A hidden-camera exposé exposed a clinic owned by Michele Backmann and her husband practicing reparative therapy, which tries to cure gay people of their homosexuality. This and many more issues with her are beyond pathetic as a Presidential hopeful. What are your thoughts?
...i don't know who MB is...but this reminds me of a movie....
There are so many things that are wrong with Bachman as a candidate, but this may well be the worst.
No kidding. That's unreal. How dumb can someone be? When this comes out in the general election, she is screwed.....and not in a good way. Sarah Palin has a punchers chance to win if she runs, but she has a better chance than Bachmann.
Compare Michele to former first lady Betty Ford who was a truly fine and intelligent individual. The Tea Party and the evangelicals are wreaking havoc and ignorance on the land.
I didn't know Bachman was the leader of the Tea Party....
My understanding is the Bachman considers herself and is considered to be the Tea Party leader in the U.S. House of Representatives. I guess there is no single leader of the Tea Party.
Michelle Bachman doesn't 'consider' herself to be the leader of the Tea Party in the House, she is the leader of the Tea party Caucus in the House.
And I don't know how you define a 'true conservative' because you obviously aren't one, but I am and I disagree totally with you. "Any true conservative would despise her opinions on the gay community." Nope. I despise those who think that people are born gay. Ask most gay people and they will have some sort of abuse in their past, or they had some sort of trauma in their childhood. Many had a reason to want to act out against authority. Our environment influences who we are, and those who call themselves gay have usually been influenced by something in their own lives.
Deny it and call be a bigot, I don't care. You can't force people to accept something that they simply don't believe is true, and it must drive you and other liberals crazy.
I get it. You have your way of seeing things, reality be damned. Far be it from any of us to dissuade you from sticking to your own fantasies.
"she is the leader of the Tea party Caucus in the House."
Boy you really got me there! How do you know what Michele "considers" herself?
"And I don't know how you define a 'true conservative' because you obviously aren't one,"
Yes, and I'm not an orangutang either, but I know one when I see one.
So, which incident in your past determined your heterosexuality then? Or, are you saying that people with normal, healthy upbringings are always straight and gay people are always those who have had some sort of dysfunction in their childhood? Must be some really solid science behind that one, eh?
I can agree that some lady has a self-inflated ego AND that there is no one leader of the tea party.
Is this lady already a US senator? Was she voted into office?
This is really getting annoying. It seems that our government wants to play the management shuffle game that corporate America has been playing for years. And, that is bring in somebody new that nobody knows jack about and put them in charge of everything, hoping that the sheep will just fall in line and do as they are told. And, it is usually somebody that cracks the whip, and makes everyone miserable.
As Corporate America calls it. "The New Normal" get used to it.
It's a good thing that this one seems a bit crazy. But, there isn't a candidate running in 2012 that isn't making everyone nervous. One reason why we need to change the voting process, and ban multi-millionaires from running for office. Conflict of interest.
Considering that her husband is so obviously gay himself makes this also a bit funny rather than just depressingly sad.
I wonder if the closeted gays who are involved in the Evangelical movement realize how transparent they are. I've heard Marcus Bachmann make remarks about "resisting temptation" with regards to homosexuality. These closeted Evangelicals don't seem to understand that being straight isn't the same as resisting the temptation to be gay.
Yes, that's true. In his evangelical bubble, he's considered a brave man resisting the call of Satan. To the rest of the world, he's just another self-hating closet case.
It has always been my belief that when a preacher preaches very hard on the same sin, that is the very thing they are struggling with themselves. That may very well be the case with Bauchman's husband.
When I read the news from around the world, including in my own country, I notice that the gay issue is increasingly an important one. On the one hand there are increasing rights for gay people in Western society, yet on the other, those rights are being taken away at an alarming rate in much of the world. From Christian evangelicals in the United States to Muslim fundamentalists in England, or the introduction of the death penalty in Uganda for gay people, it seems the pendulum is unfortunately swinging back to a more intolerant position. And when the head of the Equalities Commission in the UK declares that he will back Christians who refuse to work with gay people, I am beginning to think that the rights of gay men and women, so long fought for, may start to disappear, if people don't fight to prevent it. Recent murders of gay men in England, and the campaign in the East End, where an Islamic group have posted signs on lampposts, declaring the East End to be a gay free zone, make me fear the direction things are going. These evangelicals seem to be jumping on the bandwagon of a popular rise of homophobia, for which they should be thoroughly ashamed.
It is almost as the religious of the world need an evil bogey man to compare themselves to. Without that their own innate goodness cannot shine through for all to applaud.
A very sad statement on mankind.
Betty Ford didn't even run for office. So I cannot compare her to Michele on the issues. Michele B. is not running for first lady.
Betty Ford was very active on women's rights and other women's issues throughout her adult life. Michele Bachman is hung up on just about every social conservative issue.
Of course! She's running for office. Betty did not.
Running for office doesn't preclude taking a rational position on public policy issues. Michele is pandering to the most ignorant Americans--climate change deniers, economic ignoramuses, anti-LGBTs, anti-taxers, creationists, abstinence onliers, etc. Moreover, Betty Ford was first lady and her husband was a candidate for president.
You know I saw alot of those tapes and all I heard was a man say... "You can always pray"... -for strength, guidance, etc...-
In no way do I take that as that guy stating porayer is the only way to stop being gay, or as reparative therapy. He simply pointed out that one can always pray for strength, help and guidance.
No where did I hear him say that was all that could be done, or that that was a cure, so?...
You have to choose to stop being gay... as you choose to be gay.
The leant Left is just mad because their Gay Gene and other BS has been shown to be a joke. Couple that with Bauchmann being a Christian and her husband's clinic, and they think they have a made to order attack on her and the Right.
What a laugh..
I'm gladd you brought up the being born gay or having the gay gene is a joke. If I would of brought it up 1st I woulda caught hell for it. I just want to says that Michele Backmann is good lookin and her fat husband is lucky to her until she opens her mouth....
Mason, you have to choose to stop being a bigot...as you choose to be a bigot.
I am no bigot.
Just cause I do not let the BS lies stand, does not mean I treat anyone in a bad way for their choices... it is their life they can do what they want.
But that doe not mean I will sit back and let lies be perpetuated as fact... and that is not being a bigot... that is being honest.
And I notice you skip the fact that I have yet to see anything near what the Left pretends those tapes show.
Seems like a lie to me... but I am not calling anyone names about the deciet.
I refer Mason to the often made claim that sexuality, at least homosexuality is a choice. It seems strange to me that the straights never claim that their heterosexuality is a choice. You, as one of the straights have I assume always taken your sexuality for granted. I am quite sure that there was never a moment in your life, when you sat down and thought, 'shall I be straight, and live an easy life, where people will accept me, where I might have the chance to have children and grandchildren, where people in church shall respect me, and where I am considered "normal", or shall I be a big flamer? No, I'm quite sure that you have always been certain of your sexuality. Your "straightness" was never a choice. Yet you consider gay people as being straight people, who have simply make the wrong choices. This ignorance, not just from you, but from a lot of the straight "normal" population amazes me. Just think for a moment, and imagine a strange world, where the United States government made heterosexuality illegal. You, Mason, the fine upstanding American that you are, had to either make the choice of "turning" gay, or to live a secret life as a closeted heterosexual. What would you do? Could you force yourself to turn queer? Somehow I doubt it.
If I seem angry, I don't mean to be, and I really am not, only resigned, but having lived a life of discrimination, where I was regularly called names or beaten at school, to discrimination as an adult in my neighbourhood, where I am used to children shouting out "queer" when I have walked down the road and where I have been physically attacked, or have had stones thrown through my window, and at times have considered suicide, because I just haven't thought that life is worth it. Believe me, if sexuality was a choice, I would be a fully red-blooded straight, because life would have been so much easier. I don't blame you for your ignorance of the facts, your religion no doubt tells you that anyone who is different to you is the worst kind of sinner, destined for the eternal fires of hell, and I know your beliefs are absolute, and that no evidence will ever be allowed to break down the wall of religion, that makes your life seem worthwhile. And yes, I know you will until your dying day believe that gays choose to be gay, even though you didn't choose to be straight - you just are. And please don't think I have anything personally against you, I just needed someone to vent the frustration created by a lifetime of hatred and bigotry shown towards me. You must believe as you see fit, it is your choice.
You are making a big assumption here. Maybe acting heterosexually is a choice for TMMason, as it is for Marcus Bachmann. It would certainly explain his line of thinking, which seems to be odd to just about everyone else.
In the past few days, I have watched four different TV programmes, in which there was a gay character called Marcus. As my name is Marcus, I questioned why this should be. Now I hear of someone called Marcus Bachmann. There seems to be a theme here.
I did wonder about that!
I never made the choice to be heterosexual, and neither did any of my hetero friends. Likewise gay friends didn't make that choice either. Most of them feel the same level of discomfort about sleeping with a member of the opposite sex as I feel about sleeping with a member of the same sex.
That's been my experience with everyone except bisexual people I know, too.
Incidentally, that's why I never ask straight people "how do you know you're not gay if you've never tried it?"... I'd imagine they know as easily as I do exactly what they're attracted to without the need for experimentation.
Lovely post. Thanks for sharing it.
There is a reason that Mason never responded to it.
I empathize. I cannot feel what you feel or experience what you've gone through but a choice is something that some people have in certain situations, like I have chosen to become a psychologist. What I did not choose was to be heterosexual, and I believe you when you say you also had no choice to be what you are. I am not curious at all about being with another woman, it is just not a decision, it's who I am.
I feel the need, on occasion, to remark to those who are very religious of one thing: The Bible is not complete. They Bible was translated by man. The Bible was written to control the lot of society. The Bible was written with an agenda of the Roman Catholics who were working hard to create a society that they deemed acceptable.
Many culturally different sects of society have been demonized by those who translated the Bible. We are not all scholars and do not have access to the real scrolls from which the truncated Bible was extracted.
I will get flack from those who are adamant about their belief, but if they are entitled to their opinion, then why are they so intolerant against mine? It is amazing how so many human beings believe that it is OK to have an opinion as long as it coincides with theirs.
You keep true to yourself. It's the best thing you have going for you.
Actually tmmason you're the one proving to be a joke with that opinion.
Yes what a laugh! She is just what America needs!
Another homophobic narrow minded ignorant religionist as Presidential candidate!
That should help America become a great nation again and restore the deserved respect of the rest of the world.
It's way simple in my view. The woman is an intellectual pygmy.
She is smarter than Pailin though, who has the intelligence of mud.
If either of these two get up, America will be a third world country within months.
Michele Bachmann is actually smarter than those who support her. The problem isn't that she is running for office. The problem is those who believe she is the best America has to offer. Perhaps she is and considering the mentality and intelligence this country exhibits as a whole, that is the biggest problem we face.
Bachman does not have a chance. Any true conservative would despise her opinions on the gay community.
A true conservative believes in the sovereignty of the individual.
As long as a human being does no harm to others, does no harm to others property and commits no fraud in transactions they should be free to live life the way they choose.
Is "Bachman" a classical music superhero?
I totally agree with you Reality Bytes. It's nothing more than legal discrimination. Then again our country has done this to blacks, women, and many others with no real proof that they're harmful, and they've always been proven wrong with time. Apparently "learn from the past or we are doomed to repeat it" is just a saying.
As soon as the powers-that-be are basically forced into extending some human rights to another marginalized group, they focus their efforts elsewhere. Who will they pick on next? It's absolutely ridiculous, and anyone who doesn't recognize the repetition of this sick cycle obviously has blinders on.
blondes are next! Watch out if you are blonde! As conservative as I am, I truly believe that EVERYONE has the right to be what they are, do what they will as long as they don't harm anyone else in the process.
I think that laws are necessary, but we should be teaching our children common sense so that we won't need as many laws. it is ridiculous the amount of hate and fear that is spewed out of the mouths of people just to make their own opinion sound important and a sound choice.
I believe that global warming has been proven by some and disproven by some. I believe that the Bible was written by a bunch of prudish men who weren't getting "any" so they felt the need to restrict behaviors by others. I believe that there is a great deal to say about the beauty of diversity in this world.... I believe that people need to leave me, you, and the rest of society alone to make their own choices, live their own lives, and be what they are without legislation to force them into some sort of facade. it's just sad.
she's a hopeful, that's it. Her statements and her husband's ignorance is as you say.
I don't think the reason behind why an individual is gay is the real issue for the conservatives. I think that there are gay people at all is what they're upset about. And, by the way, there are heterosexual individuals who have been sexually abused in the past who are not gay now. Michelle Bachmann is idiocy personified. With each spoken word, she loses credibility as a candidate.
As long as a gay person isnt trying to put there gayness on you who cares. Everyone has something about them thats different whether they were born that way or chose to be that way!
Nothing like having unwanted gayness put on you...sheesh..
What do you mean by that?
it was sarcasm.
I believe she meant to imply that typically, gay people are gay, and they understand that they are attracted to their own gender, but typically do not choose to impose their sexual differences upon others of their same gender.
yeah, gay pride parades are definitely not in that statement, but they're sure fun to watch if you are an adult!
Yes, it was sarcasm I was just responding to optimus grimlock's comment about "putting there gayness on you." I understand what he meant completely, just having a little fun with the words used. IMHO, Pride and other such events aren't forcing homosexuality on anyone in the same sense that The Million Man March wasn't forcing "blackness" on anyone. It's simply standing up and saying, "I will not be made to feel inferior for being me."
Forcing "straightness" on people is a whole other matter. While telling people they should pray to be healed from their "affliction" may not be direct, physical coercion -- it sure is darned manipulative. I mean, getting someone to believe that they are going to be damned to hell is taking a pretty active role in trying to shape the lives of others.
The more ruffled a person gets over the fact that some people are gay, the more I think there might be latent, unrequited urges or feelings there as has been discussed in this forum already. Otherwise, why not just worry about your own (assumedly perfect) life?
(This last part is addressed to the "universal You" not any one individual here on this post - just fyi.
You all are a joke...
The FACT is I still have not seen anything in that tape that is, or could be considered, reparative therapy. Suggesting to someone once or twice, out of a whole conversation, that they can always pray... is not some big indoctrination therapy.
Show me a tape were they are actually doing what you all say... and I will agree.
Till then it is BS and exageration.
And you all can cry all you want about homosexuality being a choice for alot of people, learned behaviour for some, and escapism or just plain deviant habits for others.... but in the end... there is no genetic link found to homosexuality as of this point in time.
And that FACT... out-wieghs all your BS propaganda.
I used your own sources, and still had to shove that FACT down your throats till you choked on it... so get over it.
You all amaze me... you really think personal insults win a debate... fools.
Show me the science you all spout off about? Show me a real video of this man indoctrinating or practicing this reparative therapy?... Where is it?
No where... telling someone they can always pray for strength and guidance once or twice... is not, "therapy".
grow up... you all can call me every name in the book... and in the end, you are still wrong.
Of course Mason, we all know you are the only one who knows the truth and that you have a direct line to God. God bless you! Where would we all be without you to put us right?
As much as I disagree with much of what Mason said, he never said "I know the answers".
I was looking for evidence of homosexuality and genetic makeup, and indeed, there is little, if not NO, scientific evidence backing up the argument that homosexuality is genetic.
While I demand that I never chose to be straight, and no one ever chose to be gay, thus it must be an inherent factor in one's life, indeed there is no gay gene.
The story of Hamer, et. al. (1993) backs this up. He claimed to have found a connection of homosexuality in the Xq28 gene sequence, but no one was able to reproduce his work. There were also accusations that he, basically, was just throwing out data that didn't confirm his bias - a horrible thing to do when seeking truth.
However, Mason does go one step too far - he's arguing that "an absence of evidence is evidence of absence". This is an argument that is hard to sniff out much of the time.
Mason - while there is no EVIDENCE of GENETIC homosexuality, this does not mean it isn't true, it just means that it has not been found.
However, "it has not been found" also does not mean that it isn't there, nor that it is there - just that it has not been found.
However there IS some evidence that the sexuality of an individual is latent (possibly genetic). Every straight or gay person I've ever talked to, when asked "when did you choose to feel sexual towards the gender that you feel sexual towards?" has always responded "I never chose, dumbass! It just happened".
I've had a 100% success rate with people. This is pretty strong evidence that sexuality is not a choice.
Therefore you seem to accept that you've lost this one!
The "gay gene" has not been identified, so that proves homosexuality is not inherent in a person, according to you, correct?
Since you can not pull God out of your wallet or take me somewhere to meet him, that proves he is a lie, then, correct?
So much is getting settled here today.
Belief in God is faith... not science.
Just as you alls belief in a Gay Gene is.. see how that works. Both are based on faith.
I am glad you agree.
Whoa whoa whoa -- there is no confirmed sexuality gene (quit calling it a gay gene), but that doesn't mean there is no evidence for something of the sort.
Every time I ask anyone this question: "When did you choose to be sexually attracted to the gender you are attracted to?", I get the same response: "I never chose, you idiot".
This is a very strong argument that nature is a much stronger force than nurture.
In fact, many people who are gay proceed to say that "they just sort of felt that they were SUPPOSED to like the opposite gender, but they never were really into it". This type of response is a CLEAR indicator that nature is what causes homosexuality (and heterosexuality, for that matter) instead of nurture.
Sure, there's no sexuality gene, but there sure as hell IS evidence that "nature" is the factor of sexuality, not nurture. It is NOT "faith", there is still science.
No... it is not.
That was a pathetic effort Evan.
I know junkies and other deviants that did not choose to be what they are either... -(and they will all argue it wasn't a choice and they can't help it.)-, but doesn't make it natural or mormal.
And many people are born with genetic defects everyday... and that doesn't make their states of being natural or acceptable, either.
Every junkie can, when pressed, relate an experience of them choosing to inject themselves with drugs.
Not a single sexual individual has ever identified a time when they chose to be straight or gay.
I can't, my wife can't, no one on this thread can -- even you've admitted it -- and no one I've ever met can. Clearly, nature is the cause of sexuality, not nurture.
Surveying individuals is a highly scientific way of gathering data. You can then proceed to do interviews and case studies. Then you can compare the results of each type of data collection method and triangulate the information against one another.
This is a scientific method of gathering information: surveying. And you seem to be choosing to refuse it's validity; yet you are preaching what science has determined and what it hasn't (quite a contradiction: sorry, I won't fall for your sophistry).
Sorry, but (a) my effort was not pathetic, and (b) yours was.
When they made the choice to have sex with the same sex instead of with the opposite... that was it. Dig deeper in your lil survey, Evan.
They CHOSE TO HAVE SEX, but they never CHOSE TO FEEL ATTRACTED TO THEM.
God, is this so hard to grasp that "a sexual act" and "sexuality" are two different concepts?
Everyone here: "I never chose to be ATTRACTED to women"
Mason: "You chose TO HAVE SEX with them".
Those two statements are not dealing with the same issue!!!! One is the choice of sexuality, and one is the choice of sexual intercourse!!
By your horrendously flawed logic, every virgin who still wants to have sex is considered "asexual" - they have strong sexual feelings to (insert gender here), yet, because they haven't chosen to have sex, they are clearly a non-sexual being.
either way, your base argument is still flawed: there IS scientific evidence that sexuality is nature based, not nurture based.
Surveys, Interviews, and Case Studies have all pointed towards nature instead of nurture when it comes to sexuality.
I may be wrong, but I don't think a "straight" gene has ever been discovered, yet no one would ever consider asking a straight person when they chose to be straight, or suggest that because there is not a straight gene, that straight people aren't really straight.
yes, I agree.
Calling it a "gay gene" is a horrible injustice.
I didn't mean to fall for it, it was a mistake.
A much more appropriate name would be "a sexuality gene". (and even then, I might be overlooking something)
In the grand old tradition of the Grand Old Party, with the likes of Roy Cohn, Ted Haggard and Sen. Larry Craig, it seems painfully obvious, to me anyway, that these anguished hypocrites with a modicum of authority and power are projecting their self-contempt onto others as they struggle with and deny their own inner demons.
It's not a "FACT," just an opinion based on "FACTS."
http://www.christianpost.com/news/marcu … ays-52369/
This tells the story of what is going on at the Bachmann clinic. They are not forcing reparative on anyone, but support the idea that it is an illness that needs curing, and will try to help if asked.
What a sad little family of extremists.
As I said, no evidence of reparative therapy... so what is the problem?
You all just hate the truth because it does not fit your agenda.
Again, produce the science... or admit the "gay gene" is a faith based opinion.
There are no two ways about it. No science
Gray doesn't exist; you only see black or white. What a sad existence to live in a world without color.
Get over yourself...
There is no gray for the question at hand, niether of them, he did not perform reparative therapy... period. And there is NO Science to prove or even suppport "Genetic Homosexuality".
So we should lie about it so you all feel good about your choices... NO!
Your jaw-droppingly ignorant comment: "So we should lie about it so you all feel good about your choices... NO!" reveals your inability to comprehend another's compulsion—sexual or otherwise.
I'm not gay, but your projection that it's "our (or my) choice" illustrates that you have an inflexible and intolerant mindset . . . and maybe even that your own repressed fear of being gay deep down is fueling it.
You seem more than willing to project the worst onto others, but loath to accept it when the tables are turned. That smacks of the very conservative hypocrisy that is fueling the issue.
I am pretty darn conservative, but only in ideology. I'm not religious, I am not stringent in my views. I used to be, but by listening to others who do not attack and can rationally discuss their "side" of a topic, I've learned to become more aware of others before passing judgment.
That being said, "conservative hypocrisy" seems to have struck a nerve in my thought processes.
I do not agree nor disagree with homosexuality being a choice. Some people actually do choose that lifestyle, however I contend that although there may not be proof of a gene that provides the propensity toward a particular behavior, I in no way discount every homosexual as having had a choice.
I read about addicts earlier in this thread. I know, through real education and study that addicts potentially have chemical imbalances in their brains that cause them to be more susceptible to addictions. Maybe being homosexual comes from the same place? Brain chemicals or make-up? That would not be indicated in gene sequences, much like addiction is not seen in gene sequences.
Maybe it is neurological and not genetic? I did not see anyone address this particular notion. What do you think? Neurological?
And, furthermore, if you could just please leave out "conservative" when you address hypocrisy. Not only are conservatives capable of being hypocrites.
People can choose their lifestyle, as you put it, but they can't choose their sexuality.
I could easily choose to have sex with a pig, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to.
I can choose to engage in sexual acts, but I can't choose to be attracted to females (or males).
I believe that most homosexuals are not choosing the lifestyle. However some women I know told me they like men, prefer men, but were jilted and hurt by a man so they are with a woman for satisfaction.
Those are the ones I discussed as having chosen a homosexual lifestyle. Otherwise, I asked someone once, (yeah, just once, no scientific survey) why he was gay, and he said he just was.
So what you're saying is that they still are attracted to men (they have a naturally created sexuality) and are willingly forcing themselves to go against it (the sexual acts the engage in are opposite to their natural sexuality)?
This is 100% in line with what I've posted earlier, so we're agreeing with one another.
It's possible they were weakly bisexual to start with, though. I'm about a 0.5 on the Kinsey scale - 99% of the people I'm sexually attracted to are men - but if I'd happened to meet one of the rare 1% of women who do it for me at the right period in my life, I could be lesbian right now instead of straight.
Well Kate, you quibble over a term that was meant to describe traditionalists who wants to preserve their values regardless of the ramifications it may have on other people. That's how I meant it and in no other way.
Moreover, I cannot help it if you identify with the word while failing to appreciate any of the points I made with regard to an obviously right-wing reactionary who intentionally flaunts his intolerance and ignorance with his profile picture and the twaddle he spouts.
When it comes to being conservative or liberal, it shouldn't automatically preclude using the term "hypocrisy" because as you suggested, hypocrites come in every ideological flavor. On that point we can agree.
What troubles me most, however is that your contention (and its seeming unconscious and implied assumption) that homosexuality (which occurs in many species on this planet) is somehow morally wrong or pathologically abnormal as apposed to merely being part of a categorical minority.
You don't seem to recognize the psychological, spiritual or emotional damage that view may have on people who struggle to do good in this world regardless of their sexual orientation.
problem is you did not understand what I meant.
By saying something like that, you turn off the audience that you are probably not considering because you are bundling an entire group into a single thought.
What if I said "stupid men" and did not bother to delineate it to a specific group of men who were stupid? Calling an entire group of something a particular thing, or indicating that the group is a particular way does not bode well in the communication of anything.
If you want to be heard, say what others will listen to. Alienation is how this country got to where it was. Too many freaking people are calling each other some kind of name.
How about this: Free thinking American. is that all of them in your view?
Well kate I still see you quibbling over a minor point. The term conservative is a generic label that may upset your sensibilities, but to overlook my entire point is unfair.
Granted could have been more thoughtful to your position; I might have said: That smacks of the very zealot-conservative-Tea Party hypocrisy that is fueling the issue. Instead of: "That smacks of the very conservative hypocrisy that is fueling the issue." Nevertheless, in the heat of an argument, one is trying to cover the main issue and not a secondary bugaboo of someone's.
Everyone here does not have an angenda. You are incorrect in labeling everyone who is opposed to your intolerance as left leaning liberals.
Maybe there is no irrefutible evidence that there is a gay gene, however, why in the h%#l would someone choose to be gay? Explain why a heterosexual person would go against his own nature, and choose to be something that he doesn't even desire.
That would mean that Elton John has no desire for the man he has chosen to be with, and is just rebelling. That is completely absurd!
Why bother arguing with someone who thinks reality is a propaganda campaign against the truth?
We had this conversation the other week, Get... you were there for it.
And yes when people are going to proclaim from the mount that there is "proof" of a "gay gene"... that they had found the genetic coding sequence for it... -I believe is the quote?-... then it does matter. Because that is BS
And I in no way hate gay people, so you all really need to give that BS up. They have the same rights as anyone else to act in any way they want.
But you do not get to propagate to children, and force normality and morality to acccept something which is not... as though it is.... or push the normality, or acceptability of such a life-styles through schools and social institutions. We had this conversation 2 weeks ago... go back and read it over guys,.
I do not hate anyone.
But that does not mean that I have to accept and propagate lies that something is normal and acceptable, moral and natural... when it is not.
It is a choice... for some learned behaviour or a deviant choice of escape, an unhealthy life-style choice.
I believe it to be a bad, un-natural, un-healthy life-style chioce, you do not have to believe that... I don't care... but it is a choice and there is no science to say other-wise.
You can have all the faith in your lil theories of a gay gene all you want... but faith is not science. I have ignored everthing in the two threads up till someone spouted that there was a gay gene and science proved it.
That is BS and unacceptable propaganda. And lies cannot be allowed to stand... we are debating and that is the point, after all.
And I did not say everyone here had an angenda. I said the truth is rejected because it does not fit the agenda.
And Evan... science does not start with the assumption that a thing is, or is true. We do not assume the existence of God in science... nor do we assume the existence of a "gay gene".
That is just how it goes... the rules do not change because people want to slide something through.
No one is arguing that it is confirmed knowledge that there is a "gay gene". The argument that you make that not having found that gene makes homosexuality a choice and abnormal and an aberation that should be villified does not follow.
Your argument is a choice.
Since the truth is not a confirmed question of fact, you have made a choice that divides people and condemns them, based on your own need to feel superior. Only you know why you do that, and perhaps you don't even know.
But that's your choice.
I have simply stated the truth... that there is no scientific evidence to support a, "Gay gene"... none!
And to use a gay gene, and call it a proven fact to suppport that it is normal and morally acceptable behgaviour, is BS and a joke!.. And that you all would try to twist this thread against me to defend ssuch an absurdity and blatent lie, speaks volumes.
And now that the fact won't go away, I am the bad guy for stating it... because I stated it with belief and the force of truth. Huh what a laugh!
And as I stated... I made my initial comment and then ignored all the insults... until someone spouted that it was genetic and it was proved.
Go read the two threads and see it for yourself.
Your reading skills are becoming seriously suspect.
I started my post by saying that no "gay gene" has been discovered. We have no disagreement there.
Again, what did you read?
What you wrote is NOT accurate, Mason. There IS scientific evidence that sexuality is nature based and not nurture based (i.e., genetically related instead of choice related).
Surveys, case-studies, interviews and countless other studies of individuals have corroborated this evidence.
You just sit here and deny that interviews with the subjects in question is NOT a form of scientific endeavor.
OK, but let's put the Gay Gene theory on the back burner, for now.
And let's discuss your opinion that being gay is a choice.
I just can't comprehend why anyone would choose to be something that would cause people to despise them...if they weren't compelled by an innate desire.
You have not been convincing in your stance that: everyone is born a heterosexual, then some choose to be gay.
Why would a TRUE heterosexual choose to be gay?
And why would a TRUE heterosexual find it repulsive to be with the OPPOSITE SEX?
Explain how a TRUE heterosexual could have NO desire for the OPPOSITE SEX, at no time in his life, but still be a heterosexual that chooses to be gay?
A lot of people choose to do and choose to be things a lot of people dispise... that has never in history stopped someone from acting as they want to.
And you assume that all people actually entertain the thought of a same sex partner when thinking about getting some... no they do not.
Naturally we think of the other sex. Simple.
Mason: NOT ALL OF US THINK OF THE OTHER SEX!!
Hell, many of "us" think of the same sex but of different genders!!
Can you explain to me the difference between gender and sex? (right now: no googling!!).
That's what we're talking about: NOT EVERYONE IS ATTRACTED TO THE SAME TYPE OF GENDER NATURALLY!!
I'm attracted to the opposite sex, and of that sex, I'm attracted to a specific gender (there are more than two genders, if I'm not mistaken!).
You are likely the same as me (although, perhaps a different gender).
But about 12% of the population does not act in this way. It might even be about 20%.
This information was found out through surveys, interviews, and case studies (which ARE valid forms of information gathering).
That's not what the article said. They will do the therapy, but by request. It is not the focus of the practice, but the practice does perform the "service".
What did you read?
People constantly use "evidence" as their basis for faith. The same is true about the inate nature of homosexuality. There is a great deal of evidence for this, which I will be happy to direct you to.
When a question is still being investigated, don't you think it is premature to declare your position as the correct one?
By the way, you still never responded to that eloquent post I referred to, and you've had the time to do it. Don't use that lame excuse again.
By the way, what name did I call you?
As to having to choose to be straight... I have answered this question over and over on many a thread, Bruce... so get real.
And the personal insults are always there because the question itself is a joke.
I am "Naturally" attracted to the opposite sex... as all people are. If I wanted to be with the same sex, I would choose to do so... simple.
When one deviates from normal it is by chose, or force... not genetics.
That is a red herring argument and is a useless worthless attempt to skew the conversation.
Again... no Science supports any assertion of genetic homosexuality... get over it you all.
The BS propaganda doesn't cut it.
It is pathetic what a lot of you all call debate and logic... insults and immaturity. You can all continue to isult me... but in the end you are wrong. No Scientific support for any other conclusion but choice.
Produce the science if you all are so right.
For a week I sat here and decimated all the BS you all threw up... and now you all act like the conversation never took place.
What a laugh!
... you said that you were naturally straight.
You just told us that you believe that nature, not nurture, is the cause of sexuality.
Good job on that.
Then, you say something border-line disgusting: that a gay individual "deviates from normal".
I highly recommend that you learn to pick your words with more accuracy. No one is "deviating" and no one is "normal".
Perhaps you could say "when one chooses to act in a sexual act that is not the most common". This would (a) be accurate, and (b) not be offensive.
Once again: every person ever asked "when did you choose to be sexually attracted to the gender you're attracted to?" responds with "I never chose, jerk".
I do not care if it offends you, Evan.
My words are fine... you just have no other ground to defend on this discussion.... so obvious.
And yes... I am, as all of nature, attracted to the opposite sex, and I could choose to deviate and act in un-natural ways if I wanted to... but I do not.
Look Evan!.. No morals... just nature.
We know that "all of nature" is not straight, and I won't bother to bore you with the evidence of homosexuality in nature that I am quite sure you are fully aware of.
Why does this issue scare you so much? Why do you so badly want to condemn those that are not like you?
An animal does not cognitively choose to be gay... they are simply over-whelmed by an urge... simple. The instict to pre-create is very strong.
That is why man has morals... and the animals do not.
And I do not fear anything, nor have I condemned anyone, Bruce.
WHERE DOES THE URGE COME FROM!!!??
ARGH!!! YOU'RE AGREEING WITH US, BUT YOU'RE BLINDED BY "FAITH"!!
Some animals remain in monogamous "gay" relationships for decades. It is not a crazed moment of sexual frenzy that causes these couplings.
By what you say, animals don't choose to be gay, but are satisfying an innate urge that can not be denied. That's our point exactly. The same is true of people.
By the way, what does it mean to "pre-create"?
Actually, I have plenty of scientific grounds. You just refuse to call science science.
Surveys, interviews, and case studies are all agreed upon methods of data gathering techniques.
Just because you ignore them doesn't mean that they aren't true.
... talk about faith!
You need to breath and calm yourself.
I have seperated the two... you choose to be gay.
Feelings and emotions grow for, and between individuals, regardless, Evan.
I love my dog... doesn't mean I should have sex with him and marry him. Simply means an emotional bond has grown between us.
I could insert perverted sex into it if I CHOSE to.... but I do not and would not consider it... becasue it is un-natural and immoral.
Your the one confused.
Sexuality, sexual acts, and love are all very different.
I've never, in any situation, been sexually attracted to another man or animal. I've talked to many people who agree with this statement. I've even talked to gay people who agree that they've never felt sexually attracted to the opposite sex.
I have never engaged in a sexual activity with someone I've never been sexually attracted to. Many gay people HAVE, because they felt they were "supposed to" (this information has been gathered through interviews and case studies).
I have, however, felt "love" (a very very very loosely defined word) towards the same sex - my brother, my father, my grandfather, friends, etc etc.
I have, however, been sexually attracted to countless females (sex).
Sexuality, sexual acts, and "love" are all VERY different.
This is what I'm trying to communicate to you.
And you're arguing that I'M confused, when you just, pretty much, agreed with what I've been saying. I don't really care if you think I'm confused or not - I'm merely pointing out that you're actually agreeing with what I wrote.
Sexuality, sexual acts, and "love" (which you just brought into this conversation now) are all very very very very different.
I am well aware of all that.
But through behaviourism people not only learn to like, but desire, and crave ceretain behaviours and acts... o matter morallity of, of harm to oneself, or the dispisal of society, so that doesn't cut it, Evan.
And people can learn to love a lot of things and people. We are creature of habit.
Just a fact.
They, homosexuals, may well never remember when they made the choice, or if it was even a conscience choice... but it is a choice, as far as the evidence as of today.
People who practice all kinds of deviant acts and life-styles claim it is not a choice... beastiality, pedophelia, Junkies, etc, etc... the list goes on. Doesn't make it normal or acceptable.
"But through behaviourism people not only learn to like, but desire, and crave ceretain behaviours and acts..."
Whoa whoa whoa : You have NO scientific argument to back that up.
It is NOT fact. There is NO evidence supporting that. And I have evidence AGAINST it. (You seem to refuse to accept interviews, surveys and case studies as evidence, however).
You could point to "sex addicts" (if they exist) to make your point; or "once you have sex, you'll likely want more sex because it feels good" argument.
But that's hardly what we're arguing here.
You're saying that if I choose to have sex with a male, then I will - through "behaviourism"[sic], which implies Pavlovian Responses - become encouraged to proceed to continue having sex with them.
This is simply not true. In fact, COUNTLESS LGBT (do you know what this acronym stands for?) individuals openly acknowledge that their first sexual encounter was with the opposite sex, but really didn't like it, and they then proceeded to go with their NATURAL urges and have sexual acts with the same sex.
By your logic, all we'd have to do to "cure gayness" would be to force gay people to have sex with the opposite sex (which would be an intolerable violation of rights). They'll slowly develop a behavioral response to straight sex that makes it feel good.
This is utter nonsense: mounds of interviews, surveys, and case studies show your argument to be nonsense. I'm sorry you refuse to ignore these forms of data.
The study and affect of behaviourism, behavioural conditioning, etc are well established, Evan. And it ia a fact that Man can adapt to and acxcept many things, coditions, behaviours, etc..
No where did I say that one encounter would cement any CHOICE of homosexuality.
Though I believe it certainly would dis-arm an individual's moral restraint, or aversion to it, if one had not simple been disgisted by the act, as a result of choosing to undertake it.
So you fling around self-serving statements of one of the most openly Leant Leftist Orgs. out there in the femiNAZI brigade, and call that proof. What a joke!
I did not apply it across the board as you do. Your the extremist, Evan. I have stated many differing factors throughout the debates in this forum to your absurd assertions that science and the gay geen have shown this life-style choice to be genetic. that all... no science... not even your lil experiments. Why don't you go applpy for some grants to help you out?
"The study and affect of behaviourism, behavioural conditioning, etc are well established, Evan. And it ia a fact that Man can adapt to and acxcept [sic] many things, coditions, behaviours, etc..
Wow, this is a very easy argument to destroy. You're not even arguing the same thing that I was denying.
Your post is full of self-contradictory statements that anyone with an open mind for truth would easily be able to pick out.
Arguing with you is hopeless. I refuse to waste more of my time.
There is a mountain of evidence telling you that you're wrong, but your "faith" is blinding you to it.
Enjoy living (and hating) in the shell.
ARGH- You're using the "they" statements!!
Mason!!! You are in a "them vs. us" mentality here!! Just like with muslims!! Just like with liberals!!
Wake up! Your mind is enslaved by this type of fight!!! Break free!! Liberate your mind!!
It's never a "them vs. us", and believing so only makes you give up your principles!!
I've heard beautiful arguments from you about limiting government, but then you argue that "they" are after "us" and then argue for a larger government!!!
No - "THEY" never CHOSE to be gay and "we" never chose to be straight.
"They" merely chose to engage in sexual acts that "we" don't choose to engage in.
But "they" are naturally sexually attracted to the same sex (in general), and "we" are NOT naturally sexually attracted to the same sex.
Sexuality is natural, sexual act engagement is nurture.
Is there a gay gene? Well, actually there are probably several gay genes, plus environmental influences too - see article below.
Leaving the question of genetics aside for a minute, why on earth would anyone CHOOSE to be gay?
http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/ … e-gay-gene
"A heated debate over the existence of a "gay gene" emerged from a 1993 report published in the journal Science by then-NIH researcher Dean Hamer, PhD. That study linked DNA markers on the X chromosome to male sexual orientation.
Since then, questions arose regarding the validity of those results. Other researchers are attempting to replicate and verify Hamer's findings. Hamer is also senior author of the current study, which appears in the March issue of Human Genetics.
But researchers say this study takes a different approach. Its goal was not to replicate those findings but to search for new genetic markers associated with male sexual orientation.
"Since sexual orientation is such a complex trait, we're never going to find any one gene that determines whether someone is gay or not," says Mustanski. "It's going to be a combination of various genes acting together as well as possibly interacting with environmental influences."
Previous studies in male twins have suggested that between 40%-60% of the variability in sexual orientation is due to genes. The rest is thought to be due to environment and possibly other biologic but nongenetic causes.
Search for Gay Genes
In the study, researchers analyzed the genetic makeup of 456 men from 146 families with two or more gay brothers.
The genetic scans showed a clustering of the same genetic pattern among the gay men on three chromosomes -- chromosomes 7, 8, and 10. These common genetic patterns were shared by 60% of the gay men in the study. This is slightly more than the 50% expected by chance alone.
The regions on chromosome 7 and 8 were associated with male sexual orientation regardless of whether the man got them from his mother or father. The regions on chromosome 10 were only associated with male sexual orientation if they were inherited from the mother."
This totally makes sense - I just can't confirm or deny it.
The argument that there's a "gay gene" is also an improper way of wording the search.
Sexuality is not inherently "straight" OR "gay". Thus there can only be, at best, a "sexuality gene" (or set of genes, as your post implies).
Yes, you're probably right. There is a set of sexuality genes, each of which has "gay" and "straight" phenotypes. The more times the "gay" phenotype predominates in a person's genotype, the more likely it is that the person will be, er, gay. Or put it this way, they will be further towards the "gay" end of the sexuality continuum that has been mentioned by others here.
I don't know why certain people have such a hard time understanding this. And more to the point, I don't understand why they care so much.
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. 6 "This is by far the strongest evidence to date that there is an important genetic component to sexual orientation," Hamer reported. 7
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. 8 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. 9
Additionally, one of Hamer's co-authors has expressed serious concerns about the methodology of the study. 10 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. 11An 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.
http://www.troubledwith.com/ParentingTe … osexuality
That study is BS and flawed to the point of useless.
As I have said over and over... NO science to support such an assertion.
Did you read the article that I posted? The Hamer study tried to link homosexuality to one specific gene... the article I posted (tacitly) acknowledged that this approach was flawed, but it did go on to say that studies had shown a "clustering" of the same genetic pattern on three chromosomes, at a level that was 10% greater than you'd expect from blind chance. OK, so it's not like they're saying "THERE'S A GAY GENE, DUDES - GET OVER IT!", but it does point to the idea that there can be a definite, albeit non-conclusive genetic predisposition towards "gayness" - a "nature" aspect, if you like, which can combine with "nurture" to either reinforce the gay thing or not.
But my main question is, why do you care? Personally I don't give a toss what consenting adults get up to behind closed doors. Are there loads of gay guys hitting on you where you live?
Everyone who has ever reflected on their own sexuality knows that nature is in charge.
Everyone who has ever asked others has gotten the same response about sexuality.
Every interview, survey, or case study has revealed the same thing: nothing ever turned anyone gay or straight.
Every interview, survey, or case study has discovered the same thing: a sexual act of one sort does NOT lead to more of the same.
But TMMason simply refuses to believe that these are valid forms of information gathering.
Nature is in charge of sexual preference, and nurture makes people go against their own nature. Gay people have had sex with straight people ("because I just felt I was supposed to", is an answer I've received from numerous gay friends), and straight people have had sex with the same sex ("I was experimenting", is a common response).
One does not need to find a "sexuality gene" to empirically know that sexual preference is a naturally determined thing - surveys, interviews and case studies have confirmed this indefinitely.
There's no science to support your narrow minded beliefs. You discriminate based on beliefs, we don't! Get over yourself.
My contention is that since the psychological and psychiatric community along with the neurological community of experts who work on this particular topic ad nauseum have not been able to definitely determine the "cause" of homosexuality, it seems a little presumptuous of any single small group of individuals to decide they can "repair" what may not be broken.
Is homosexuality a choice? is it genetic? is it a mutation? Did God do it on purpose?
Until the answer is definite, then this kind of "repair" of homosexuals is more harmful than helpful. Leave those people alone! They are who they are and who in the heck are any of us to TELL them that they are broken and need to be repaired?
Opps! Kate I misread your post (somewhat) to me (above) and glad to read your recent statement. Please overlook my earlier response.
If anyone is interested, this was a fascinating and entertaining interview I saw this week on Dylan Ratigan's show. About halfway through it goes into the reasons people are gay; this is a neuroscientist who's talking about a recent study and he talks about some cool stuff. You might enjoy it, it's actually very good.
It doesn't make the case for or against anyone here, just gives some food for thought.
...Many, many gay people are in fact CONFUSED. Human history has always suggested that normalcy for sexualiy was being a heterosexual. Certainly there are many people with homosexual tendencies who want to know where these feelings emanate from. They ware CONFUSED. The Bachmanns are a religious family. Good for them. I know of no religion that accepts homosexuality as a "normal" human condition. My gut feeling about this is that the Bachmanns are simply trying to help those who are confused about their sexuality, and who see normalcy as being heterosexual, to rediscover a path to - the client’s own perception - of normalcy.
Those who are attacking Bachmann are those who simply hate her in the first place...and are looking for any issue to continue their campaign of hate.
On the contrary.
Mr. Bachmann has categorized gay people and their sympathizers as "barbarians" who require correction and "discipline". Not quite the benign force for love and understanding that you want to portray.
BACHMANN: We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…
Barbarians? She said barbarians? How rude!
But then, she believes the shot heard 'round the world originated in New Hampshire. Wonder if she believes, like our exhaulted leader, that there are 57 states, too?
...and where is there any mention of sexual preference in that quote of yours (I''m assuming it's from Michelle B.)? She could very well be referring to criminal thoughts e.g. rape, wildings and pack attacks, etc..
I do wish people would stop taking cheap shots at good and descent people. Michelle certainly is NOT presidential material, but she is a GOOD person; and grounded in a very genuine feeling that religion is a cornerstone to a GOOD society. Christianity made America GREAT. I would rather hv was WAS (pre 1964) than what IS today i.e. what the DEMS have forced on Americans by abusing their powers --to write BULLY laws.
This was Mr. Bachman responding to questions about "reparative therapy" at his clinic. He was specifically talking about the issue at hand.
You haven't been following this story very closely, have you?
I know of no religion that does not base their presumptions on the originators of that religion.
Homosexuality is not accepted by the dudes who wrote the Bible, the Qua-ran,(sp) or the Book of Mormon, or the Jewish Bible (forgot what they call it). Men wrote all those words in all those pages, based on their desire to convey a specific message.
Apologies to those who are total believers with true faith. I am not speaking blasphemy, I'm speaking fact. The words in the Bible were put there by men.
"The words in the Bible were put there by men."
A long time ago when the world was flat. Civilization and science have progressed a fair amount since then. There's all kinds of crazy stuff in the Bible.
"I know of no religion that accepts homosexuality as a 'normal' human condition."
Not sure what you mean by "normal human condition." However, a number of Protestant Christian denominations have gay and lesbian clergy. Until recently the Episcopal Church had a openly gay presiding bishop, Gene Robinson.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009 … -memorial/
I have recently discovered that I have a cousin in the US, who is gay and is married to a clergyman, so it is true that not all Christians are homophobic, although a lot are.
And yes the words of all religious books were written by men. I wonder if there are any religious books written by women, and whether their views differ to those of the men.
Probably close to none, which is why a hundred years ago, men were arguing that women should not be allowed to vote ("it has never been done before"). We all know where that line of argument went.
It is obvious to me, that the type of person who would deny rights to the gay population are the same type, who a hundred years ago would have denied women the vote, and two hundred years ago would have believed in the slave trade, and 50 years ago, would have been outraged by the civil rights movement. But in every case, such people lost their superior position in society, just as they know they are losing the battle now to extend equality to gay people. Hopefully, in 50 years, homophobia will be as unacceptable as racism is today.
You must be either very ignorant of history or employing a very narrow definition of religion, then. Worldwide, there have been plenty of religions that have accepted (and in some cases even encouraged) homosexuality throughout history.
"there have been plenty of religions that have accepted (and in some cases even encouraged) homosexuality throughout history."
Maybe you didn't expect anyone to actually take that comment of yours seriously, but I just can't RESIST. Okay, kerryg, name ONE -not "plenty" , just ONE
Oh, and please keep your reply to known religious scripture i.e. a quote from an established religious book of scripture accepting or encouraging (LOL) homosexuality. I'm going to hold my breath here and wait for your response. So be QUICK.
Homosexuality was allowed and even encouraged by the Greeks and Romans, to the extent that male-male relationships were considered the most desirable form of love by the Greeks and heterosexual relationships were considered to be animalistic and useful only for procreation. Many of the Greek and Roman gods had homosexual lovers.
Some American Indian tribes recognized third (and even fourth, fifth, and sixth) genders, most commonly what would be called transwomen today - biological men who regard themselves as women. These third gender ("two spirit") individuals could marry individuals of the same biological sex within the tribe. Two Spirit individuals typically held positions of great respect within American Indian society and were often regarded as powerful shamans.
Some African and Melanesian tribes had similar customs, as does Thailand, minus the religious aspect of shamanism.
whatever, Wizard, the point is I had the idea that when people write things down they have the hopes that others will read it and their ideas may be altered or modified based on what they read.
if you lose your audience, you've not accomplished that goal.
Enough said... not going to convince you to stop calling names. <shrug> And I'm certain you probably have some good thing to say.
"others will read it and their ideas may be altered or modified based on what they read."
Pretty much a vain hope in my experience. There are a few open minded forum hoppers, but not many.
I'm not a wordsmith, Kate and I'm a bit dyslexic—worse however, I'm usually pressed for time and don't proof read as much as I'd like, or should.
Nevertheless, what troubles me most about right-wingers (and especially Tea-Partiers) is that so many of them are narrow-minded, misinformed, shameless, and stupid bullies with resentful rage.
One can easily see why Right-wing TV and radio is so successful—it's because they're so satisfying for ignorant fools to watch and listen to.
Now you may see that as a gross generalization with very little truth in it and name calling, but I have trouble tolerating those behaviors and I see nothing wrong with calling out those people with a label that fits their group-think.
Moreover those right-wing behaviors are not as tolerated or successful on non-partisan radio or television, i.e. NPR/PBS or left-wing radio and TV—say Air America or MSNBC (the first having failed and the second not even close in terms of competition with FOX— though it tries. Liberals aren't bullies, narrow-minded or shameless, imho.
(Essentially, btw, I'm echoing some points the comedian, Marc Maron (who had a show on Air America) made recently on Real Time with Bill Maher.)
"Now you may see that as a gross generalization with very little truth in it, nevertheless those right-wing behaviors are not as successful on non-partisan radio or television, i.e. NPR/PBS"
They are not as successful on NPR/PBS because they are in the real world where money is being made.
NPR/PBS suck our tax dollars away while Limbaugh creates wealth and jobs in the marketplace.
Wizard, don't bother, Kate has tried this same approach with me. She has convinced herself that she speaks for the masses. Anything that offends her tender sensibilities will obviously cost us readers. She contributes very little to the conversation or debate other than huffing and puffing about how she dislikes beling blamed for all the troubles of the world. Unless she has changed profiles on here I had never heard of her for 10 months. I manged to build a decent following and yet she knows that if I don't cater to her sensitive nature, I will lose them all. She also doesn't post her opinions on her home page where her readers cn find them. She leaves comments in the forums and on the hubs of others. Perhaps she doesn't want any of her readers to know who and what she is. BTW Kate. have a nice day and I picked up another reader today. I still call a spade a spade and those who happen to be spades for the most part dont have a problem with it. Perhaps your just embarassed to be a conservative Republican.
All you Leant leftists are still trying to create a story here, I see.
What a laugh.
Well... try repeating it louder, and more often (maybe start another thread about it?)... a with a lil more force too... maybe that will work... maybe it will be more true then.
What untruth are you referring to?
what's that? No evidence for you claims?
Thanks Stump. I can't understand why people can't own the bad behaviors and attitudes of their own sides. I abhor the spineless complacency of liberals as well as the their pseudo-superior arrogance, but it pales in comparison to the biased conduct and thuggery of the right.
Cases in point: the knuckle-dragging viewpoints of TMMason or the inflexible knee-jerk reactions of Jim Hunter.
What a country!
FYI Department: Tom Ashbrook is doing a whole show this morning on Michele Bachmann . . .
Those churches that accept the practice of Homosexuality into their ranks are an abomination. God would never accept the act of homosexuality as normal and morally acceptable. Christ would have told you to, sin no more, when he forgave you for that sin. Not, go ahead and continue to do as you want to.
I can tell you the muslims allah does not accept it... and his punishments inflicted by his people are a lot worse than being told, you canot act like that, as Christians should do.
But one man can have sex with another in Islam... as long as it is a domination thing... and not a love thing. Islam is a lil freaky like that.
Incest is alive and well in the bible, my good sir.
If Adam and Eve ended up being the great-great grandparents of us all, then God really loves incest.
You freaky christians and your incest!
Don't the Christian hate the Muslims more than Gays, when you think about all of the millions of people killed over a different religion in the name of God. I have never heard of the gay wars or in the name of gay lifestyle.
Who really are the freaks?
So no Christian army has ever dominated the oppressed by means of male rape then!
We have Star Wars, why not Gay Wars
Could imagine the fear from the homophobes when the enemies flanks them or attacks them from the rear.
This says it all for me.
isn't that the same outfit Lady Gaga wore? I smell a lawsuit!
Messed up! If you ask me!
by WaffleCheese 13 years ago
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...
by taburkett 6 years ago
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...
by Brian 6 years ago
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...
by LailaK 10 years ago
Do you find being gay/lesbian a normal aspect of life? How about gay/lesbian marriage? Would you support your best friend if they turned gay/lesbian?
by Brad Watson 8 years ago
(After I noticed that the thread Will homosexuals go to heaven or hell when they die? have 740 replies [10:00], I decided to write the following...)The prequel/sequel to the Bible has been written and is entitled There Are No Coincidences - there is synchronism. In it, is the message from God of...
by Brian 11 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...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|