More straight people support the gay community than we think!
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.
"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
There is strong support from hetro people in my country too.
A little bit of empathy helps.
Like many straight people I hate the way some have been discriminated against because of their sexuality.So what have sadists and masochists done to upset you
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).
Dark Ages is right.
Standing up and applauding you Mighty Mom!
I saw Sir Elton John with his baby. I think he will be a fine parent.
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.
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.
"@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). 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."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.
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!
So I guess you would think homophobes would be to strong a word too?
-
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.
Again, you're using the term "a-moral".
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.
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.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.
I must go now, huge thunderstorm above me. Have a good nite.
"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.
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?
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.
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.I agree. America's sexual repression is obvious.
Some of the posters here think "American dad" is a documentary!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!
-"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.
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.
- Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago
0 The fact you see it as an agenda is the irrationality of your argument. TOO BAD for you.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!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.Again, you prove your lack of understanding of things you speak of.
It's nothing to do with being politically correct.
You say that, as if it has meaning.
Again, you show your lack of understanding of morals. And, what is actually immoral? 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. What a shame you cannot see the damage your own actions do.....talk about being immoral.
Related Discussions
- 135
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?
How do you convince someone that they are not destined to be LGBT?As a young executive, I counseled individuals in the past and promoted them into moral society by consistently stating the truth about the mental affliction. Emotional outbursts continue to support the education of LGBT as a...
- 19
Why is homosexuality such a hotbed issue?
Why is homosexuality such a hotbed issue?As a Christian I don't believe I have the right to make judgements. I also think it's interesting how we are supposed to be living with love in our hearts as Christ did but so many drag out the old testament when it's serves their purpose. Ham, Noah son...
- 40
If you're straight read this and you might understand.
A lot of straight people don't understand why gay people are gay, and why we are constantly fighting for our rights. If you take this simple test and think about it you might get it.It doesn't matter what your gender is, just have an open mind as you read further.Lets say for example you are...
- 32
Would you be okay if Spider-Man was gay in a live action film?
It was reported by Clevvermovies that Andrew Garfield joked with one of the producers about the possibility of MJ being changed into a man, and making spider-man a homosexual or possibly just bisexual. He even went on to say that he thinks Michael B. Jordan should play mj, so the concept of...
- 64
A question for straight people. What if you can't get married by law?
There is a lot of talk about allowing gay couples to get married, and, of course we all know the whole because god created man and woman BS. But, here is a what if question for you.Let's say that the tables were turned, and there was a law that was passed that banned all marriages all together....
- 54
Gay people in my family. Inherited? Choice? Victim of circumstances?
I know this is a hot topic, but there are some people in my family (none blood related [that I know of]) That are gay. Some are open, some say they are 'recovering' and some might not have even come out yet.Without being too specific, one member has a child who has effeminate tendencies, and the...