jump to last post 1-42 of 42 discussions (306 posts)

More straight people support the gay community than we think!

  1. brimancandy profile image83
    brimancandyposted 5 years ago

    I just returned from Chicago's gay pride week, where I marched along with my friends from Campit Resort from Saugatuck, Michigan. We were float #173 of 250 floats. Gay protesters slashed the tires of 50 floats, thinking that it would stop the parade, but all it did was delay it. The media reported the slashings, and the support for the gay community was amazing.

    This was my first time marching in the parade, which had over 500,000 spectators, not including the thousands of people that marched in the parade. Now I know what those actors that walk the red carpet feel like. Everyone is so glad to see you, and hundreds of people are taking your picture or filming you as you march by. In spots along the route as much as 10,000 cheering and waving. While a handfull of bible thumpers were simply drowned out by the roar of the crowds, who were telling them they were NOT welcome. Losers.

    The best thing about all of this, is that straight people were showing up to support the event by the thousands, and partying with everyone else. It was just amazing. I'm sure that I will do it again next year. It's just way too much fun to miss it. I'll add a link to one of the videos. So you can see what I saw first hand!!

    http://youtu.be/sKq_UnjYnhl

    If the link doesn't work, just go to Youtube and do a search for  "Chicago pride parade 2011 male salon" I did it, and it came up first on the list.

    1. OpinionDuck profile image61
      OpinionDuckposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      genetic diseases and disease in general are on the rise in the last fifty years.

      There has been no drop in drug use so it is understandable that gays are taking advantage of the confusion in the world.

      The chemicals and hormones in the foods, as well as prescription drugs has tampered with the DNA. There is no real pupose for gays, they only exist from generation to generation because of bisexual and surrogates.

      A true homosexual society would be extinct because they can't reproduce.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        OD, I gotta disagree on this point - with you and with everyone else who has ever used this argument.  Both men AND women are among the gay population.  And, so long as both men AND women exist on this planet, they CAN indeed reproduce.  Whether they do it with enjoyment is one thing, but it certainly can be done.  Unless and until the population on this planet is limited to one gender, reproduction can, and most likely will continue to happen.

        1. JamaGenee profile image89
          JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, what she said! In fact, King James, the same King James whose name is on the most widely-used version of the Bible, was  openly gay but carried out his duty to marry and sire the requisite heir and a spare (and several more children after that), after which he left the queen at home and indulged his passion for men.  A practice which upset Society Matrons no end, since they didn't dare tell a *monarch* that his current boy toy wasn't welcome as his escort to one of their parties. smile

      2. brimancandy profile image83
        brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What the hell are you talking about Opinion duck. There will never be a true homosexual society. And, what does drug use have to do with anything?

        What you said makes no sense. Are you saying that I'm gay because my parents are bisexual? And, every gay child had a bisexual parent? Motown2Chitown said it best, as long as there are men and women on this planet, they are going to reproduce. As a lot of lesbian women still feel the need to be mothers, and will have sex with a man just for the sole purpose of having children, and some gay men would be more than happy to father them.

        You don't have to be hetrosexual to bring a child into the world. And, with artificial birth it is more possible for gays and lesbians to be parents. So you are dead wrong. Aslo those gay parents could easily raise a hetrosexual child. Some already have. I should add, that thousands already have. Or, haven't you ever seen Brokeback Mountain?

      3. Lucky Nik profile image61
        Lucky Nikposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        "Genetic diseases and diseases in general" are on the rise BECAUSE of the rise in pharmaceuticals and chemically-induced foods.  That responsibility doesn't seem to fall so much on our gay population than on corporate America and the deregulating political party that is primarily comprised of straight white men. Just saying smile

    2. deblipp profile image60
      deblippposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You mean anti-gay protesters slashed tires, right?

      Congratulations on what you did! No one should be surprised. Humans should support human rights.

      1. brimancandy profile image83
        brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes. Very Stupid anti-gay protesters who may be tried under the hate crimes act if they are caught. Which is a long term time in jail.

    3. JamaGenee profile image89
      JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I'm guessing those bible thumpers were the hate group that calls itself a "church".  If so, I used to live in the town they're from, and can tell you that their filthy placards and hate for gays are responsible for moving gay tolerance there and in the surrounding area **forward** by about 50 years.

      Nobody pays attention to them there any more, so they travel around the country displaying their idiotic hate signs at funerals and parades and such.  Keep waiting for them to "get it" that they're old news and adopt a new cause to obsess about, but they're stuck on the gay thing. 

      Doesn't seem to register that certain groups have taken to "protesting" THEM by becoming a human shield between them and whatever event they're trying to disrupt, or that contributions to gay groups are being made in the name of the "church", followed up with Thank You notes from the organization receiving the donation! 

      They're certainly not gaining any new followers, so what's the point other than a psychotic need for attention?

    4. SlenderHope profile image60
      SlenderHopeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Ok....I've got to ask...what is there to be "proud" of?  After all, isn't it considered just an accident of birth sort of like having green eyes, olive skin or straight hair?  So why does it require a showing of pride?  Why, in particular, a showing of "pride" that is so often profane and graphically sexual?

  2. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    There is strong support from hetro people in my country too.

    A little bit of empathy helps. smile

    Like many straight people I hate the way some have been discriminated against because of their sexuality.

  3. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    I neither support nor condemn them as far as I can see as a breed they have little future.

      Although I do object to same sex couples being allowed to adopt children this is unnatural and extremely unfair on the child.   I’m sorry but no matter how well meaning the couple surely it is impossible for a same sex couple to provide a balanced upbringing and more especially when it comes to sexual education.   I can’t help thinking it must lead to a high degree of mental confusion in a young developing mind just so that homosexual couples can play House !

    1. brimancandy profile image83
      brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      yet when straight couples divorce and bring home multiple partners, or have multiple marriages, as is common today. That is not the same as playing house? If you want to talk about being unfair to the child.

      But, like straight people, you can't lump all gays into one group. There are just as many worthless straight couples raising troubled kids, as there are raising good kids, and millions of gay men who have children through heterosexual sex. Straight people assume that gay men and women do not parent their own children. But they would be wrong.

      I saw a sign at gay pride that made some sense. If straight people want to stop the gay community, they should stop raising gay children. All gay people are children of straight people, so your responce is about as pointless as Pat Robertson. And sexual education is a joke.

      1. Mikeydoes profile image79
        Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The only thing I don't like about this thread is, out of sight out of mind. Meaning I personally do not understand how men could pass up on the beautiful women, as I think about them constantly. Which this has nothing to do with my point, but my true feelings on the matter.

        I am 24 years old, I never really knew what gay was until what 14 years ago? If not less. And like I said I just don't get it, but it is clear that what you do to keep yourself happy does not and should not bother me(AND IT DOES NOT!). These threads are exactly what keeps the issue going. I for one would never speak about or care about people's sexual orientation, however it is spoon-fed to us on a daily basis. Which is fine, BUT the smart people realize that people should be allowed to do anything under 2 conditions.
        1: It doesn't hurt yourself or someone else.
        2: It makes you or someone else happy

        If those 2 rules apply then I say do it, if that is your style.

        1. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Hetrosexuality is spoonfed to you even more, you just don't notice it because you have probably never asked yourself the question. In movies, in advertising, in sex education in school, and even in church.  Straight people never ask themselves why they are straight, they just know that they are. Just like a gay person knows they are gay.

          This is the reason why so many gay kids are confused, because they have learned all through their life that growing up getting married and having kids was what they are supposed to do, and expected to do, so when that doesn't happen they are scared, and afraid that nobody will ever love or understand them. And they are spoonfed straight talk, thinking that will somehow change them.

          Straight is everywhere, nobody ever questions it, or suggests that straight people should change. Yet they expect gay people to change, and are usually very harsh about it. Gay people will never have the total equality of straight people, and straight people don't appreciate what rights they have, and never wonder what those rights are.

          Now the shoe is on the other foot.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "Hetrosexuality is spoonfed to you even more, you just don't notice it because you have probably never asked yourself the question."
            Exactly. Even in fairy tales read to children, the hetero norm is pervasive. The king and the queen have a beautiful baby. The prince and the princess get married and live happily ever after.

            This is water.

        2. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So what have sadists and masochists done to upset you smile

          1. Mikeydoes profile image79
            Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Lol

            If that is their thing, that is their thing.

      2. parrster profile image84
        parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I, too, think children are best raised by an emotionally healthy, dedicated and loving Mum & Dad; nature deems this obvious; as does millions of successful families throughout history. That said, the gender of each parent, though part of the success formula, is not the whole equation of; and many failed families testify to this. However, the solution is not a gay one. As to gay's being the product of straight families, Hmm, so are every other type of person; are you suggesting that if your parents raised you differently you wouldn't be gay...?

        1. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          No. I was just saying that gay people are the children of straight people. I don't think being gay has anything to do with how we were raised or who we were raised by, any more than someone turns out straight.

          If you are straight, do you think you are straight because of how you were raised? I don't think I am gay because of how I was raised, in fact my parents thought I was going to grow up and marry my childhood sweatheart which happened to be a girl. Somewhere along the line I just changed, and they had absolutely nothing to do with it.

          The comment was mainly for straight people who think gays are just going to go away. As long as babies continue to be born, there is a good chance that some of them will be gay. Some think there is something they can do to stop that from happening. But that's not going to happen.

          The whole idea that someone turns out the way they do is because of their parents, is and old idea.

          1. parrster profile image84
            parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            So you seem to be suggesting that it’s nature, not nurture that determines our sexual orientation. OK, using that argument, would you also agree that it is nature that determines who should and who shouldn’t have children?

            1. kerryg profile image87
              kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Human society is a lot more complicated than "biological parents raise the children" and always has been, though.

              No human society that I'm aware of has considered it an moral practice (though occasionally a necessary evil) to abandon orphans to the elements - instead they get taken in by relatives, friends, or neighbors whenever possible, and usually by private or government institutions if nobody with a closer relationship to the child is able to take them in. Adoptions can and do take place regardless of whether the adoptive parent or parents are physically capable of producing a child of their own.

              Additionally, scientific advances have made it possible for infertile couples and others who would never have been able to have a biological child in the past to have one.

              1. parrster profile image84
                parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Yes, human society is complex, however my point was simple; if one argues that ‘nature’ unwaveringly determines sexuality (which seems to be what’s being implied), nature must also be determining who it wants to have children (in the conceiving sense), and all that implies. Not sure how that was turned into an “abandoning children to the elements” scenario.

                Adoption is a completely different issue. The child has already been conceived and for whatever reason the ‘natural’ way of things as been thwarted. The key concern now becomes the child’s best interest (not the interests or agenda of those adopting). As a guide to what is best, surely nature has provided the template (Mom & Dad). Failing that, then yes, we have to go through the list of available options that meet as many of the child’s needs as possible.

                As to the possibilities that scientific advances have afforded to mankind, well, that sword cuts both ways and is debatable.

                1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  " The key concern now becomes the child’s best interest (not the interests or agenda of those adopting)."

                  Or the interests or agenda of those who have nothing whatsoever to do with the adoption.

      3. Merlin Fraser profile image77
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You say:  "There are just as many worthless straight couples raising troubled kids, as there are raising good kids... "

        Who's arguing... Not me that’s for sure, there are millions around that shouldn't be allowed to breed at all and if it was left up to nature they wouldn't or at least not as often.

        There is a good reason why Natural selection chooses the strongest, fittest, brightest in the evolutional process of species.  This was the jurisdiction of the Alpha Males and Alpha Females. When mankind decided the basic rules of animal reproduction no longer applied to him and the population expanded to a point where anything bred with anything we ended up with the entire alphabet in the mix and now there are 7 billion humans ready to make it worse.

    2. Mikeydoes profile image79
      Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You could say that all you want, but the fact of the matter is. 10 times out of 10 I'd rather have a kid with 2 loving dudes, rather then being stuck at an orphanage their whole childhood, or even  in a family with abuse or constant fights(which is not something I'd wish upon anyone).You say it is unfair for a child to be stuck with a gay couple, but can you confirm this because you were raised by 2 gay men? Because honestly I don't think you have any idea on the matter..

      Most people's minds will not develop into something near their actual potential with parents gay or straight. Their orientation or decisions does not really matter if that kid is happy. You can go ahead and say it is unfair for a kid to get adopted by 2 men, or women... BUT do you realize that you a wrong for 1 reason. Their parents put them in that situation in the first place, not the people who would be doing the kid a tremendous favor. If their parents were gay or straight, this would not matter. If that person turns out gay with two "unnatural parents" who cares? If you do, I'm sorry you may want to take a step back and realize that people will play the hands that are dealt to them(and in most cases love it), and at the same time will also flourish whether both parents are the same sex or not.

      1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
        Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I didn't say Unfair I said unnatural !  There's a hell of a difference.

        1. Mikeydoes profile image79
          Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You make it unnatural in your head, as to where I can care less. I realize that people obviously like it, so what? It is completely natural for animals to experiment with the same sex(this is found to be true will all sorts of animals), and we are just a more evolved animal.

          The point of having a child is to prepare it and teach it everything you could to reach it's potential. You do not need a family, you just need 1 person to take care the child. The more people you have to take care of it, the more privileged that baby is in my opinion. 1 Male could take care of a kid, 2 males, 3 males, it does not matter. And it should not.

          1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
            Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            What utter rubbish,  you obviously know little about nature, animals and natural selection of species.  True many animals have been witnessed attempting same sex mating, doesn’t make it natural or even normal.  The outcome will be zero offspring so even if it had anything to do with a homosexual gene this would could not be transferred in that way.   

            Although because of the more normal methods of natural selection by the ‘Alpha’ members I suspect what appears to us as homosexual tendencies in animals is nothing more than pure sexual frustration.   Do you suppose that when a male dog attempts to hump your leg he’s gay ?

            As for your ridiculous point that you only need one person to take care of a child and teach it everything it needs to take its place in society borders on stupidity and we have a Nation of failed single parent families as proof.

            The only decent comment you make is ,  “The more people you have to take care of it, the more privileged that baby is....”   This is true only if the number of people is part of a large mixed family group or social community where balance and order is respected by all.   However since modern trends seen to be destroying such groups we are left with the sad degenerating society of struggling individuals and several generations of confused youngsters.... and you wonder why !

            1. Mikeydoes profile image79
              Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I got you on the fence, calling what I said rubbish, when it clearly isn't? Very wrong when assuming I know nothing about nature, animals and natural selection. Then after you agreed with me that plenty of animals including some of the smartest animals(humans included)actually do do it. You say a dog humps a leg and that's why I'm incorrect and rubbish. It's funny I actually thought about that while typing it originally.

              The only point I had was that.

              You are taking what I'm saying and calling it unnatural and gay(calling it the same thing). This is something that you and many other people have created. You make it unnatural yourself. Calling it unnatural does not mean it is. I'm calling it natural, and my basis for this is: it happens and has always happened. These people have just been alienated and everyone is taught to hate them.

              I don't know what "gay" really is or what it feels like, or hell maybe they are just lying to piss everyone off. But the fact of the matter is. What 2 or more guys do I can really care less about, they can get married, adopt, or divorce I can really care less.

              Marriage has lost it's meaning and will only continue to. Overpopulation is happening more and more every day, and if 2 guys can't make babies, that doesn't sound like a particular bad thing. But if they can take and adopt a needing baby, it would be dumb not to let them.

              You call it rubbish, but I call it common sense I guess.

              1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
                Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I guess the reason I call it unnatural is because it is, practically everything in nature has a purpose but I can see no logical or natural purpose to homosexual behaviour in any animal.

                It certainly doesn't appear to have any purpose upon the natural selection of species nor for the evolutionary development of mankind therefore by any definition of Natural that I know of it is Unnatural, the mere fact that it happens doesn't make it any different.

                Personally I don't hate homosexuals, in fact I have two or three very close friends who are quite open about it, it's how they are, however they do not go around promoting it as a better way of life.

                As far as Homosexuality is concerned I would place it in the same category as religion, it should be a right to chose but at an age when it is possible to make up one's own mind.  My argument is and always has been that same sex parenting cannot be fair and unbiased no matter how well intentioned.  Marriage has little or nothing to do with anything, but I would have thought that a broad mix of social interaction from within a balanced community made up of both sexes is essential to what passes for a normal upbringing.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  What about dogs mounting other dogs to establish dominance? That's pretty natural and logical.

                  1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
                    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    You need to skip back a couple of pages, been there answered that, it may be natural but are you saying it explains homosexual behavior... Guy mounting guy is a dominance thing ?

                2. deblipp profile image60
                  deblippposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Isn't your definition of "natural" quite limited? Natural selection merely states that *if* a trait helps a species succeed it will tend to become more prevalent, and *if* a trait harms a species relative to other traits, it will tend to disappear.

                  Natural selection allows for many traits that seem to serve no evolutionary purpose. If a trait is neutral as to the survival of the species, it could well remain present.

                  And these traits do not necessarily disappear, just their hereditary nature. Infertility is a perfect example. It is patently obvious that infertility in humans is a non-adaptive trait and cannot be passed down to children (although I guess, in theory, secondary infertility could be passed down to only children). Yet every day people (usually heterosexual people) are born who will be infertile throughout their lives. They are perfectly natural.

                  I could easily argue that pleasure is a highly adaptive trait. Many, perhaps most, human women experience greater sexual pleasure from non-reproductive activities than from potentially reproductive ones. We know that sexual pleasure--orgasm especially--has tremendous physiological and psychological health benefits. Maybe human's ability to enjoy many different things is one of those happenstances that evolution neither favored nor disfavored, like earlobes, but maybe it's adaptive. Maybe non-reproductive sex is good for the species. Maybe happiness, pleasure, variety, playfulness, and choice are all *good* for humans. Maybe individual variations, including homosexuality, bisexuality, and more, are good for the species.

                  1. Merlin Fraser profile image77
                    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    I think I will leave the response to your well thought out comment to my Grandfather who responded to the statement;

                    "It takes all sorts of people to make a World!"  With the comment; "Actually it doesn't; we just happen to have all sorts !"


                    Sex is fun... No argument there,  I enjoy both giving and receiving the pleasures of sex without the repercusions of offspring so I suppose a Homosexual Gene might just be a nature friendly signal saying sorry kid you just ain't Alpha material but have fun anyway !

    3. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Actually studies have pretty consistently shown that children raised by gay or lesbian parents have better average outcomes (in terms of higher educational attainment and average income, less trouble with the law, etc.) than children raised by straight parents.

      I assume this is because homosexual couples (with the exception of those who have children from previous unsuccessful heterosexual relationships) really have to WANT children to have them, whereas any pair of idiots can get pregnant from a drunken one night stand if they're straight.

      For the record, children raised by homosexual parents don't turn out gay at any higher a rate than those raised by straight parents either.

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think you're right about the reason, kerryg. A gay couple can't have kids by accident.

        1. JamaGenee profile image89
          JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          They're also usually much more open about their sexual orientation, from which their children learn early on that their same-sex parents *aren't* the monsters portrayed by less enlightened members of society, also that male gay couples aren't pedophiles seeking easy prey. 

          Sounds like a win-win situation to me!

    4. JamaGenee profile image89
      JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Oh, get your head out of the Dark Ages!  Are you totally oblivious to the fact that even in hetero households these days, the two adults in residence are more likely than not to be of the same sex, but not *having* sex because they're mother and daughter or two sisters (or brothers), or even grandmother and granddaughter. So what do you think such a household makeup teaches the kids-in-residence learn about the hallowed sex between man and woman?

      1. Mighty Mom profile image89
        Mighty Momposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Bravo, JamaGenee.
        Well said.
        Adding to JG's thoughts:
        So two mature, loving, financially stable people who happen to be of the same sex are unworthy of raising a child, are they?
        Yes, I can see that the #1 most important qualification for parenting is to be able to teach your kids about heterosexual sex.
        For example, unwed teen mothers are in a great position to do that (and with any luck their kids will grow up and have kids while they're in their teens as well).
        Husbands who routinely beat up their wives are model parents.
        Parents of either sex who abuse drugs or alcohol are wonderful parents. Typically addicts engage in sex with multiple partners (but that's cool because the partners are of the opposite sex).
        roll
        Dark Ages is right. sad

        1. JamaGenee profile image89
          JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Bravo to you, too, Mighty Mom! smile smile smile smile

        2. K9keystrokes profile image93
          K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Standing up and applauding you Mighty Mom! big_smile big_smile big_smile

    5. Jonathan Janco profile image80
      Jonathan Jancoposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      When I was a pre-adolescent my stepdad us to beat the absolute crap out of me on an almost daily basis. If were to believe your statement, I would have to assume if my mother were a lesbian I'd have been even worse off?
      One's orientation has nothing to do with the ability to raise a child. I've seen plenty of straight couples get married out of material convenience, then they have a child out of pressure from both of their families. Then they get divorced when they realize they didn't voluntarily choose this life and then turn their child as a weapon against each other. Were those people doing anything more than just 'playing house'? Doubt it.

  4. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    I saw Sir Elton John with his baby. I think he will be a fine parent. smile

  5. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    There in lies the "trick" of the Leftists/Progressives, or the argument. No one says they do not have a right to choose to act as they want. That does not corollate to acceptance of Gay marriage and pushing the gay agenda in schools.

    It is only the Leftist/Progressives who think because you do not support one, then you do not support the other, or hate them all for everything. And that is the obfuscated view they scream about without ever stopping to think rationally and understand that one's choices are one's own... untill you jam it into the Social Institutions and attempt to change the reality of an immorallity being A-moral, into a moral reality... and your choice does not change that fact.

    I am sure no-one here likes that... but that is the facts as I see them. I do not dis-like homosexuals, I do not agree with their choice, but it is their choice. I dis-agree with pushing the agenda through the schools and trying to moralize the A-moral.

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Legal acceptance of same-sex marriage, that is, marriage equality, says people have the same right to live as they want as other people. This does not corollate to "pushing the gay agenda in schools."

      Nobody is "pushing the agenda" through schools.

      How is treating everyone with respect "pushing an agenda?"

    2. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So you choose to be hetero? You see Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie standing side by side and you have to flip a coin each time you decide which one turns you on?

      That's interesting.

      Doesn't work like that for me; I'm hardwired. Maybe you are arguing the wrong side there, chief.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You are born either male or female, you choose to contradict your nature.

        And I do not care if you all do not agree... it is my opinion and many pthers, and we have the Right to it.


        Also, there is NO evidence of genetic homosexuality. And that is a fact.

        1. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Wrong. Ten years or so ago, a gene believed to be responsible for increased zygote "adhesiveness" to the uterine wall was found that had corollary relationship to higher propensities for homosexuality in males. It was not a "gay" gene, it was an embryonic thing carried on the x chromosome, but one that seems to have additional effects.

          Which is not to say that is the only, and root, determiner of homosexuality, as I am not suggesting anything so simplistic or all encompassing. There are new discoveries being made or revised every day. Merely pointing out that you appear to be willfully ignorant in this matter.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            believed to be responsible; as in not confirmed, just thought to. So as I said, no evidence. And I also believe that BS was de-bunked.

            And I believe the methodologies of the subsequent stuidies were found to be flawed in many ways... so...

            1. Shadesbreath profile image89
              Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, it's believed that it is responsible for the adhesiveness effect, but, regardless of being unable to pin that down 100% certain, it is clearly associated with homosexuality as a secondary outcome. The difference being, the reason for the evolutionary success of the gene is believed to be the higher probability of sticking to the uterine wall (and for being carried on the X chromosome). Not a gene "for homosexuality."

              The irony in your statement being that, whether or not it really is a sticky-trait gene for zygotes or it has some other function, it is clearly related to homosexuality in high percentages. Meaning, like blue eyes or knock knees, homosexuality for many just is what it is.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                That is yet to be proven, and as I said the many subsequent studies since have had questions raised as to their methodologies, and many, if not all, were shown to be flawed.

                You could argue that it may cause some effeminancy in males... but we are a long long way from that being a gay gene, or genetic cause for homosexuality.

                Can one be born with effeminate qualities, yes. Does that make one gay, no. effeminate men are not all gay, nor mostly, one does not corralate to the other.

                And it doesn't even speak to homosexuality in women... so... long long way to make any claim like that.

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          That seems to be the difference, doesn't it.  You BELIEVE without any evidence while disregarding any evidence that would contraindicate that belief.  I speak not only of the genetic evidence being researched but testimonials from gay people, friends/family of gays, and those psychologists that have studied the matter.

          Yes, there is evidence.  Is it absolute proof?  No, it is just evidence that it could be correct.  The best (only) evidence we have.  Belief won't change it, particularly belief based on nothing but God's word and your dislike of the whole thing.

          To deny someone what they want and you have based only on a belief and for no other reason is unacceptable and not something that you would tolerate in your own life.  While I fully understand and am fully aware that that practice has been used for millenia to force particular ways of life and belief systems on the unfortunate minorities in various societies it is neither ethical nor moral.  Legal perhaps, but highly unethical.

          And yes, I understand that your own ethics and morality not only allows such practices it actively encourages them.  It is an extremely common failure of humanity and much of the reason for the suffering this tired ball of dirt has seen over its history.

          One of the better examples might be the desire (according to your other posts) if Islam to force itself on the rest of the world.  Intolerable and completely unacceptable when it happens to you.  Odd that you can't see it when you use the exact same moral concept against others.

      2. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You mean to say that Angelina Jolie has actually stood next to someone?  I have vague memories of seeing an insubstantial shadow there sometimes but that's about all. smile

        Hardwired indeed.  Just like 99% of the population.  There are very few people that actually have a "choice" in the matter.  They certainly have a choice in their lifestyle but not in their feelings, emotions and desires.

        I guess they could all become monks (are there female monks?).  Of course that many monks could constitute a new religion of awesome political power with the ability of forcing it's terrible, immoral agenda on the rest of us.  Maybe we really should just consider them to be "people" like the rest of us, let them enjoy their spouse like the rest of us, and ignore the minor differences between us.

      3. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe you should read my answer to that yesterday way back there, shade. I am tired of answering that red herring illogic over and over.

        I will go get this one answer for you, because I am a Gentleman. You're welcome, and good morning. I hope you are well today?



        --"You know the difinitions of, "normal" and "abnormal", "deviant" and "natural", as well as I do. So lets not play games.

        You know damn well that when you deviate from the natural course or behaviour of a system, it is by choice, and the adherance of it is only choice,  because the question of making the choice to deviat, or not, is being chose to be presented at all.

        There is no choice about it, I as a man am naturally attracted to women, some more than others I will grant you, but women. If I were to want to sleep with a man, I would make the choice to. Simple.

        So try again..."--

        Your question is a red herring, just to stink up the facts.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you think men sit there thinking "I think I'm going to be gay and sleep with other men"!

          Don't you think perhaps that they feel as compelled to fancy other men as you feel compelled to fancy women and that in reality there is no choice?

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Don't you think we talked about this enough already?

        2. Shadesbreath profile image89
          Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Good morning to you too. I see you are up early and relighting the fire of this topic for yet another day. You must get great pleasure from it given how much of your days it must take to keep up with it as you so religiously do.

          Rather than spend time pointing out additional faults, flaws, omissions and fallacies in your recent arguments, I'll just point out what a red herring is so that you can use it properly going forward.

          A red herring is a false trail. They used to drag a red herring across the trail of a fox to confound the hounds and make a fox hunt more interesting. That sort of thing. Red herring arguments are considered logical fallacy (one of several types; you use lots of them, but I won’t muck this up with all that). I’m going to show you how to spot them, give you some basic analytical tools to ferret out this sort of thing going forward (you may be mortified how most of your arguments look under the lens of rhetorical truth).

          So, for example, you say being gay is a choice. That is your claim. For that argument to work, it requires warrant and grounds like any other argument. So, let's set it up in classic syllogistic form and see if we can find a way to make it function:

          Major Premise: Humans have a choice in whom they have sex with.
          Minor Premise:   Two men having sex is "Gay."
          Conclusion: Men who choose to have sex with men are gay.

          Analysis:   While the conclusion is what you want it to be, this syllogistic construct has an assumption in the major premise that “people have a choice who they have sex with.” This is true, but relies on a faulty assumption, which means the syllogism is a false one. While people do, technically, have a choice, as in they can force themselves to hump whoever they want, this major premise completely ignores desire.   To ignore such an obvious thing as desire, meaning biological imperative, seems too conspicuous an omission even for you. I can't believe anyone paying attention to what was coming out of his/her mouth (or typing fingers), would allow that to go unaddressed. Which means, this syllogism cannot be the basis for your argument unless you admit your argument is a fallacy, at which point, we are done, and your argument disproved. You would have to settle for holding your opinion despite it being proven wrong, or you’d have to reassemble the logical core of your argument. So, here I will help:

          We must find a syllogism that fits your argument (and this is getting to the red herring thing, thanks for playing along)...

          Major premise:   Humans choose whom they desire sexually
          Minor premise:   A man having sex with a man is gay.
          Conclusion: Men who choose to desire a man are gay.

          Analysis:   Now this one works perfectly for the case you are trying to make. This, unlike the last false syllogism, completely supports your claim. It addresses the issue of desire, which is essential in a sexual argument, and it addresses the concept of choice and male-on-male relations.

          However, this is where my argument came in regarding sexual choice for you. For your argument to work, it relies on desire as being a choice. Not PARTNERS being a choice. I'll give you the argument that we pick our partners; we can pick our partners, even if we don’t desire them (which seems lame, but I’ll give you that as a possibility). BUT, typically we don’t pick partners we don’t have desire for. That’s the point I am making with my argument that you call “red herring.” I say we pick our partners based on DESIRE. And for your argument to work, your argument needs desire to be the choice as well. For being gay to be wrong, they have to choose to DESIRE male partners. They have to pick who they are biologically hardwired to be attracted to. So, if that is the case, that we truly do just pick who we are sexually attracted to, then you are right. Gay is a choice. So is heterosexuality. It’s all who we decide we want to be attracted to.

          Which means that my argument is NOT a red herring, but an absolute and necessary conclusion derived from the argument you are making. I have NOT dragged a stinky fish across your trail but have trod neatly down the center of the path you cut and come to the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from the reasoning you established.

          Now, while I don't actually agree that we can choose who we desire, I am willing to entertain the idea for the sake of allowing you to make your case. It very well may be that you have to decide to find women attractive with some sort of active choice. I don’t. But you might. You see, I have an open mind, so I am trying to consider your points and understand that I do not live in your skin.

          However, if you do not actually experience the flexibility of choosing who you are attracted to, who you desire, then I am afraid that, as usual, your argument isn’t working and all your pages and pages of spew against these people are just a long-winded, sophist’s rant thinly veiled in endless fallacy.

          Anyway, hope this has helped you understand red herrings better so you won't look so silly slinging that term around in the future. Before you toss up arguments, try out the syllogism behind your point. It’s a great way to figure out if you are saying anything at all.

          1. Cagsil profile image84
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            +1

          2. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            TMMAson1 "Don't you think we talked about this enough already?"

            Posted 7 hours ago ---




            That was my first reply this morning, it is others trying to relighted their flames, not I.

            I know the facts, no matter how many times you all try to repeat the lies, they are still lies and propaganda.

            And we have already discusse learned bevaniourism and other aquuired habits and un-healthy lifstyles and CHOICES> yuou are not born an addict... but they desire to get high alkl the time and embrace theior un-healthy life-styles in fulkl force and glory. So spin that at someone who will fall for it.

            And I have addressed desire and other urges and temptations wayyyyy back. So wrong Shades.. Simply wrong.

            You can assume shit all you want, Cags and Shade,it doesn't make it true, and I have shown no scientific support exists for Genetic Homosexuality, PERIOD!

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              No, you don't know the facts. What you believe doesn't become a fact because you believe it.
              What you believe are actually lies and propaganda.

            2. Shadesbreath profile image89
              Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              So, by saying this rather than addressing my point, you make it clear (as if I didn't know you would) that you have no intention of looking at your arguments as logical constructs.

              Which is cool. At least, in a round about way, you admit you have no interest in finding truth, or for that matter, even in being reasonable.

              I don't care what you believe. You have your God waiting for you when you die as far as you know, and apparently you think he wants you to be as relentless as possible. That's fine. Maybe you'll find your angry, hate-based heaven some day. It's just the hate you spread that worries me. I worry that some young, angry kid will come on here, see you spewing vitriol propped up by half-truths and predjudiced sophistry, and use that to justify beating some poor gay kid, or just some kid that "seems" gay, to death. Again. It happens, and continues to happen, because people like you continue to vomit judgements of "god's wrath" out of dusty old religions and try to dress them up as actual arguments.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And I don't care what you believe Shade.

                My assertions are not based on flawed science and de-bunked hack theories, like yours.

                Go read the sources I have provided, especially the ones above this post, and learn.

                Pushing lies under the gueise of science is not acceptable by you or anyone else. Too bad. And if all you can do is call my arguments illogical and think that wins the debate, then you really do need to learn a few things. Like comprehension for one.

                Sources and facts speak, science speaks, records and documents speak... the rest is lie filled propaganda put out by you all, in an attempt to legitimaize and moralize, the illegitamite and the immoral.

                Or in more natural terms, to make the un-natural, natural, when it is not.

                http://igfculturewatch.com/2006/05/03/s … straction/

                http://www.troubledwith.com/ParentingTe … osexuality

                The Gay community even know the jig is up with those studies and lies.

                I do not hate any of you who make the wrong choice, I pity you all, that you are so lost in this world.

                But I will not accept lies and immoralities, as good and acceptable, so you all feel better about yourselves and your ations.

                Too bad...

    3. deblipp profile image60
      deblippposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with you: Shoving one side's agenda into social institutions is wrong. I'd add that shoving a religious agenda into a state institution is particularly heinous.

      Morality is not an objective reality. Different theologies and philosophies define it differently. My religion states that homosexuality is moral, yours states it is immoral. Christianity has one set of morals, Hinduism another, Buddhism another, Asatru another. All are protected religions under the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment tells us there should be no establishment of a state religion, and therefore government-run institutions should not favor one religion's views over another.

      Schools are a government run institution. Shoving a religious agenda into the schools is unconstitutional and immoral. Christian morality, which teaches that homosexuality is wrong, has no place in the schools.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        And niether does the gay agenda belong in our schools.

        And the 1st Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

        Not the States. Congress.

        Nor are they, "Congress", to make any laws restricting the free excersise there-of. "Free", meaning I can excersise my religion on any public property I choose to. The current twisted interpretation of that amendment is BS and needs to be re-visited by the Supreme Court, and hopfully it will be very soon, along with Roe Vs Wade.

  6. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    TM is just a vaginamite, no less,  I don't think so. Perhaps he is a good dad, good husband and all, many good sides of him which most people fail to see.

    Many people fail to recognize that sexual orientation is not the be all, their failure to see that no matter what your sexual orientation is, you are a social being and being a member of a society, you should be treated equally and afforded equal rights.

    Your importance (or whether you belong to a society or not) should not revolve around being a vaginamite or sodomite etc. read Shadesbreath http://hubpages.com/hub/Sodomites-Vagin … f-Morality

    1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "vaginamite," as an opposite to "sodomite," what in interesting coining. It's a bit of a false etymology*, but still very apt.

      *Sodomy deriving from the biblical city of Sodom, rather than a body part. (Now I think of it, why are gay people called "Sodomites" and not "Gomorreans?")

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        LOL, I understand what you mean...

  7. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    We are talking Science, and that requires evidence which is observable and repeatable... not speculative. And the studies your talking about were found to be flawed in their methodologies, sampling, etc, and recent conclusions dispute yours.

    APA revises 'gay gene' theory;

    The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

    For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

    "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

    That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

    Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.
     
    "People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."
     
    Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)
     
    With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

    "It's irrefutable from a medical standpoint that people can leave the homosexual lifestyle," he argues. "Homosexuality is defined by behavior. Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."
     
    LaBarbera agrees. "Change through Christ is possible -- and it's one of the most heartwarming aspects of the whole gay debate," he shares. "Many men and women have come out of homosexuality, mostly through a relationship with Jesus Christ. The fact that these professional organizations will not study that, will not acknowledge that, shows how 'in the tank' they are for the homosexual movement."
     
    LaBarbera stresses that even though elites will not recognize the change, that does not mean the change does not exist. In fact, both Barber and LaBarbera believe that God changes people through Christ -- regardless of the sin.

    http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Defau … ?id=528376

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2250571/posts

    And here is what the Psychological communitty say about it today... not 10 or 20 years ago. And you can go read their report to confirm it... no genetic link found to homosexuality, none.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Wrong.

      This is what the APA's website said two minutes ago when I looked it up:

      "There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

      See for yourself: http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes they have not changed their site... as is expected. Read their newest report, it says the exact opposite. that is excert if from the 1998 report... the one above was released ion 2009, go read it.

        --A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no "gay" gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.

        Dr. A. Dean Byrd Ph.D, the past president of NARTH, confirmed that the statement from the American Psychological Association came in a brochure that updates what the APA has advocated for years.

        Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

        However, in the update: a brochure now called, "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," the APA's position changed.

        The new statement says:

        "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. ..."--

        Gop read the newest report... they can hide it all they want.

        http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

        You will find it here...

        What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?


        There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

      2. JamaGenee profile image89
        JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        smile smile smile smile

  8. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    So Jesus saves. Is that scientifically backed up with repeatable and observable evidence, and not at all speculative?

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      We are talking Science here... not faith. You know the difference, John. I should not have to explain it to you.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well I did wonder what faith had to do with your argument, but you did post it so I though I'd better ask.

    2. JamaGenee profile image89
      JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Bravo, John! smile smile

  9. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Go read the newest report, 2009... they can hide it all they want.

    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

    You will find it here...

    What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?


    There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.


    ---no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.---

    So you are wrong.

    One day they might change their site... but I doubt it Psyche. The gay propaganda machine would not like it.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So all you homosexuals, bi-sexuals and lesbians just stop it until the scientists have decided!

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        See that is the idiocy I am talking about. No one says they cannot live as they want to, we say do not propagate lies and push it into Social institutions under those lies and the guise of truth.

        Simple John.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          But you are saying that they can't live as they want to, or is your objection to gay marriage a joke?

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            My objection to gay marriages is to it being a Social institution and tradition. They are more than welcome to Civil Unions as I have said over and over.

            As much as you try to twist it John, I have been very clear about it. Marriage is a Religious Institution and there is no need to destroy it, other than to break-down social mores and values even more than they have.

            And yes I know the stats for divorce and other problems... doesn't mean we have to decimate it anymore than it is.

            1. brimancandy profile image83
              brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Oh my god. I can't believe that people think that gay people getting married is going to somehow destroy marriage. That's bullshit.

              So, what? How is that going to stop a man and a woman from going to church to get married like they always have? If straight people can't go into a church because a gay person might have been married there, they are doing it out of their own bitterness. The church is not going to stop performing marriages, if some churches do, they're idiots.

              It may suprprise you to know that I know many gay couples who have been married in church, and have also attended gay weddings. The only thing missing from that is that the marriage isn't honored  by the gov. Hasn't changed those churches, or the straight weddings that take place there one bit. And, that church still has gay weddings.

              People who believe this are living in right wing fantasyland. It will not change marriage one bit. I would like to have you explain to me how two people getting married would change. Maybe you'll walk in the door and their be a big rainbow and guys in jockstraps? instead of suits? I don't get it.

            2. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "Marriage is Religious Institution"?  Have you informed the Chinese, Japanese, Russian, etc. governments of this?  Any of the predominantly non-religious countries or cultures?  I would lay very long odds that this earth has far more marriages that did not come out of a church than did.

              Sorry, TMM, that won't hold water.  Marriage has been around as long as man has in an enormous diversity of styles and types.  While it is true that Christianity and some other religions have claimed it as their own invention that claim is patently false on the face of it.  All they really did was take a common practice, declare that it was "before God" and therefore a religious institution.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Within Christianity it is a religious institution... that is a fact, Wild. We do not claim it as our own, we claim that our religion holds it to be sacred. Big difference.

                And again, I know the stats so don't bother listing them. It is just another strike aginst the Christian institution and moral structure of this nation. Period.

                @Jeff.... Did you read my post?... Did you see anywhere in there the word, "Enviroment"?... I bet you did not. So when you can fix your premise, I will agdress the argument.

                No why wait... A lot of Homosexuals who molest children accredit their desire and deviant behaviour to being molested in childhood by men, exposure to deviant sex, etc. And yes alot of those who try homosexuality do it during their drug dayz... so OD has a point about drug abuse and addiction causeing individuals to do things they other-wise never would have.

                And yes... no true homosexual society would ever flourish... they would die out from lack of being able to pro-create.

                Which brings us to the abheration of homosexuality within nature and animals. Sex is for pro-creation, and that is it, "fun" is what people have, not anmimals, they are simply over-whelmed by an instinctive urge and do what comes naturally, try to get off. My dog humps my leg, it isn't cause he loves or consciously want to be with a human, it is cause he cannot help himself to resist the urge.

                So the nature argument is bogus. And I do not accept the premise of it anyway, man is more than an animal. But I will not debate evolution in this thread.

                So... I do not know what to tell you all.

                If we accept as moral, one deviant behaviour, then we might as well accept them all. There is a reason man has morals... I know many here do not think so, but there is.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh jeez, here we go again, homosexuals as child molesters!

                  1. Shadesbreath profile image89
                    Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Don't forget puppy kickers and kitten biters too.

                2. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Homosexuality isn't a deviant behavior. That's just distortion and misinformation

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    de·vi·ant
                    adj \-ənt\

                    : deviating, especially from an accepted norm <deviant behavior>

                    — deviant; noun

                    Try again Cags.

                3. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "@Jeff.... Did you read my post?... Did you see anywhere in there the word, "Enviroment"?... I bet you did not. So when you can fix your premise, I will agdress the argument."

                  Okay, substitute "Behavioral Conditioning" for "environment," if you like. The point stands. From the day we're born, we're inundated with the hetero norm*. Our literature and popular culture is full of hetero couples getting together and breaking up, unrequited hetero love, hetro love-triangles (not threesomes, which are different smile). Our popular music is full of heterosexual yearning, heterosexual break-up songs, etc.

                  If behavioral conditioning worked as well as you'd have us believe, there would never be any gay people, because the hetero norm is reinforced all day every day, from the day we're born to the day we die, while homosexual-seeming behavior usually gets negatively reinforced. So there must be some other reason why a few gay people are born every generation. It sure isn't because they're being raised by gay parents--there aren't enough gay parents raising kids to account for the number of gay people in the world.

                  If anything, we're behaviorally conditioned to be straight.

                  That being the case, how can there even be gay people?

                  Answer? It's not because of behavioral conditioning, but because of some other reason.

                  * Heterosexuality is the norm. Most people are heterosexual. Homosexuality is abnormal in the clinical sense--most people are not homosexual. The problem comes when people use the word "abnormal" and load it with value judgement. There is no value judgment implied in "abnormal." It just means "not in the majority." For example, it would be considered abnormal behavior to give up your material possessions, take a vow of poverty, and work for the betterment of the poor. But nobody calls Mother Theresa "abnormal" even though her behavior is clearly outside the norm. By the same token, if most people vandalized someone's property every day, that behavior would be considered "normal."

                  "Normal" does not denote "good" or "laudable;" "abnormal" does not denote "bad" or "condemnable."

                4. JamaGenee profile image89
                  JamaGeneeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Aha!  Now we get to the crux of the matter.  HOW DARE homosexuals have sex if no child can possibly result from an an act that's supposed to take place ONLY to produce children!  HOW DARE they indulge in sexual intercourse for the pure enjoyment of it!  For FUN!  Mon dieu!!

                  TMM, get thee to the nearest travel agency and book thyself a trip to Paris or Italy or anywhere where sex is considered one of life's JOYS, not a duty for the sole purpose of producing copies of yourself. (And PLEASE...leave the Bible at home.)

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Why would you snip half a sentence?

                    Is it to intentionally twist the comment out of context?

                    There is no other reason.

                    You know if you read it we were speaking as in, "Nature" and "Evolutionary", processes, sex is for pro-creation, period, under those terms. Thus making it unatural and and abheration, and not the rule in Natural Evolutionary terms.

                    Don't be like that, it is decietful and only shows your minipulative intent.

                    I have answered all queries with facts and studies to support them. If you want to know something continue reading to the end of the thread. By which time you will have access to all kinds of information and debate, and you can write one comment if you have any questions for me. I don't want to reply 6 dozen times, or re-paste answers to already asked questions.

                    So sit back and enjoy yourself.

                    And I did leave the bible at home, and whip'd 'em with their own suppossed science. You should have heard them all, they wanted me to, and this is a good one... "take it on faith.".

                    Have you ever heard anything so funny. lol

    2. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ---no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.---

      Okay, fair enough, but a lack of conclusive evidence doesn't mean that there is no genetic or hormonal factors involved, especially considering the mountain of inconclusive evidence that is still being studied.

      The existence of homosexual individuals in every single culture, society, and historical period that has ever been studied would seem to provide additional evidence that homosexuality likely has some biological basis, since it is equally common in cultures that condemn homosexuals to death and those that have accepted it as a normal part of society.

      The evidence of the animal kingdom, where homosexual behavior is rampant and bisexuality appears to be the default condition for many social mammals such as ourselves, provides additional clues.

      Finally, we have the evidence of our own experience. Wilderness and Shadesbreath (both straight men) have testified that their experience of sexual attraction is hardwired - no choice about it. I am testifying now as a straight woman that the same is true of me, and most of my gay and lesbian friends have said the same. You can't choose who you are sexually attracted to any more than you can choose your height or the color of your skin. It's inborn.

      1. parrster profile image84
        parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Kerry, you wrote ~ “The existence of homosexual individuals in every single culture, society, and historical period that has ever been studied would seem to provide additional evidence that homosexuality likely has some biological basis”

        Additional evidence to what, the “mountain of inconclusive evidence” you mentioned elsewhere; all sounds rather, well, unconvincing. Such an argument could just as easily be used to justify “biologically” any behaviour present among mankind.

        Your reference to homosexual conduct in other species is correct, however, who said we should be looking to other species for our moral compass or human definition. The animal kingdom contains many examples of behaviour we would be foolish to follow; cross-species sex, paedophilia, necrophilia, eating of young, sexual cannibalism etc. Picking one out and saying, “see, they do it”, adds no credibility to the argument for human homosexuality. And who’s to say these animals aren’t getting it all wrong.

        And finally, “the evidence of our own experience” (well, actually just two straight men who happen to hold to your point of view).  I’m straight too, however, was that genetic “hardwiring”, or post-natal nurturing, environment or experiential “soft wiring”.

        As to sexual preference being as sure a thing as height or hair colour, isn’t that appealing to biological hard-wiring again, which as you’ve said, is inconclusive…

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

  10. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    ?... I do not believe I posted anything about faith in this thread. Please show me.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      About 84 minutes ago:

      " Untold thousands of people have found freedom from that lifestyle through either reparative therapy or through -- frankly, most effectively -- a relationship with Jesus Christ."
       
      Didn't think you read half of what you posted.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That was part of an article used to exemplify that the APA has changed their policy on homosexuality having a genetic component... not my comment.

        I did not cut it cause I did not want to be accussed of hiding who it came from. But since I posted the direct link to the APA's new report where they state no genetic connection can be attributted to homosexuality... it is irrelevant.

        And again, NO GENETIC LINK HAS BEEN FOUND, so that is a lie, pure propaganda. Go see the report you all bragged on for yourself I posted the link. Also... all the previous studies were found to be flawed, ie; sampling and agenda driven findings. Too bad... nothing supports genetic homosexuality, just a choice, so be proud of it, if you make that choice stand on it.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you post so much irrelevant stuff for us to read through?

  11. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    That is all find and dandy, Kerry. And supports an assumption, not a scietific finding. You cannot say there is a genetic component to homosexuality, when there is no scientific evidence of such.

    That is my only point.

    Shades-beath said there was evidence... I am simply showing that is wrong... there is no such evidence, it is merely speculation.


    That is faith, not science.

    Shade posted a piece of a report from the APA in 1998 and stated it proved me wrong... I posted the same peoples, APA's, report from 2009, and showed without a doubt he was wrong.

    And deviant sexual behaviour (attraction) has been shown to be a Behaviour Science, through many many Pschological studies... and deviant sexuality is most definitely a learned behaviour... so that is BS.. with all due respect.

    1. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sexual attraction is not behavior. What are you talking about?

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Deviant sexual behaviour, and the attraction to it, has been shown through Behavioural Science Studies, to be a learned conditioned response.

        And that is well documented.

        Eric Ericson said it best, "You learn what you live, and live what you learn". "Behavioural Science", is a valid and well respected field of science and has under-taken many studies into this field, (deviant sexual behaviour), and have concluded that it is a learned behavioural aspect of life.

        Not always, but mostly.

        And most studies conclude that these behaviours, once learned, are almost impossible to change through any amoung of re-conditioning. Look it up, Behavioural Sciences, Psychology of, you will find studies, enjoy the reading.

        Sexual attraction can most certainly be a Behaviourally conditioned response... thus the, "It happened to me, so I do it too", line of the child molesters. And we know many vicious cycles of behaviour begin with experiences in childhood.

        So yes.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "And we know many vicious cycles of behaviour begin with experiences in childhood.

          So yes."

          By that argument, there ought never to be any gay people, as heterosexuality is the default setting from day one. We read out kids stories about the beautiful princess and the handsome prince getting married and living happily ever after. Most of our popular culture is either about heterosexual couples, or the pairing off of hetero couples figures prominently.

          The Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot love triangle is all about hetero couples. Jane Austen's novels (and the adaptations thereof) are all about hetero couples getting married. Superman has Lois Lane. Batman has Viki Vale. Spiderman has Mary Jane. Captain Kirk made it with anything that had lady parts and a pulse! Even Star Wars has Leia eventually pairing off with Han.

          We are inundated with heterosexuality from the day we're born. And you think homosexuality is somehow a result of our environment?

          This is water.

    2. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I am curious, how is that you find it "deviant" behavior, when all sexual attraction is natural.

      Your posts insinuate that sexual attraction only works in one manner, which would actually be wrong.

      Just a thought.

    3. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There is scientific evidence. There just is not one singular piece of simple evidence that answers all questions about the manifestation of homosexuality as it plays out in every human who fits that description in every nation, in all of history. Your "only point" is essentially, "Hey, there isn't a simple answer, so I'm right." That's not reasonable or logical.

      However, you've made it clear how you FEEL about it all, so that's great. Feel away. But for what it's worth, how you feel and some poorly constructed arguments don't change anything that matters to people living outside your head.




      You call evidence speculation when it doesn't serve your argument. Evidence is evidence. Just because it is not conclusive does not disprove the entire claim any more than inconclusiveness invalidates the particular piece of evidence itself as counting as "evidence."

      You are a Christian man, if I am not mistaken. You of all people should understand how all that works, or you would have to toss out your Bible. To quote you, "That is faith, not science." Yep.

      Just because you type the words "without a doubt" doesn't mean there is no doubt. Just so you can see how that works, watch, I'll demonstrate:  "I have a million dollars in my pocket, without a doubt."  Okay, now let me check.

      Damn!


      It may be that is has been four or six decades since your last behavioral studies class, so maybe I can help. "Behavior" is activity. Some behaviors are learned, like driving on the right side of the road (heck, just driving), and some behaviors are biologically driven (mating and eating). They are all behaviors.

      And again, just because you type "most definitely" before saying it's a learned behavior doesn't make it so. Here watch, I'll show you again: TMMason is most definitely fond of gay men sunbathing.

      See, I wrote that, said it's "most definitely true," but I bet it doesn't remove all doubt from your mind on the subject, despite how much fun having that sort of rhetorical power would be.

      1. K9keystrokes profile image93
        K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        wink

  12. K9keystrokes profile image93
    K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago

    The joy you experienced at the Gay Parade would speak louder than anything you read here regarding hate, judgment or discrimination. Hold tight to what you know and what you felt while celebrating with your friends on the east coast. The fact that some still feel threatened by the LGBTQ sector is not for us to linger upon. The whole truth is quite evident in the simple fact that the H8ers are losing their misguided fight to hinder a love for which they do not understand. I feel sorry for these people...to be so afraid of something so good just seems so sad. When the UN (a world order) combines and agrees to side with the concept of love, I think it is clear what direction the shift of the topic is moving. I will keep these unfortunate people in my thoughts and only have healing wishes for the fear they carry.
    I am so happy you shared your joyous event with us! Peace brother and keep your head high in the face of any and all hate, no matter how well it hides behind a kind appearing face.
    Only Love Brim!
    wink

    1. somelikeitscott profile image57
      somelikeitscottposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Couldn't agree more with K9keystrokes but then again, I usually do. Brian, so glad you had such a great experience. What I love is that we gays are still surprised when straights (or "straightees" as I call them) support and love us. My hope is that someday the reverse is true, that we're more surprised when straightees don't support and love us. If we don't imagine it, how can we make it happen?! Congrats on the parade ride and how great it made you feel!

      1. livelonger profile image90
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I think if you use the sentiments of straight people who participate in the gay-rights themed threads, then I would say that's more true all the time. The haters are relatively few in number and rather predictable.

        1. K9keystrokes profile image93
          K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          livelonger you speak volumes!

        2. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are indeed fewer and fewer in number.  Unfortunately, the ones left are both loud and insistent.

          1. K9keystrokes profile image93
            K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "...both loud and insistent."

            With this in mind wilderness, think of them as frightened children; they do not know why they are feeling scared and crying, but they cry just in case it gets them a little attention--good or bad. It is best to soothe them with calm and reasonable response rather than striking them in the hope that this will quiet their cries. It will surely only create a new reason for them to cry even louder.
            Always choose love~

      2. K9keystrokes profile image93
        K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Love you Scott!

        1. somelikeitscott profile image57
          somelikeitscottposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Love you right back!!!

      3. brimancandy profile image83
        brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks Scott. Love your hubs!

        1. somelikeitscott profile image57
          somelikeitscottposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks brimancandy - love yours right back. I'm doing a less posting on HubPages and more on my own site <link snipped, no self promotion in the forums> so don't forget to come by and visit me there too!!

    2. parrster profile image84
      parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I question the use of the HATE label that seems to get bandied around these forums.
      Definitely hate is a driver for some people, but to disagree with the beliefs, practices or behaviour of another does not warrant the Hate label.

      Some very genuine, intelligent and exemplary compassionate people remain opposed to homosexuality, but not from a position of hate but deep concern. That each side of the argument has difficulty understanding the others position is no reason to malign their character or motives with words such as HATERS.

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So I guess you would think homophobes would be to strong a word too? smile

        1. parrster profile image84
          parrsterposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          smile
          Well, I suppose there is an element of fear, though not necessarily an irrational one, and not necessarily of the person as much as the practice.

          Using the example of another practice, alcoholism, no one calls those opposed to alcoholism, alcophobes, even though a genuine (and legitimate) fear of alcoholics might exist.

          For identifying and categorising, fine, but labels used to libel are childish.

          1. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I believe it is more an element of fear than anything else.
            It certainly seems unfounded to me.
            I know as many homosexuals as anyone else who lives in a large city, and there is nothing to fear from any of them I know.

            Alcohol is a drug, lousy example.

      2. K9keystrokes profile image93
        K9keystrokesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Not denying that some compassionate people remain opposed to homosexuality, however they manage to bring to light that opposition in a compassionate manner. My point is rather the manner in which those who do hate present their case; absolutely riding on the crest of hatred for that which they fear, thus accurately referred to as haters, in verb form not noun. But I understand your response for what it is and how you could misunderstand the term. I respect your right to your point of view; I will simply continue to disagree with the concept that anything born from truly honest love can be anything but good. Peace parrster~

  13. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    KERRY... I don't think you mean that... "No human society that I'm aware of has considered it an moral practice"

    I think you intended to say... no society has ever considered it an a-moral practice or immoral, either way your wrong.

    Many have.

    1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
      HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Fortunately having a friend that I never knew was gay the first 5 years I knew and worked with him, and than finding out he was killed because he was gay and targeted by a serial killer, I do not agree with people that want to bash gay people. I decided to become friends with many gay people for this reason and understand the the gay population, and fortunately there is to much bigotry when people bash gay people. It has been proven in science that it is not a choice, but biological, and it's amazing how many gay people are very loving people, non-judgemental, and have a lot to contribute to society. Gay does not define a person, or who they are. We have no right to judge someone else just because we are straight. I've heard plenty of people point out straight people sin all the time my having affairs on their wives, and husbands, have multiple sex partners, swingers, and I can tell you a lot more. I wrote an article on this and even if you are a christian who can cast the first stone and claim they've never sinned. I don't think anyone is God. Gay people were created no differently than you are as a straight person. Do you have a choice being straight? I don't think you choose to be straight. You are just naturally that way. Whether we agree or disagree about someone else's sexual preferences, it is none of our business, when we have so many faults of our own. I am sorry, but try it once having a friend mutually killed because of his sexual preferences. How would you feel if someone did that to you for being straight. It is just hate breeding hate, discrimination, prejudice, and although I am straight, I will always advocate for them, because of my friend. No matter what his sexual preference was, he didn't deserved to have that kind of death, because someone took it upon themselves to play God!

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't mistake me for bashing, Mattie.

        I simply hold to the belief that it is an a-moral behaviour which society, while accepting that they are equal and have the right to choose to do as they wish, would be better off not embracing as "moral".

        We can accept an action, or a persons choice, as thier choice, and they are free to do it, or make it. But Society is free to reject the premise that because someone chooses to act in a certain way, we should accept it, or that choice, as moral and normal and natural.

        That is not bashing, no matter who wants to try an twist it as such.

        That is not bashing anyone.

        I do not care what anyone does, but do not teach the children it is okay to go be gay with your friends because it is normal. That is where I draw the line. And I do not care who doesn't like it.

        And yes Mattie, I, you, or anyone else, has the right, and the capability, to choose to be gay.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Again, you're using the term "a-moral". roll

          If you did know what it means, then you would not be using it to begin with. Many amoral decisions are made daily and there is NOTHING that can prevent it from happening, because to make an amoral decision is to act based on emotion.
          That's what rights are all about.
          You're words are beginning to defeat you. Sexual attraction is natural, regardless of how it comes into play.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You're right Cags, my bad. I will stick to immoral. Gook lookin out.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Hey TMMason, you cannot justify using "immoral", either.

              Actions are good(moral), bad(immoral) or emotional/instinctive/reactionary(amoral).

              Homosexuality is an amoral decision, therefore it cannot be good or bad.

              1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                In nearly all cases sexual orientation isn't a decision any more than having red hair is a decision. Acting in accordance with one's sexual orientation with another consenting adult is a decision which informed and tolerant people consider to be moral.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Ralph, you can talk to you are blue in the face, taking action IS as I said it is. You cannot talk your way out of it.

                2. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  That's nice, but sexual attraction is an emotional action, if you follow through on.

                  1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                    Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Merely sitting around being attracted to someone isn't much of an action. Getting up off your butt and asking them out is an action.

        2. brimancandy profile image83
          brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          There are a lot of different views on morals by different cultures TMMason. For example in some nations it is normal for a grown man to take a child bride as young as 9 years old. While in America that would never happen, and that person would probably be arrested.  I wonder what your opinion is of that. Just as homosexuals and adulterers are often put to death in some countries, and women are beaten for showing their face or legs in public.

          A lot of what you are saying is the christian view of the world, and it almost seems that no other morals matter. Just curious what you think of that? In the United States we are supposed to be the most free nation in the world, but, when it comes to Morals nobody can agree on what is right or wrong. Yet groups like gay people and others are constantly put down, as being less then second class citizens, and not worthy of having equal rights, as usually rich god fearing christians would claim.

          As if something gay people might do with bring gods wrath. As Pat Robertson claims on a daily basis, even though a majority of people think he is just another nutjob.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I have stated clearly my opinion of the issues of child brides and stoning anyone to death for thieir choices. Go read my Islam on posts all over this forum. They are crystal clear. We hade thia conversation inhere last night. Were where you?

            And your second paragraph shpws you have not read any of my posts. Go read em and get back to me.

            And yes morals are important, accepting deviant behavioiurs as moral, is what is destroying this country's moral ground... so your a lil confused there. Think about it... you cannot condone all mannner of immorality, and then claim to defend morals. What a laugh.

            http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/childbrides.htm

  14. HattieMattieMae profile image69
    HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago

    As a social worker I can never make a client sick and tell them it is a choice, when they've done this to please society for generations and find out how psychologically damaging it is to keep insisting it is a choice, when they have proven differently. These people are sucidal at times because society keeps insisting it's a choice. They can not change it, and if child is gay or lesbian it is because they are born this way, not by choice. Most gay and lesbian people do try to deny it, dating the opposite sex, and end up hurting themselves, and their spouses in the process by living a lie. There is very real consequences to what you are saying. Children do not learn to be gay or lesbian by example. They are either attracted to the same sex or the opposite sex, like you are attracted to the same sex. All your life did you keep telling yourself you were straight. Or think about being straight, because all my life I just knew I was straight, and attracted to men. It wasn't a choice, just what happens naturally inside of my brain.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mattie there is no proof that it is anything other than a choice.

      I am sorry, but we will not agree on this.

      I sat here and blew all their psuedo-science out of the water with their own sources.... only to be told it was to be taken on faith that it is genetic. It is not.

      I, you, or anyone, can choose to be gay.

      I am sorry and I think we should just leave it at agreeing to dis-agree.

      I truely enjoy your posts, but I cannot agree with this one. And that doesn't make me a gay basher... not in the least. I have been asked and confronted, with as much hate as they accuse me of, and I answered as honestly as I know how, to everyone.

      I hope this does not mean we cannot be friends, Mattie. I think you are a beautiful person and I truely love our conversations and debates. But I cannot agree that it is anything but a choice. I mean the percentage of gays in this nation is about 1.5 to 3.5%... that doesn't speak to genetics at all. And that is including all people who speak of having homosexual encounters, Bis, one timers, trans-genders, etc... does not support the case.

      Sorry mattie. sad

      1. HattieMattieMae profile image69
        HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't call you a basher, I was just saying there are some out there. I have no problem with you, we are both entitled to our opinions.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I am glad, Mattie. I do not agree with attacking anyone physically for their choices in life. I would never allow it in my presence. I do not bash verbally either, but I will not compromise on my beliefs. Though I know some seem harsh to a lot of folks on here.


          Thank you. smile

          I must go now, huge thunderstorm above me. Have a good nite.

        2. HattieMattieMae profile image69
          HattieMattieMaeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Ha Ha that is why I don't like forums, because you write under one person and it goes to them, instead of all the others. I believe gay bashers are the ones he's talking about when he posted it, being destructive, hateful, and causing harm. But, you know I'm a humanitarian to begin with so I go up to bat for a lot of causes.

  15. earnestshub profile image89
    earnestshubposted 5 years ago

    Well said HMM.
    Those with first hand information like yourself see the truth as you deal with the consequences of denial.

  16. Diane Inside profile image86
    Diane Insideposted 5 years ago

    more straight people don't support it than you know as well. They are in the closet about not supporting it because it is politically incorrect.

    1. brimancandy profile image83
      brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's a given. Obviously there are many sides to supporting or not supporting a cause. And, I think the people who support the gay community could care less about the politics involved. In fact some people support the gay community for the sole purpose of pissing off the establishment. just as people did when they supported minorities and women's rights.

      Fight the man!! LOL!!! Just Kidding!!

      1. Diane Inside profile image86
        Diane Insideposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        exactly even the politicians don't really care about stuff like that its more about getting votes so if they think getting gays to vote for them then you know they are all over supporting it.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If it were a clear numbers game, gays vs non-gays, the gays would loose every time. They are a tiny minority. Luckily, more and more straight people are realizing that gay couples are no threat to, well, anything, really, and there was never any need to oppress them.

          1. brimancandy profile image83
            brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            There are more gay people than you think. As people who are gay who have not declared their sexuality, as in married gays and lesbians, who are counted out of the stats. The whole 10 percent thing is balony. You also have to consider that gay people cross all cultures and races. So, counting us accurately would be like trying to put a huge square block into a tiny cirlcle on a pegboard. Not going to happen.

            The gay community is huge. people who don't want people to realize that will stand on their soap boxes and shout out statisics on a subject they know nothing about, yet expect anyone who listens to them to agree. As for the "Threat" It must be huge otherwise the republican party wouldn't push their whole family values bull-crap down our throats to get their nominee in office. If gay people were no threat, the government would simply ignore us, as Ronald Reagan did, even when his own son was gay. So, lies run deep.

  17. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    What a strange world we live in.
    It's unacceptable to love another man but it's acceptable to kill another man if he's a bit different to you!

  18. Mikeydoes profile image79
    Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago

    Our brains all function differently and we are just learning why people are the way they are.

    Some people have more spirituality, and it is evident as they tend to have more brain mass dedicated to that particular section of the brain. This also means they tend to feel a presence with them at all(or a lot) times. As to where people who spend 0 time thinking about religion do not have this feeling, but it can be tapped in to with certain experiments and tests(very interesting).

    Now I have not done much research on homosexuality, as it does not appeal to me much, but if there is a link to the brain, that is similar to the religion part I explained, it would be interesting. And honestly I do not know how to really perceive it, but that's what true science is all about. I see where you are coming from when you say homosexuality and religion are the same. The only difference is religion influences and causes problems a lot of the time, including homosexuality. The very people we are talking about are getting put in the spotlight because of laws passed that were influenced solely by religion. There is no way you can truly care what your friends do behind closed doors. And it is evident you feel the same way about the friends you mentioned.

    I just don't see what you mean by fairness and bias.

    This is in my case, and how I think most people do approach or should approach homosexuality.

    I obviously made it obvious that if a kid would be adopted by a homosexual pair, I'd be happy for them. As long as it is a happy home. Being stuck in an abusive or unstable family can take it's toll on a kid much worse than a happy gay couple. Whats the thing we are worried about with the kid? Does the kid have a better chance to be gay? Frikkin A right he probably does. I'm sure, because at a young age hopefully the kid will be able to realize that it does not matter what you do as long as you are happy. How much will this increase his chances of being gay? Answer: who cares? Probably only a few people actually care and make it known. Most likely he/especially she would probably end up straight.

    So basically you are talking about bias and unfairness, you are talking about.

  19. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    And homosexuality is not a disease nor a deviant behavior....

  20. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    "Our brains all function differently and we are just learning why people are the way they are."

    Do they? FMRIs show that assertion to be wrong. If it were true we could not do any type of Nueral Mapping and brain studies without starting over every time.

    They have the same brain mass as all others, and the same dedicated areas. Again FMRIs show this is true. Liars do not use more mass of a certain area, or different areas of their brains to lie, then anyone else. It is true pathological liars can fake and trick a Machine, a "lie detector", but not an FMRI. We can see they are a liar because they use the same functional systems, areas, of their brains to l;ie as all others.

    Scietific American had a good plain talk article on the brain.

    ---"Though an alluring idea, the "10 percent myth" is so wrong it is almost laughable, says neurologist Barry Gordon at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. Although there's no definitive culprit to pin the blame on for starting this legend, the notion has been linked to the American psychologist and author William James, who argued in The Energies of Men that "We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources." It's also been associated with to Albert Einstein , who supposedly used it to explain his cosmic towering intellect.

    The myth's durability, Gordon says, stems from people's conceptions about their own brains: they see their own shortcomings as evidence of the existence of untapped gray matter. This is a false assumption. What is correct, however, is that at certain moments in anyone's life, such as when we are simply at rest and thinking, we may be using only 10 percent of our brains.

    "It turns out though, that we use virtually every part of the brain, and that [most of] the brain is active almost all the time," Gordon adds. "Let's put it this way: the brain represents three percent of the body's weight and uses 20 percent of the body's energy."

    The average human brain weighs about three pounds and comprises the hefty cerebrum, which is the largest portion and performs all higher cognitive functions; the cerebellum, responsible for motor functions, such as the coordination of movement and balance; and the brain stem, dedicated to involuntary functions like breathing. The majority of the energy consumed by the brain powers the rapid firing of millions of neurons communicating with each other. Scientists think it is such neuronal firing and connecting that gives rise to all of the brain's higher functions. The rest of its energy is used for controlling other activities—both unconscious activities, such as heart rate, and conscious ones, such as driving a car.

    Although it's true that at any given moment all of the brain's regions are not concurrently firing, brain researchers using imaging technology have shown that, like the body's muscles, most are continually active over a 24-hour period. "Evidence would show over a day you use 100 percent of the brain," says John Henley, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. Even in sleep, areas such as the frontal cortex, which controls things like higher level thinking and self-awareness, or the somatosensory areas, which help people sense their surroundings, are active, Henley explains."----

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic … t-of-brain

    There is no difference in the human brains function, just cause your you and I am me, no choice changes that. And there is a lot more out there as regards Human brain function and what occurs in all of us as it occurs

    And I will repeat myself again, there is no scientific evidence to show and Genetic, Psychological, or any other factor to Homosexuality, none. It is merely a choice.

  21. saddlerider1 profile image58
    saddlerider1posted 5 years ago

    Prettydarkhorse, I totally agree, my oldest son has chosen that lifestyle and sexual preference and I love him nothing less. He is a bright, handsome, athletic, successful business person and has so much supportive loving friends. Sexual preference should not be an issue, it's been a lifestyle since man walked this earth. I don't condone sexual deviates,predators,rapists, child abusers from any lifestyles whether they be gay, straight or otherwise.I've known many gay people in my life time and still have a few close ones as friends.Hetrosexuals need to take a good look at ourselves in the mirror and see what's reflecting back to us. Many of us live cheating lifestyles, hurting our partners. Yet we point our fingers at gay people because they prefer same sex, I don't get it, let's clean up our own backyard before we point these blaming fingers at gay's. Hugs to you my prettydarkhorse for your support to the gay community.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hi saddlerider, Thank you and take care..

      1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
        Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well, technically it is 'deviant' in the clinical sense, as it 'deviates' from the norm. The problem is that people like to load up those words with value judgements. (Normal is good, different is bad.)

        Except normal isn't necessarily good, and different isn't necessarily bad. But people who like to follow the herd sure do seem to think so.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          One jeff I stated plainly in that comment that behavioural conditioning doesn't work in adulthood, to rehabilitate, that is your own imagination. Those are conditioned behaviours learned during the formative years and puberty. Don't start twisting what I said.

          And no, your point doesn't stand when you substitute behavioural for enviromental, this is not the green agenda, give that BS up. You want to argue nature and nurture, -Vs-, personal choice here, you will lose, there is NO scientific evidence of genetic homosexuality, or Psychological... see you lose.

          And abnormal means not normal, average, typical, or usual; deviating from a standard: abnormal powers of concentration;  an abnormal amount of snow; abnormal behavior. etc.

          And "deviant" and "abnormal" are used in their proper context in my comments, and the bias of the word is in your understanding and own need to inflict bigotry into the debate, not my use.

          Go read some studies on deviant sexual behaviour and the affects of such in early childhood development as affected by abuse and conditioning...

          It is much easier learned than unlearned... as is any behaviour. ie; Addiction, and such. Especially when those behaviours are learned in the formative years and prepubescent and pubescant ages.

          So your argument  does not only NOT hold water... but they dis-agree with decades of studies and conclusions.

          So.... try again.

          And how many adopted children do you and your friends have? Michelle Bauchman has rasied many that are not her own... what about you?

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "One jeff I stated plainly in that comment that behavioural conditioning doesn't work in adulthood, to rehabilitate, that is your own imagination. Those are conditioned behaviours learned during the formative years and puberty. Don't start twisting what I said."

            Not twisting, but you sure seem to be squirming now. I'll address this point further below, there are a couple other things I want to get out of the way first.

            "And no, your point doesn't stand when you substitute behavioural for enviromental, this is not the green agenda, give that BS up."
            Uh, what? Your environment = your surroundings. All of your surroundings. Yes, it includes the air and plants and animals and all that "green" stuff, but it also includes the people you hang out with, the stuff you see on TV, which behaviors get rewarded or punished, etc. But I'm not going to keep arguing semantics--it's really not that important. I'll use the term "behavioral conditioning," as you do.

            "And "deviant" and "abnormal" are used in their proper context in my comments, and the bias of the word is in your understanding and own need to inflict bigotry into the debate, not my use."
            Yes, you are using "deviant" and "abnormal" correctly. That was my whole point.

            It is also, however, an unfortunate fact that both of those terms carry a negative connotation in general usage (not in clinical use) and that both are often used as synonyms for "bad" or "condemnable" or "immoral." Many people like to take rhetorical advantage of this negative connotation, enjoying the fact that their clinical words sound like a condemnation, without actually being one.

            I was just pointing out that 1) you were in fact correct in saying that homosexuality is, clinically speaking, both abnormal and deviant and 2) in spite of the popular negative connotations of both words, they do not in fact have those negative denotations. I'm trying to remove the existing (subconscious) bias in the words. Linguistics is a fascinating field.


            And finally we can get back to the thing we actually disagree on. smile

            Let me make this abundantly clear.
            From birth to death, we are soaked in the hetero norm. Everywhere around us, heterosexuality is promoted and celebrated. In real life, the royal wedding is a great example. On a smaller scale, every engagement party, wedding, honeymoon, birth announcement, baby shower, is a celebration of the hetero norm. In literature and fiction, hetero couples are always getting together, being celebrated, etc. Our popular songs are mostly about hetero love, hetero heartbreak, hetero yearning, etc. The hetero norm is constantly reinforced every time we turn on the radio or TV, every time we open a book.

            So given the above, how is it that any kid can be said to have been conditioned to turn out gay?

            Are you suggesting that every gay adult is gay because they were molested as a child?

            If so, how do you explain those who were the victims of molestation who did not turn out gay? And how do you account for the gay adults who were not molested as children? Are they lying about never having been molested?

        2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
          prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          In most cases also what seems to be deviant at first, eventually becomes a norm, specially for those pioneers of behavior that were normalized. like Lady Gaga, after some time her fashion sense will be deemed normal and most will follow her fashion sense.

          1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Right, exactly so. A hundred years ago a married woman working outside the home for money would have been considered deviant and abnormal.
            Now she's mainstream and normal.

            It's all about how many people are also doing it.

            One morris dancer looks like an idiot.

            1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
              prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              would you consider homosexuality as a lifestyle then? We are entitled to our own lifestyle that we want as long as we are not hurting other people.

              My sociology professor told us that it is circa 1930s to classify homosexuality as deviant. I think all Sociological Associations all over the world does not consider it as deviant behavior anymore. it is all about normal roles and labeling them as such.


              Homosexuality is just social construction, on the other hand I honestly believe that we are really hardwired with our sexual orientation...I am a "cockite" forever..

              1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "would you consider homosexuality as a lifestyle then?"
                Me? No. I like girls.

                "I think all Sociological Associations all over the world does not consider it as deviant behavior anymore."
                Huh, didn't know that. Is this because of the pervasive negative connotation that "deviant" carries? Are they scrapping the term altogether? For example, once upon a time, "moron" was an accepted clinical term, but it was scrapped because it became an insult in general usage. (The fancy linguistic term for this is "pejoration.")

                Out of curiosity, do sociologists even label homosexual behavior at all? I mean, it's clearly outside the norm; only a small minority of people are gay. It can't be considered "normal" and have "normal" still mean, well, "normal."

                Do they go with "healthy/unhealthy?" Like playing video games is healthy up to a point, but when it interferes with your general life, it becomes unhealthy?

                1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
                  prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  it is not medical for sociologists, they are more interested in gender roles, labeling - who is the group in society to label others as such -- those group who have power obviously in a social setting, or institutions.

  22. Shadesbreath profile image89
    Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago

    I think it's valiant that so many are trying to convince some of the older gentlemen among us what is so obviously clear to reasonable people firmly ensconced in modernity. I also think it's pointless. A closed mind is just that, closed. No amount of evidence, no hundreds of thousands of gay people looking them in the eyes telling them the truth of what their experience is, will ever move these intractable, aging Christian soldiers to even acknowledge the plausibility that they are wrong. Too certain are they. Too fortified by gospel Truth. They have a Bronze Age book and a nostalgic death-grip on the 50's, a decade of American triumphalism in the wake of WWII, that is too fond to let go, too lost in the denial of Leave-It-To-Beaverism and Father-Knows-Bestiness to be open to anything new or different. The confidence born of victory so long ago has turned to stubborn pride and righteous certainty. Leave them be. The malingering wisps of eugenics, fear mongering, racial supremacy and all that good last-century stuff are slowly dying out. You won't change it with logic, kindness, reason or loving arguments. So there's no point trying.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But Shades, I am one of the older "gentlemen", bigotry is ageless.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        True. I tossed in a qualifier with "some." And I did invoke the idea that it was mainly about being a part of modernity and some such about being reasonable. Always have to have an escape clause for the outliers. big_smile

  23. Merlin Fraser profile image77
    Merlin Fraserposted 5 years ago

    Hey Mickey,

    Not entirely sure what point you want me to concede here.  I would wish that every child had a proper and happy upbringing and I would also hope for an end to child abuse in every form but we know this to be a dream.  Now as to whether an upbringing by an actively homosexual couple is a better alternative is clearly a different matter altogether.  The abuse may not be physical but what about mental confusion, remember this is an active homosexual relationship and the child is going to be exposed not just to the couple but their friends and social group activities as well.   

    Sticking purely to the natural animal arguments that I have used all along such an arrangement is wholly unnatural.  The sexual act is for one purpose and one purpose only and that is procreation of the species, hopefully by the best male and female candidates in an effort to constantly improve the survival chances of the species clearly homosexuality behaviour can’t not achieve that goal and therefore should not be used or held up as an educational example of what constitutes normal animal behaviour.  There is that old adage of ‘Monkey See Monkey do...’ and children are great observers.

    The fact that certain members of the human species find themselves drawn to a homosexual way of life is perhaps unfortunate but they should not be pilloried because of it however nor can it be held up as normal under any true animal definition of the word purely because left entirely to their own devices as perhaps a sub species they clearly aren’t going to make it.

    1. Mikeydoes profile image79
      Mikeydoesposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Mikey*

      I'm not trying to get you to concede anything.

      The biggest thing seems to be the word "unnatural" it is loosely defined, and can mean a bunch of things. Your definition does not match up to mine, and I'm sure of it.

      Very soon we are going to have to start watching our population, we can not just keep having as many kids as we want, it is unethical. So when that happens and kids can't be conceived due to fantastic medical/medicinal breakthroughs, men and women can do whatever they'd like and hopefully have a free spirit. Who knows what we will evolve from there. There is no doubt in my mind that men will still be doing it in the future, in fact probably more so, due to the fact of marriage and all the old timers ideals getting thrown out the door. Gay people having kids will become the norm someday and no one will care.

  24. prettydarkhorse profile image63
    prettydarkhorseposted 5 years ago

    it is inevitable that after two more decades all US states shall have same sex marriage laws passed already..


    Congrats to Rhode Island..even if it is only civil union

    then New Jersey...



    Social institutions are composed of people -- so more people will in due time acknowledge that we should have equal rights -- specially the lawmakers. It can't be denied anymore.

    Something is wrong with the phrase  - "imposing/shoving agenda upon social institution", isn't it? By virtue of all of us irregardless of sexual orientation belonging to a society, laws can be made to accommodate everybody...

    And as we are all social beings who belong to a society, then it is imperative we should all be accorded equal rights, unless you want to become Tarzan and you go to mountains, even there, I suppose animals and Tarzan have equal rights...

  25. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    --"Let me make this abundantly clear.
    From birth to death, we are soaked in the hetero norm. Everywhere around us, heterosexuality is promoted and celebrated...


    Yes, Jeff. Lets be clear indeed.

    I have been perfectly clear that being molested doesn't encompuss all Homosexual, CHOICES, as that is what it is; see my eailer post on; -"NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPPORT IN ANY FIELD FOR GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY AT THIS TIME."-. And I am not yelling it, Jeff, am simply not sure how to use your pretty colors to accentuate.

    Now I stres this fact vehemently due to the fact that the Left and Homosexual community shout so loudly, among some on here, about it being Genetic based on already shown to flawed studies, and the very peoples own sources they keep slinging as verification.

    So everone just understand it and stop slinging the propaganda. -IT IS NOT A GENETIC ISSUE FROM WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE SCIENCE ALREADY DONE IN THE FIELD.- So we can all agree to state is honestly when doscussing actual science, and I won't have to continuously correct you all.

    That is simple, eh?

    Honesty begets no argument... very simple.

    If any want to express an opinion that it is Genetic... have at it, but leave the science of it as fact BS out. Because it doesn't suppport that conclusion in the least.

    -Conditioned behaviour- in the formative years of a childs life, and post formative and adulthood to even to a lesser extent, can become an addiction, or learned respones to a situation, as in sexual desires and attractions, sex, times of fear, depression, and any of a hundred other stressors, regardless of the activity, whether or not that conditioning is in the form of a saturation effect -(as you mention with your own posts above. -Sociologists determed a long time ago that the, -"Disney-girl" affect-, had influenced young boys and girls in awful ways, and it had to be changed. That is why Disney uses Brunettes and brown haired women alot more than they used to, alot of feminists and the race baiter crowds, for lack of a better name, complained it was conditioning young boys to like Blond hair blue eyed white skinned women, over Brunettes and brown skinned women.

    And yes that is a true story. They used to teach it in every basic Sociology and Psyche 101 class. But to think one form of conditional behaviouring excludes the another from being possible, is just not correct in its logic and understanding of the Human Psyche.

    One can become addicted to behaviour and that abnormal behaviour can become what they would consider normal, while others know it is not, thus deviant and abnormal behaviour. Be it addiction to drugs, deviant sex, or so many other self-destructive, immoral or other-wise  unhealthy life-style choices.

    And these behaviours can be found and learned by one's self, or with a group, or with a mob, it does not matter... a single influence can lead someone into a behaviour that is destructive or immoral, just as easy as many influences in alot of cases. And sometimes that influence when a singular focus, being molested, trying heroine with a friend or alone, doing something with a small group or a single friend or influence that others would call into moral doubt and refuse, can be more focused and intense in its influence and consequences that any saturated affect. Period.



    @Cags...
    --"Rejecting the homosexual agenda? You're too funny. It's not re-conditioning of morals with children. And, YES, you are interfering in other people's life. As YOU said, it's choice. By letting children explore their own inner-self, is to give them the true power of choice. Not only that, but they get to learn about themselves in a comprehensive manner"---


    Yes I am saying an agenda, and yes re-conditioning childrens' morals, and you confirm it with you own words, Cags. You base you reply on allowing it, just like a teacher would,"?hurmm?", and yes I think it needs to be removed from the Education Curricula, as do alot of Americans, I would venture the Majority.

    Why?... Because the Teachers and the Unions, and the Fed Dept. of Education, do not know THEIR roles in this country. Which is not Social Engeneering through PC and Leftist anti-American Cultural Agendas, but actually teaching the children to read, write, Math and Science, Critical reasoning and logic skills, which as a matter FACT they are failing at doing.

    Instead, Teachers, the Unions and the FED. think teching them to go home and explore themselves and their friends; "inner-selves", with homosexual acts, is the a-priori, greatest thing they could ever accpoomplish.

    (Actually it exemplifies the sad state of affairs the American Education System is in, thanks to the above named groups and their Cultural Marxist, Franfurt School Style, Social Engeneering agendas. Which all Americans are becoming more and more aware of these days, and are rejecting in whole. No more Liberal Progressive agendas. They have destroyed this nation.)

    Niether the School, nor any teacher, has the right to teach sexual morality, or many of the other things that have been found being taught in our schools, ie; America is a racist thieveing country, who stole the southwest and our govt should be over-thrown, to any child. THEY have over-stepped THEIR roles in a childs life and their place in society. THEY have been usurping the roles of parents for decades. What a joke! And yes the Homosexual Agenda, among others!

    So it seems YOU lack the understanding of a Teachers' and the Govts.' role in Society, as if that is not obvious to any one who has ever talked to a Leant Liftist, and America has had enough of those who think they can PC our language and our culture and destroy it in name of changing our Society to an immoral liberal Progressive one. We are happy with the Christian concieved and based, and morally grounded one, we established and which brought great prospierity and wealth to not only America, but the world. The one in which anyone can follow thier own moral bearing and beliefs, as long as they do not harm anouther, their family, or anothers property, and that agenda has harmed our children and our country immensely!

    And your not one to take about tolerance, Cags. You have shown yourself to be totally intolerant to any view opposed to your own agendas and beliefs, as you constantly demonstrate in this forum.

    This Govts' pushing of, and Leant Leftist' Liberal' Progressives' agendas, are on their way out.

    And it is about time.

    And remember Cags, it is a choice.

    One you are free to make, but not twist the science and truth in order to fulfill your agendas and justify your choices with.

    You are free in this nation, more than anywhere else in the world, to practice any immorality you or anyone desires to with another consenting adult or by yourself. Because here in America you have true freedom, unlike most of the world.

    Now... I am going to watch "Battle Los Angeles" and watch the California Leant Leftist Progressives get blasted off the face of the earth, it is the lil things like that that amuse me. Along with irratating you hubbies with the truth and facts.

    While you should go learn about what the Govts and the Educators and schools of all levels places are in this Society.

    And here is a hint, "Indoctrination", is NOT thier places.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol
      I bet you really believe that don't you?

      Really, you are one of the most sexually repressed first world countries in the first world.

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's because we still have a large portion of our population clinging to Victorian ideas of human nature. BUT, they are aging rapidly and soon that little blip on the historical radar of common sense will die out, then we can stop spending so much time, money and political energy on who is getting jiggy with whom and start inventing, building and developing again.

      2. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. America's sexual repression is obvious.

        Some of the posters here think "American dad" is a documentary! lol

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So you,E, as a fifty year old man would do your nieghbors 16 year old daughter?

          Yes. Many in America would find that unacceptable, no matter the technically legal standing of it. And it would most likely some fist fighting when the dad found out. Hey but we could tape it for youtube...

          Remind me not to buy a house next door to any british folk.

          Is that the movie your talking about... with Kevin Stacie, was that who it was...?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I missed where Ernest said that! He must have deleted it.

            Really,is your imagination that limited!

            The most liberated country in the World where it is illegal in some states to adopt anything but the missionary position!

            "Some states of the U.S. punish fornication only if it is repeated and thus causes the offenders to live in a "state of open and notorious cohabitation". Depending on the state, this crime may be a felony punishable by imprisonment for several years. Needless to say, such a statute has the absurd effect of penalizing couples who live together in an exclusive, stable relationship. Promiscuous individuals, on the other hand, remain untouched by the law."

          2. earnestshub profile image89
            earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Two points.
            Your first point is disgusting and probably libellous.

            Secondly and for the third time, I am not British. You need to watch what you say TM, I have two teenage grandchildren, and find your statement very offensive!

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              That is the show your speaking of isn't it? About the man who is doing his nieghbors 16 year old daughter? If so and you think that represents American men, then you have no idea. We do not abide by that. There is nothing wroing with the atatement, E. If Australians, or British, -whatever you are, all the same to me, lil funnier accent is all, think that is acceptable, then I would not want to live next to them. Period. Would you?

              And it was not a statement, it was a question... go look I will wait here for you. Lemme know if you see the ? mark or not.

              Libel... huh!  What a joke.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wrong show TM, and to say Australian and british is all the same to you means you know nothing about either.

                Canada is next door to you on the same land mass, I don't see Canadians as  "all the same as Americans"


                We are on the other side of the world from britain and are no more british than you are! lol

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Canada is of French and some Indian blood here and there... not many English people there. I consider my self more akin to English and yourselves, E. Are you insulted that I said your all the same?..

                  We are all three nations descended from from Anglo-Saxon Blood, bro. Maybe not you specifically as an individual, but the nation as a whole. And the same with many others in much of the world. Cousins so to speak. That is a fact of History. They didn't call Btitain the Empire the sun never set upon for nothing, man. Think about it. My reference is not that far off. Distance doesn't change the fact we are all three nations derived from the same stock.

                  I am not ashamed to admit my Anglo-Saxon heritage... you all are the Anglophobes, not I.

                2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                  Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  "...to say Australian and british is all the same to you means you know nothing about either."

                  Indeed.

                  1. John Holden profile image59
                    John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    It's really about as sane as saying American and British are the same.

                    We have a vaguely common language and there the similarities end.

                  2. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, I am sure you want to believe that.

              2. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                "So you,E, as a fifty year old man would do your neighbours 16 year old daughter?"


                You think that is OK to say TM?

                Read your own thread again and see if you can work out what you said about the rest as well.

    2. Mark Ewbie profile image81
      Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      TM.  This is a genuine query, it is not targeted at you in any way.  It is for all people who make very long posts in forums.

      Why don't you put them into a blog instead, and potentially earn some money?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        It's more fun to crusade where there are infidels to smite.

        1. 0
          Motown2Chitownposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          "I fart in your general direction," Shades.  Does that count as smiting an infidel? 

          Of course, in the forums, aside from the belief in God thing, I generally agree with you, so never mind the smiting.

          Have I achieved my goal of being a bit funny today?

          Carry on, everyone.

      2. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know, Mark?

        To be honest, I do not have ads or any other things on my Hubs to earn with even now. I have never see one cent from Hubs, and do not really care about that aspect of it. I enjoy the discussions and debates alot more than lone thinking these days. 

        I will be posting Hubs on Cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt School, and Social Engineering as used by the Left and Progressives in the last century of American History , soon.

        1. Mark Ewbie profile image81
          Mark Ewbieposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Fair enough and a reasonable reply.  It's probably me being fixated with money that I think about words on forums as having a potential value.  I would never write a very long post (I think) for that reason.

          Of course it could also be to do with having no belief in anything as well.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Money is good, Mark, nothing wrong with it at all, bro.

      3. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Most long posts are just copy and paste jobs and would not stay published for long on hub pages.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          If I pasted my own answer as a Hub, would it duplicate it?

          Anyone know?

          Just wondering, of course I think anyone would add to and expound upon the subject at hand. But theoretically if I rep-posted that answer as a Hub would it say duplicate for it?

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I don't know, but I suspect it might. Try it and see, you'll only get a warning initially and then pull the hub and you'll be OK.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I think if you took something that you'd already posted in the forums, and pasted into the hub editor, that it's probably be flagged for duplicate content and wouldn't get found on a google search.

            maybe the next time you get a big post going, you might turn it into a hub instead, and let people know that you answered the previous post in a hub. But no linking; that's against the HP rules.

    3. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I have been perfectly clear that being molested doesn't encompuss all Homosexual, CHOICES, as that is what it is; see my eailer post on; -"NO SCIENTIFIC SUPPPORT IN ANY FIELD FOR GENETIC HOMOSEXUALITY AT THIS TIME."-. And I am not yelling it, Jeff, am simply not sure how to use your pretty colors to accentuate.

      Ah, so they chose to be molested? Wow. Amazing.

      Sexual preference is a choice? So, did you consciously choose to like girls in general at some point, or do you make the choice on a case-by-case basis, and find that you consistently choose to be attracted to women and choose not to be attracted to men? Have there been exceptions?

      The Disney Girl thing is absolutely true. I read an article by an Indian woman (from India) who grew up being educated in a British style school. When it was time for creative writing, she wrote stories about kids named Jane and Billy and such, rather than kids called Rajit or Padma. Why? Because all the stories that she read in the schoolbooks were about kids with names like Billy and Jane.

      Disney is populating its stories with a more diverse group of heroes and heroines not because they want to indoctrinate anybody, but because they're making a conscious effort to stop accidentally indoctrinating in favor of the blonde, blue-eyed, white kid (while accidentally sending the tacit message that there are no dark-haired, dark-skinned people worth thinking about). This is a Good Thing.

      I'm surprised that you see this inclusiveness as evidence of some kind of nefarious plot. Why is Disney's inclusion of dark-skinned people so threatening?

      As for the nonsense you wrote to Cags about teachers trying to indoctrinate kids to be gay, that's the silliest thing I've read in a long time. (And I've read some humdingers lately!)

      There are many enormous differences between teaching that it's wrong to persecute gay people and teaching that you should try out this whole gay thing and see if it's for you. One major difference is that teachers are not doing the latter.

      (BTW: if you feel the need to use pretty colors or italics or bold or whatever, hit the button labelled (formatting) at the bottom right of the reply window. All the needful codes are there for your convenience.)

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        -"Ah, so they chose to be molested? Wow. Amazing."-

        --"I have been perfectly clear that being molested doesn't encompuss all Homosexual, CHOICES, as that is what it is;"--

        I simply do not understand how you do not understand this... as in "choosing to be a homosexual", not molested... can you all keep up? Shall I slow down for you three? I hate to see you tripping over yourselves so, you might hurt yourselves.

        You cannot account all homosexuals choosing to be gay, to they being molested as children, clear, perfectly. You cannot account for a all men who choose to be gay, as doing so based on their experiences of being molested as children, of those who may have been.

        But there is a large percentage of homosexual men who attribute that choice and behaviour, to having been molested. And as I stated the other day, a lot of molesters say that they were molested and that is why they do it. See how that works... it is called behavioural conditioning.

        Perfectly clear. So stop the BS, Jeff.

        -"Sexual preference is a choice?"-

        Yes it is. And I don't have to make a choice... I am naturally attracted to the opposite sex, as is the norm. If I were to go with a guy, it would be by CHOICE.

        -"I'm surprised that you see this inclusiveness as evidence of some kind of nefarious plot. Why is Disney's inclusion of dark-skinned people so threatening?"-

        No where did I say it was a nafarious plot by Disney, I merely pointed out the application of an agenda drivin push through the courts, and the affect it could have. I am and always have been a man who finds Brunettes and Black haired Asain, Pacific Island, and olive skinned women, much more preferable to blondes. Blondes are way over-rated, man. They always have been.

        But I did point out that, though I have no problem with that specifically, I do have a problem with the Feminists and Race-baiters having figured out and applied with such forcew and victory, the method to slam their own agendas through the Courts. It is the totallity of that Agenda I object to. Disney was an excellent example of how Social Enineering can be used to promote diversity in cultures, and acceptance, without some teacher stepping into roles of, and usurping parents rights, as they do.

        And Yes Jeff, the teachers are teaching such. I agree with you that it is okay to encourage and institute acceptance and understanding, but they take it way beyond, and that is a fact.

        Note a few thing about the following videos, they are knder-gardeners, and the teacherf is an authority figure and I do not think any kid feels he or she could dis-agree with or opt out of this indoctriination.

        Also, though this may seen innocent it is not the place of the school to teach "Sexual Values" to kinder-gardeners, nor is it their place to push the homosexual agenda, as in "Gay Marriage" in the second video, you know none of those kids want to be the lone one to dis-agree with the teacher and his opinon that it should be legal. And those kids who do argue against it are not intellectually capable of defending their position, as are none of the others capable of giving an informed intellectual answer as to why it should be legal. They are simply parroting back what they think the teacher wants to hear. Absurd to allow this in schools...

        I like the, "what if the majority of people were Gay", argument from the lil girl... now I know where all the Leftists I have heard sling it, got it from.

        The old lady that cuts in and say they will be the leaders of tomorrow and if we have not indoctrinated them they will not build a better society... well that is true, but debatable as to what constitutes a better society. Social Engineering.

        http://www.massresistance.org/media/vid … shing.html

        And that is just in Elementary schools ten years ago. Lets move along in the time line...

        -"This is a reprint of a story which broke the Fistgate scandal in the May issue of Massachusetts News. We advise caution. Even though this is what the state is teaching to children as young as 12-years of age, it is extremely offensive. Over 1,000,000 citizens have now seen this story which was written by two of the outraged parents."--

        http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm

        http://thegeorgetowndish.com/thedish/pa … dle-school

        March 4, 2011,

        http://theothermccain.com/2011/03/04/th … -for-kids/

        And there are many more... America sees what the Liberal Progressive agenda is all about...

        And as I said, we are even now moving to take our schools back.

        You should see the reading lists the Los Angeles USD. puts out regarding Homosexuality...

        "Know About Gays And Lesbians", "Looking at Gay And Lesbian Life" which charactorizes man-boy sexual relationships as, "accepted and the norm in many modern countries"-... where would that be?, "One Teenager In Ten" is a Story by a 16 year old girl about her first "encounter" with her dance teacher who "Brought her out"., "Young Gay And Proud", explaining there are no rules in sex... and many many more constantly recommended by educators to young children.

        Not their place!

        The agenda in the Schools is clear, and America is sick of it.

        Open your eyes jeff.

        1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
          Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You cannot account all homosexuals choosing to be gay, to they being molested as children, clear, perfectly.
          Okay, glad we've got that straight.

          But there is a large percentage of homosexual men who attribute that choice and behaviour, to having been molested.
          So, there's a lot of homosexual men who say, "I'm gay because I was molested?" A "large percentage?" Where do you get this statistic?

          -"Sexual preference is a choice?"-

          Yes it is. And I don't have to make a choice... I am naturally attracted to the opposite sex, as is the norm. If I were to go with a guy, it would be by CHOICE.

          Oh, so it isn't a choice, but it is a choice. Except when it isn't.

          The old lady that cuts in and say they will be the leaders of tomorrow and if we have not indoctrinated them they will not build a better society... well that is true, but debatable as to what constitutes a better society. Social Engineering.
          Oh, so Social Engineering and indoctrination is okay, but only if the kids are being indoctrinated with your belief system?

          "The agenda in the Schools is clear,"
          Or would be, without the homophobic spin from sites like massresistance.com. I've encountered massresistance before. They're a bunch of lying liars who tell lies. (To be fair, they take an event that happened, say the event happened on a different date, and completely mischaracterize what happened at the event.)

          Any "agenda" that gay folks and their allies have is simply to teach the truth that gay people exist, and that it's not okay to persecute them. Also, to let gay teens know that, hey, there are others, and you'll be okay.

          But it's a lot easier to be scared that the gay people will corrupt our youth, curdle the milk, and taint our precious bodily fluids with fluoride in the water.

          You keep taking the easy path if that makes you happy.

          In the meantime, gay couples can now get married in New York. Soon, the rest of the country will realize that it's a waste of energy to keep oppressing gay people, and we can start to focus on stuff that will actually make our country a better place, like fixing the disastrous Citizens United decision or the one about local governments being allowed to use eminent domain to take private property and give it to other private owners.

          These kind of things are actual problems. Gay people living their lives isn't a problem.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            -"Yes it is. And I don't have to make a choice... I am naturally attracted to the opposite sex, as is the norm. If I were to go with a guy, it would be by CHOICE.
            Oh, so it isn't a choice, but it is a choice. Except when it isn't."-

            You know the difinitions of, "normal" and "abnormal", "deviant" and "natural", as well as I do. So lets not play games.

            You know damn well that when you deviate from the natural course or behaviour of a system, it is by choice, and the adherance of it is only choice,  because the question of making the choice to deviat, or not, is being chose to be presented at all.

            So try again...

            If you want to play word games, I will. But I thought your were actually having a discussion and had some valid point somewhere you were slowly crawling to, Jeff. But appearently not.


            --"Oh, so Social Engineering and indoctrination is okay, but only if the kids are being indoctrinated with your belief system?"--

            Oh your funny. The agenda IS TO BE decided by Parents, Community, and who we ask for advice from, not the NEA, the AAUP, the Fed Dept. of Education, and all the special interest groups, who shove their faces and forces into it.

            Another simple point.

            Again... shall I slow down for you?


            ---"They're a bunch of lying liars who tell lies."---

            Huh... Stuart Smalley quotes, do not ever win a debates, Jeff. lol lol

            Here is a more complete Source for the Homosexual and leant Leftist' Socialist/Progressive Agendas, all over the country which sources many union and educations sites. And that is chalk full o'goodies like these...

            ----“Oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms need to be taught in education,” Diane Schneider told the audience at a panel on combating homophobia and transphobia.  Schneider, representing the National Education Association (NEA), the largest teachers union in the US, advocated for more “inclusive” sex education in US schools, with curricula based on liberal hetero and homosexual expression.  She claimed that the idea of sex education remains an oxymoron if it is abstinence-based, or if students are still able to opt-out.

            Comprehensive sex education is “the only way to combat heterosexism and gender conformity,” Schneider proclaimed, “and we must make these issues a part of every middle and high-school student’s agenda.”  “Gender identity expression and sexual orientation are a spectrum,” she explained, and said that those opposed to homosexuality “are stuck in a binary box that religion and family create.”

            A woman wants to teach children as young as eleven about oral sex, masturbation, and orgasms in a public school setting and it’s not news!!??!!

            A little digging finds that Ms. Schneider is a high school health educator and very active with the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) in upstate NY, where she is its co-chair. She is also proud of the Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) that she advises in her high school. Her presentation at the UN conference was part of her training from the NEA’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Trainer of Trainers."---

            Yes they are true heroes to the lil children, are they not?

            http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/education.html

            They won't be marrying anywhere the actual people of that state don't want them to be, as soon as we re-claim States' Rights, another front this battle is being waged on. They can all have all the civil Unions they want though.

            The Leftists Socialist/Progressive poison, has infected our system to a large extent, and we, America, know it is going to take a few, or more, election cycles to clear you all out. But we,the American People, are sick of them all.

            And yes the eminent domain issue, another Marxist infection welling up, who else siezes private property to use as they will, other than Stalin, Mao, Chavez, and assorted other Leftist Commies and Socialists, and yes I am well aware it was the Progressive Right and Leant Left together who did that. I am also aware the more democrat on the Court dis-agreed with the ruling, so no more lectures.

            1. Jeff Berndt profile image90
              Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              "You know the difinitions of, "normal" and "abnormal", "deviant" and "natural", as well as I do. So lets not play games. "
              Yes, I do, and I further know that "normal is not synonymous with "natural" nor is "deviant" its antonym.

              If who someone is attracted to is a matter of conscious choice, then it's a matter of conscious choice for everyone. If it's not, then it's something else. You happened to mention that you like brunettes more than blondes. Why? Did you make a conscious choice? Or do you just like them?

              "You know damn well that when you deviate from the natural course or behaviour of a system, it is by choice, and the adherance of it is only choice,  because the question of making the choice to deviat, or not, is being chose to be presented at all. "

              No. That hasn't been shown, so I don't 'damn well know it,' and neither do you.

              "If you want to play word games, I will." Okay, but you'll have to learn that "deviant" only means "different from the majority," not "bad" or "immoral" or even "unnatural." Just different.

              "Stuart Smalley quotes, do not ever win a debates, Jeff. "
              Maybe not, but the fact remains that massresistance are a bunch of homophobes who tell half-truths, exaggerate, and even outright lie to frighten the credulous into helping them oppress gay people. No doubt they're doing what they imagine is right, but the bottom line is that they're trying to oppress those who are different form them.

              "And yes the eminent domain issue, another Marxist infection welling up, who else siezes private property to use as they will, other than Stalin, Mao, Chavez,"... and the City of New London, Connecticut. They didn't take the land for public use, though, they sold the land to a private developer. That was the problem with the issue: the land wasn't needed for a freeway or a military base, or a radar station or some other use that benefits the public. No, this was mainly for the benefit of a private developer, and the development was going to be not a public place but would be in (different) private hands.

              Gay couples getting married doesn't take people's homes away, but lots of folks seem to be more upset of this chimaerical violation of their imagined rights* than about this eminent domain issue, which does have the real potential to actually violate your (and my) actual property rights.

              *It's not your right never to be offended by two gay people getting married. If you don't like it, don't go to the wedding.

  26. 0
    Sherlock221bposted 5 years ago

    Glad you had a good time.  Where I live in Birmingham, England, we had the Gay Pride parade last month, and there were probably as many straight people there as gay ones.  Thankfully there has never been any protests, but I think bible-thumping in England went out with Queen Victoria.  The British seem to be an atheistic lot, which perhaps allows for a fairer society   than is sometimes evident in countries which still have a religious majority.  And I am sure if anyone were to try and protest, they would be quickly moved-on by the police, who enjoyed the parade as much as anyone.  But it is nice to know that even in the US, there is now so much support for the gay population.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      There was a bit of bible thumping in Manchester at this years Gay Pride march. I believe that the police soon put a stop to it.

      I'm sure some people will comment on the police repressing freedom of speech but they do seem to have a pretty good attitude to religious bigotry. Last year we had a bunch of fundamental christians provoking Muslim yoofs, the police stamped on the FCs pretty quickly.

  27. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Whatever, E.

    You asked me questions, I answered. You don't like the answers, too bad. You stated something about some movie, and made a statement inferring something ignorant about American dads, and that inferred insult was just fine.


    I commented on the movie and asked if you thought that was okay, based on the show I thought you were talking about, hypthetically asking if you would do it. But now you claim that isn't the movie, and your insulted by me wondering if you condoned such, and would act in such a way. Too bad.

    You canot answer a question without personalizing... too bad. No where did I say you would do that... I asked if you would... and in asking such was the implication of condoning such behaviour. Which is clear from the context of the entire post, for those who can comprehend. Too bad.

    You and John can both pull that , "oh you insulted me" BS, if you two are going to personalize every conversation... too bad. I am not going to be PC-ed by you or anyone else. I have said nothing wrong, have your hissy fit.

    Grow up an stop twisting.

    And you go ahead an interpret what you think I said in this thread that was so awful. I will be right here wiating, E.

    1. earnestshub profile image89
      earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      No twisting. Read what you wrote.

      American Dad is a fabulously popular animated cartoon series almost as well known as "The Simpsons."
      It's an American production as far as I know.

      How you don't know it is a mystery to me.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Don't know it.

        The only one I know is a movie about what I explained to you. Which is why I couldn't figure out why you would say it was about real American Dads. And why I wondered if you thought that would be appropriate behaviour.

        So if there was a mis-communication, then I apologize. 

        I am sorry if you took that wrong, E. Thats where it ends for me, you want to continue on, then fine, I am done. I explained way back of the show I was thinking you spoke of, and no where till now have you said anything about a cartoon. So I would say this is simple confusion.

  28. John Holden profile image59
    John Holdenposted 5 years ago

    TM, reading some of the comments on the links you posted,I was reminded of your comment that America was the most sexually liberated country in the world and laughed myself silly at the amount of sexual repression shown.

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That is not what I said. I said we are the freest nation in the world, and one of the most accepting in the world. I never used the term, "Most sexually liberated in the world", that is what you want to intepret them to mean, so as to try and trap me in a statement you infer, instead of reading my words for what they say.

      So try again, John.

      And good morning, afternoon.

      1. John Holden profile image59
        John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        So liberated and free have different meanings in your world!

        And morning to you too.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The way your trying to twist it to mean is.

          Your using it as if because our whole nation doesn't embrace and accept it as normal behaviour, then we are not free, "Sexually liberated". I am saying this is the freest nation in the world, and if you want to choose to do those things you can, and we, the rest of America, are free to reject your decisiona and action as immoral and abnormal.

          See how that works, John? Feedom goes both ways. Your freedom to do as you please ends at my prvate property, my nose or personal space, and at forcing me to commit, or accecpt those acts committed, as normal and acceptable behaviour. My freedom ends at your private property, your space, your choices and behaviours, and at not forcing anything for behaviour upon you.

          You all scream about religionists pushing their agenda on you, and all you do is try to push shit on us, through our kids and other BS ways.

          You can all do as you please, just do not think you are free to force it upon others, you are not.

          1. John Holden profile image59
            John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            But that's exactly what you are trying to do, don't you see that?
            You aren't talking about freedom on private property, you are talking about restrictions across the board.
            I don't believe you about the homosexual agenda but even if I did surely freedom would say that it was up to each person to decide, not for blanket legislation?

            What you are saying is that lefties should have no freedoms at all because they clash with your big picture.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Not at all. That is what you are saying. I have said it clearly John. it is each individuals choice and righht to mae that choiuce. the Schools do not get to push it and niether does anyone else get to push theirs on anyone.

              So twist again.

              And it has to be an intentional twist, because I do not think you are that,----, as to not understand what I am sayin.

              And that agenda is in the schools, plain simple fact.

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            "I am saying this is the freest nation in the world, and if you want to choose to do those things you can, and we, the rest of America, are free to reject your decisiona and action as immoral and abnormal."

            That's absolutely true, and I support that.  The problem is that (many of) the folks who reject homosexuality not only reject it, but want also to force gay people underground.

            If you don't think homosexuality is pkay, that's fine. Don't have teh ghay secks.

            Nobody is trying to turn you gay. You're free to be as straight as you want to be. Letting a gay couple get married does not infringe on your right to be straight anymore than me marrying my wife infringes on your right to marry yours.

            You claim to insist on your right to do as you please, but you're trying to infringe on the rights of others to do as they please.

            It's kind of reminiscent of the slave-owning revolutionaries--the loudest yelps for freedom came from the drivers of slaves.

  29. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    To deviate from the natural, is un-natural. I have never use the word any other way. That is all you putting the ill intent within its use. Not me.

    And I have not argued that emmeinent domain is being used correctly, have I? No.

    And you ignore masressistance all you want. Here are tons of quote and issues drawn straight form their own agendas and site..

    http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/education.html

    And Gay Marriage is a social issue, and does not belong in kinder-garden, and niether do the other social issues. They are pushing their agendas on children inorder to create their next voting blocks in the pre-school. It is simply indoctrination. Period.

    And as far is If don't think it is apokay, don't teach the kids it is at the age of 6, when they are to young to even be brought into the issue. That is the argument... not me. You mad cause the agenda is out in the open and all your denials were shown to be less than honest.

    They can do as exacltly as they please, but the do not get extra rights, nor do they get to destroy Social institutions because they want to indoctrtinate children into their agendas.

    -"WALKING THE TALK: Classroom Resources for Addressing Bias
    This advanced workshop, designed for K-12 classroom instructors, examines various approaches to designing and integrating activities into the classroom that raise awareness of bias and empower students to advocate for change, especially around anti-GLBT bias."-

    http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/education.html

    That is indoctrination in the class to the Leftist/Progressive, agenda straight from the NEA themselves.


    --WorldNetDaily reported the following regarding the workshop that taught homosexuality to school children:--

    --"Cybercast News Service called the event "a state-sponsored workshop in which educators instructed teens in graphic homosexual sex."[1] Sean Hannity wrote about the workshop in his book, Let Freedom Ring, and William Bennett wrote about the workshop in his book The Broken Hearth."--

    http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_Schools

    It does not belong in the schools... too bad!


    --Childhood sexual abuse is well attested to demonstrate a correlation to the incidence of homosexuality among those affected by it. A large national survey of almost 35,000 Americans showed that more than three times as many men and women who had been sexually abused as children became homosexuals, versus that of heterosexuals. (-7.4 percent or homosexual men and 3.1 percent of females, versus 2.0 percent of heterosexual men and 0.8 percent women.- )

    Another study reported that 58 percent of male adolescents who later became homosexuals suffered sexual abuse as children, while 90 percent who did not suffer sexual abuse identified themselves as heterosexuals. In addition, 43 percent of male homosexuals reported sexual activity with another male during the ages of 10-12, versus 9 percent of heterosexuals.

    See; Sheir and Johnson, Sexual victimization of boys:... (1988) pp. 1189-93, and, Manosevitz, "Early sexual behavior in adult homosexual and heterosexual males", Journal of abnormal psychology, 76 (1970), 396-402.

    http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homo … te_note-14

    Enjoy the reading, those studies are very well documented and show very clearly early childhood abuse has an impact on many of them and their sexual choices through conditioning.


    http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homo … te_note-14

    http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/education.html

    http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_Schools

    There are more than enogh source to verify your wrong on everone of those links. And to show that this BS is being pushed on kids as young as 5, 6 and 7 up top and through their entire schooling. Yet many cannot even read or write, or add and subtract. The Education system is a failure and this is why... Agendas... BS!

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      roll Blatant irrationality supported by an underlying religious belief. lol

    2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
      Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      "To deviate from the natural, is un-natural. I have never use the word any other way. That is all you putting the ill intent within its use. Not me."

      Except homosexuality isn't "deviating from the natural." It's deviating from the norm, certainly, but it is no less natural than any thing else that deviates from the norm.

      "You mad cause the agenda is out in the open and all your denials were shown to be less than honest. "
      Well, I suppose if there were an "agenda," and it had in fact been put out in the open, and my "denials" had been shown to be "less than honest," I might be upset. But I'm really not, because none of that stuff is actually the case.

      "They [gays] can do as exacltly as they please, but the do not get extra rights, nor do they get to destroy Social institutions because they want to indoctrtinate children into their agendas."
      Nobody is asking for extra rights. They're asking for the same rights that everyone else enjoys.
      Nobody is trying to destroy any social institution. People are trying to take part in one. There's a difference, and it's pretty big.

      The only thing gay people what kids to learn about them is that gay people are people too, and deserve the same rights and responsibilities that any other person has. That's all. Nothing else.

      But treating gay people the same as other people is terrifying for some.

      I dunno, I'm just not too worried that my marriage will collapse if a couple dudes in New York (or across the street) get married.

      Anybody else afraid their marriage will end if two random strangers of the same sex are allowed to get married? General question for anyone to answer who wants to.

      Also, Conservapedia? And you accuse others of being agenda-driven.

  30. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Give it up, Cags, rational people do dis-agree with the BS agendas being pushed in our schools and by you all. Too bad.

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The fact you see it as an agenda is the irrationality of your argument. TOO BAD for you. tongue

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        They freely express it is their agenda, Cags. I believe all they tell me. I give people the benifit of the doubt that they are not lying to me. Go read the sites and cited sources if you have any questions as to the truth of the agenda issue.

        1. Cagsil profile image84
          Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Only those who are willfully ignorant see it as an agenda, and gays/lesbians DO NOT express it as an agenda, but as individual RIGHTS. Please learn the difference.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, Cags, it is an AGENDA, please learn the difference.

            Lesson is over, Cags, plenty of info for all to mull-over on all those sites with all those sources I have posted.

            Matter of fact I will come back later and simply post some of it for others to look through and determine for themselves what the truth of the matter is as goes the Homosexual Agenda in our Schools, among other Leant Leftist Progressive Agendas.


            http://www.earstohear.net/Separation/education.html

            http://conservapedia.com/Causes_of_Homo … te_note-14

            http://www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php

            http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_in_Schools

            Lessons over Cags...

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              For you to teach a lesson to someone, you must use rationality, not irrationality based on a religious belief, which is something YOU as a person cannot get away from.

              Yes TM, class is OVER!

          2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
            Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Well, to be fair, there is an agenda, but the agenda is merely to teach kids that it's wrong to persecute those who are different from themselves. That's all.

            I can see how this would seem threatening to those who like to persecute people who are different from themselves.

            But really, it's not all that scary.

            1. TMMason profile image74
              TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Another reduced. Keep talking, Jeff. If the truth is persecution, then I am it's greatest Inquisitor.

              http://agendadocumentary.com/

              Cags has already admitted it exists, and then backed off it when I threw it all into the fan. I am glad to see after two days you've decided to admit the truth of its existence, if not the truth of its intent.

              http://agendadocumentary.com/

              "AMERICA IS LIKE A HEALTHY BODY AND ITS RESISTANCE IS THREEFOLD: ITS PATRIOTISM, ITS MORALITY, ITS SPRIRUAL LIFE. IF WE CAN UNDERMINE THESE THREE AREAS, AMERICA WILL COLLAPSE FROM WITHIN"

              -JOSEPH STALIN- also know as "Uncle Joe", by FDR and the Socialists and Commies lovers of the 30 till today.

              Welcome to the AGENDA America... hope you like the dream they have for your country.

              http://agendadocumentary.com/

              1. Cagsil profile image84
                Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                TM, go learn what rights are, before you attempt to think you can handle the argument.

                I'm done with your inability to understand your place in this world and what your role is in America's society.

                This class is definitely over now.

              2. Jeff Berndt profile image90
                Jeff Berndtposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Wait, what? You think an agenda of teaching that all people should treat each other with mutual respect is somehow part of that paranoid fantasy that you've been spinning here?

                Yeah, okay.  roll

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  The Educators, NEA and those groups involved go alot further than teaching kids to be nice to each other. And you know from the sounds of your rhetorict.

                  There is managed Agenda going on to build good lil useful-idots for the collective, good lil Activist, and teaching them the Agenda they will accept and fight for when they get older.

                  Lenin was correct, 4 years is all that is required, the Leftists have 13 years to do it, and more. Teachers have no right to teach politics and poilcies, nor sexual morals or most of the BS the are indoctrinating kids into. And then  the kids cannot Read or Write, or apply Critical Thinking Skills, Reasoning and Logic, cannot do Math or understand Science.

                  It is sad.

                  And there are the Teachers and their Unions and the machine, patting itself and themselves on the back and declaring they are heroes... what a bunch of zeroes!

            2. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Jeff, teaching people equality isn't an agenda. It's teach them truth about how life should be lived.

              1. earnestshub profile image89
                earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                From what I see with kids, it is not automatic to discriminate.

                Little ones seem to notice differences and accept them at the same time if left to their own devices. smile

                1. TMMason profile image74
                  TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, if left to their own, E.

                  Not have the Agendas of others' pushed upon them in every last detail of the life-style.

                  Exactly... good to know we agree.

                  Cags... whatever. I told you, lesson over, go read a source or two, and learn your role. Damn you sound like an angry educator all mad cause the kids told their parents what you were teaching in your secret classrom. Too bad...

                  You all love the Science so much till it destroys your argument. Then I must take your BS on faith... what a laugh.

                  Just like most of the people I have ever met like you.

                  "GIVE ME FOUR YEARS TO TEACH THE CHILDREN AND THE SEED I HAVE SOWN WILL NEVER BE UPROOTED!"

                  -VLADIMIR ILIYICH LENIN-

  31. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    This is the truth of that Myth, which was finally de-bunked in 2005 by the Homosexual Activists and Orgs in their own U.S.Court filings, as to have lied on those would have been Purjury.

    A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).

    Homosexuals Admit 10% Is Wrong

    Homosexual activist groups have finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is “gay” is false. This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.

    In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: “The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.”

    Despite this indirect admission that the 10% figure homosexuals have used for more than two decades is wrong, the writers of the brief still continue to lie about the real numbers. The claim that 4 million men and 2 million women are gay is based on multiplying the 2.8% and 1.4% figures by the total number of males and females in the U.S. It is unreasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are 14 or younger (including 40 million who are under nine years of age) as “openly gay men and women.” Yet, that is what this brief claims. Even as homosexuals admit they’re wrong about the 10% figure, they apparently still can’t resist lying about their true numbers in our population.

    Debunking The Urban Legend

    What do scientific surveys and studies show about how many homosexuals actually exist? As long ago as the early 1990s, statistics showed that the 10% was false.

    USA Today, in its April 15, 1993 issue published the following statistics from a Planned Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute study:
    Only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 39 said they had experienced a same-sex relationship in the past decade. Only 1.1% said they were exclusively gay.


    A 1989 U.S. survey indicated that no more than 6% of adults had any kind of same-sex experience. Less than 1% said they were exclusively gay.


    A 1992 French study found that only 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said they had any same-sex contact in the past five years.


    In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) provided data indicating that of the 6% who have ever experienced same-sex relations, the number of currently active homosexuals (at that time) was .06-0.7%. The source for this is: T.W. Smith, Planning Perspectives 23, May/June 1991).
    The Wall Street Journal shed more light on the 10% urban legend in its March 31, 1993 issue:

    A survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-86) of public school students indicated that only 0.6% of boys and 0.2% of girls identified themselves "mostly or 100% homosexual"-which is less than one percent!


    In Canada, a 1988 survey of first-year college students under 25 indicated that 98% were heterosexual; 1% bisexual; and 1% homosexual. (Source: King, et al. Canada, Youth and AIDS Study, Kingston, Ontario: Queen's University.)

    http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php


    Nope... about 2.5% to maybe 3.5% if that. It has been admitted to by the homosexual activists and Orgs. themselves in thier own U.S. Court filings. They couldn't lie there, so they had to tell the truth, it would have been pujury.

  32. Mighty Mom profile image89
    Mighty Momposted 5 years ago

    Who cares if they are 1%, 10% or 80% of the population?
    They deserve the same legal rights as others.
    And not for anything, if the "official" count of gays in America is "only" 2.3% then isn't it a bit ridiculous to waste SOOO much negative energy on such an insignificant number of people?
    They must really, really threaten Republicans to be continually put in the spotlight for rebuke. roll

    BTW, I didn't read the entire thread so this may have been covered, but I think that what Michelle Bachmann's husband said about "barbarians" (referring to gays, bisexuals, transgenders -- or "would be" gays, bisexuals, transgenders) is itself barbaric.
    What a self-righteous prig.
    I would be really, really interested to know how many of their 23 foster kids ended up being gay. Horrors!!!  sad!

    1. TMMason profile image74
      TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously the Leant Leftists and the Homosexual Activists care about it, MM. Or they wouldn't try to lie about the numbers. I am simply correcting the record to have the proper facts reflected.

      If they want to talk about percentages as an opinion, fine. But there is no support for the numbers that poeople throw around claiming 10%, 20%, 25%, just in an attempt to "normalize" their bahaviour in this society.

      WRONG! The stats and their own Court Filings show that to be a myth, and we are speaking "fact" here. I am tired of the opinions of fact based on false assertions of the Science and Polls on this issue. And their slinging them as facts and never being corrected by anyone.

      Science and the Polls do not support their claims. And they cannot lie about it and say it does. Period... no more propaganda.

      http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php

      1. earnestshub profile image89
        earnestshubposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Hardly an impartial link TM! lol

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          The info comes directly from the U.S. Court Filing, google it and read it E. It is a Legal court Document prepared by them....

          "Friend of the Court", Amicus brief, filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief; 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: “The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.”

          That is valid info... google away bro. Try to dismiss a Legal Document on File with the US Court... that is absurd even for you, E.

          And you know that.

          You can find this info on the web if you try... U.S. Courts are public information and all the records are online, go read.

  33. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    No I do not... do you see a man and women together and have to decide which one you would rather sleep with. No, that is called natural, if you chose , yes, that is called deviant, abnormal, or un-natural.

    Of course your welcome to do what ever you want with either one, John. You have the right to in a free society, doesn't mean anyone else has to accept it as moral or Natural, or even acceptable to practice by the majority

    And I think some external influences, regardless of how small or large, singular, repetative or continous, can have an effect; lust, curiosity, etc..., and I think some small group of people are tempted to take up those desires and wants, curiosities or indulgences, and some percentage of that enjoys them to an additive value in their life, or embrace it as a great part of their life, or even come to believe that they are perfectly correct in what they are doing and honestly see no wrong about it.

    But none of that speaks to, or causes the arising of, genetic homosexuality, and the science nowhere suppports such a claim.

    We see from the correct information posted this morning as regards the percentage of the population of Homosexuals in the United States, that this in no way represents a huge percentage and any type of Societal norm at all. 0.9% of men, 0.4% of women,(I will even give the benifit of the doubt and say a total of 2.5% over-all)-, does not constitute normal, or accepted, nor does in infer an acceptance of its practice on some massive scale, or that many have to constantly make that choice.


    It doesn't look as if many want to take up this hobby... I think more fly kites.

    It is a choice, John.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The sooner you realise that it is no more a choice than your preference for women is a choice the sooner you will turn into a decent human being.

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What-ever, John.

        You hold to that delusion. Not one field of Science supports your assertion, nor do any statistics from any studies, but continue on with your fairy-tale.

        You remind me of a religionist, a fanatic, with your blind faith in Genetic Homosexuality.

        I thought you believed in Science and what could be shown through it methodologies, and data? But that's only when it serves your purpose, eh? Just like the rest, toss it aside when it conflicts with your agenda.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          What assertion? And where did I say that I believed homosexuality was genetic?

          If it is a choice then why do some men volunteer for the most barbaric "cures"?

          And why does the medical profession say that there is no "cure" for homosexuality?

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ … rientation

          I'm not tossing aside science, I leave that up to you.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You cannot cure a choice, period, John. Simple.

            1. John Holden profile image59
              John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Even when the person supposedly making that choice wants to change?

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Have you ever met a heroin addict? Yes even if.

                1. John Holden profile image59
                  John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Many times, one of my closest friends is a heroin addict.
                  So what is your point?

                  1. TMMason profile image74
                    TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    If you cannot get my point, then think on it for a while.

                    Science suppports no assertions of Genetic Homosexuality, your assumtions and others are just that and are based on FAITH in your own experiences.... you all sound like a bunch pof religionists. Quoting flawed studies and old reports, while leaving out, (as you accuse the religious of suppssedly doing), the facts you know to be real and dis-prove you own beliefs.

                    Funny... attack your religions, Homosex-Science and Evolution, and you cannot support them with anything but... "oh well we think, we belive... blah blah blah..."

                    The APA states as folowing... "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors..."

                    In their newest report, go read all about it. No conclusion can be reached through any of the science which has been done. Meaning no science to support Genetic Homosexuality.

                    Too bad.

                    http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

                    Huh! What a laugh... I will not take your assumptions on faith, and you have no science to back it up, never mind support it enough to reach a science based conclusion.

                    You all talk about operating on logic and reason... wow... what a laugh!

        2. Paradise7 profile image86
          Paradise7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          TM, science DOES support the idea that there is a genetic pre-disposition to being gay or being straight.  I know quite a few gay people ( my own brother, included) and I, personally, am quite convinced from direct observation, these people had no choice, really.  It is what it is.

          Everyone is androgynous to some degree:  we all have both male and female hormones.  The genome that determines sexual orientation regulates hormones, also; it is NOT the chromosome that determines whether we are male or female from birth.

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            You can be convinced all you want, I have supplied link after to link and their own sides information, it does not support that conclusion. Period. NO scientific conclusions can be reached as regards that issue. Not at all.

            You can assume it all you want. But no science backs that assumtion up.

  34. Franklin Lowe profile image61
    Franklin Loweposted 5 years ago via iphone

    I definitely agree with that statement. I feel that there is no true thing as sexuality in this world anymore. Everyone likes what they like and is happy with whom ever they are with. So I know I support the concept of happiness rather it be in the idea of orientation. Some of the people I love and hang out with most are bisexual or homosexual so who am I to hare or judge. I am not god. I support them because they are flesh and blood just as I.

  35. Franklin Lowe profile image61
    Franklin Loweposted 5 years ago via iphone

    I don't believe that it is a choice. It is something that you are born feeling. Who would want to choose to be disliked by a large percentage of society?

  36. Bredavies profile image70
    Bredaviesposted 5 years ago

    Pride in Minneapolis was a lot of fun. I support the gay community completely.

  37. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    --"Former neuroscientist Simon LeVay made a brief splash 15 years ago with research purporting to show that a part of gay men's brains he claimed was associated with sexual attraction in animals was slightly more like the brains of women than were the brains of ostensibly heterosexual men.

    The study had a number of problems. The gay men all died of AIDS but the effect of the disease and antiviral drugs on the brain was left unexplored. The orientation of the supposedly non-gay men was actually unknown. The role of the studied brain segment in humans is uncertain. And some gay men's brain segments were more "male" than some of the heterosexual men's. The study has not been replicated and LeVay soon retired from neuroscience research.--"

    http://igfculturewatch.com/2006/05/03/s … straction/

    And that is straighht for the Gay community themselves.

    ________________________________________________________________

    Claims of genetic causation

    According to Joe Dallas, author and former homosexual, "People tend to view homosexuality more favorably when they think it is inborn. No wonder gay leaders (not all, but most) push the born gay theory; it furthers the cause."

    Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a medical doctor and former fellow in child psychiatry at Yale University, has taken a thorough look at three particular studies that backfired on themselves. Upon closer evaluation, this is what he discovered:

    Flawed Study #1: Brain Structure

    In the August 1991 issue of Science, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute in San Diego published a study on differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men.

    The study, however, had at least three glaring weaknesses:
    1.It was based on a small group of 41 male cadavers, including 19 homosexual males. All of the homosexual men had died of AIDS, something that many researchers believe could very well account for or contribute to the differences (in the brain stem).

    2.There is no way to determine if the smaller hypothalamuses were the cause or the result of homosexual behavior.

    3.The area of the brain LeVay was measuring (the INAH3) was quite small — smaller than snowflakes, according to scientists interviewed. His peers in the neuroscientific community couldn't agree on whether the INAH3 should be measured by its size and volume, or by its number of neurons.

    Flawed Study #2: Twins

    In another study, psychologist Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and psychiatrist Richard Pillard of the Boston University School of Medicine showed that homosexuality occurred more frequently among identical twins than fraternal twins. But their 1991 study had a major flaw: All of their twins grew up together.

    These researchers failed to compare their findings with a control group of twins raised apart. If they had, they would have discovered other influencing factors, such as how family dynamics and their relationship with parents affected who they were. Not to mention only about half the identical twins studied were both homosexuals. So, if the study showed that homosexuality in twins was purely genetic, then both of the twins would have been homosexual 100 percent of the time.

    Flawed Study #3: The X-Chromosome

    Lastly, five researchers led by Dean Hamer at the National Cancer Institute released a study in July of 1993 that attempted to link homosexuality in men with a specific genetic region of the X-chromosome. "This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is an important genetic component to sexual orientation," Hamer reported.

    Not so, said other highly qualified professionals. "There are several problems with the Hamer study. First, a Canadian research team has been unable to duplicate the finding using a comparable experimental design. Second, Hamer confined his search to the X-chromosome on the basis of family interviews, which seems to reveal a disproportionately high number of male homosexuals on the mothers' sides of the family.

    Additionally, one of Hamer's co-authors has expressed serious concerns about the methodology of the study. Finally, there is some question about whether Hamer's results, correctly interpreted, are statistically significant. His conclusions rest on the assumption that the rate of homosexuality in the population at large is 2 percent. If the base rate is actually higher, then Hamer's results are not statistically significant.

    An interesting side note is that the 2 percent incidence figure is more accurate than the oft-noted 1-in-10 percentage. The lower figure is brought in when needed to bolster this slight effect, but generally overlooked by the media elsewhere.

    These are only three examples of popular studies that were later found to be unreliable due to failure to meet basic criteria for establishing scientific facts, lack of clarity on behalf of the researcher, faulty method of study, or ignorance of basic scientific premises. Other studies hold no weight because the conclusions have been insinuated rather than proven. It's these flawed studies, however, that receive the most publicity.

    Most recently, Dr. Robert Spitzer, one of the men who helped eliminate the American Psychiatric Association's listing of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, acknowledged that some homosexuals can become heterosexual. In an interview with the CitizenLink online newsletter, Spitzer said, "The critics of this kind of therapy (to change homosexuality) don't just argue that it is rarely effective; they argue that it's never effective."

    Only one kind of person

    No solid scientific evidence exists today that people are born homosexual. 

    Interestingly enough, genetic predeterminants have also been theorized for alcoholism or depression. Neither alcoholism nor depression is embraced as healthy. Rather, we try to help people who suffer from these tendencies to find relief and recovery.

    The same holds true for homosexuality. From conception, males differ from females. Every cell in the male body is different from every cell in the female's. There are vast disparities between males and females that are currently overlooked by the popular media. But, by design, male was meant for female, and vice versa.

    Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality, states, "We are all heterosexual. Some heterosexuals have a homosexual problem, but it does not mean there are two different kinds of people." As such, the hope for finding freedom from its trap is all the more real.

    In the words of Stanton Jones, Chair of Psychology at Wheaton College, "Anyone who says there is no hope (for change) is either ignorant or a liar. Every secular study of change has shown some success rate, and persons who testify to substantial healings by God are legion."

    http://www.troubledwith.com/ParentingTe … osexuality

    Even the Gay community knows he was wrong and his worked was flawed, John. Try again...

    I told you, all those studies were found to be FLAWED and biased by those who did them.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Thus proving that you and you alone are correct and homosexuality is freely chosen!

      Tell me, why have many men chosen to put themselves through hell to be "cured" of this choice?

      1. Shadesbreath profile image89
        Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You do realize it's pointless, right? He's got his handful of links that suit his purpose (some only by willfully misinterpreting what they say), and anything anyone else says is "therefore completely disproven."

        This type of thinking just has to run its course through history. Fortunately, it is, and has been for the last two centuries or so. The last vestiges of the "superior" are mostly gone (at least on the openly racial front). Another twenty years or so and we'll be purged but for a few lingering wisps in the fanatic corners of somewhere. They'll call themselves "the righteous" or "holy soldiers" or something, blow up some coffee shops in the name of God, but, for the most part, they'll be all gone, rooted out by the lights of too many beaming cell phone cameras. Funny that they wouldn't consider themselves terrorists for that suicide thing though. Irony is fun.

        1. TMMason profile image74
          TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Just like you all to want to, "Purge", those who do not agree with you.

          Your Progressive, Socialist, Communist, Marxist, fore-fathers would be proud of you.

          Chips off the ole block.

          If you cannot defeat it... purge it!

          And yes... you all have been doing a wonderful job of purging contradictory opinions in your holds on the Social Institutions, Schools, Education Systems and Unions, etc... but we are on our way to re-claiming many of them and removing your agendas.

          We will not allow any more, PURGES, from your types, never again in history will we allow that. All you Leant Leftists and Progressives have slaughtered millions in your purges to rule thought, and control man to your own ends.

          Won't be allowed again.

          And half those source were your sides' own, that were used to support your sides' story, until the truth was dug from them, then your side threw them in the trash barrel. And cried... "Faith!"... "We believe this is so"... "We think it is so from our guesses"... blah blah blah... your all a bunch of religionists, just like the ones you all hate so bad.

          And I can supply many, many, many more. But you won't like those ether...

          So... too bad.

          1. Shadesbreath profile image89
            Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nobody is doing any purging but you. You purge yourseves. The more hate you spew, the more people you seek to opress with dogma and outdated belief systems, the more you run good people off. The purging from  your ranks is an inevitable outcome of reason and of good, over fork-tongued rhetoric and, yes, evil, repressive, hateful evil. Most people are inherently good and know what hate looks like. The only reason anyone is left in your camp at all is because they are either in thrall to deceptive arguments and promises of eternal salvation or just plain afraid to be judged and beaten to death if they don't do His will as your side declares it is supposed to be done. But good people stand up to ridicule, and, in time, good hearts see it and move toward the light of reason, love and kindness. It is inevitable. You can't hold them to you with hate for long without force, and you aren't holding them. The tides turn against you with each turn of the calendar year. Tic toc, tic toc. Your time is running out. Shout all you want, but everyone who deserves respect and equality will have it soon enough, whether YOU have declared them worthy or not.

  38. Ohma profile image80
    Ohmaposted 5 years ago

    WOW! Are we still beating this horse? Who cares why gay people are gay? The fact is they are.
    I do not need science or God to validate why I am straight why would we need them to validate why some among us are gay. It is simply insane to think that gay people need any such validation. They simply are who thay are the same as any other being on the planet.

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Sanity at last.

  39. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Yes I am sure you would like that to be, but the Agenda existent within our schools and social institution, and your sides own words, have outed you all.

    And America is sick of you all polluting and destroying our children with your BS agendas and your immorality and anti-Americanism.

    We are tired of our children being told gay is natural and we are all animals, in the effort to force acceptance of the immoral and un-natural upon us all.

    Kids today cannot pass a test, but they have all the agenda issues locked in on the lefts' side, Agenda! They are taught by you all to act in idiot ways, but they cannot think, read, write, do complex math, science, or any other intellectual ability. Angenda. But they are just dumb enough to accept your BS theories and immorallity... isn't that convienent. Agenda.

    In short... we are tired of you all dumbing our children down and destroying thier morallity, and we are in the process of removing you all.

    Shout all the hate you want about it, Shade... we do not care about the Leftists and agenda driven groups crying and hissy fit'n anymore. We will remove the Unions and yourselves from our childrens lives, and fix the shit-hole you all have created in the last 90 years.

    1. Shadesbreath profile image89
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So funny to see you calling the desire for equality anti-American. Reminds me of when my 2 year old used to have these whole-bodied screaming tantrums insisting she wasn't tired.

      Irony really, really is fun. Oh well.

      Tic toc. Tic toc.

    2. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Hey TMMason,

      As a citizen of America, I think it time you started to self-evaluate and under NO circumstances are you to speak for others.

      Equality is for everyone, not just you and who agree with you.

      Your attempt on this forum thread is misguided by your ridiculous religious beliefs, which btw- is a matter for YOUR life, not other people.

      It's utterly ridiculous to have you berate other people who disagree with you, when YOU are actually misguided by your religious belief and the thoughts that are derived from them. Which means, you base "rights" on your religious belief and that is FALSE. And, I don't care whether you want to admit it or not, but there isn't anything in this world you can to do change where RIGHTS are derived, especially in today's world where pathetic religions are on their way OUT!

      Good day!

  40. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    You all cannot hide behind that..."oh we have the best intentions."... "we are teaching equality"... blah blah blah... BS any longer. And this country was a lot better educated before the NEA and FEDS involvment. So it is time to rid ourselves of them.

    Good intentions pave the way to hell, Shades.

    It has been taken much further than equality, which is a red herring, we are all equal under the Law, period. But it makes for nice deflection and dismissal. The Agendas are clear if any wish to look and see them. You all even spout about it in speeches, classes, all over the place, as if no one hears you all.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SH8LkIqu1c8

    1. John Holden profile image59
      John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      But some are more equal than others, right

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        No, John. Equal under the law.

        And ohma,... this discussion is as to why we need to have an agenda of teaching immoral and un-natural behaviour in our schools to children, as normal, moral and natural, not so much as to why they are how they are, that is simply the BS reason they keep throwing up to justify their agenda in our schools.

        They can cry about equality all the want, their lessons and indoctrination goe a lot further than that, and they are pissed that America is done with it and it has been outed.

        Now if you want to rant about this again all day go ahead.

        1. John Holden profile image59
          John Holdenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I'll leave the ranting up to you, you do it so well.

        2. Ohma profile image80
          Ohmaposted 5 years ago in reply to this



          immoral and un-natursl by whose standards? Yours? who made you judge and jury of the masses?

          And PLEASE....., explain to me how you consider it un-natural when gays are born gay?
          You say immoral well it so happens that I believe that persecuting a very large portion of our population because you follow some archiach superstion immoral.
          I also beleive that the inability to grow, learn, evolve and adapt to the ever changing world we live in un-natural. Guess you have more in common with Gays than you thought huh?

          1. TMMason profile image74
            TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Gays are not born gay, Ohma.

            That has already been established. No science supports any such conclusion... and that is from the gay community's own sources and Legal Filings in the Supreme Court.

            And they are not a very large segment of the population as is proved by their own Court Filings, again in the U.S.Supreme Court. About 1.7% to 2.5%.... about the same percentage of Atheists.

            hurmmm... I call that correlation? Can I claim cause and causation from those stats... sure.. it is as much evidence as they have for that other fairy tale. But I digress.

            No seriously, not a large population at all... and no genetic factor to be found... it is all refered to in the links above.

            And, natural and un-natural, deviant and immoral, are valid terms to use... so...

            Try again.

            1. Cagsil profile image84
              Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you've been told plenty of times that you use terms, just to distort truth and support your position.

              Again, great showing of your character. roll

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I will not be PC-ed by you or anyone else, Cags.

                Too bad.

                If people do not want to be called immoral... then they should not act in an immoral way.

                I am not a moral equivilist. I do not buy there is no standard of morality, and that philosophy, and the teaching of it to our children, is destroying this nation.

                Simple.

                1. Cagsil profile image84
                  Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Again, you prove your lack of understanding of things you speak of. lol It's nothing to do with being politically correct.
                  You say that, as if it has meaning. lol
                  Again, you show your lack of understanding of morals. And, what is actually immoral? lol Not a surprise.
                  You're not anything except for someone who lack so much knowledge, but loves to spread distortion and misinformation, based on a religious foundational belief.
                  You wouldn't know what morals, even if you tried.
                  You say this also, as if it has meaning. lol What a shame you cannot see the damage your own actions do.....talk about being immoral.

            2. Ralph Deeds profile image69
              Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Your ignorance is boundless, TM.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                No... actually that would be the minipulations as what the science say, by the Left and Gays, that would be boundless.

                That is why I always have to smack it down with reality, Ralph.

                The science does not support any such conclusions, and to think or say it does, is false.

                As is already proven above in their, the Lefts/Progressives and Gays, own words.

                It is pretty simple... if you make a choice... be proud of it... don't continuously try to justify your choice with lame assumption based excuses based on zero scientific support.

                Simple.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image69
                  Ralph Deedsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  You wouldn't recognize reality if if bit you in the ass.

            3. brimancandy profile image83
              brimancandyposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              TMMason. Where did you hear about this court case where gays claimed that gay people are not born gay? And, what gay group brought this case? And, where the hell did you get those statistics from? And, what do atheists have to do with anything?

              All I can say is that the people who brought this court case, real or not, do not represent the entire gay community. There are just as many gay people who believe they are born gay, as those who believe it's a choice. Some believe its a chemical thing, and some believe gay people are a way god chose to control the population of the earth, and that we are here for a reason. Some think we are a gift from god.

              So all these statistics you are pointing out mean nothing, and are dead wrong. All stuff pointed out by people wanting the public to believe something that isn't true. Almost as if there is something to be afraid of.  I'll never get people like you. I wonder what other group of people is on your shit list. I'll bet there is.

              1. TMMason profile image74
                TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                It is all right back there in the links... and the court case info was from not one... but 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups. 

                Here is a link on the flawed studies they all push as fact...

                ---Born Gay?---

                From Focus On the Family

                Countless studies have been performed aiming to prove that homosexuality is caused by genetics. Gay proponents love this argument because it says, "Hey, we can't help our sexual orientation. We are born this way!" Essentially, they can claim that they are helpless, get your sympathy and try to further the justification of homosexual practices because they believe the drive is hereditary.

                Who's to blame them? On the surface, the "science" appears convincing. In recent years, several studies have grabbed headlines around the world, "proving" homosexuality is inborn. The evidence looks solid. The researchers seem credible.

                Claims of genetic causation

                According to Joe Dallas, author and former homosexual, "People tend to view homosexuality more favorably when they think it is inborn. No wonder gay leaders (not all, but most) push the born gay theory; it furthers the cause." 1

                Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, a medical doctor and former fellow in child psychiatry at Yale University, has taken a thorough look at three particular studies that backfired on themselves. Upon closer evaluation, this is what he discovered:

                Flawed Study #1: Brain Structure

                In the August 1991 issue of Science, Simon LeVay of the Salk Institute in San Diego published a study on differences in brain structure between homosexual and heterosexual men. 2

                The study, however, had at least three glaring weaknesses:

                http://www.troubledwith.com/ParentingTe … osexuality

                Complete with a lists of sources...

                And here is the APA... which they quoted as proving that gays were born and the science said so...

                ----There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.--(and then of course the qualifier, because they could not get themselves to leave it at the truth... so a lil obfuscation was called for.)--- Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.----

                http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

                We do not assume the existence of anything in science... not God... not a gay Gene.. etc...

                And that was their own source, I remind you... and that failed them also in this argument.

                And here is about the filings and percentages of population...

                ---"Homosexual activist groups have finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is “gay” is false. This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case.---

                31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following:

                ----A NEWLY RELEASED REPORT from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Health Statistics reveals that only 2.3% of the population considers themselves homosexual. The statistics come from a 2002 National Survey of Family Growth and are based on 12,571 interviews with men and women ages 15-44 years of age. (The findings were reported in WorldNetDaily, September 16, 2005).----

                Homosexuals Admit 10% Is Wrong

                Homosexual activist groups have finally admitted that their claim that 10% of the population is “gay” is false. This admission took place in a Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas, known as the Texas sodomy case. In this case, homosexuals are trying to have the Texas law against sodomy declared unconstitutional by the Court.

                In footnote 42 on page 16 of this legal brief, 31 homosexual and pro-homosexual groups admitted the following: “The most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS). The NHSLS found that 2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual. See Laumann, et al, The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994). This amounts to nearly 4 million openly gay men and 2 million women who identify as lesbian.”

                Despite this indirect admission that the 10% figure homosexuals have used for more than two decades is wrong, the writers of the brief still continue to lie about the real numbers. The claim that 4 million men and 2 million women are gay is based on multiplying the 2.8% and 1.4% figures by the total number of males and females in the U.S. It is unreasonable to count any of the 60 million Americans who are 14 or younger (including 40 million who are under nine years of age) as “openly gay men and women.” Yet, that is what this brief claims. Even as homosexuals admit they’re wrong about the 10% figure, they apparently still can’t resist lying about their true numbers in our population.

                http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/two.php

                Go ahead an google the actual filing... it is public record and states the truth mixed in there, because perjury would have been a bitch.

                And yes you can say oh the sites that used this info are biased... and maybe some of them are... but the information itself is pulled from valid and researchable sources... so the mesenger in no way affects the validity of the message. the Mass Media and left wing news sure won't run this info in any big way... it doesn't fit the agenda.

                Go ahead check the sources that it originates from... the Court Filings, and medical and science journals and texts, it is all there.

  41. TMMason profile image74
    TMMasonposted 5 years ago

    Already been said.

    I have no need to repeat it. It is all in the thread already.

    1. Cagsil profile image84
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, I know.

      You've already been schooled on the subject, yet didn't learn anything, which proves my point. lol

      1. TMMason profile image74
        TMMasonposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        The masses can conclude whether or not that is true when they read through it.

  42. brimancandy profile image83
    brimancandyposted 5 years ago

    Hey people, here is more evidence that straight people support the gay community then ever, as the entertainment, and music industry sees the gay community as just another big audience, as gay events have started to attract major acts to their festivals.

    Here is Joan Jett and the Blackhearts performing at Halstead Market Days in Chicago. If you don't know the Halstead area is Chicago's largely gay neighborhood. This years pride festival also featured Tiffany. This video also proves that all gays are not limp wristed disco queens. We like to party like everyone else. And, if you make hateful remarks about Joan Jett, I will give you the finger!! She Rocks!

    http://youtu.be/ha4rbBZwDro

 
working