Queer eye for the straight guy

[SirKenin]

More mentally-ill people, doing something they think is OK.

The point is, he proved his case. You didn't.

As I've stated before, heterosexual paedophiles think what they do is OK.

Not to mention that there are heterosexual guys, in college and other places, that have sex with females to increase their 'ego/coolness,' not caring what diseases they give/receive, or whom they get pregnant, nor who they hurt emotionally. It's a two-sided coin. Humans are sexually - everyone is here (alive) because of sex. It's also a fact that a certain percentage of people have mental-illness(es), which can be sexual in nature, and can cause harm to others.

No red herrings please.

 

[foolsparade]

Whats really disturbing is that you Christians have sunk so low on the moral-evolutionary ladder that you need to rally around a TV show, and thus begins your hate inspired slander. This isn't suprising because you simple people worship a cruel God. By passing judgment in the name of your God, you have cancelled God out of the equation! c'mon people wake up. at least try to pretend that you are kind and compassionate.

 

[Truncate]

The point is, he proved his case. You didn't.

The "25%" claim was not substantiated.

No red herrings please.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If you can show a minority of homosexuals that are quite obviously mentally-ill, then I can show that some heterosexuals do the same thing (and much more!).


Honestly, about the heterosexual young men having sex with many females, in college or highschool, in an ego-driven animal-like run - do you think this occurs; is it OK?

 

[SirKenin]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

That's not how this works. You speak up against something, then do the same thing yourself. That makes you a hypocrite.

Anyways, I don't see this going anywhere else. I think I've said all I can, sometimes more than once, so I think I'll have to find a new thread to spend all my time in. lol

Peace

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

It's interesting that the bigots keep misrepresenting my position deliberately, flinging insults to smear homosexuals with faulty arguments and religious propaganda, and don't even realize that their own arguments condemn heterosexuality just as much as homosexuality.

Perhaps even more interesting is that the moderators allow for such bigotry by allowing discussion off topic for such a long period of time. Probably because bigotry is encouraged, and that's nothing new.

Of course in the end, any sensible person without an irrational prejudice can see that there is nothing inherently wrong with homosexuality and that it infringes on no one else's rights. To say otherwise is to lie to excuse one's bigotry.

 

[Truncate]

Bottom line is:

If you do not like this show - do not watch it.
If you hate it, for some unrational reason, protest the show.

Homosexuals have parades and protests, to garner acceptance, so, as protests and petitions are legal in the US, you can protest to. But, there is no reason to hate a person simply because they are homosexual - even if you believe they have "chosen that lifestyle." The vast majority of homosexuals, as with heterosexuals, do NOT want to harm anyone. Live and let live... Show some love - like some religious texts tell you to show.

 

[Lola]

Whats really disturbing is that you Christians have sunk so low on the moral-evolutionary ladder that you need to rally around a TV show, and thus begins your hate inspired slander. This isn't suprising because you simple people worship a cruel God. By passing judgment in the name of your God, you have cancelled God out of the equation! c'mon people wake up. at least try to pretend that you are kind and compassionate.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[Truncate]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Not exactly. He is a non-christian: he is not part of a religion that claims to be loving and kind to other people.

 

[Omnedon]

In all honesty, I did a google search and listed the top two links (after skimming them). However, just because you don't approve of the authors, doesn't mean they are incorrect.

It isn't a question of whether I approve of them.

It's a question of whether they are biased and/or making up conclusions, or ignoring the facts.

In this case your two sources are engaging in all three behaviors.

Again, my challenge to your side is to find an article that supports the fact that homosexuality is NOT a choice-that they can't resist or change who they are.

Easy enough:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html

Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

I keep hearing the pro-gay side try and tell me how horrific my POV is because homosexuality is "natural" and doesn't directly hurt anyone. Usually when one wants to prove a FACT, and not an opinion, they back their claims with scientific data. I have yet to see this done.

Then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Lola]

http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html#whatcauses

What Causes a Person To Have a Particular Sexual Orientation?

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality. In summary, it is important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person's sexual orientation and the reasons may be different for different people.

Ok, first of all, most does not mean they have answers.

Second, there is all this talk about how science thinks it's genetic, and yet there is still NO link showing any scientific data.

I can list 1,000 websites that will say whatever I want them to say. That doesn't mean my stance is the truth. If scientists were able to pinpoint the "gay gene" it would be headline news. The FACT is they can't prove it. They only HOPE that it's there...

Thank you for the link Omnedon.

 

[Omnedon]

There's nothing homophobic about that statement.

Yes, there is. Your feelings on the topic are dripping right off your words.

I'm just not shading it, rather addressing it head on.

Hm. Well, then, maybe you should produce evidence that any gays have said fisting is natural. Provide some quotations from gay interviews, documents, etc. I mean, that *is* what you claimed quite loudly earlier - that gays said that their "habits" were natural.

Hint - you won't find any such quotations. Let's see if you can connect the dots to figure out why your example is not valid.

We're going to discuss this, ok, let's tell it like it really is, shall we? Is that fair?

The problem is that you've twisted what people have said, in order to put the worst possible spin on it. You're not interested in "telling it like it is." You're interested in "spinning it like you want."

I do, however, find it interesting that you all cite these famous studies, but magically no links appear. lol

Hm. Seems to me that a lot of links have already been provided. Wonder why you haven't read them. Actually, no - I don't wonder why; I know why you avoid reading them.

Could you PLEASE link me to some of these scientific facts? I'm really interested to read what facts exist out there.

Sure.
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/answers.html
http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html

http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/psychoanalysis.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod.htm
http://www.waf.org/documents.htm#Reparative Therapy
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_exod1.htm
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_changing.html
http://www.whosoever.org/exgay/sullivan.html
http://hem.passagen.se/nicb/cure.htm
http://www.ngltf.org/downloads/exgay.pdf
http://www.publiceye.org/equality/x-gay/X-Gay-10.htm
http://members.aol.com/gaygene/pages/traittab.htm
http://www.priory.com/psych/disparat.htm
http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/Research/HNatureProposalsArticles/Homosexuality.biologicall.html

That should keep you busy. Let me know when you're done, and we can discuss the evidence.

Oh, one more - here is a detailed discussion of gay gene investigation:
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001784

What we are seeing is documents that provide evidence of a homosexual agenda.

No, what we're seeing is right-wing religious nonsense that creates phoney monsters and boogeymen.

 

[kdet]

Y

Oh, one more - here is a detailed discussion of gay gene investigation:
http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001784


No, what we're seeing is right-wing religious nonsense that creates phoney monsters and boogeymen.

What does a link to another internet message board prove???

 

[Omnedon]

I'm sure there are parents of homosexuals who would disagree.

Of all the off-the-wall rationalizations, that's a new one on me ("but the parents think it's harmful, so it must be harmful").

There are parents of left-handed kids who also think that is harmful.
What does interviewing the parents of such kids prove? Not much.

 

[Omnedon]

What does a link to another internet message board prove???

I can tell you didn't bother to read it.

It's a link which (as I said) discusses the state of such research. Complete with source quotations, new discoveries, etc.

If you're interested in the topic, then read it.

If you aren't interested, then you can skip it.

 

[Omnedon]

People who claim that homosexuality is natural and wonderful due to the fact that they enjoy sex with others of the same gender have no credibility in their arguments.

Can you provide anyone's name or a link, to someone who has used pleasure as a proof of homosexuality being natural?

If so, please re-post it.

If not, then your argument is bogus.

 

[kdet]

I can tell you didn't bother to read it.

It's a link which (as I said) discusses the state of such research. Complete with source quotations, new discoveries, etc.

If you're interested in the topic, then read it.

If you aren't interested, then you can skip it.

It's a link to another forum...why not just post the links that are relevant?

 

[Truncate]

Natural because of the pleasure involved? No one stated that.

It is natural because it is found in nature, ie, many animals (including humans). Do you actually believe that chimpanzees, canines, other animals, choose to be homosexual?

 

[Omnedon]

Rubbish it is. You don't represent every homosexual out there, so speak for yourself.

That's interesting - you were trying to speak for all homosexuals earlier when you said they claimed that fisting and oils were all natural and OK.

Seems like you should follow your own advice here, and stop trying to generalize about a group of people you (obviously) don't know much about.

It is well known what homosexuals do, and I've touched on several of them in this thread. Nothing irrationally prejudiced about it.

Is it? Wow, cool!

So if it's so "well-known" what they do, then that should make your job (substantiating your "fisting & oil" claim) pretty easy.

So how about proving that such activities are common, hmm? A link to a sexual behaviors study, or some such demographic analysis of gay & lesbian behaviors? Preferably submitted to a peer reviewed journal, with proper statistical analysis - some of us here can understand the statistical math involved, so having a look at it would be interesting.

 

[Omnedon]

It's a link to another forum...why not just post the links that are relevant?

Huh?

The link to the other forum IS relevant. It links to a discussion thread about THIS VERY SAME TOPIC.

And in that discussion, it mentions the sources and evidence on THIS VERY SAME TOPIC. Which makes it relevant.

All of which you would have known, if you had followed the link and read the thread.

If you don't want to read the discussion on the other board, then fine - you don't have to do so. I posted 15 or 20 other such links; more than enough to keep someone busy.

 

[kdet]

Huh?

The link to the other forum IS relevant. It links to a discussion thread about THIS VERY SAME TOPIC.

And in that discussion, it mentions the sources and evidence on THIS VERY SAME TOPIC. Which makes it relevant.

All of which you would have known, if you had followed the link and read the thread.

I followed the link..it is another forum that has a discussion board...so what? It has no bearing because it is just more opinions.