so one else will either".

Somehow I get the distinct impression that you think the break down of the traditional family is a good thing. Somehow the proliferation of the traditional family is "stagnation" I think you ought to elaborate your position here. I got a whiff of something that I have been harping about for sometime so lets hear it. Why is it good that the nuclear family is destroyed?


The higher divorce rate is not due to the "sexual revolution" (frankly I don't care what you mean when you quote it, since everything out of you is negative stereotypes so far), but rather due to the fact that people rush into a lifelong commitment not ready for it, and since divorces are easily obtained, there you are. We as a society are force-fed this notion that marriage is one thing and one thing only, and that it;s necessary to engage in one to love someone or have children.

Marriage is about family as far as I know. It always has and despite recent set backs it likely always will. Well why has the divorce rate did nothing but increase sense the "sexual revolution"? Oh and while we are at it (revolution) lets change what marriage is about. A lifelong commitment is just that and having children is a life long commitment. People are not being prepared for marriage correctly ever sense the "sexual revolution". People think it is about love for loves sake but it isn't nor was it ever solely about love.
As for the STDs .... Sense the movement to serial monogamy began there has been a spike in the number of STDs. A whole variety are rampid now. This is a sign that the "sexual revolution" is becoming old and grey. There are a number of epidemics of STDs out there now if you like I could list them.


The societal problems encountered in the past 200 years are due to the fact that we have a large influential population that would keep us 2000 years in the past with strict adherence to rules no longer capable of guiding current society, and a population that wants to move forward. Hence there is a segment that is caught in the middle, and there is rampant lack of education among all segments, which leads to the stereotypes you have been spouting this entire thread. Ignorance breeds ignorance. The only way to stop it is through education that isn't castrated by any one segment of the population.

lol, another gem. My sakes God forbid someone disagree with you. They ought to be "castrated" or re-educated eh? Or do you mean brainwashed? I took a healthy dose of liberal arts education and I know the ignorance breeding in liberal arts universities. Assumption after assumption so that they can have their utopia.


No self-respecting gay person would put up with your total lack of tolerance and your drive to deride their way of life at every opportunity, so I seriously doubt you have any gay friends.

Why not? I simply resent the political efforts for the most part. Surely if they believe that their movement has any credibility they can stand some criticism for their political aspirations. Everyone else has to endure critique for their political aspirations. Why is the "gay" agenda untouchable? That goes against everything democracy is about.


As the rest of us are fed up with fundamentalist zealots like you who would destroy cultures and force feed your morals down everyone else's throats purely to keep eveything status quo, and everyone reduced to a sheeple who are not allowed to live differently if they so choose.

lol, another gem. The only zealots that are destroying a culture are born of left wing association hell bent on destroying anything that is traditional about our society. BTW the status quo is to jam modern liberal garbage down everyones throat with as much zeal as possible. That is why I am happy the US did not conform to the vote in the UN. That is a good thing.

PS I liked the bolding idea. It is much more simple then making the quotes and FWIW welcome to the forms.

EDIT: I also take note of your convenient neglection of this portion of my last post. Not that the posting was directed at you or anything but if you must reply don't be so selective in your arguments. There may be more that you disregarded but I am simply making a point don't simply reply were you only think you have a leg to stand on. Thanks in advance.

Again I don't think that worldnetdaily is a Christian Fundamentalist website but your bias comes shining through there doesn't it. Actually the link you provided for this thread is from some radical social gay activist web page. lol. There are all sorts of evidence regarding pedophilia. I provided a link from a doctor. http://drjudithreisman.org/whitep/regent.pdf Please read this and tell me what you think of it.(everyone.) I included that link in the same response but you ignore that as well.

The link that you have provided includes commentary from the US National Gay and Lesbian Task force. Ironic this is the same organization that lead the intimidation campian that actually managed to force a 1973 convention of the American Psychiatric Association to declare that homosexuality was not a deviant condition but rather a normal condition. But there were all sorts of accusations doctors were compared to racists and the like in this intimidation campaign, funny how this still occurs Natoma. A small but well organized political lobby had actually succeeded in the first changing, then totally eradicating a medical diagnosis. Funny though only 58% of the American Psychiatric Association actually agreed with the charge.

The thing is the whole arrangement was a sham. Even four years later a survey of 2500 psychiatrists found that 69% actually still believed that homosexuality was a pathological adaptation. About 18% disagreed and 13% were uncertain. In 1989 Dr.Joseph Nicolosi said "many members of our profession still privately express the opinion that homosexual development is not normal. The 1973 ruling did not resolve the issue-it simply silenced 80 years of psychoanalytic observation". After the ruling all that remained to be done was change the publics discourse of the behavior of homosexual activities. There are plenty of scientific conclusions that suggest that homosexuality is not a normal condition and something that needs worked on. But todays Politically correct world does not alow for such perspectives. So much for science remaining objective as now it seems that homosexuality is some sort of untouchable absolute.

No this defies the biological explanation you give and you betray yourself here. No these people would clearly fall in the bisexual arena. The difference is clear. You fail to recognize that the possibility of homosexual behavior can be induced from nurturing but rather it must be a biological affliction in your case. But with others it is clear that they can be made to act differently. Yeah I would agree there are very few cases of exclusive homosexuals and this only lends credence to the possibility that indeed it is a matter of choice that you choose to be exclusively homosexual and choose to be in a group that is discriminated against. I didn't say that BTW you did. I just helped you put your foot in your mouth. While you are not free to be heterosexual it is others that are.

 

Nope. I made the corect observation that instead of using your time to further the cause, you have wasted many hours over the last 2 days debating the issue with us chuckleheads. Don't get all defensive...you know I am right. It's your life. If you want to spend your time complaining to a group of people who can't change the law in your state, that's fine. When I don't like something going on in my town or state, I make a stink. If it works, great; if not, at least I gave it my all. You have to give it your all to expect change, and right now, natoma, you just aren't doing it. Yet, you moan and complain that it's the rest of the world that's not getting anything done...interesting.....

Go ahead and waste more time blasting me back. I already wrote my congressman about my issue of the week (NH budget proposal...nasty business)...I've got some time to kill. Can't wait to read the flame.

 

No, I wouldn't.

And I'm not saying anything to those trying to change gay marriage laws today either, so I hope you're not referring to me. Because if you are, then you haven't understood one single thing that I said...not that I would be surprised if that's the case.

I don't need the state to recognize my relationshiop to have any more or less a sense of the "affirmation of love." As long as the state doesn't prohibit my right to have some public ceremony where we can declare our love for one another, that's enough as far as me being satisfied with my desire to publically affirm my love for my other half..

THERE ARE reasons why I want the state to recognize my marriage, but they have NOTHING to do with any kind of "societal stamp of acceptance".

 

Plenty of people liked cocain. People like all sorts of things but that doesn't make it all right or does it?

Cocaine is harmful, this has been documented. Anal sex is not harmful as you portray it. I know a few older gay men, and they are not incontinent from having anal sex. I have yet to see any proof from you that anal sex is any more harmful than vaginal sex if safe sex is practiced.


Yes I didn't suggest that the past was wrong only that he must go back there to find the inequalities he needs to find the justifications for the things that he wants now. I don't really have a lot of problems with mothers whom are not stay at home care givers. I have no problem with that really, what I am advocating is that both parents be responsible for their childrens well being. If they can do the optimal thing and have a stay at home mother and father working as a provider I think that it is a good thing. There was that so difficult?

That is not so difficult. I also think that both parents can have a fulfilling career and raise kids to be normal productive adults. Of course it is much more difficult, but I would not deny the option for either partner to go out and work. My personal choice is to not have any children, and have a career instead.


lol, no. But a far better solution is to put the child in a home with both a male and a female as role models. Your hypothetical situation does not give me the option even thought there are far more willing heterosexual couples in the world to offer such an environment. Even the psychiatric community would indorse a family with both genders to offer over a homosexual set of adopted parent. There isn't even any contest. So I would put the child of crack addicts with one of the hundreds of thousands of heterosexual parents waiting on a list for an adopted child before a "gay" couple. As for the later part of your argument it looks a bit more like a childes rant woes been denied candy or something. I don't impose my morals on anyone. In fact the reverse is being done moron. They are the ones imposing their morals and I don't like it one fucking bit, you get it? I don't want them teaching their garbage social science to my children. I happen to know it as I am a massive turncoat.

I have seen plenty of examples of children/adults who raised by same-sex partners and don't lack for role models of both genders, and come out as normal as a hetero parent unit. There is still a conception that gay parents live a wild drug and sex filled lifestyle and drag any adoptive child into it, and hetero parents are always a better solution because of the religious influences of this society. When I see a situation in which a child is raped day after day for years by her father, and the mother stood by and did nothing, it doesn't convince me that a hetero couple is always better than any gay parent unit. Sexual orientation should not prevent a couple from adopting. As long as the child has access to role models of both genders, what is the problem? Love is love, no matter where it comes from.


Pathetic nit pick.

You accused of Natoma of being uneducated, and then you misspell words, so although it is a nitpick, it makes a point that you should not be accusing people of being uneducated and then show uneducated tendencies.


My sakes your a real lefty aren't you. Wow, some real gumbos in there. Don't know where to start on this one. Are you implying that we have been decaying or something? WTF are you talking about? What is this materialism stuff? Do you mean to say that humans are materialistic, greedy and shallow? I wouldn't disagree with them ideas, but you think it is simply a matter of socialization isn't that right? Just what sort of tyranny would you need to put in place to rid ourselves of these horrible human conditions? Or shouldn't people just do it themselves rather then have the government force them..... Hate is a human emotion like it or not and no amount of social engineering will remove it. Ignorance is often a chosen state of mind, try to get a mass of people to watch news coverage. If by intolerance you mean that I do not tolerate then we have a matter of words. If by tolerating you mean accepting then I have a problem with the word usage. tol·er·ate: to suffer to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction b : to put up with. I tolerate homosexuality but I do not accept it. Stop using the word tolerate out of context. lol, I love your portrail of me, I would have you "crawl in the dregs". I never suggested that anyone crawl anywhere just that you ought to keep your crap science away from my children and am begging your sorts to not parade down the public streets as if everyone approves of your morality. Lets get this straight (no pun intended.) You can do what ever you want in you god dammed bedroom, just fucking leave it there.

You are encouraging the status quo, and that people should never challenge traditions no matter what. "It worked in the past, why can't it work now?" seems to be your argument.
I would indeed say that it is a matter of socialization, because all the tripe one sees in the media encourages the buying of things to make you happy, that more and more and more is better, and that these things make you a better person. You tell me that isn't the message that media is broadcasting. It's the same as fashion magazines encouraging women to make themselves literally deathly thin in order to be attractive; there are a whole group of people who are dying to attain an impossible ideal because they believe that the media hype is right. There are many forms of socialization, and the obsession with money and things is one of them.
I do see that you do not tolerate homosexuals. You do not want them demonstrating in the streets, you do not want your children to know anything else about them other than what they do sexually is morally wrong and disgusting, and that homosexuals are "afflicted" and want to change. This does not spell tolerance to me.
As for "crap science", I see nothing better out of you, so look to your own house before you start calling foul.


lol, more ignorance. Blacks have not been persecuted since the beginnings of organized religion where do you get that crap? Every race has been tortured and killed because of who and what they are. I don't give a dam if he thinks that Affirmative Action is appropriate or not and it certainly doesn't have any bearing on the argument. Certainly he wouldn't be discriminated against any more then a fat or ugly persons for example. There is nothing particularly impressive about the victimization of groups for the sake of political egalitarian motive. Equality of biblical proportions is what it amounts to. The religious right only has influence on the political scene in terms of whom it is that Christians will vote for any other sort of influence is founded in conspiracy theory.


More misinterpretation on your part. I am not referring to the color of Natoma's skin, I am referring to the fact that he is a gay man, and as such, is part of a minority apart from his race.
Our President is Christian, and packs the Supreme Court with justices that happen to support his beliefs. His highest ranking officers in the administration are known to have strong antipathies towards many things Christianity deems offensive or wrong. I see the religious right everywhere, and I seem them legislating their morals on every aspect of my life.


There are all sorts of genetic inheritance that humans are afflicted with that a parent certainly would avoid if they could help their child. But this is not to say that it is necessarily a genetic affliction and I wouldn't argue as you have implied that I have that they "wish they could change" but many do and there are examples of them actually changing and being very happy about it. Further if it is not a genetic affliction they choose their way of life and should not expect the government to intervene. I don't blame them for not wanting to be "gay", I certainly wouldn't wish the affliction on anyone.


If any child of mine was gay and it was as simple as that to change a gene and make them straight, I wouldn't. Being gay is not a handicap, its not a disease, and its not an horrible afflication. Changing that would be like changing the fact that I am left-handed. I could have been forced to be right-handed, but why bother? It's not painful, does not induce suffering, and does not reduce the quality of life.
Your "examples" seem to be examples of people who are bi-sexual in nature, but swayed over to homosexuality, found out how hard it is to be homosexual in this intolerant society, and found acceptance in being heterosexual. Who wouldn't be happy in finding acceptance? I would be willing to bet that they still find same gendered people attractive, they no longer pursue such people or act on such thoughts.


In how many instances does a woman need to have an abortion to save their lives? Would you murder hundreds of thousands of innocent children to save one woman? This is not to say that if a womans life was in danger that I wouldn't recommend an abortion only that you suggest that the slaughter of thousands for the sake of one womans life. Clearly a C section would save both in many cases.
I don't give a dam about when the child has "rights" they are alive inside the womb and don't need to be taken out to magically receive "rights". Personally I see rights as something that we have and the state should not need to confer them on to us but rather that we have them. You imply that in order to be human you must have rights conferred to us by the state.. That is a sad argument.
I don't think that men running around is a good thing at all ether. Sex should not be as trivialized as it is and people ought to take it much more seriously then they do. Just ask someone on their death bed with AIDS and see what they have to say about promiscuity. I don't approve of promiscuous behaviour at all. So it isn't just silly women running around getting pregnant as you say. Both men and women are being ill responsible in my opinion.


I am not sure why you are presenting the problem of murdering thousands to save one woman's life? That situation is not plausible. I do happen to support early term abortion, but think that the woman should have to go through counseling before it is done, in order to make it clear what she is doing and what her options are. I do not support late term abortions or partial birth abortions. I take birth control to make sure that I never have to be in that position. Only education will prevent abortions being done for no reason, or out of ignorance of the options.
I am simply stating what the law recognizes currently. Fetuses do not have as many rights as you or I do. Who confers these rights if the state should not?
There is a difference between what I do, for example, and promiscuity. I have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for 3 years now, and I don't think that what I do in the bedroom with my boyfriend is wrong nor irresponsible simply because some old book would like to tell me that men need to own me or control my sexuality. Promiscuity is irresponsible, and again, education is key.


Oh.... my sakes, now not only are my arguments "inconsistent" and full of "half truths" but now I am being straight out stupid. Great. BTW you have a rather weak argument. First off you are wrong all together with your pretext here. The basic argument of the "gay" movement is that they are genetically inclined to be "gay". Otherwise they are not homosexual but rather bisexual and that they can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual. I wouldn't argue with a great many of them being able to swing .... hence we have bisexuals. But the problem is that they are not arguing they are bisexual they are arguing that they are exclusively homosexual. That is what being a homosexual is. There are very few homosexuals that are exclusive and I would hardly call this something that is normal.
Thanks for filling me in on my family and that I don't know them. BTW you couldn't be more wrong there are none that I know of. All have children and are quite heterosexual. lol. I love this garbage about how we don't know if someone in our family is "gay" or not. Yeah that is great science. Heck I am surprised you are not trying to tell me that I can't tell if I am or not. What a pile of crap


By your logic, every person is bisexual, and some tend to one end of the spectrum, and others to the other end, but no one is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. I happen to agree with this, as it makes sense to me. However, your position seems to lend credibility to the idea of that you would reject being anything less than totally heterosexual. Would you?

None that you know of. You come off like you are free of the homosexual "taint" when you say that you have no homesexuals in your family because every one of you "came from heterosexuals". Just because they appear to be happy and have children doesnt mean that they don't have any homosexual tendencies. They might not, but you don't know that. All you know is what you see.


You know something I don't give a dam if you "buy" it or not. I am not a Christian and I resent the notion that you have to be a Christian to dislike this particular political movement. Just where is in my posting any reference to the Bible or any religious material? You can't find any and that is hard to deal with I realize but like it or not I am not a Christian. I don't have anything against Christians though. I bet you do.


I know you don't give a damn whether I buy it or not. I am gonna tell you anyways, however, because I feel like it. You are still a zealot and still seemingly incapable of understanding that people think and feel differently than you, and that everyone has the right to demonstrate their opinions and feelings in this country (although it seems like that right is fast disappearing).


lol, they try to reproduce just the same don't they? I didn't insinuate that sex between a man and a woman always end in pregnancy but rather humans when they have intercourse are doing so because we are hard wired for reproduction just like every other form of life in the world does. Only the combination of both sexes can actually reproduce, no others. So basically it is simple other forms of attempting to reproduce are naturally less natural. You don't have to want children to ejaculate and spread your seed.


We might be biologically wired to reproduce, and hence partially the reason I take birth control. I don't let my biology dictate my relationships or how I live my life, and people who have a problem with that should not have the right to interfere with or repress me to status lesser than the majority.


lol, that is quite a peace of work you have there something about passivity... BTW where do you get that garbage? Homophobia is not a real phobia rather an intimidation tactic. Men are generally not wanting to be seen as afraid of anything and when they express their disgust with homosexuality they are labeled "homophobic". This gets under their skin and they say I am not homophobic. I personally have a fear of heights but I wouldn't confuse my disgust with homosexual activity as something that is fearful. lol. As you can tell I am not afraid of the label "homophobic" because it has no real scientific backing. It is simply an effective debate stifling tactic nothing more. Again I am not trying to force my moral on anyone but rather it is the "gay" movement trying to force their mentality on me and mine through political channels and I am not happy about them doing it at all, so get your argument straight.


Homophobia is real. I have met men who can't even stand to look at a nude male, or an underwear commercial for fear of being thought gay. That is homophobia. Your virulent hate and disgust of homosexuals and the activities they engage in seems to be rather out of hand as your reasons are nothing other than it's disgusting and "wrong". Seems to me you have some fear of being labelled homosexual for reasons false or true.


Well I have and in Canada the rules for homeschooling are obviously different. I am upset about the idea that they will teach these "gay" morals to my child even if I don't consent, is that so hard to grasp? Further they are teaching it not because there is overwhelming evidence that they are right but that because the "gay" political movement has managed to convince courts using charter law that indeed they ought to be teaching in schools because to do otherwise is discriminatory in some way. There is no reason for a grade 7 student to wonder if they are "gay" particularly after the teacher tells them they can't tell, which BTW happened to my niece. So I have told it to Natoma and I will tell it to you keep your fucking garbage social political agenda away from me and mine.


If it's that important to you, then learn to homeschool your children. Otherwise deal with the possibility that they won't learn in school that its digusting and wrong like you would like them to think.
Your keep your narrow-minded garbage away from me and I'll be plenty happy.


Somehow I get the distinct impression that you think the break down of the traditional family is a good thing. Somehow the proliferation of the traditional family is "stagnation" I think you ought to elaborate your position here. I got a whiff of something that I have been harping about for sometime so lets hear it. Why is it good that the nuclear family is destroyed?


Traditions are traps, to me. Traditions tie me into a way of action and thinking that becomes ultimately limiting and a tool to repress different ideas, opinions, and ways of thinking. I am not out to break up the traditional nuclear family, I am out to allow different configurations of a family. Family should not be about who has what gender, it should be a unit of people who care, protect, and love each other. I fail to see how sexual orientation interferes with that. Adherence to the concept of that parents have to be one male and one female is inflexible and indicates that other family units are somehow less loving, caring, and protecting than the traditional family unit.


Marriage is about family as far as I know. It always has and despite recent set backs it likely always will. Well why has the divorce rate did nothing but increase sense the "sexual revolution"? Oh and while we are at it (revolution) lets change what marriage is about. A lifelong commitment is just that and having children is a life long commitment. People are not being prepared for marriage correctly ever sense the "sexual revolution". People think it is about love for loves sake but it isn't nor was it ever solely about love.
As for the STDs .... Sense the movement to serial monogamy began there has been a spike in the number of STDs. A whole variety are rampid now. This is a sign that the "sexual revolution" is becoming old and grey. There are a number of epidemics of STDs out there now if you like I could list them.


And why does a family have to consist of one male, one female, and various children?
Divorce is so prevalent because because it's easy to get married, and equally easy to get a divorce. Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious ceremony you risk your happiness, your future, and your position in society to break up. Divorce no longer carries the stigma is used to, and as such, people feel they can get out of a relationship they feel they no longer should be in. People dive into marriage without a fair test of the person they are choosing to marry (hence why I think the idea that living together and having sex before marriage being wrong and a bad idea seems to be a deliberate blinding of oneself to potential problems and incompatibilities with one's mate), have a child, then find they can no longer deal with it, and get divorced, and the children of such unions get caught in the middle. I feel that that is the real crime, not the divorce rate itself.
Many STD's are rampant now because people go and have unprotected sex, and are completely ignorant of the consequences. Education AGAIN is key to reducing many of the world's problems.



lol, another gem. My sakes God forbid someone disagree with you. They ought to be "castrated" or re-educated eh? Or do you mean brainwashed? I took a healthy dose of liberal arts education and I know the ignorance breeding in liberal arts universities. Assumption after assumption so that they can have their utopia.

By "castration" I meant selectively edited to the point in which the education is useful because any one segment has influence the contect of the education to not include anything they disagree with.
You make many assumptions yourself by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out to destroy your very way of life because they want their way of life recognized.



Why not? I simply resent the political efforts for the most part. Surely if they believe that their movement has any credibility they can stand some criticism for their political aspirations. Everyone else has to endure critique for their political aspirations. Why is the "gay" agenda untouchable? That goes against everything democracy is about.


The "gay" agenda is not untouchable, at least not in my mind. It does have credibility, however, which is why I am arguing for recognition of same-sex marriages, eqivalent of opposite-gender marriages. You have this "not in my backyard" syndrome because you don't want to see anything you don't agree with. You simply don't agree and leave it at that. You don't deny gay people their right to celebrate their pride in their way of life. If there was a parade to celebrate left-handed pride, trust me I would be there.


lol, another gem. The only zealots that are destroying a culture are born of left wing association hell bent on destroying anything that is traditional about our society. BTW the status quo is to jam modern liberal garbage down everyones throat with as much zeal as possible. That is why I am happy the US did not conform to the vote in the UN. That is a good thing.


Another gem of ignorance and stereotypes. You argue for things to never change, for us to cling to outdated traditions for tradition's sake. Sorry I discard traditions when they become limiting, because I see no need to stick with something when valid or preferable alternatives exist.


PS I liked the bolding idea. It is much more simple then making the quotes and FWIW welcome to the forms.

I've done a fair bit of long-winded debating on www.arstechnica.com, and quoting makes long posts even longer, so I've adopted the bolding idea.

EDIT:
I had nothing to say to the parts I didn't reply to, so I didn't reply. I don't like to get into a quoting war, so I'll let Natoma tackle that part if he wishes

 

Not at all. I was saying that you waste a lot of time criticizing others and getting way to defensive over every retarded statement, while at the same time ignoring the valid ones. You haven't addressed my original post in this thread at all. You ignore the stuff for which you have no counterpoint, and rave about trivial differences. That IMO is a waste of time for someone who is as passionate about changing the status quo as you seem to be.

As far as my free time goes...this isn't about me. I haven't filled six pages of a thread complaining about something that I could work towards fixing.

To get back on topic, I'll say it again. In 1948 the UN passed into international law a civil rights bill which states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Why is a new vote even necessary? Unless your view is that homosexuals are not human beings, then I really don't see the point. It's useless, it's purely political, and it's a waste of everyone's time. It's just another way for the other countries to stick their noses up in the air and pretend that they are perfect. I am glad we are abstaining.

 

To deep_sky: I agree with pretty much everything you say except one thing - I don't agree with what you think causes homophobia (among males anyhow).

Personally I'm intellectually liberal (non-homophobic) but emotionally homophobic. That simply means that I'm uncomfortable around gay people, but that I intellectually understand that it's irrational and that it's none of my business whatsoever what they do in their bedrooms etc.


This has nothing to do with some active/passive role-playing theory. It''s about the babes!
Thus, as a young male heterosexual you never ever want to be associated with gay men. So you put them down instead, more or less agressively (why we do this is all subconsciously hidden of course). As you grow up you eventually realize how irrational and unfair these feelings are.

 

To be honest, I cannot find her reasoning (the post are all starting to blur together for me at this point). But I know that the explaination I have heard, which to me make alot of sense, is this:

Men are made uncomfortable by the idea that another man (gay of course) is objectifying them as much as they are objectifying women. The idea that a man would hit on them in the same forceful and unrelenting manner that they themselves pursue women. (This begins one some levels to touch maybe on the whole passive/active role playing idea, but i think the explaination less abstract and easier to understand).

I believe on some level, most men are actually intimidated by gay men. Before, you reject this, let me explain a bit more. Given that many men have been raised (by their parents and/or the media & society) to think of women as the weaker sex, and to think of gay men as just "pansies" and "weak like women", these feelings of intimidation tend to get very mixed up. Surely, a "real man" shouldn't be intimidated by some "pansy ass girly man". This then manifests itself in anger and/or violence, or on to a lesser degree as plain old (subconciously driven) discomfort.

Even reasonably liberally and intelligently raised boys can fall prey to these ideas i mention above. Maybe to a lesser degree, but its hard to avoid the media and the underlying prejudices and steroetypes it feeds to us everyday.

Men are taught from very early on to feverently defend their "manhood". To be "tough", and "strong", and "not let anyone push you around". Any guy who has even played organized sports has been feed this line of horse-shit. I will tell you now, that is NOT what "makes you a man". I tend to think this whole brutish mentality is responsible for much of the violence in today's society.

To be honest Cosmo, I think that your argument is fatally flawed here. It is a well known fact that hot women hang around gay men. I mean come on, don't you watch Will & Grace!

Actually to be totally serious, and maybe this is not a universal thing, but I have found in the past that many a girl is impressed with a man's confidence if he is not intimidated by gay men. And that since most young gay men (if they are open about it, or act too "gay") will end up being friends with more girls in high-school and college. I can think of several instances of this phenomenon from my high-school/college days.

To "stay away from gay guys" in order to "get the chicks" may not be the best way to go. Most girls/women are not as up tight about homosexuality as men are.

In the end, my guess is that you never really encountered a gay person, and especially never gotten to know one. I am not faulting you for this, not until i was in college had i gotten to know a gay person (shit it was art school though, so there was almost no way i wasnt going to). But i do suggest that you try to look at this uncomfortable feeling you have, see it for what it truely is (maybe something i mentioned above, maybe not), and then get past it. The truth of the matter is that most gay men will not even look at you twice if they know you are a hetero, why waste their time trying to "convert" you. (kinda funny when you think of how the opposite is true for hetero men and lesbians, ah the wonders of the male ego).

And again, many a woman will be highly impressed with your confidence in you own sexuality and manhood if you are comfortable around a gay man.

Thats really how you get the chicks

-stvn

 

Cocaine is harmful, this has been documented. Anal sex is not harmful as you portray it. I know a few older gay men, and they are not incontinent from having anal sex. I have yet to see any proof from you that anal sex is any more harmful than vaginal sex if safe sex is practiced.

Heh, just about any doctor worth their salt will indeed admit that anal sex is far more dangerous then vaginal sex. There are a number of extra deseases and bacteria that can be transmitted simply because the walls of the lower intestinal tract where feces is excreted. There is even a term for the host of these problems associated with a number of the problems it is called "Gay" Bowel Syndrome. The problem with the name is that it isn't politically correct and a number of "gay" activist are trying to force the name from medical journals and the like. The name of the disease certainly indicates that indeed it is the homosexual community that suffers most from these problems. Here are a list of these deseases or infections that are associated with this syndrome.

Amebiasis - a disease of the colon caused by parasites. Results in dysentery, sometimes liver abscess, and is spread by fecal ingestion or contamination of food.

Giardiasis - also prevalent in day-care centers because of wandering fecal material; a parasitic disease that produces diarrhea and inflammation of the bowel tract. Spread by fecal ingestion and contamination of food and water.

Salmonellosis - a bacterial disease causing food poisoning and gastroenteritis vomiting, severe diarrhea in infants and the elderly.
Can lead to death by dehydration. Spread by fecal ingestion and contaminated foodstuffs.

Shigellosis - an acute bacteria infection like salmonellosis, it can lead to a diarrhea-induced dehydration death in infants and the elderly. Infected individuals should NOT HANDLE FOOD.

Hepatitis A and B - a viral liver disease spread by fecal contamination (A), or by blood (B). The latter type is considered to be transmitted "by 'parenteral injection' of saliva or semen positive for B antigen through breaks in anal or oral mucosa during anilingual (tongue/anus) contact or proctogenital intercourse (penile/rectal sodomy)" (New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, p.302.)

Tuberculosis and Syphilis - these are charging back since the beginning of the 1980s, in both the United States and Canada, among other things, because of AIDS and cocaine use, the latter because it promotes high-risk sex activity, often performed in exchange for the drug. Officials express huge concern because syphilis sores provide an easy route of entry for the AIDS virus (Globe and Mail, June 7, 1991). As for tuberculosis? AIDS patients are particularly vulnerable because of weakened immune systems. Nearly half the AIDS patients in some New York State AIDS clinics have the disease. The North York, Ontario, public health department has reported "a one hundred per cent increase" in 1991. No reason given." William Gairdner, "The War Against the Family a parent speaks out" (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). p. 398

There really is no such thing as "safe sex" the only way to absolutely avoid sexually transmitted disease is to avoid sex all together. If your partner had AIDS would you really on a condom for protection? Condoms have a failure rate of approximately 10%. Never mind the fact that the AIDS virus is smaller then the holes in latex. The lower intestine is also more delicate then the inner surface of the vagina and so when engaged in anal sex the inner surface of the lower intestinal tract is considerably more likely to remain intact resulting in bleeding, hence the considerably higher rate of AIDS in the homosexual portion of society. Anal sex is not as safe as vaginal intercourse and logically so. The vagina is meant for intercourse where the lower intestinal tract is meant for the excresion of feces. The move amongst educators to blanch this fact is because it is homosexuals primary way of intercourse. Funny that, it seems that homosexuals are imitating heterosexual intercourse, I wonder why?
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-603586526.htm
http://216.251.241.163/semdweb/InternetSOMD/ASP/1571073.asp
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?gay+bowel+syndrome
http://www.wfcr.com/diseases.html
http://www.aegis.com/pubs/aidsline/1987/apr/M8740156.html
http://www.anthrax-chlamydia-gonorr...tures.com/pelvic_inflammatory_disease_pid.htm
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/menshealth/facts/analsex.htm

That is not so difficult. I also think that both parents can have a fulfilling career and raise kids to be normal productive adults. Of course it is much more difficult, but I would not deny the option for either partner to go out and work. My personal choice is to not have any children, and have a career instead.

No particularly where if both parents are working they can afford all sorts of different alternatives in particular day-care. I don't advocate that mothers must stay at home while fathers be provider absolutely only that it would be the optimal parenting technic as a result of women being better nurturers and males being better laborers ..... in general. If you should choose to have a career instead of a family that is fine it is your choice. My wife works but if we could afford it she would be stay at home. It wouldn't be so difficult if taxation wasn't so bloody high.

I have seen plenty of examples of children/adults who raised by same-sex partners and don't lack for role models of both genders, and come out as normal as a hetero parent unit. There is still a conception that gay parents live a wild drug and sex filled lifestyle and drag any adoptive child into it, and hetero parents are always a better solution because of the religious influences of this society. When I see a situation in which a child is raped day after day for years by her father, and the mother stood by and did nothing, it doesn't convince me that a hetero couple is always better than any gay parent unit. Sexual orientation should not prevent a couple from adopting. As long as the child has access to role models of both genders, what is the problem? Love is love, no matter where it comes from.

I have not and there really are not "plenty" of them out there. I never said anything about a "wild drug and sex filled lifestyle", I simply don't believe that a child growing up in a same gender parent family are getting an accurate picture of reality. For instance there is no such thing as a child having "two moms" or for that matter "two dads". The idea is prepostorus. Certainly a young man filled with testosterone will not fully connect with "two moms". There is definitely something to be said for the traditional styled family that both genders are available for children to draw on. The genders being so different and all out of nature there is all sorts of psychiatric support for the idea that a family with both genders as parents are absolutely better then a one gender idea. You seem to assume that somehow two fathers would be better then one. Considering the higher rates of pedophiles amongst men you are making some sort of queer argument against the two father idea for a family. But lets take this one step further the gay and lesbian movement has continuously in the past attempted to lower age of consent for sexual contact between adults and children.

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

The 1972 Gay Rights Platform
Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972

6. Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

and then in the same breath.......

7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

The assumption is that sex with children is ok because it is a socialized moral. There is no room on the left for morals and they insist on the notion of moral relativity. NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association)consistently makes attempt to lower the age of consent using human rights. You talk about fathers abusing their children and this happens, but the number of others whom abuse children a far more frequent. I would suggest to you that instances where the woman simply ignores the abuse is rare and hardly any sort of rational to indicate that same sex couples would be better at parenting. In fact if you think about it same sex "parents" couple based on the way they prefer their sex rather then a child seeing their parents they are looking at a sexual unit. This would lead to an overly sexualized environment. Psychologically speaking it is far better to have both genders present so that the child does not get such a scewed perspective on gender and sexuality.

You accused of Natoma of being uneducated, and then you misspell words, so although it is a nitpick, it makes a point that you should not be accusing people of being uneducated and then show uneducated tendencies.

OK fine, lets just leave it at this. Natoma belittled my arguments so .... one good turn deserves another in my opinion. I am not going to continue with this portion of the thread. OK?

You are encouraging the status quo, and that people should never challenge traditions no matter what. "It worked in the past, why can't it work now?" seems to be your argument.
I would indeed say that it is a matter of socialization, because all the tripe one sees in the media encourages the buying of things to make you happy, that more and more and more is better, and that these things make you a better person. You tell me that isn't the message that media is broadcasting. It's the same as fashion magazines encouraging women to make themselves literally deathly thin in order to be attractive; there are a whole group of people who are dying to attain an impossible ideal because they believe that the media hype is right. There are many forms of socialization, and the obsession with money and things is one of them.
I do see that you do not tolerate homosexuals. You do not want them demonstrating in the streets, you do not want your children to know anything else about them other than what they do sexually is morally wrong and disgusting, and that homosexuals are "afflicted" and want to change. This does not spell tolerance to me.
As for "crap science", I see nothing better out of you, so look to your own house before you start calling foul.

What is the current status quo? From what I see the status quo is a mess. Look at the high divorce rate, look at the spread of sexually transmitted deceases, look at all the poverty of single parent families, consider the plight of children that come from broken homes and their level of deviance. The status quo is something you are defending not me. In fact you are incuraging more chaotic social strife with your insistence that the traditional family is some sort of "stagnant" entity. The primal and inescapable natural family triangle- Mother, Father and children is the most basic universal fact of our existence. Everything else is a familial or social complexity arising from this singular reality. The natural family is thus universal a small fact to seldom emphasized. The fundamental reason for the existence of the natural family in the first place is that is is the only entity in human history that has ever been dedicated to the nurturing and protection of children. Your assumption that it is some sort of socialized unit denies all reality and history. Instead you really on the simplistic argument that we are forming familial unites as a result of television.... My sakes the television has only been around for what...50 + years. The natural family unit has been around sense the beginning of man kind. Ho hum must be a trivial socialized creation, yeah right. Get past your "education" and stop regurgitating what you've been told and think for yourself. I am a free thinker and I don't simply regurgitate the current status quo...... you do.

I do tolerate homosexuals. I don't accept their sexuality as something that should be considered normal though. Less then 1% of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual how is being homosexual normal?

What is crap science? lol. Science is found in trial and error. The scientific method goes like this. First you decide what it is you want to test, then you make assumptions create your hypothesis, test and then devise some theory based on that outcome. The area where most errors are made are at the assumption portion of the process. Now lets talk about crap science. Crap science is where you have a conclusion based on assumptions that are incorrect. The biggest and most glareing incorrect assumption is that there is no human nature and what we are is the culmination of nurturing. "A blank slate". There are also other unresolved philosophical conflicts that are important. eg . Individualism and Collectivism. These are really important issues.... but many sociologist (particularly the liberal arts sort, of which I believe are the only sociologist out there.) that have made the assumption that indeed there is no human nature and as a result there is no individual and we are all a sum of our socializations.. This is simply not the case. But the logic flows out of these classes like this sense there is not human nature and nurturing is the sum of our beings then we must work collectively. There is no individual and no human nature in their "science" I would suggest to you that this logic is highly flawed. Further on the matter of homosexuality they make some sort of exception, tangentially of course. Homosexuality is being portrayed as some sort of genetic affliction and therefore they("gays") cannot do anything about their lifestyles. On these grounds they make an argument for homosexuality being natural and therefor much in the same way that spacial acceptance was made for racial protection of minorities. On the other side of the left so to speak they continue with their logic that there is no human nature and the left is actually showing some real ambiguities in their logic. If indeed homosexuality is genetic then this gives credence to allot of other social anomalies to be a matter of genetic inclination ..... including heterosexuality and the family unit coming from that naturally. Now I don't make the argument that homosexuality is a genetic inclination or for that matter absolutely a nurtured creation. I simply don't know ... but what I do know is that there are people whom are susceptible to the behavior and that considering only 1% of homosexuals are exclusively homosexual I don't consider the behavior normal and wouldn't want my children to consider that it is ether.

More misinterpretation on your part. I am not referring to the color of Natoma's skin, I am referring to the fact that he is a gay man, and as such, is part of a minority apart from his race.
Our President is Christian, and packs the Supreme Court with justices that happen to support his beliefs. His highest ranking officers in the administration are known to have strong antipathies towards many things Christianity deems offensive or wrong. I see the religious right everywhere, and I seem them legislating their morals on every aspect of my life.

Sorry about that I really misread the post. Clinton packed a pile of democrats in the "supreme court" when he was in office as well. This happens regularly. In Canada the government is full of beaucracy that is pro liberal and so on... Why you only focus on President Bush is beyond me outside of plain old hypocrisy. Well I believe it was the population of the US that voted Bush in I guess you really don't like a large portion of people in America. Yes that is right the conservative/republicans will do what they think is right and the liberals/democrats do what they think is right. Liberals are not right about all of their agenda yet I don't hear you attacking their platform..... more hypocrisy. It is as if there is only one party to criticize. BTW it was my sensing this arrogance of liberals and the left and the growing sense of this in general that drove me out to see what potential problems there really is with left thinking and too my surprise I was accutally able to come up with some very legitimate and glaring issues with left wing logic.

If any child of mine was gay and it was as simple as that to change a gene and make them straight, I wouldn't. Being gay is not a handicap, its not a disease, and its not an horrible afflication. Changing that would be like changing the fact that I am left-handed. I could have been forced to be right-handed, but why bother? It's not painful, does not induce suffering, and does not reduce the quality of life.

Well I am glad for you and your convictions. But to put it as simply as possible I certainly would and so would the vast majority of people on the planet. Being "gay" isn't about being happy as the name suggest. Certainly you would be locking your child out of being a father and having their own family. You would be denying them the right to a normal life. They might wish you had helped them and not relegated them to a life of homosexuality. That may be a real disservice. lol, your left hand argument is ironic. I read somewhere once that there are a higher percentage of left handed people in the homosexual community as opposed to heterosexuals. I find that an interesting thing. First off it may explain why so many of them simply feel different as we all know the world is highly engineered for right handed people even something as basic as a can opener is created with right handed people in mind. But I won't pursue that line of argument as it is highly speculative.

Your "examples" seem to be examples of people who are bi-sexual in nature, but swayed over to homosexuality, found out how hard it is to be homosexual in this intolerant society, and found acceptance in being heterosexual. Who wouldn't be happy in finding acceptance? I would be willing to bet that they still find same gendered people attractive, they no longer pursue such people or act on such thoughts.

No you really missed my point with that argument. It was Natoma that clearly brought the suggestion that homosexuals can behave like heterosexuals. I simply indicated that this would be indicative of a bisexual and not a homosexual as a genetically inclined homosexual cannot have heterosexual sex. There is no logic in your argument that intolerance leads them to behave like heterosexuals. Clearly if they are homosexual they cannot have sex with the opposite sex and do not find them attractive and persue other homosexuals. My unacceptance of their sexuality simply could not have a bearing on what they are doing in their bedrooms or what makes them excited. Your argument suggest that my and others acceptance of their sexuality will magically make them more sexually excited by other homosexuals. That is bad logic.

I am not sure why you are presenting the problem of murdering thousands to save one woman's life? That situation is not plausible. I do happen to support early term abortion, but think that the woman should have to go through counseling before it is done, in order to make it clear what she is doing and what her options are. I do not support late term abortions or partial birth abortions. I take birth control to make sure that I never have to be in that position. Only education will prevent abortions being done for no reason, or out of ignorance of the options.
I am simply stating what the law recognizes currently. Fetuses do not have as many rights as you or I do. Who confers these rights if the state should not?
There is a difference between what I do, for example, and promiscuity. I have a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend for 3 years now, and I don't think that what I do in the bedroom with my boyfriend is wrong nor irresponsible simply because some old book would like to tell me that men need to own me or control my sexuality. Promiscuity is irresponsible, and again, education is key.

The reason I gave that hypothetical situation is because I was presented with an equally illogical argument. There is no reason to make abortion legal after the first trimester based on the argument you provided suggesting that in some instances a womans life is in danger for carrying a child to full term.( A rare incident indeed.) Why should the law protect abortion for those whom are past the first trimester and life is not in danger. Simply put you make that argument for rare occasions but don't close the door on other instances where the life of the mother is not in danger. As far as I know the law still protects abortions after the first trimester but I don't see the left attacking late abortions. The left never had a problem with partial abortions and it was the republican government that did something about them.

No as far as I am aware a child in the womb has no rights until they are out of the womb but I don't hear any left wing protest for the rights of babies that are unborn.

Well indeed I agree that promiscuity is irresponsible and we agree on this. I want though for you to consider something about educating the children and looking after their minds for a moment. Please if you would consider that children are often given the impression that contraceptives such as condoms and pills are good protection against pregnancy, STDs and AIDS.

-Planned Parenthoods own publication (Summer 1973, pp133-42) Family Planning perspective. showed that teens who regularly use the pill experience a pregnancy rate four to five times higher the that for older women using the pill.

-A Cornell University study reported in the Journal of Adolescent Health Care (sept 1987, pp393,395) showed an 18 percent pregnancy rate in the first year of use among teenagers who used the pill with a high rate of compliance.

-Zelnick and Kanter in Family Planning Perspective (sept/oct 1980 pp 230-37) showed that the compliance was 9.9-13 percent annually.

-Side effects: 22 percent show weight gain. 18 percent have menstrual problems, 16 percent have nausea, 10 percent have head aches, 10 percent suffer abdominal pain and if smokers some have blood clotting. Many teens receive pills without parental consent and therefore can give no family medical history.

- The rate of sexulally transmitted diseases among teens is three times higher then the general population. Many of these diseases such as herpes, genital warts and papilloma virus are incurable. Chlamydia is epidemic at 30% and females sexually active 16 and under are twice as likely to get cervical cancer. (British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol 93 1986 p787)

-Condoms have a much higher failure rate in anal sex (British Medical Journal, Nov 7,1987 p94) indicating all sex educators ought to be directing youth away from this practise instead of attempting to normalize it or recommending it as safe intercourse.

-The general public and surely most sex educators in North America are unaware that the incidence of many STDs has been skyrocketing in recent years. Syphilis is at a 40 year high level. Human papilloma virus (HPV) has been found in 38 percent of 13-21 year old women. This virus can produce sterility and it cannot be cured.

On and on. Do you want to see more evidence that sex education is a failure and does nothing to protect the children or for that matter adults. The illusion of liberating people from the "stagnant" attitudes and lifestyles there are a great many whom will have to suffer lifelong STDs or the consequences of them from which there may not be any "liberation" particularly if they die from a disease such as AIDS. Funny that the sexual revolution promised liberation and "free love" but mostly what has been delivered is broken families, misery, disease and death.

By your logic, every person is bisexual, and some tend to one end of the spectrum, and others to the other end, but no one is 100% homosexual or 100% heterosexual. I happen to agree with this, as it makes sense to me. However, your position seems to lend credibility to the idea of that you would reject being anything less than totally heterosexual. Would you?

Oh my sakes, just where do you get that? lol, homosexuality and heterosexuality are not ends of a spectrum.... I don't know where you are getting this. I believe it was Natoma that suggested some heterosexuals could behave like homosexuals and some homosexuals could behave like heterosexuals. What I suggested was that rather these few that are able to be both are neither and that they ought to be considered bisexual. The problem with the existence of the bisexual suggest that indeed one does not have to be genetically inclined to be homosexual thus a really possibly severe damaging argument against homosexuality being a genetic affliction and threatening their cause much so.

None that you know of. You come off like you are free of the homosexual "taint" when you say that you have no homesexuals in your family because every one of you "came from heterosexuals". Just because they appear to be happy and have children doesnt mean that they don't have any homosexual tendencies. They might not, but you don't know that. All you know is what you see.

Oh my sakes...."gays" are everywhere.lol. No there are none in my family. This is not strange or even unlikely so get over .... sheash. I would suggest that there are plenty of families out there that don't have any "gays" in them ether. I can't believe that you people insist on this line of argument. Not only is it speculative but you have no idea and all you are doing is trying to insert some doubt even though I know that there are none on ether side as far as I can tell. Oh I get it now.... secretly everyone has "gay" people in their families so we can intimidate them with that insinuation... this is pure trash.

I know you don't give a damn whether I buy it or not. I am gonna tell you anyways, however, because I feel like it. You are still a zealot and still seemingly incapable of understanding that people think and feel differently than you, and that everyone has the right to demonstrate their opinions and feelings in this country (although it seems like that right is fast disappearing).

lol, who is the zealot. I am a free thinker and I stand up for what I believe despite the status quo. I believe it is you whom is regurgitating current very popularized liberal philosophy so please spare me your outdated label. If my opinion happens to be in line with right wing ideology what does that mean? Does it mean that I am absolutely wrong and all my motives are based out of religious bias? There is a new religion found in the absolute belief that left wing thinking is absolutely correct and they can not be wrong about any of their conclusions. But indeed they are wrong and it is on many counts yet these ambiguities are overlooked, sounds like zealotry to me.

We might be biologically wired to reproduce, and hence partially the reason I take birth control. I don't let my biology dictate my relationships or how I live my life, and people who have a problem with that should not have the right to interfere with or repress me to status lesser than the majority.

No it isn't that we might be at all. We are hard wired for reproduction just as all life is. It does not matter how you trigger the hard wiring but that it exists that is the premise of the argument that heterosexuality is more natural then say getting excited by shoes.

Homophobia is real. I have met men who can't even stand to look at a nude male, or an underwear commercial for fear of being thought gay. That is homophobia. Your virulent hate and disgust of homosexuals and the activities they engage in seems to be rather out of hand as your reasons are nothing other than it's disgusting and "wrong". Seems to me you have some fear of being labelled homosexual for reasons false or true.

How so? Because you say it is? It is not an excepted psychological affliction. There are no real scientific bases for the idea. If I am upset that some people life to have sex with animals does that mean I am fearful of sheep? It truly is a preposterous label intended on stifling debate and has absolutely nothing to do with .... underwear or passivity or whatever. It is an example of garbage science.

If it's that important to you, then learn to homeschool your children. Otherwise deal with the possibility that they won't learn in school that its digusting and wrong like you would like them to think.
Your keep your narrow-minded garbage away from me and I'll be plenty happy.

As I made clear before I don't have the qualifications. I am afraid that I disagree thought that the state ought to be preaching that morality and it really isn't the place for the state to be intervening. Further I resent that I and many others pay taxes to have that same morality that we don't agree with being taught as though it is normal when clearly there are many whom are sceptical of the mentality and that includes a large portion of scientist.

Traditions are traps, to me. Traditions tie me into a way of action and thinking that becomes ultimately limiting and a tool to repress different ideas, opinions, and ways of thinking. I am not out to break up the traditional nuclear family, I am out to allow different configurations of a family. Family should not be about who has what gender, it should be a unit of people who care, protect, and love each other. I fail to see how sexual orientation interferes with that. Adherence to the concept of that parents have to be one male and one female is inflexible and indicates that other family units are somehow less loving, caring, and protecting than the traditional family unit.

"Traditions are traps" you ought to patent that one. I am not bound by my tradition at all. My tradition is that my family was broken, I learned sex education, I learned about Socialism... I am not trapped by tradition and neither are you. But somehow while you are not "trapped" by tradition given your frank ability to do what you like others somehow are "trapped by tradition" sounds like some sort of bad and elitist argument to me. Ironic that somehow you believe that tradition is a trap but yet you are able to do what you like based on your own choice.

And why does a family have to consist of one male, one female, and various children?
Divorce is so prevalent because because it's easy to get married, and equally easy to get a divorce. Marriage is no longer exclusively a religious ceremony you risk your happiness, your future, and your position in society to break up. Divorce no longer carries the stigma is used to, and as such, people feel they can get out of a relationship they feel they no longer should be in. People dive into marriage without a fair test of the person they are choosing to marry (hence why I think the idea that living together and having sex before marriage being wrong and a bad idea seems to be a deliberate blinding of oneself to potential problems and incompatibilities with one's mate), have a child, then find they can no longer deal with it, and get divorced, and the children of such unions get caught in the middle. I feel that that is the real crime, not the divorce rate itself.

I simply have given you the example of the natural family. Mother, Father and their children.(not various.) This is also the definition of the traditional family. You seem to think that it exists simply because of religious motivations but nothing could be further from the truth. In the past before Christianity people lived in families and they looked after their families themselves and this is the right thing. That people be responsible for their own children and not pass the responsibility off on the state or others. If they do pass it off on others plenty of times it stays within their family which is a good thing. But I don't rationalize a welfare state and high taxation simply because a couple whom were not married (or married for that matter.) breaks up because one or the other suddenly wants to have sex with their neighbor and this is very ill responsible and it ought to be viewed as such. There are all sorts of different reasons why families break up. But the original reason that the family existed primarily has been lost to lofty notions of eternal love and the like. While such ideas are great the reality is that often after 10 years and 2-3 children people become tired of their partners or what have you. In the meantime they are bringing new lives into the world ..... this is the life long commitment and it ought to be the focus. That is the difference between a house were a woman and her 3 children all of whom are from different fathers is on welfare and they are making designs on getting rid of their current live in partner for Joe blow next door. This is not a family ... it is chaos and an absolute mess. Further it ought to be viewed as such. (This is purely a hypothetical situation, but none the less I am sure we have all seen this mess at one point or another in the not to distant past.)

Many STD's are rampant now because people go and have unprotected sex, and are completely ignorant of the consequences. Education AGAIN is key to reducing many of the world's problems.

Yeah they are. What you ought to be doing is educating them to engage in less promiscuous behavior. You ought to tell them that condoms don't really prevent STDs like AIDS and HPV. The AIDS virus is smaller then the holes in latex, condoms have a higher failure rate during anal sex......

Condoms don't stop HPV http://www.geocities.com/thehpvvirus/condoms.html and the virus is spreading like wild fire amongst sexually active people.

You ought not to be teaching children in grade 7 about sex ed because they believe it gives them licence to go out in do it,state sponsored licence if you like. Maybe you should consider advocating abstinence untill marriage.... Certainly Education has had a hand at causing the spread of STDs, pregnancies, deaths from AIDS ruined lives and the like. So mayhap an overhaul of the message with the removal of the condom touting sex education teacher and a serious view about what sex is about possibly in grade 12 classes with kids that will more likely take the subject serious.

By "castration" I meant selectively edited to the point in which the education is useful because any one segment has influence the contect of the education to not include anything they disagree with.
You make many assumptions yourself by assuming that anyone who doesn't agree with you is out to destroy your very way of life because they want their way of life recognized.

But you are the one that is arguing that the current status quo is "stagnant" and it needs changing. Obviously we have different view of what the current status quo is. By your own stated logic tradition is a trap of some sort and that it needs to be changed. That is quite something to say coming from a liberal moral relativist. But what it also says is that indeed all tradition is inherently wrong and must be corrected in some way, but you want to replace it with what? I am willing to believe that there are good reasons for society to held onto certain social mechanisms via social mores and that one of them is the natural family. Have you ever heard of the old say "wisdom of the ages" well there may very well be something in these that you are missing. I believe that all our material wealth has made us arrogant and somehow over the past 100 years we have magically become more intelligent then people in the past. Never mind the genetic impossibility. But at least in the 1800s they knew the thinkers knew something about the ambiguities of the nature/nurture debate and seriously considered them as viable arguments. Unlike today where we have literally millions of zealots believing somehow there is no human nature.

The "gay" agenda is not untouchable, at least not in my mind. It does have credibility, however, which is why I am arguing for recognition of same-sex marriages, eqivalent of opposite-gender marriages. You have this "not in my backyard" syndrome because you don't want to see anything you don't agree with. You simply don't agree and leave it at that. You don't deny gay people their right to celebrate their pride in their way of life. If there was a parade to celebrate left-handed pride, trust me I would be there.

The "gay" agenda and its allies are full of contradictions and there is plenty to debate on before we take political action. You have this impression it seems that you can put it in my backyard, even if I don't want it there. lol, yeah left handed pride. Well at least they wouldn't be acting like a bunch of idiots riding down the street on top of a giant penis. Truly this is a great injustice that it is allowed and I believe that it is for lack of a better word pathetic.

Another gem of ignorance and stereotypes. You argue for things to never change, for us to cling to outdated traditions for tradition's sake. Sorry I discard traditions when they become limiting, because I see no need to stick with something when valid or preferable alternatives exist.

I don't argue for things to never change. I am upset with the current ill responsible attitude with regards to social mores. What is becoming outdated like it or not is the sexual revolution that started before I was born. Again somehow you are free to throw out your traditions but others are not. So much for socialization theories.

 

Stvn: First of all, thank you for misunderstanding my whole post. To spell it out - I believe (active) homophobia is a sign a immaturity. There are a couple of loud people in this thread who must be very very young...

Sure. This will never change. I bet gay people are annoyed/uncomfortable when they get the wrong attention from the wrong sex.

Sure.

Sure.

Sure, but why are you telling me this? You don't think I know this?

I think your basic argument here is flawed. Why do you think women feel comfortable around gay men? That's however irrelevant. People don't always act rationally. I don't think most young heterosexual men are clever enough to realize that hanging around gays might not be such a bad idea strategically, instead we loudly distance ourselves to make sure the Babes know that we're available. Especially those of us who don't easily get chicks and thus become a little insecure in general. I still feel today the need to tell my parents in earnest that I'm not gay when debating gay rights (I'm all for, they're not).

Like I said, people are not always rational - especially not teenagers. We all have our lessons to learn. Sadly some people never do.

Well I do actually - it's just that I didn't know he was gay until we had stopped being in the same circles. Before I found out that he was gay I considered myself to be totally okey with the whole gay concept/package so I was shocked at my initial reaction of fear/loathing (he had spent the night in my apartment for god's sake!!! ). Nowadays I'm more honest about this. This means that I am intellectually all for gay rights but I know that I will always feel uncomfortable around gay men (which I avoid being if possible).

Not possible - I can't control my feelings. Luckily I make sure my Celebral Cortex is in charge...

 

Sorry if you thought i misunderstood you, truth be told, i think we agree on more than we disagree. I, in no way was trying to insinuate that you were either homophobic, or immature, or rather that you in particular were anything. Mostly i was trying to present what i feel is a more easily digestable view of the active/passive idea, which was partially the subject of your post.

But enough about misunderstandings and converstational semantics, blah blah blah. I am thoroughly disinterested in that type of discussion, otherwise i would be "getting into the thick of it" with the others.

Sorry, again, not directed at you. More at the board, and as fodder for a possible discussion about something other than oh so tiresome "who is more left <-> who is more right" debate.

First, the Will & Grace ref was a joke, and the "fatally flawed" part was the build up. Sorry, the limits of ASCII are coming shining through here. (That and in the end, its not that funny anyway).

But since you do bring up some good points, questions, lets dig in.

They feel safer. And this is not based upon my opinion, or some male rationale or anything of the sort. Its a quote from my wife.

I think that our culture/society presents a world where women are the subordinate, and men the dominant. Sure its been like this for a loooooong time, and in some animal species this is true as well. But are we not more evolved than animals? Of course we are. So this primative and certainly out-dated idea is on its way out. But none the less, on a subliminal level it exists all over the place (the media, pay scales, fashion, on and on and on).

Throw in some hormones, and you have alot of sexual tension. I think that some women (and i know alot, so i am not just speculating) find the lack of sexual tension enjoyable. Having a "guy friend" who they are 100% sure is never undressing them in his head, probably makes some women more comfortable.

And of course, if the guy is hot, they too (like men and lesbains) hope that they can "change" him. But unless they go to Sabastians summer camp (see his post re: What would you do if you kid was gay), this is highly unlikely.

Your right, your average teenager will not see this logic, and probably i am slanted on this due to the type of school i went to (art school) and the higher rate of liberals and homosexauls that you find there. But this worked like a charm for some of my friends back in school (to be fair though it wasnt really a strategy as much as it was that we already had gay friends in our group).

Amen to that brother!

Sorry, that was not meant in an accusitory way. I apologize if you took it that way. (damn these 7-bit characters!)

Actually, i am not proposing so much that you control your feelings, more that you look for the root of them, and then examine what you find. You may find that your Cerebral Cortex is fucking with you. Many times "knee-jerk" reactions, and uncomfortable feelings are masking a more complex question in your mind.

If you were okay with the guy when you thought he liked girls, then why did that change anything when you found out he liked boys? Did he try and hit on you when he stayed at your place? (Obviously not, since that would have been a bit of a hint, prior to you finding out for sure )

Something is there, something is causing your aversion on a more instinctual and primative level, because on a more high-brain level (intellectual) you are fine with it.

Seriously, you might miss out if you spend your life avoiding gay people only because they make you uncomfortable. Think of how many great writers and artists were gay, would you avoid them if you found yourself in their company? I think it safe to assume you are in some way involved in computers and computer programming (since you are on this board), would you shy away from the chance to have meet Alan Turing, the man who was largely responsible for the invention (and assembly) of the concepts with which every computer in existence today is run on? He was a homosexual and persecuted for it, despite the fact that his work helped end WW2 on the German front in a way comparable to the effect of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Japanese front.

I mean come on, you feel a little uncomfortable, is it really that big of a deal?

-stvn

 

stvn: I knew we agreed more than disagreed - glad to have it confirmed


Btw, this following quote was rhetorical but your reply spelled it out perfectly:

I wish I knew. I don't think I know myself well enough to be able to give a definitive answer. I *think* you have a point, I also *think* that my Babe-theory is related. I don't know. All I know is that I'm not going to let my personal quirks invade the privacy or violate the rights of other human beings, if you know what I mean.

 

I propose that all future debates be carried out in the language of discrete mathematics. That way we wont' get dragged into irrelavent non-sense and personal attacks.