Re: The Truth About Homomsexuality
Meldon Fens
"No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> "society".
How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
Total hog-wash.
I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa Ethridge
asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of "born
gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the press
like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false premise.
They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We
all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
JohnN
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
> Total hog-wash.
How do you know it is not genetic? Please post your peer reviewed
research.
>
> I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa Ethridge
> asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of "born
> gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the press
> like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false premise.
> They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We
> all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
In polite societ bigots are often ridiculed. The stupid bastards soon
learn to keep their faith based crap to themselves. Hopefully their
children will break the cycle and live decent lives freed of their
parents brain slugs.
JohnN
satyr
wrote:
>On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>> > "society".
>>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
>> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
>> Total hog-wash.
>
>How do you know it is not genetic? Please post your peer reviewed
>research.
In fact there is significant evidence for a genetic component, but
that is not even necessary for one to be born gay. There is
substantial evidence that male homosexuality may be influenced by
hormonal exposure in utero.This would explain the well documented fact
that the more older brothers he has, the more likely a male is to be
gay.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/103/28/10531
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
Meldon Fens
"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:91effea6-87d4-4708...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> genetically.
> Total hog-wash.
How do you know it is not genetic? Please post your peer reviewed
research.
(M):
Name the gene that causes sexual preference.
>
> I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa
> Ethridge
> asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of "born
> gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the press
> like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false premise.
> They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We
> all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
In polite societ bigots are often ridiculed. The stupid bastards soon
learn to keep their faith based crap to themselves. Hopefully their
children will break the cycle and live decent lives freed of their
parents brain slugs.
(M):
In polite societies, tolerance is exploited and disagreement is ridiculed.
BTW., I have not mentioned anything about faith based crap. Come to think of
it, I think Ethridge's question was, "does a person choose to be gay?" The
"incorrect" answer was yes. Still laughable since it implies someone who is
gay can not abstain from sex.
The truth is, both homo and heterosexuality are learned behaviours. We
choose who to have sex with. If a male has sex with another male, its two
males having sex. Nothing more. Adding a name to the behaviour and then
insisting it is genetic is junk science and politically motivated.
It could just as easily have been considered an aversion to having children,
given a name and shown using junk science that it is genetic. This is no
more accurate than claiming a sexual choice is genetically based or
masturbation is genetically based aversion to sexual partners. Its pure bull
shit.
anonymous coward
>
> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> "society".
Hey, kid, most people think a lot of thinks, like their kids are going
to grow up and be
a famous something and support them for the rest of their lives. The
reality is that most
kids need their parents help financially and in every other aspect for
the rest of their
parents lives.
> Somehow or other it has become "cool" to be a fag.
Well, kids, it has never been cool to be anything you can't be and that
includes being a fag
which these days thinks to your continued postings is currently the most
hated person on the planet.
But you know, kid, actually you are pretty perceptive. At about the
time that a heterosexual male gets married, 25, heterosexuals males
begin to get their wings of life. Within hours of a macho heterosexual
male slipping on his wedding ring, he begins to realize the wife will
directly or indirectly tell him what to do for the rest of his married
life whether it involves sex or buying a new car. What the homosexual
begins to learn as he spreads his wings at 25 is that being a homosexual
isn't as bad as kids like none says, but it means while his buddies were
drinking and chasing loose women, he was getting a good education and
now that he as got, he can go out in the world and live it up, work
anywhere, date anyone, buy a house, chase men if he isn't married and
settled down with another fellow, travel, see the world, buy fine
things, eat good food,
enjoy fine music and married or not to a same sex guy have the best live
that money, life and religion can offer anywhere in the universe let
alone the planet earth. Sadly, the heteroseuals guy and gal of 25 are
realizing that kids are way, way, way more time consuming and expensive
than society ever told them including
their loving trusted parents. Both parents realize they have little
time to themselves and that will remain so for at least 20 years or
longer.
> Now
> people are thinking like "Ooh, if I don't like fags people will think
> me discrimnatory, Ooh Ooh can't have that.HEY HEY look at me, I like
> fags, theyre ok, they're normal, love's love right?"
Hey, no one, the world doesn't care if you like homosexuals (fags) or
not. They know that the very fact that you have time to even think
about homosxuals, time to talk (post) about homosexuals, time to trash
homosexuals means you don't have a normal heterosexual life. It also
guarantees that you aren't dating a woman because any guy I know dating
a woman has only limited nights to play basketball, go for beers, or has
limited money to spend having fun with the guys. The woman in his life
has a long list of things for him to do like dinner with her friends,
her parents, her sisters and brothers, things to buy, things to do
all without her requiring or wanting much or any imput from him. The
fact that you, no one, kid, can post night after night, day after day,
suggests that homosexuality is the most interesting subject on the
planet.
Sadly, it is pretty dull and boring, because homosexuals are living it
to the max, heterosexuals, most of them, are trying to live a
heterosexual life to the max and with 2 kids and it is a challenge on
all levels, and you my good man are enjoying reading and posting about
homosexuality.
> These people make me fucking sick. And the sad thing is there are a
> lot of people like this, pushing the homosexual movement. But the fact
> is homosexuality is wrong, John here knows it, he just expresses it
> very aggresively. Just because he expresses himself in an angry way
> doesn't make his message wrong. Homosexuality is NOT normal, it is
> about as peverse as you can get. Don't beleive me? then maybe you
> should look at some of the perverse, degenerate shit found in numerous
> fag websites and chatrooms. take a look at them and then tell me
> faggots are normal.
Hey, no one, kid, why don't you cut and past from homosexual web site
and chat rooms all the things homosexuals talk about and then go to
where you hang out at the good Christian web sites and chatrooms and see
what they talk about. Being a good Christian, you may not know this
but most men be they Christian or not - homosexual or not, all talk
about the same thing, finding that special someone to have sex with and
dinner with and go camping with and going to rock concerts with.
> The stuff you see will make any sane person want to puke, and fags are
> turned on by this perversion.
What is perversion in your mind and quote the what is said about
perversion.
> What makes really pissed off is that
> they're trying to influence and teach our children to accept what they
> do as just an "alternative lifestyle", they try and say that fucking
> another man is normal.
Well, no one, kid, most heterosexual men in prison don't really care
where they put their penis once they have blue balls. That is also true
of priests, Christian men and all men on the planet. Once the blood
flows from the brain to the penis, the ability for the man to think
remotely clearly is pretty much zero.
> What about all the std's fags spread, do you
> tell them about that? Nooo I don't think so. You just say "wear a
> condom and you'll be ok"
> "you can fuck anything you like, as long as you wear protection".
Well, no one, again, I don't think they teach birth control to
Christians so what they learn is that after the Christians win the
basketball championship and he has unprotected sex with is virgin
girlfriend to celebrate, he wakes up in a week or to to find out he is
going to be a daddy and his college plans, his life plans are ruined,
not to mentioning his Christian reputation. So spreading legs and
spreading the word about the good Christian life that everybody should
live has a price on its head, too.
Preventer of Work
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>> "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
> Total hog-wash.
>
$200, what is bisexual?). There is no "gay gene" per se. Due to whatever
combination of things that happen during development, and that would be
genetic (many interacting genes) and enviromental, you end up with
varying degrees of preference for each sex.
So yes, a person could be born gay without there being a specific gene.
Or 80/20, 50/50, 20/80, or something else. Upbringing and cultural
environments play a role as well, though not in making or breaking
one's sexual nature.
It's not really much different than left/right handedness, which is
also a continuum. And a it is propensity which can be passed on to
a small extent. Don't forget - thanks to culture, and sexual orientation
being a continuum, many gays and lesbians have reproduced. I personally
doubt this has much real influence, but who knows.
And more to the point, who cares. If consenting adults do something you
might not, that does not make it "bad". And if some so-called holy
book says it is bad and that is you authority, give up now. Those
things are worthless except as emergency butt wipe.
You are free to find it distasteful. That too may be part of the
continuum. But you don't ever have to participate. And those other
consenting adults are usually _in private_ so how does it harm you?
No One
> No One wrote:
> >
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > "society".
>
> Hey, kid, most people think a lot of thinks, like their kids are going
> to grow up and be
> a famous something and support them for the rest of their lives.
<snip>
... did you know that you were taken in by a post forger pretending to
be me?
Andrew W
news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
It is a brain wiring problem. Women and men's brains are wired differently.
Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
function. Unlike what the religious community claims, nothing in the life of
an individual can rewire the brain so dramatically. If it is a brain wiring
problem then it cannot be a sin.
--
Andrew W.
Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they tell
us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that work exactly?
We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be tortured in hell
forever. You can't do both at the same time.
You must unlearn what you have learned. ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
adman
"Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
|
"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This
occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life,
which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent "
http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either "extensive" or "more
than incidental" homosexual experience. [12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
5% in the animal kingdom, 13.95% in America.
That means 8.95% make the choice to be homosexual.
nuff said.
Uncle Vic
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> genetically. Total hog-wash.
Were you born hetersexual? Yes? Were your sexual attractions born into
you? Then how can you claim that homosexual tendencies are not?
Especially in light of the fact that most members of the Animal Kingdom (of
which WE are a part of) display this same trait, lacking the thinking
skills we have evolved?
I'm betting you're a right-wing bigot. Am I close?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Convicted by Earthquack.
Dysperdis
Only if you conclude that "a completely homosexual life" is equivalent
to having "extensive" or "more than incidental" experience, which fails
to account for bisexuality. You also failed to provide the operational
definition of "extensive" used in the study.
thomas p.
"Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>> "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
Who is "they"?
If that were true, there would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> genetically. Total hog-wash.
Yes, your assumptions are hog-wash. Furthermore, if homosexuality was a
completely conscious choice, what difference would that make? It would still
be none of your business.
>
> I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa
> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise
> of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through
> the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false
> premise. They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad
> really. We all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than
> seek clarity.
>
Clarity is the last thing you are interested in.
No One
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
> Total hog-wash.
Aside from the post-forging troll you replied to, there is in fact a
genetic component to one's sexual orientation. It's been shown by
comparing identical to fraternal twins. Also, there is some evidence
that the genetic factors that result in homosexuality also seem to
increase the fertility rate in females.
See
<http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html>
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article493668.ece>
for details.
SilentOtto
> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yea?
When did you choose your sexual orientation?
Surely you recall making such a monumental decision.
Heh heh...
Rightards.
Meldon Fens
"adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
news:R8iJj.25667$Er2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
Indeed. Choice. Further, I contend seeking a genetic or developmental cause
for the choice is flawed. Because animals allegedly choose still doesn't
imply a genetic or developmental cause for the choice.
--
There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
Help Meldon fight the WAR.
Meldon Fens
"Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote in message
news:jIhJj.24206$rd2.15456@pd7urf3no...
> Meldon Fens wrote:
>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>> "society".
>>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>>
> Gay and straight may seem to be binary. Wrong. It is a continuum (for
> $200, what is bisexual?). There is no "gay gene" per se. Due to whatever
> combination of things that happen during development, and that would be
> genetic (many interacting genes) and enviromental, you end up with varying
> degrees of preference for each sex.
I'm not sure of your intention behind the words binary and continium but I
would like to address the point of preference. I think this is where
confusion and eventually exploitation for political ends begins.
If we can agree gay vs. straight is a means to describe a "sexual
preference" then let's examine this notion of preference. First, the notion
of some hardwiring pointing to determining preference during fetal
development from either a genetic component or otherwise.
I would argue, preference has more to do with environment and I will draw
the following analogy.
Take a person stranded on an island without a chance of escape. If they are
alone, their preference is determined by the options available to them.
Poking a melon feels better than poking sand. The preferance is made by that
which gives the most pleasure. There is no predisposition to poking melons
but there is predisposition based on pleasure. Here there is no difference
between 100 people on 100 islands.
One of those people may enjoy poking the sand. That is their preference but
to then point to a definable cause for their deicision as being genetic or
from developmental causes is clearly flawed.
If two people on one island were same sex, they may prefer to engage in
mutual pleasure rather than poking either melon or sand. This could hardly
be considered "being gay" and to point to a definable cause for this
decision is equally flawed as the first scenario.
If one of them chose not to engage, it doesn't mean they are "straight". It
simply means that is the decision they made and it is likely due to learned
behaviour.
Think of early Spartans or Greeks. The behaviour was not brought about by a
genetic factor or developmental one any more than the two on the island
engaging or not engaging was based on a genetic or developmental factor. Its
environment. The behaviour is learned. If in general society accepts the
behaviour, more will occur. If it frowns on it, less would occur.
> So yes, a person could be born gay without there being a specific gene.
> Or 80/20, 50/50, 20/80, or something else. Upbringing and cultural
> environments play a role as well, though not in making or breaking
> one's sexual nature.
>
> It's not really much different than left/right handedness, which is
> also a continuum. And a it is propensity which can be passed on to
> a small extent. Don't forget - thanks to culture, and sexual orientation
> being a continuum, many gays and lesbians have reproduced. I personally
> doubt this has much real influence, but who knows.
This premise presumes a biological cause. It is flawed. Left and right
handedness may be biological but I contend sexual preference is not. The two
are not the same and the analogy is flawed.
>
> And more to the point, who cares. If consenting adults do something you
> might not, that does not make it "bad". And if some so-called holy
> book says it is bad and that is you authority, give up now. Those
> things are worthless except as emergency butt wipe.
I for one don't care either way. I do care however, when it comes to
political action. A gay agenda is just as bad as a straight agenda. Both
sides are arguing about the wrong thing.
>
> You are free to find it distasteful. That too may be part of the
> continuum. But you don't ever have to participate. And those other
> consenting adults are usually _in private_ so how does it harm you?
Privacy is disputable since two same-sex partners holding hands on Ventura
Blvd is not a private act. It is a public one just as legislation is public.
I'm comfortable with the notion that preference is environmental. It would
seem that proponents of homosexuality are not comfortable with that notion.
Meldon Fens
--
There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
Help Meldon fight the WAR.
www.myspace.com/meldons_war
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:47f5ab9c$0$13113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>
>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>> "society".
>>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>>
>> I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa
>> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise
>> of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through
>> the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a
>> false premise. They can't even answer what they feel for fear of
>> ridicule. Sad really. We all suffer because people feel the need to "win"
>> rather than seek clarity.
>
>
> It is a brain wiring problem. Women and men's brains are wired
> differently. Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
> Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
> function.
So is a decision to chose one partner over another. Its a complex dicision
not a complex wiring issue.
It may be that proponents of homosexuality have found it necessary to
introduce a wiring argument to combat the religious argument. IMO, both are
flawed.
>Unlike what the religious community claims, nothing in the life of an
>individual can rewire the brain so dramatically. If it is a brain wiring
>problem then it cannot be a sin.
>
> --
> Andrew W.
>
> Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they tell
> us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that work
> exactly? We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be tortured
> in hell forever. You can't do both at the same time.
I suggest our notion of god is completely false. But that does not mean that
I beleive there is a genetic or developmental causation for homosexuality.
Meldon Fens
"Uncle Vic" <add...@withheld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A75DAEF...@207.115.33.102...
> One fine day in alt.atheism, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>
> Were you born hetersexual? Yes?
No. I was born and I learned and I chose.
>Were your sexual attractions born into
> you?
No. I learned them.
>Then how can you claim that homosexual tendencies are not?
They are learned.
> Especially in light of the fact that most members of the Animal Kingdom
> (of
> which WE are a part of) display this same trait, lacking the thinking
> skills we have evolved?
Animals are not without choice. Homosexual animals does not imply genetic or
developmental cause any more than seeking shelter in the rain.
>
> I'm betting you're a right-wing bigot. Am I close?
>
> --
Absolutely not. I don't contend same-sex is wrong and I'm not "gay". I see
two political factions arguing about something which does not exist in the
same way two religions argue about who's god is god.
Meldon Fens
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87ej9mn...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> writes:
>
>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>> > "society".
>>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>> would
>> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically.
>> Total hog-wash.
>
> Aside from the post-forging troll you replied to, there is in fact a
> genetic component to one's sexual orientation. It's been shown by
> comparing identical to fraternal twins. Also, there is some evidence
> that the genetic factors that result in homosexuality also seem to
> increase the fertility rate in females.
>
The study supports one side of an argument. That's all. I'm sure similar
studies could support the other side of the argument. I contend both sides
are politically motivated.
Meldon Fens
"anonymous coward" <anonymo...@anonymouscoward.com> wrote in message
news:47F5B36B...@anonymouscoward.com...
Wow! Goes to show you that bigotry is not limited to heterosexuals.
Meldon Fens
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>
>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>> "society".
>>
>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>
> Who is "they"?
Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
suggested.
>
> If that were true, there would
>> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>
> Yes, your assumptions are hog-wash. Furthermore, if homosexuality was a
> completely conscious choice, what difference would that make? It would
> still be none of your business.
>
You're assuming I disagree with homosexuality. I don't engage in that choice
but I don't consider it wrong. I do consider it wrong to treat it
politically just as I would consider it wrong to politicize heterosexual
activity. Both sides are wrong not for their behaviour but for politiciznign
it.
>
>>
>> I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa
>> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise
>> of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through
>> the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a
>> false premise. They can't even answer what they feel for fear of
>> ridicule. Sad really. We all suffer because people feel the need to "win"
>> rather than seek clarity.
>>
>
> Clarity is the last thing you are interested in.
>
Now now. That's not true. I'm arguing the presumed cause of a sexual choice.
I contend it is not genetic nor is it developmental. If you prefer apples
over oranges, I say fine. If you say, you prefer apples over oranges then
attempt to argue a genetic, developmental or otherwise "hard-wired" cause
for the choice, I say not fine. Preference is choice resulting from
environment; that's all it is.
thomas p.
Or that you have no sense of humor - a common problem among bigots.
thomas p.
Let us say that there is no such causation. So what?
Meldon Fens
"SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb81656d-eac1-4635...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
I don't remember choosing my sexual preference in the same way I don't
remember choosing to believe in a mythical deity. That does not mean no
choice was made and it does not mean I was pre-wired to decide the way I
did.
Don't assume I'm against homosexuality because I don't engage in it and
please refrain from personal attacks.
thomas p.
>
>
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>
>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>> "society".
>>>
>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>>
>> Who is "they"?
>
>
> Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
> suggested.
Proponents of homosexuality? Are you claiming that there are people who are
encouraging people to be homosexual?
>
>
>>
>> If that were true, there would
>>> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>>
>> Yes, your assumptions are hog-wash. Furthermore, if homosexuality was a
>> completely conscious choice, what difference would that make? It would
>> still be none of your business.
>>
>
> You're assuming I disagree with homosexuality. I don't engage in that
> choice but I don't consider it wrong. I do consider it wrong to treat it
> politically just as I would consider it wrong to politicize heterosexual
> activity. Both sides are wrong not for their behaviour but for
> politiciznign it.
It is politicized. Homosexuals live in society. They have suffered abuse
and discrimination because of their homosexuality. They are now fighting
that mistreatment, and others are opposing that struggle. If you do not
believe homosexuality is wrong, it is hard to understand why you think it is
wrong for homosexuals to resist being abused.
thomas p.
So there is evidence for the position you reject out of hand.
adman
"Dysperdis" <dysp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:VGjJj.24996$Cj7.20212@pd7urf2no...
Bisexuality is not homosexuality, it is? Although Bisexuality has Homosexual
behavior in common, as well as and Hetosexual behavion in common.
The word "Extensive" is self evident.
It is quite clear when we compare nature vs human, more humans make a choice
to be homosexual.
Andrew W
Its not an issue of choosing a partner. No man wants to choose another man.
Its an issue of strong sexual desire for the same sex which comes from the
sex drive which is an ancient part of the brain.
What can cause such a profound alteration in a fundamental procreative part
of the brain?
JohnN
> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> "society".
That must be why jesus never said a word against homosexuality.
JohnN
No One
> "No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87ej9mn...@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> writes:
> >
> >> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> >> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> >> > "society".
> >>
> >> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> >> would
> >> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> >> genetically.
> >> Total hog-wash.
> >
> > Aside from the post-forging troll you replied to, there is in fact a
> > genetic component to one's sexual orientation. It's been shown by
> > comparing identical to fraternal twins. Also, there is some evidence
> > that the genetic factors that result in homosexuality also seem to
> > increase the fertility rate in females.
>
> The study supports one side of an argument. That's all. I'm sure similar
> studies could support the other side of the argument. I contend both sides
> are politically motivated.
Wrong - both (and I'll note that you snipped the URLs for some reason)
describe measurements that have nothing to do with politics. If you
want to claim that there is not a genetic component to one's sexual
orentation, then it is incumbent on you to show why your hypothesis,
model, or theory is not refuted by these results.
See
<http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html>
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article493668.ece>
for details. If you are really interested, you should read the articles
the researchers wrote describing their work.
Your claim that it is "politics" is really silly: the twin studies in
particular show that for identical twins, if one is gay then the
chances that the other is gay is about 50%. You get a lower value for
fraternal twins and a still lower value for siblings. There's a
genetic factor, but genetics does not account for everything. Someone
disguising political propaganda as reearch would have claimed 100% to
make the numbers look better - the "activist" types nearly always
exaggerate up to the point where they won't be laughed at.
Dennis Kemmerer
Your laughable attempt at logic notwithstanding, so what if homosexuality
_is_ chosen?
Dennis Kemmerer
You just blew up my bullshit meter. You're as homophobic as they come.
Dennis Kemmerer
I suppose you don't recall failing eighth grade debate class either.
[snip]
Patriot Games
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>> "society".
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> genetically. Total hog-wash.
Not really. The scientific research is just slightly leaning that way.
But we're years away from completely figuring it out.
JohnN
> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:91effea6-87d4-4708...@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
>
>
> >news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > > "society".
>
> > How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> > would
> > be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> > genetically.
> > Total hog-wash.
>
> research.
>
> (M):
> Name the gene that causes sexual preference.
I know of no gene. But you seem to have advanced knowledge of
genetics so I want your research in human genome sexual preferences.
>
>
> > I recall early in the presidential race, a panel including Melissa
> > Ethridge
> > asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of "born
> > gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the press
> > like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false premise.
> > They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We
> > all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
>
> In polite societ bigots are often ridiculed. The stupid bastards soon
> learn to keep their faith based crap to themselves. Hopefully their
> children will break the cycle and live decent lives freed of their
> parents brain slugs.
>
> (M):
> In polite societies, tolerance is exploited and disagreement is ridiculed.
How does one, in polite society, beat up a young man, strip him, tie
him to a fence rail in the middle of nowhere exposed to the cold
elements, and leave him to die? Would it have been rude of him to not
RSVP?
> BTW., I have not mentioned anything about faith based crap.
I have never met an anti homosexual bigot that didn't praise Jesus
while throwing the first stone. Until now. Thank you.
Come to think of
> it, I think Ethridge's question was, "does a person choose to be gay?" The
> "incorrect" answer was yes. Still laughable since it implies someone who is
> gay can not abstain from sex.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality is defined by the preference not
by the act.
Abstinence does not make one non-heterosexual, does it?
>
> The truth is, both homo and heterosexuality are learned behaviours. We
> choose who to have sex with. If a male has sex with another male, its two
> males having sex. Nothing more. Adding a name to the behaviour and then
> insisting it is genetic is junk science and politically motivated.
No, that is not the truth. We choose the partner we wish to have sex
with. The gender of that partner is our preference and is not learned
behavior. If it is please tell us who learned you your sexual
orientation.
> It could just as easily have been considered an aversion to having children,
> given a name and shown using junk science that it is genetic. This is no
> more accurate than claiming a sexual choice is genetically based or
> masturbation is genetically based aversion to sexual partners. Its pure bull
> shit.
"Lifestyle Choice" is the bullshit. Sexual orientation and preference
is not chosen. If it is, please cite the research.
JohnN
JohnN
wrote:
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
>
> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> >> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> >> "society".
>
> > How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
> > would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
> > genetically. Total hog-wash.
>
> > Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise
> > of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through
> > the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false
> > premise. They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad
> > really. We all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than
> > seek clarity.
>
> Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
You must live on Planet Green Acres. I know several straight men with
female behaviors.
> Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
> function. Unlike what the religious community claims, nothing in the life of
> an individual can rewire the brain so dramatically. If it is a brain wiring
> problem then it cannot be a sin.
Homosexuality is not a problem. Insecure, sexually threatened men are
a problem. Adults really don't care about other people's orientation.
JohnN
JohnN
wrote:
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
>
> news:G_ydnRLLh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
> > Help Meldon fight the WAR.
>
> >www.myspace.com/meldons_war
You should get out more often.
> Its an issue of strong sexual desire for the same sex which comes from the
> sex drive which is an ancient part of the brain.
A sex drive may well have its roots in our evolutionary past.
> What can cause such a profound alteration in a fundamental procreative part
> of the brain?
Your question assumes their is a sexual norm not in evidence.
JohnN
Dysperdis
You've just figured that out?
"A completely homosexual life" is NOT equivalent to "more than
incidental" or "extensive" experience.
Here, let me define the terms for you.
"A completely homosexual life": The animal has only engaged in sexual
conduct with members of the same sex. This group DOES NOT include those
who have engaged in sexual conduct with members of the opposite sex.
It is reasonable to conclude that this group (group A) contains ONLY
homosexual animals.
Are you following? Good.
"More than incidental" or "extensive": the person has engaged in sexual
conduct with members of the same sex. This group DOES include those who
have engaged in sexual conduct with members of the opposite sex.
It is reasonable to conclude that this group (Group B) contains
Homosexual AND Bisexual people, as well as potentially including
Bi-Curious people.
Still following?
Now, apply a little simple logic.
Group A has fewer members than Group B because the criteria for Group A
is more exclusive than the criteria for Group B.
> The word "Extensive" is self evident.
No, it isn't. Does it refer to a numerical value? How many partners
would be considered extensive? How many sexual encounters?
> It is quite clear when we compare nature vs human, more humans make a choice
> to be homosexual.
No. It is quite clear that reading comprehension is not your strong
point, though.
Meldon Fens
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:jXsJj.87$FF6...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
With that baseless argument we can assume you have no rational basis for
your position.
Meldon Fens
My statement assumes your statement was true. I've not read any such
evidence nor would I waste my time doing so in the same way I would not
waste my time reading evidence supporting an argument that
supports a mythical deity who answers prayers. Bullshit is bullshit no
matter how many studies are performed supporting bullshit is perfume. If you
insist on smelling bullshit and calling it perfume, go ahead but don't
expect me or anyone else to agree.
Meldon Fens
Total crap.
Meldon Fens
The implication is, sexual preference is a choice. That's all. Nothing more
and nothing less. Every other assertion is politically motivated and it
shows the public is mislead when the chorus begins with, "sexual preference
is not a choice".
Meldon Fens
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47f61209$0$2103$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
Oh, but I was making a joke also. What a bunch of lunatics.
Meldon Fens
>
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:G_ydnQ_Lh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>
>>
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>
>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>>
>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>> "society".
>>>>
>>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>>>
>>> Who is "they"?
>>
>>
>> Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
>> suggested.
>
> Proponents of homosexuality? Are you claiming that there are people who
> are encouraging people to be homosexual?
>
Oh for fuck's sake. Of course forwarding a political agenda based on
homosexuality will encourage more people to be homosexual but that is not
what my argument is. I answered a question that was posed and you will now
ask another question based on my answer. Stop wasting my time. Stop wasting
tax payers money and stop paying lawyers and advocates to forward political
agenda.
Go fuck a tree, I don't really care but don't try to tell me you don't have
a choice.
Meldon Fens
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:kXsJj.88$FF...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Proponents of homosexuality might be better served to make an honest basis
for their position just as an opponent of homosexuality would be. Both have
inherently flawed basis for their positions and as a result we as a society
get nowhere while lawyers, advocates and politicians sip Champaign by the
swimming pool laughing at the clods hurling mud at each other.
Its all a waste of time except for those who benefit financially from the
conflict.
Meldon Fens
"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4efce6c-d2c7-4244...@e67g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
(M):
Total bull shit.
Abstinence is a choice, can't be a preference and according to your logic,
the choice is hard-wired. Yet choice of gender is a preference which is
hard-wired. Total crap. I'll repeat once again, I'm not against
homosexuality nor do I engage in it. It is a choice and that does not mean
I'm a religious bigot.
Meldon Fens
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:47f61e00$0$13113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Environment.
Meldon Fens
"Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
news:47f65dd8$0$16667$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
Much to the benefit of advocates, lawyers and politicians. Let's face it,
there is more money in discourse than agreement and there lies the truth of
the matter. No one wants to solve anything. They just want more money. What
a waste of time and resources.
Meldon Fens
"Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
news:kXsJj.89$FF...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
You're completely wrong and your baseless assertion confirms you have no
basis for your position other than that which you have been convinced. But
keep telling yourself you're right. Im' sure it will work out in the end.
adman
There is very little difference (if any) between a "completely homosexual
life " and one that is "More than incidental" or "extensive". The very
defination of the word "Extensive" was your clue. Please try to keep up.
mOst of Homosexuality is a CHOICE.
No One
... on your part. You are ignoring and disparaging scientific
reeearch because it doesn't fit your prejudices.
No One
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47f6150e$0$2090$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
> >
>
> Oh for fuck's sake. Of course forwarding a political agenda based on
> homosexuality will encourage more people to be homosexual but that is not
> what my argument is.
Another fundamentally stupid statement - no political agenda is going
to have any discernible effect on whom someone is sexually attracted to,
barring dictatorships where they can point a gun at your head.
Andrew W
>
>
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
> news:47f61e00$0$13113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
>> news:G_ydnRLLh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
>>> Help Meldon fight the WAR.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a
>>>>> premise of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it
>>>>> swept through the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even
>>>>> stand up to a false premise. They can't even answer what they feel for
>>>>> fear of ridicule. Sad really. We all suffer because people feel the
>>>>> need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a brain wiring problem. Women and men's brains are wired
>>>> differently. Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
>>>> Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
>>>> function.
>>>
>>> So is a decision to chose one partner over another. Its a complex
>>> dicision not a complex wiring issue.
>>>
>>> It may be that proponents of homosexuality have found it necessary to
>>> introduce a wiring argument to combat the religious argument. IMO, both
>>> are flawed.
>>
>> Its not an issue of choosing a partner. No man wants to choose another
>> man. Its an issue of strong sexual desire for the same sex which comes
>> from the sex drive which is an ancient part of the brain.
>> What can cause such a profound alteration in a fundamental procreative
>> part of the brain?
>>
>
> Environment.
So another change in environment will make a gay man start fancying women?
Why hasn't this strategy worked for anyone yet?
--
Andrew W.
Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they tell
us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that work exactly?
We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be tortured in hell
forever. You can't do both at the same time.
You must unlearn what you have learned. ~ Yoda
Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
guides, earth changes.
http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
http://www.acim.org/
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Dysperdis
Here's where you seem to be getting confused.
Extensive =/= Exclusive.
You've failed to prove anything, other than your own inability to
understand basic logic, which leads to the conclusion that you're either
incredibly stupid or a troll.
Bob T.
point. Look at the subject line again: we are supposed to be
discussing "ho mom" sexuality, not homosexuality.
I think that becoming a ho mom is a lifestyle choice, unless she is
forced into the business by a pimp daddy.
- Bob T.
Dennis Kemmerer
There's a non-answer if I ever saw one.
Go play with the rest of the homophobes in my killfile.
[plonk]
Dennis Kemmerer
I didn't state a position, fuckwit.
adman
Say that 3 times while clicking your heels and see if it comes true Dorothy.
I said there is VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE (if any) between a "completely
homosexual life " and one that is "More than incidental" or "extensive". The
slight difference is insignificant to the discussion. Why? Because any
occasional heterosexual encounter does not erase the full blown choice that
was made to live a "More than incidental" or "extensive" gay life style. The
CHOICE was made to be more homosexual despite the less then perfect record.
But lets face truth shall we? You argue semantics to detract from the fact
that that the proportions between man vs. nature regarding homosexuality is
big. Thereby diluting the fact that more humans make a "Choice" to be gay
then animals are gay.
RedDog
> "Dysperdis" <dysper...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:psxJj.155252$pM4.130422@pd7urf1no...| adman wrote:
>
> | > "Dysperdis" <dysper...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | >news:i5wJj.24999$rd2.9562@pd7urf3no...
> | > | adman wrote:
> | > | > "Dysperdis" <dysper...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Says the proven shit-eater. LMAO! :-)
Proof of faggot adman's shit fetish:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/browse_thread/thread/01a940e1f74d1343
Harold Burton
<2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
No One <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote:
> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong?
Do you know that most people think that astrology is right?
Snicker.
No One
> In article
> <2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9-affc-61161d879...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> No One <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote:
>
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong?
>
> Do you know that most people think that astrology is right?
>
> Snicker.
GOD IS GREAT! EVOLUTION IS OF THE DEVIL! HOMOSEXUALITY IS OF THE
DEVIL!!!!
Dysperdis
The "slight difference" is not insignificant.
A bisexual person, being attracted to both sexes, could very well have
had "extensive" or "more than incidental" homosexual experiences. This
does not mean that they have not also have "extensive" or "more than
incidental" heterosexual experiences. This in no way makes bisexuality a
choice.
Lets consider this again:
Group A consists of those who have engaged EXCLUSIVELY in homosexual
acts. It is *assumed* that this group is entirely homosexual.
Group B consists of those who have engaged EXTENSIVELY in homosexual
acts. This group would contain both homosexual AND bisexual members.
Depending on the operational definition of extensive (which you have not
yet provided), this group could also contain a number of heterosexuals
who have "experimented."
Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that Group B would be larger than
Group A.
This in no way proves that sexual orientation (which, by the way, is
defined by the sex(es) one is attracted to, rather than the sexual acts
one participates in) is a choice.
In other words, you're full of shit.
thomas p.
Says the bigot who believes he is not a bigot.
thomas p.
It makes no difference. Homosexuals are and have been discriminated
against. That is wrong, and it is still wrong even if homosexuality was a
completely conscious choice.
>
thomas p.
"Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:47f61e00$0$13113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> Its not an issue of choosing a partner. No man wants to choose another
> man.
Obviously that is not true.
> Its an issue of strong sexual desire for the same sex which comes from the
> sex drive which is an ancient part of the brain.
> What can cause such a profound alteration in a fundamental procreative
> part of the brain?
>
>>
thomas p.
"Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:dPCdneXHaKEsCWvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@uniservecommunications...
How long have you worked in this field? What studies have you carried out?
thomas p.
>
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:47f6150e$0$2090$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:G_ydnQ_Lh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>
>>>
>>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>>
>>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>>>
>>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>>> "society".
>>>>>
>>>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>>>>
>>>> Who is "they"?
>>>
>>>
>>> Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
>>> suggested.
>>
>> Proponents of homosexuality? Are you claiming that there are people who
>> are encouraging people to be homosexual?
>>
>
> Oh for fuck's sake. Of course forwarding a political agenda based on
> homosexuality will encourage more people to be homosexual
Of course it will not. There is absolutely no data that indicates anyone
can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
but that is not
> what my argument is. I answered a question that was posed and you will now
> ask another question based on my answer. Stop wasting my time. Stop
> wasting tax payers money and stop paying lawyers and advocates to forward
> political agenda.
I am doing none of the above. Your suggestion that I am is rather typical
behavior for a homophobe.
>
> Go fuck a tree, I don't really care but don't try to tell me you don't
> have a choice.
I will tell you that you have not one piece of data to back up your claim,
and your response to my post above is yet more confirmation that you are
just another homophobic bigot. Your assumption (pretended or otherwise) is
that anyone who disagrees with what you are saying must be homosexual, and,
of course, you pretend that the effort by homosexuals and others to end
discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is phony.
Nobody is fooled or impressed; you are just a homophobe.
thomas p.
>>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>>> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>> > "society".
>>>>>
>>>>> would
>>>>> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>>>> genetically.
>>>>> Total hog-wash.
>>>>
>>>> genetic component to one's sexual orientation. It's been shown by
>>>> comparing identical to fraternal twins. Also, there is some evidence
>>>> that the genetic factors that result in homosexuality also seem to
>>>> increase the fertility rate in females.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The study supports one side of an argument. That's all. I'm sure similar
>>> studies could support the other side of the argument. I contend both
>>> sides are politically motivated.
>>
>> So there is evidence for the position you reject out of hand.
>>
>
> My statement assumes your statement was true. I've not read any such
> evidence nor would I waste my time doing so
In other words you admit that you are a bigot who is not interested in
anything that would contradict your bigotry.
in the same way I would not
> waste my time reading evidence supporting an argument that
> supports a mythical deity who answers prayers. Bullshit is bullshit no
> matter how many studies are performed supporting bullshit is perfume. If
> you insist on smelling bullshit and calling it perfume, go ahead but don't
> expect me or anyone else to agree.
I doubt anyone expects you to think rationally or respond honestly. You
have just admitted that you won't, and that is probably the only honest
statement we will get out of you.
Tervicz
> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
> > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
> > "society".
>
> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there would
> be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred genetically.
> Total hog-wash.
>
> asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of "born
> gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the press
> like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false premise.
> They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We
> all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
It's probably a mixture of both genetic mutations and choices of life.
It is there in the animal world of which we are part of. But what does
it matter where it comes from? It's not harmful. What two adults do in
private and in full consent is of no interest to anyone outside this
household. Everybody gets one life and one life only, one throw at the
dice spanning over about 70-100 years. And during that time people
should be able to get the most of it, live the life which makes them
happy and offers them most quality of life. Of course with the
condition that each lives their life with respect to others around
them. But if no harm is done, what point is there in restraining
people's lifestyle and prohibit them from living their lives as they
chose? Homosexuality is here and is here to stay and it's not a big
deal if it's done between consenting adults.
Tervicz
DanielSan
Except, in his case, this person is covering up their own repressed
sexuality, and this person probably COULD change THEIR sexuality.
As for the rest of us, we cannot change our sexuality like this person can.
thomas p.
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:cIednYX2IbQJsWra...@comcast.com...
I have no doubt he could change his sexual behavior.
>
> As for the rest of us, we cannot change our sexuality like this person
> can.
It is very likely, in my opinion, that he is a repressed homosexual.
cop...@yahoo.com
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dPCdnejHaKEtCWvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
> >news:jXsJj.87$FF6...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> >> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
> >>news:gcadnV5CnJC_jmvanZ2dnUVZ_uDinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>
Do you have a position?
Brandon
adman
Incorrect. Someone with a "More than incidental" or "extensive" homosexual
life style with one or two hetrosexual encounters is not considered
Bisexual.. Why? Because there would be no gay's at all since most gays have
had at least one hetro experience to know that they did not like it.
Andrew W
So you think gay men actually like choosing other men and would do it all
again if they could go back and be reborn?
--
Andrew W.
Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they tell
us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that work exactly?
We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be tortured in hell
forever. You can't do both at the same time.
You must unlearn what you have learned. ~ Yoda
Patriot Games
> "Patriot Games" <Pat...@America.com> wrote in message
> news:47f65dd8$0$16667$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote in message
>> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>> "society".
>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>> But we're years away from completely figuring it out.
> Much to the benefit of advocates, lawyers and politicians. Let's face it,
> there is more money in discourse than agreement and there lies the truth
> of the matter. No one wants to solve anything. They just want more money.
> What a waste of time and resources.
And there's nothing really to be gained by figuring it out. Figuring it out
won't cure any diseases...
Dysperdis
You know, reading comprehension is a *good* thing. Maybe you should give
it a try.
adman
Do you actually BELIEVE " More than incidental" or "extensive" = the
occasional "Bi Sexual" sexuallity?
There is medication for ADD. Get some.
Preventer of Work
> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote in message
> news:jIhJj.24206$rd2.15456@pd7urf3no...
>> Meldon Fens wrote:
>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>> "society".
>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>> genetically. Total hog-wash.
>>>
>> $200, what is bisexual?). There is no "gay gene" per se. Due to whatever
>> combination of things that happen during development, and that would be
>> genetic (many interacting genes) and enviromental, you end up with varying
>> degrees of preference for each sex.
>
> I'm not sure of your intention behind the words binary and continium but I
> would like to address the point of preference. I think this is where
> confusion and eventually exploitation for political ends begins.
I use continuum to define relative preferences. And I will use it in
this context: "some people prefer both". So 60/40 works.
>
> If we can agree gay vs. straight is a means to describe a "sexual
> preference" then let's examine this notion of preference. First, the notion
> of some hardwiring pointing to determining preference during fetal
> development from either a genetic component or otherwise.
>
> I would argue, preference has more to do with environment and I will draw
> the following analogy.
>
> Take a person stranded on an island without a chance of escape. If they are
> alone, their preference is determined by the options available to them.
> Poking a melon feels better than poking sand. The preferance is made by that
> which gives the most pleasure. There is no predisposition to poking melons
> but there is predisposition based on pleasure. Here there is no difference
> between 100 people on 100 islands.
>
> One of those people may enjoy poking the sand. That is their preference but
> to then point to a definable cause for their deicision as being genetic or
> from developmental causes is clearly flawed.
>
> If two people on one island were same sex, they may prefer to engage in
> mutual pleasure rather than poking either melon or sand. This could hardly
> be considered "being gay" and to point to a definable cause for this
> decision is equally flawed as the first scenario.
>
> If one of them chose not to engage, it doesn't mean they are "straight". It
> simply means that is the decision they made and it is likely due to learned
> behaviour.
>
> Think of early Spartans or Greeks. The behaviour was not brought about by a
> genetic factor or developmental one any more than the two on the island
> engaging or not engaging was based on a genetic or developmental factor. Its
> environment. The behaviour is learned. If in general society accepts the
> behaviour, more will occur. If it frowns on it, less would occur.
>
The Sparta question is interesting. And it may indeed be a matter of
only getting what is available. This does say something about our
flexibility as a species.
But what happens when choices are presented?
People tend to go in a direction of "preference", as if it really were
wired in. I personally have no interest in gay sex - it does nothing
for me at all. But ask someone who is gay, and they give a different
answer. Both of us are acting and reacting according to "wiring" of some
sort.
The more interesting situation is bisexuality. Nothing says there is no
such thing as a gay|hetro gene like bisexuality. And that is definitely
on a continuum. There are some who think we are all to some extent
bisexual, and that would certainly explain your desert island story and
in part the Sparta thing.
But those are irrelevant when you talk about hard core people. Those who
are exclusively and strongly attracted to people of the same sex, or he
opposite sex. These people cannot be shifted to the other side, whatever
that side may be (as many a gay-converting shrink and preacher has
discovered). You might convince or coerce or brainwash them into acting
against there proclivities, but it is only temporary. This say "wiring",
and not the cultural kind either.
>
>
>> So yes, a person could be born gay without there being a specific gene.
>> Or 80/20, 50/50, 20/80, or something else. Upbringing and cultural
>> environments play a role as well, though not in making or breaking
>> one's sexual nature.
>>
>> It's not really much different than left/right handedness, which is
>> also a continuum. And a it is propensity which can be passed on to
>> a small extent. Don't forget - thanks to culture, and sexual orientation
>> being a continuum, many gays and lesbians have reproduced. I personally
>> doubt this has much real influence, but who knows.
>
> This premise presumes a biological cause. It is flawed. Left and right
> handedness may be biological but I contend sexual preference is not. The two
> are not the same and the analogy is flawed.
Yes, it presumes a biological cause - for both. Your contention that the
analogy is flawed does not make it so.
>
>
>> And more to the point, who cares. If consenting adults do something you
>> might not, that does not make it "bad". And if some so-called holy
>> book says it is bad and that is you authority, give up now. Those
>> things are worthless except as emergency butt wipe.
>
> I for one don't care either way. I do care however, when it comes to
> political action. A gay agenda is just as bad as a straight agenda. Both
> sides are arguing about the wrong thing.
I'm not sure what this "gay agenda" is. The phrase seems like one of
those sloganeering terms that people shout to show group solidarity.
>
>> You are free to find it distasteful. That too may be part of the
>> continuum. But you don't ever have to participate. And those other
>> consenting adults are usually _in private_ so how does it harm you?
>
> Privacy is disputable since two same-sex partners holding hands on Ventura
> Blvd is not a private act. It is a public one just as legislation is public.
>
> I'm comfortable with the notion that preference is environmental. It would
> seem that proponents of homosexuality are not comfortable with that notion.
>
>
Our comfort does not play a role in how things work.
Without doubt, some percentage of sexual preference is going to be
environmental, social, and cultural. But also, the degree those affect
individuals varies considerably. For the 'hard core', very very little.
To the bisexual, a varying amount. Making blanket statements re 100%
genetic or 100% not-genetic is just more sloganeering.
My 'comfort level' is that if two guys are holding hands, big deal and I
don't care where they get it from. I don't want to see them crawling all
over each other in public. I don't want to see most people doing that in
public places - gay or straight.
But that's just me.
655321
<5ba69409-6359-4944...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote:
More importantly, those to whom "ho moms" are attracted, and those with
whom they want to form deep emotional partnerships -- and even raise
children, is no business of anyone else's.
--
655321
"We are heroes in error" -- Ahmad Chalabi
thomas p.
Let me see, do I think that gay men are attracted to men? Gosh that is a
tough one!
>and would do it all again if they could go back and be reborn?
That is a meaningless question.
Andrew W
I think you don't understand what I'm asking. The question is not what they
are compelled to choose because of their condition, the question is whether
they would voluntarily choose to be sexually attracted to men.
Obviously you can choose who you go out with, but you can't choose what
arouses you. Sexual arousal is a complex brain function. What arouses us
sexually, whether it be the way someone walks, the sound of their voice, or
the curves on their body, its impossible to control. Its a piece of
firmware.
--
Andrew W.
2 Th.2:11-12
"God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That
they all might be damned."
thomas p.
Heterosexuals are "compelled" to choose because of their condition. Human
beings are "compelled" to be human beings.
anonymous coward
>differently. Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
>Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
>function.
Little girls and boys are raised for the most part differently. Little
boys and girls
whom ultimately turn out to be homosexual are often raised differently
than
little girls and boys whom turn out to be heterosexual.
There are two aspects to sex. There is the physical/chemical
attraction. There is the
senses attraction.
> So is a decision to chose one partner over another. Its a complex dicision
> not a complex wiring issue.
Before little girls and little boys develop sexually, they are attracted
to people of all
ages on a non-sexual basis called friends. Conversely, teen aged boys
and teen aged girls
are attracted sexually to a lot of people of the opposite sex whom they
don't really like but are
for a variety of reasons sexually attracted to. Those teenagers whom
bisexual or homosexual
are equally attracted to a lot of people whom may be heterosexual,
homosexual or bisexual
> > Christianity teaches
Religion/christianity/muslim teach a variety of things, but remember
that one joins or chooses to be religious. One is not born religious
one is born into a religious family or community. One chooses to
believe and to pay the church to attend and follow the beliefs.
>> They claim "one is born gay". If that were true, there
>> would be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>> genetically.
If and how genetics plays a roll in homosexuality, the jury is still out
deliberating.
What is known, of course, is that lives, even in the same household are
quite different for
each offspring produced and equally so for homosexual children. If you
know any set of twins, you will appreciate that even if they are
identical, they are still different in many ways.
> Were you born hetersexual? Yes? No. I was born and I learned and I chose.
>Were your sexual attractions born into you?
> No. I learned them.
The problem with discussing homosexuality and heterosexuality, is that
it is okay for a homosexual to say he had sex with a woman and didn't
like it or realized that he wasn't attracted to women especially after
he had the opportunity to have sex with another man.
It is never socially acceptable or acceptable for any heterosexual man
to even say he looked at another guy while he was taking a piss beside
him let alone admit he had oral, masturbated or worse anal sex with the
guy even if it happened when he and his buddy were 12 to 14 years old
and the both consented to the exploration journey.
Also as probably 3 or 4 year old boys particularly are told that
anything that is disapproved of is sissy, girls stuff, or gay. Giving
a signal reject girls, sissy or gay stuff. Society doesn't give boys
positive comparisons like warriors don't do that, daddy doesn't do that.
We all pretty well know when we observe other men and women, girls and
boys how tough or gentle they are regardless of sexuality or gender.
>Then how can you claim that homosexual tendencies are not?
The problem with the phrase "homosexual tendencies", apart from it being
a favourite phrase of religious society, is that it doesn't refer to
anything concrete. Are they referring to those actions and emotions of
some men that can be identified as feminine even though the guy is
clearly a heterosexual or are they referring to a very masculine, tough
guy who is sexually attracted to men, looks at men and is clearly
exhibiting a sexual interest in men? Who is to know what the
person/poster means when that the reader is trying to understand what
has been said or written.
> Especially in light of the fact that most members of the Animal Kingdom
> (of
> which WE are a part of) display this same trait, lacking the thinking
> skills we have evolved? Animals are not without choice. Homosexual animals does not imply > genetic or developmental cause any more than seeking shelter in the rain.
The problem with the animal kingdom and mankind himself, is that the sex
drive is chemical and the reason it kicks in at about 11 to 16 and kicks
out late in life. Based on the sex drive man can have sex with just
about anyone, man or woman or animal with an erection and produce an
organism. Women whom for the most part have a passive position, are
able to accommodate men and animals if you believe some of the writings,
but it doesn't mean that women have an organism, even having sex with
men. During war men are able to belittle the enemy by a bunch of
soldiers raping an enemy soldier. It is not based remotely on
attraction but by sex drive and a moment of opportunity of relief.
>You're assuming I disagree with homosexuality. I don't engage in that choice
>but I don't consider it wrong. I do consider it wrong to treat it
>politically just as I would consider it wrong to politicize heterosexual
>activity. Both sides are wrong not for their behaviour but for politicizing it.
We live in a democracy and it is only natural to politicize anything
that
two groups of people hold different view. rich/poor,
educated/uneducated,
gay/straight, married/single, city dwellers/country dwellers, young/old
> Still laughable since it implies someone who is
> gay can not abstain from sex.
>>
>> The truth is, both homo and heterosexuality are learned behaviours. We
>> choose who to have sex with. If a male has sex with another male, its two
>> males having sex. Nothing more. Adding a name to the behaviour and then
>> insisting it is genetic is junk science and politically motivated.
All men and women regardless of age can abstain from sex, but looking at
the population,
overpopulation, and food shortages, it would appear that nobody on the
planet, including priests are abstaining from sex -- and 90 percent of
society is contributing to overpopulation of the planet.
But the key phrase is "abstaining from sex" and one only needs to hear
two 14 or 16 year old boys on public transit talk about girls to
understand, it is not about love or attraction, it is about sex and they
are not talking about girls in any better light than a receptacle to put
one's penis. And it is what most males of any age choose to do
including homosexuals.
> When did you choose your sexual orientation?
Since most little boys play outside, do sports and stay away from the
the home except to eat,
get money and sleep, they have little involvement in the rest of family
life. Little girls on the other hand, and those boys whose mothers rely
on and whose father are off fighting wars, fighting debt by working long
hours, or not fighting with his wife by staying in the local bar until
the wee hours of the morning, create an environment for some boys to be
sufficiently removed from other males that they develop speech patterns,
vocabulary dissimilar to the average kid in the neighbourhood. Combine
this with the fact that the little boy has little or no exposure to
other little boys over long periods of time or in the absence of an
adult presence so this little boy doesn't see how other little boys
think or act or talk (or spit) in the absence of an adult, so he
develops into a unique person neither fish nor fowl and is politely
excluded, rejected, avoided by both girls and boys and possible other
parents. The boy may find hobbies or interest that keep him busy but
likely these will keep him far removed for your average kid. So other
kids become foreign to him in the same way that girls are foreign to
your average little boy whom hangs out with is buddies and apart from
tormenting a girl walking by or somebody's sister, are and remain for
the most part at a distance.
When boys sexually develop they have two possibilities for the most
part, girls or boys. Most will be attracted to girls because they are
foreign to them, girls, develop before boys do so are already smelling
good and acting sexy.
Those boys who have lived for the most part in the absence of other
boys, didn't play on team sports, didn't rough and tough it in the
neighbourhood, aren't immediately attracted to other boys, but miss
their company, miss the fact they aren't like them and wish they had
more in common with them. As for girls and women, these boys have
likely spent more time with girls and women and know what they smell
like, how they talk and argue and how they think and act.
Eventually most boys will try to have sex with their teenage peers and
most boys will think that
everything will be cool and perfect. The boys who will ultimately
identify as heterosexual will discovery to their surprise that they must
play into the hands of women or girls and just because they are male and
run the world, they don't in the real world control women.
Eventually some boys will discovery that in spite of having sex with a
girl/woman that they aren't less interested in boys, particularly
sexually interested in boys if they had some thoughts
in that direction. As for women and girls, they are easy to control
and be with because directly or indirectly they have had years of
experience and the female is a piece of cake.
>Yes, your assumptions are hog-wash. Furthermore, if homosexuality was a
>completely conscious choice, what difference would that make? It would
>still be none of your business.
> You're assuming I disagree with homosexuality. I don't engage in that
> choice but I don't consider it wrong. I do consider it wrong to treat it
> politically just as I would consider it wrong to politicize heterosexual
> activity. Both sides are wrong not for their behaviour but for
> politicizing it.
>It is politicized. Homosexuals live in society. They have suffered abuse
>and discrimination because of their homosexuality. They are now fighting
>that mistreatment, and others are opposing that struggle. If you do not
>believe homosexuality is wrong, it is hard to understand why you think it is
>wrong for homosexuals to resist being abused.
Actually, religious society joined together despite their differences
and differences in beliefs to
fight the passing of legislation in Canada permitting homosexuals to get
married. It was the best thing that the religious community did. The
battle took about 20 or 30 years, depending on where you put the start
date. During that time, certainly in North America, and possibly the
rest of the world in the context of a global economy, women started to
earn more, get better jobs, and their partners/husbands started to earn
less. While the religious community spend millions to billions
collectively fighting homosexuals marriage, husbands and wives had to
try to raise children in the context of their husbands earning
insufficient money to support the wife and kids, so both had to work and
that meant for the most part that money that could be better spent on
the family had to pay a foreign woman, often a foreign speaking woman
who had insufficient language skills to join the business workforce but
instead looked after religious people's children. Those millions and
billions could have lobbied the government for a much better deal for
those who produce offspring, good day-care tax benefits, anything
husbands and wives little hearts desired prior to or on election day.
But no, no, that is not what happened. Most of the religious society
fought tooth and nail, penny for penny, dollar for dollar to prevent
homosexual marriage. In the end, sadly husbands and wives lost their
biggest loss since the beginning of time, they ability of a wife and
husband to raise children in relative comfort. Nobody in this newgroup
or globally speaks about homosexual marriages in Canada, because it is a
non issue, relevant to no heterosexual married or not. In fact the
latest legal battle in Canada appears to be Christians trying to
convince first nation people that they didn't steal their land, sexually
assault their kids and if they did, there are treaties that say the
church land deals with the first nation people are now closed and have
been for a long time. Again, in spite of all the postings here,
religious people have lots ot think about and homosexuals and
homosexuality should not remotely be one of them.
> All you faggots you want to get married well fuck off. your'e twisted,
> degenerate scum bags. Marriage is only for 1 man and 1 woman.
Most married men have had sex with more than one woman during the course
of their
marriage. Add to that that 50 percent of all 1 man 1 woman marriage
end in divorce.
> rectums are meant for things coming out of them not things going in them that
> is science.
Few women are gung-ho for anal sex with their one man. You ask how
many 1 man want
anal sex with their one wife.
> One shall not fuck thy brother up the ass. Bible. Sodomy is not love.
> Mel gibson hates faggots. Elvis presley hates faggots. Tyson hates
> faggots he kills them. We hate faggots. All sane people hate faggots.
> If you think we are hate mongers we are not we just speak the truth.
>
Men are clearly permitted to hate faggots or homosexuals. What would be
more
interesting is for you and others like you to take a moment and write a
meaningful
sentence of how much you like women, what you like about women? Do you
like the fact
when you want sex and they don't, they tell you they are having their
period and feel bloated or that they have a headache. Do you like women
who come home and tell you they want another child which means you won't
be able to buy a new truck this year? You see nobody in this
newsgroups says how much they like women and that is the scary part.
I don't know much about Mell Gibson. Elvis Presley had a weight and
mediation problem, was rich and talented and could have any and all
women. Why would you think that Elvis thought or had any interest in
thinking about homosexuals in a negative or positive light? Why did
Elvis care? If you are referring to Tyson the boxer, I think he had
more trouble with women than most men and I don't think Tyson even knew
or ever saw a homosexual in his life. Most homosexual don't hang out
with boxers.
> Once my brother was raped by a faggot do you think that is alright,
> these people are wrong what they do is fucked fucked.
You don't say how old your brother was when he was raped, not that it
matters, but
More women are raped in a hour by men that are men raped by other men in
a thousand years.
> Hey if you don't
> like what we have to say, then go to hawaii and try use the public
> toilets you'll have faggots trying to rape you, then you will need a
> therapist. Vixen your a faggot loven piece of shit, we are going to
> send bruce willis to your place with a pair of plyers and a blow torch
> to get medi evil on your ass. By the way I am a therapist, and what we
> say is true, you can come and get therapy from me if you want,
> baseball bat therapy that is. Hey man, I'm just stating facts When I
> was in hawaii I was approached by these faggots and they are nice
> people they say do you suck they eat shit which most people don't know
> and they proven to be the biggest percent of most bad disease that
> passing it around in fact we don't think about but fucking at all, we
> just want state a fact. It clearly states that in the bible that
> faggots are bad.
Actually no words that mean homosexuals or homosexuality are in the
Bible.
While some homosexual men may hang around toilets, heterosexual men hang
around
the office and most every place on the planet trying to get women of all
descriptions and ages
to have sex with them.
Andrew W
>
> "Preventer of Work" <not_...@nospam.xxx> wrote in message
> news:jIhJj.24206$rd2.15456@pd7urf3no...
>> Meldon Fens wrote:
>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>> "society".
>>>
>>>
>> Gay and straight may seem to be binary. Wrong. It is a continuum (for
>> $200, what is bisexual?). There is no "gay gene" per se. Due to whatever
>> combination of things that happen during development, and that would be
>> genetic (many interacting genes) and enviromental, you end up with
>> varying degrees of preference for each sex.
>
> I'm not sure of your intention behind the words binary and continium but I
> would like to address the point of preference. I think this is where
> confusion and eventually exploitation for political ends begins.
>
>> Or 80/20, 50/50, 20/80, or something else. Upbringing and cultural
>> environments play a role as well, though not in making or breaking
>> one's sexual nature.
>>
>> It's not really much different than left/right handedness, which is
>> also a continuum. And a it is propensity which can be passed on to
>> a small extent. Don't forget - thanks to culture, and sexual orientation
>> being a continuum, many gays and lesbians have reproduced. I personally
>> doubt this has much real influence, but who knows.
>
> This premise presumes a biological cause. It is flawed. Left and right
> handedness may be biological but I contend sexual preference is not. The
> two are not the same and the analogy is flawed.
>
>
>>
>> might not, that does not make it "bad". And if some so-called holy
>> book says it is bad and that is you authority, give up now. Those
>> things are worthless except as emergency butt wipe.
>
> I for one don't care either way. I do care however, when it comes to
> political action. A gay agenda is just as bad as a straight agenda. Both
> sides are arguing about the wrong thing.
>
>>
>> continuum. But you don't ever have to participate. And those other
>> consenting adults are usually _in private_ so how does it harm you?
>
> Privacy is disputable since two same-sex partners holding hands on Ventura
> Blvd is not a private act. It is a public one just as legislation is
> public.
>
> I'm comfortable with the notion that preference is environmental. It would
> seem that proponents of homosexuality are not comfortable with that
> notion.
I think a bit more critical thinking is required here.
If sexual preference was environmental instead of brain coding then as soon
as the environment and circumstances on the planet shifts, the human race
would become extinct, because man + man, and women + women cannot reproduce
obviously.
There has to be basic behavioural rules encoded to absolutely ensure
continuation of the species, otherwise people just do things according to
circumstances and what seems good, and then the race slowly whittles away
and dies out.
We know that there are many attributes and abilities that small children as
well as new born animals display without any influence toward those things.
--
Andrew W.
God used to live in the clouds. Now he exists outside the universe.
Christians keep pushing God further and further away.
anonymous coward
(snip)
> I think a bit more critical thinking is required here.
> If sexual preference was environmental instead of brain coding then as soon
> as the environment and circumstances on the planet shifts, the human race
> would become extinct, because man + man, and women + women cannot reproduce
> obviously.
For most women, the only thing holding her back from having more babies
is the
ability of the husband to support them. The earth is very much
overpopulated.
We are just at the point of food and energy shortages. Remember that
heterosexuals
only produce at maximum 10 percent of their offspring result in being
homosexual. So for every son
or daughter who produces 2 to 5 children each, one son or daughter or
two of each produce no
offspring because they are homosexual. That is, of course, only dealing
with the extinction
argument.
> There has to be basic behavioural rules encoded to absolutely ensure
> continuation of the species, otherwise people just do things according to
> circumstances and what seems good, and then the race slowly whittles away
> and dies out.
I agree that environment/behavioural rules have a huge influence, but
globally across all
cultures, races, religions, political parties, countries, languages,
education, any individual
who is slightly different behaviourally is excluded, ostracized,
murdered, hated, rejected and is given
no opportunity to join in and develop. When I was a kid, if you had
missing limbs or were different,
you were often kept at home or away from others, but today, kids with
missing arms are given artificial arms
and wear them proudly with a T-shirt instead of a pinned up long sleeved
shirt. True of missing legs, too, they wear shorts today, too showing
the artificial leg.
If you want people to think more like the average person, act like the
average person, and contribute like the average person, you have to
welcome them and allow them to learn regardless of culture or sexual
orientation.
The last bastion of exclusion, of course, is sports. Kids globally
without speaking the same language and go anywhere in the world and play
a sport like basketball or any other sport. Most kids whom are
different perhaps ultimately turn out to be gay are excluded from sports
directly or indirectly and as a result are left isolated on all levels.
This isn't the fault of any one individual. It is contributed to be
society in general. It used to be that globally minority races were
excluded from sports, too.
Just open up any newspaper and you won't but once or twice a year see a
story about anything remotely homosexual. The stories all involve
heterosexuals because the world is 90 percent heterosexual.
Ironically, the most anti homosexual group currently on the planet are
religious groups or organizations whose members of the congregation are
free to have as many babies as they want. Few if any churches have
homosexuals who are members. The Catholic church had quite a few
homosexuals who were priests but that was as a result of a requirement
of the church of the priests having to be male and being prohibited from
having sex. Since homosexual affection has to be hidden globally since
the beginning of time, the safest man to work as a priest would have
been a homosexual. The current position is to hire heterosexual men
from very, very poor countries who are able to fill the priest shortages
globally and send money back to their families, so that works, too.
JohnN
> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> is not chosen. If it is, please cite the research.
>
> (M):
>
> Total bull shit.
>
> Abstinence is a choice, can't be a preference and according to your logic,
> the choice is hard-wired. Yet choice of gender is a preference which is
> hard-wired. Total crap. I'll repeat once again, I'm not against
> homosexuality nor do I engage in it. It is a choice and that does not mean
> I'm a religious bigot.
>
Abstinence is a choice. Just now, here at work, I chose to abstain
from sex. (The lack of privacy and available partner not
withstanding. ;)
Sexual orientation is not a choice. I have never met anyone, nor have
I ever read of anyone, who can cite the day they decided. A person
will realize he is straight or gay, but he simply does not chose. Is
not, then when did you chose and what influenced you? Or you can tell
us how and when you learned to heterosexual.
Thank you for not discriminating against homsexuals. I am sorry if I
offended you when I thought you were a religious bigot or a bigot of
any kind. The blanket assertion of "lifestyle choice" is often made
by religious loons who never give much thought to the matter.
JohnN
Meldon Fens
>>
>> "Dennis Kemmerer" <d...@suespammers.org> wrote in message
>> news:jXsJj.87$FF6...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>>>>
>>>> "SilentOtto" <silen...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bb81656d-eac1-4635...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Apr 3, 11:10 pm, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "JohnN" <jnorri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 3, 9:14 pm, "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but
>>>>>> > > they
>>>>>> > > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>>> > > "society".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true,
>>>>>> > there
>>>>>> > would
>>>>>> > be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>>>>> > genetically.
>>>>>> > Total hog-wash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (M):
>>>>>> Name the gene that causes sexual preference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > Ethridge
>>>>>> > asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of
>>>>>> > "born
>>>>>> > gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the
>>>>>> > press
>>>>>> > like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false
>>>>>> > premise.
>>>>>> > They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad
>>>>>> > really. We
>>>>>> > all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek
>>>>>> > clarity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> soon
>>>>>> learn to keep their faith based crap to themselves. Hopefully their
>>>>>> children will break the cycle and live decent lives freed of their
>>>>>> parents brain slugs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (M):
>>>>>> In polite societies, tolerance is exploited and disagreement is
>>>>>> ridiculed.
>>>>>> BTW., I have not mentioned anything about faith based crap. Come to
>>>>>> think of
>>>>>> it, I think Ethridge's question was, "does a person choose to be
>>>>>> gay?" The
>>>>>> gay can not abstain from sex.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The truth is, both homo and heterosexuality are learned behaviours.
>>>>>> We
>>>>>> choose who to have sex with. If a male has sex with another male, its
>>>>>> two
>>>>>> males having sex. Nothing more. Adding a name to the behaviour and
>>>>>> then
>>>>>> insisting it is genetic is junk science and politically motivated.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When did you choose your sexual orientation?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Heh heh...
>>>>>
>>>>> Rightards.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't remember choosing my sexual preference in the same way I don't
>>>> remember choosing to believe in a mythical deity. That does not mean no
>>>> choice was made and it does not mean I was pre-wired to decide the way
>>>> I did.
>>>
>>> I suppose you don't recall failing eighth grade debate class either.
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>> With that baseless argument we can assume you have no rational basis for
>> your position.
>
> I didn't state a position, fuckwit.
As far as I can ascertain, you feel I failed eighth grade debating class.
This is indeed a position and you have demonstrated a lack of awareness of
what you are writing. In addition to your personalized attack, you included
a profane epithet as an added insult. That's ok. I don't mind but it
certainly diminishes your argument.
Meldon Fens
"Bob T." <b...@synapse-cs.com> wrote in message
news:5ba69409-6359-4944...@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Clearly, everyone who has posted on this thread so far has missed the
> point. Look at the subject line again: we are supposed to be
> discussing "ho mom" sexuality, not homosexuality.
>
> I think that becoming a ho mom is a lifestyle choice, unless she is
> forced into the business by a pimp daddy.
>
:) Ho moms will surely be seeking their place at the political trough soon
enough. lol
Meldon Fens
>
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dPCdnerHaKEsCWvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@uniservecommunications...>> news:47f612c5$0$2106$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>
>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>> news:G_ydnRLLh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
>>>> Help Meldon fight the WAR.
>>>>
>>>> www.myspace.com/meldons_war
>>>> news:47f5ab9c$0$13113$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>>>> "society".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true,
>>>>>> there would be a genetic component which also implies it can be
>>>>>> transferred genetically. Total hog-wash.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a
>>>>>> premise of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it
>>>>>> swept through the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even
>>>>>> stand up to a false premise. They can't even answer what they feel
>>>>>> for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We all suffer because people feel
>>>>>> the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> differently. Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
>>>>> Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> dicision not a complex wiring issue.
>>>>
>>>> introduce a wiring argument to combat the religious argument. IMO, both
>>>> are flawed.
>>>>
>>>>>individual can rewire the brain so dramatically. If it is a brain
>>>>>wiring problem then it cannot be a sin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andrew W.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they
>>>>> tell us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that
>>>>> work exactly? We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be
>>>>> tortured in hell forever. You can't do both at the same time.
>>>>
>>>> that I beleive there is a genetic or developmental causation for
>>>> homosexuality.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The implication is, sexual preference is a choice. That's all. Nothing
>> more and nothing less. Every other assertion is politically motivated and
>> it shows the public is mislead when the chorus begins with, "sexual
>> preference is not a choice".
>
> It makes no difference. Homosexuals are and have been discriminated
> against. That is wrong, and it is still wrong even if homosexuality was a
> completely conscious choice.
>
>
I do not agree with discrimination in any form. It should also be noted that
political activism has a propensity to insinuate problems where there are
none or to magnify a minor problem into a major one. It can not be argued
that homosexuals have indeed been discriminated against by virtue of it
being illegal in the UK until not many years ago. That should not translate
into things such as proportional representation for example. This is what I
mean when I say the issue has been politicized. Any intent to shed light on
a subject quickly becomes a war to the best emotional argument rather than
an exploration aimed at clarity.
Meldon Fens
Never and none. In that regard I consider myself unbiased as it relates to
this issue. I see the issue for what it is minus any political and monetary
motivation.
Meldon Fens
>
> "Andrew W" <removethi...@optushome.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
>
>
>
Is it not possible that those who choose a sexual relationship with the same
gender "think" they want to? As children we believe in Santa Claus despite
any genetic predisposition to do so. Another great example is the way we
measure our age. Our kids reach their "first birthday" and we give them a
cake with a candle. They have no idea what's going on but the ritual
continues and few realize our first birthday is the day we are born. When we
age one year, we are celebrating the completion of the first year and we
enter into our second year.
It chilling to realize how easily we can be deceived. We pass the
misconceptions down to our children in the same way societal norms are
passed to each generation.
----------
Meldon Fens
<cop...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cb8115bc-f58e-4b58...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
I gather from the post that the position is, enjoyment of writing profanity.
I must admit, I engage in my fair share and consider profane language as a
dramatic mechanism but when it comes to making an opinion it serves only to
reduce the level of debate. Perhaps that's the intent.
Meldon Fens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> There is still time to prevent another jewish holocaust.
>>>> Help Meldon fight the WAR.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ethridge asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a
>>>>>> premise of "born gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it
>>>>>> swept through the press like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even
>>>>>> stand up to a false premise. They can't even answer what they feel
>>>>>> for fear of ridicule. Sad really. We all suffer because people feel
>>>>>> the need to "win" rather than seek clarity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> differently. Gay men often exhibit certain female behaviours.
>>>>> Whether one is attracted to one gender or the other is a complex brain
>>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> So is a decision to chose one partner over another. Its a complex
>>>> dicision not a complex wiring issue.
>>>>
>>>> It may be that proponents of homosexuality have found it necessary to
>>>> introduce a wiring argument to combat the religious argument. IMO, both
>>>> are flawed.
>>>
>>> Its not an issue of choosing a partner. No man wants to choose another
>>> from the sex drive which is an ancient part of the brain.
>>> What can cause such a profound alteration in a fundamental procreative
>>> part of the brain?
>>>
>>
>> Environment.
>
>
> Why hasn't this strategy worked for anyone yet?
>
Who claims it hasn't? I suggest since the issue has become politicized the
first casualty is truth and the second tragedy is society. There is more
than enough evidence to suggest that we believe what we wish to believe and
will gravitate and accept those things that already support our existing
mind-set.
I'm not different in this regard except that I have no political axe to
grind and no profit motive preventing me from seeing both sides.
>
> --
> Andrew W.
>
> Christianity teaches that we have free will and choice, but then they tell
> us that God punishes us for doing what we want. How does that work
> exactly? We have free will yet we have to follow God's will or be tortured
> in hell forever. You can't do both at the same time.
>
> You must unlearn what you have learned. ~ Yoda
>
> Channelled lessons about ET's, ascended masters like Jesus Christ, spirit
> guides, earth changes.
> http://www.spiritnexus.com/audio/channeling/index.htm
>
> The true Creator wants us to be happy and abundant.
> http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Science_of_Getting_Rich
> Audio version. http://website.lineone.net/~cornerstone/richaudio.htm
>
> Think you know what ego is? Think again. The Bible is full of it!
> http://www.acim.org/
>
> Religion Exposed!
> http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
>
Assuming the above additionals are from you I would suggest you have
prejudged me and in this case you are wrong.
Meldon Fens
"No One" <no...@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87r6dlu...@nospam.pacbell.net...>> news:47f6150e$0$2090$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>> >
>>
>> Oh for fuck's sake. Of course forwarding a political agenda based on
>> what my argument is.
>
> Another fundamentally stupid statement - no political agenda is going
> to have any discernible effect on whom someone is sexually attracted to,
> barring dictatorships where they can point a gun at your head.
Did you once believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny?
Was it necessary for anyone hold a gun to your head in order to believe?
Meldon Fens
>>>>
>>>> "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote in message
>>>> news:R8iJj.25667$Er2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...>>>>> news:39idnf6PHPoH4mjanZ2dnUVZ_oSunZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>>>> |
>>>>> | "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>> |
>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> | > Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but
>>>>> they
>>>>> | > are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>> | > "society".
>>>>> |
>>>>> | How's this one. They claim "one is born gay". If that were true,
>>>>> there
>>>>> would
>>>>> | be a genetic component which also implies it can be transferred
>>>>> genetically.
>>>>> | Total hog-wash.
>>>>> |
>>>>> Ethridge
>>>>> | asking one of the candidates a loaded question , with a premise of
>>>>> "born
>>>>> | gay". The candidate answered "incorrectly" and it swept through the
>>>>> press
>>>>> | like wild-fire. Stupid bastard couldn't even stand up to a false
>>>>> premise.
>>>>> | They can't even answer what they feel for fear of ridicule. Sad
>>>>> really. We
>>>>> | all suffer because people feel the need to "win" rather than seek
>>>>> clarity.
>>>>>
>>>>> This
>>>>> occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for
>>>>> life,
>>>>> which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent "
>>>>> http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc11b.html
>>>>>
>>>>> 13.95% of males and 4.25% of females having had either "extensive" or
>>>>> "more
>>>>> than incidental" homosexual experience. [12]
>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 5% in the animal kingdom, 13.95% in America.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means 8.95% make the choice to be homosexual.
>>>>>
>>>>> nuff said.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cause for the choice is flawed. Because animals allegedly choose still
>>>> doesn't imply a genetic or developmental cause for the choice.
>>>
>>> Your laughable attempt at logic notwithstanding, so what if
>>> homosexuality
>>> _is_ chosen?
>>
>> Proponents of homosexuality might be better served to make an honest
>> basis
>> for their position just as an opponent of homosexuality would be. Both
>> have inherently flawed basis for their positions and as a result we as a
>> society get nowhere while lawyers, advocates and politicians sip
>> Champaign
>> by the swimming pool laughing at the clods hurling mud at each other.
>>
>> Its all a waste of time except for those who benefit financially from the
>> conflict.
>
> There's a non-answer if I ever saw one.
>
> Go play with the rest of the homophobes in my killfile.
>
> [plonk]
>
I clearly answered your question regarding the relevance of choice versus
genetic or development factors. There are many implications and I mentioned
one as it pertains to politics and financial gain.
I'm sorry you feel the need to stifle debate on this matter but that is
your... choice.
Meldon Fens
>
> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:dPCdnebHaKEvCWvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@uniservecommunications...
>>
>> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:47f6150e$0$2090$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>
>>> news:G_ydnQ_Lh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...>>>> news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but they
>>>>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>>>> "society".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
>>>> suggested.
>>>
>>> Proponents of homosexuality? Are you claiming that there are people who
>>> are encouraging people to be homosexual?
>>>
>>
>> homosexuality will encourage more people to be homosexual
>
> can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
>
Absolute is a very strong word and I suggest creates a greater possibility
for your statement to be false.
>
> but that is not
>> what my argument is. I answered a question that was posed and you will
>> now ask another question based on my answer. Stop wasting my time. Stop
>> wasting tax payers money and stop paying lawyers and advocates to forward
>> political agenda.
>
> I am doing none of the above. Your suggestion that I am is rather typical
> behavior for a homophobe.
>
I don't think I claimed that you yourself were either a lawyer or
professional advocate although I wouldn't rule it out. I'm sexual preference
based on genetics or development is politically motivated and those who
accept the premise are being misled. The root of the deception is
politically motivated.
>>
>> Go fuck a tree, I don't really care but don't try to tell me you don't
>> have a choice.
>
> I will tell you that you have not one piece of data to back up your claim,
> and your response to my post above is yet more confirmation that you are
> just another homophobic bigot. Your assumption (pretended or otherwise)
> is that anyone who disagrees with what you are saying must be homosexual,
> and, of course, you pretend that the effort by homosexuals and others to
> end discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation is
> phony. Nobody is fooled or impressed; you are just a homophobe.
>
>
I disagree with your position that I prejudge anyone who disagrees with my
position as homosexual just as I do not prejudge anyone who agrees with me
to be religious.
I'm also not intent on fooling or impressing anyone. I gain no benefit from
either. I'm simply expressing my own opinion. You are free to disagree and
if a convincing argument is made I am willing to change my position.
Implying I'm homophobic diminishes your argument in the same way that others
have accused me of being a religious zealot. Neither is true.
Meldon Fens
I would suggest if environmental factors are different, their choice would
be different. Proponents of the movement claim the outcome would remain the
same. It is clearly a flawed position. Ironically, the position is
considered fact a woe to those who dare question it.
Meldon Fens
"DanielSan" <daniel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cIednYX2IbQJsWra...@comcast.com...
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:dPCdnebHaKEvCWvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@uniservecommunications...>>> news:47f6150e$0$2090$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>> news:G_ydnQ_Lh7rsl2vanZ2dnUVZ_uTinZ2d@uniservecommunications...>>>>> news:47f5cdf1$0$2083$edfa...@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>>>>> "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>>>>> "No One" <noo...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:2e8e4a82-5b1c-42e9...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>> Did you know that most people think homosexuality is wrong? but
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are to afraid to say so for fear of being frowned upon by
>>>>>>>> "society".
>>>>>>> How's this one. They claim "one is born gay".
>>>>>
>>>>> Proponents of homosexuality such as Ethridge used in the example I
>>>>> suggested.
>>>> Proponents of homosexuality? Are you claiming that there are people
>>>> who are encouraging people to be homosexual?
>>>>
>>> Oh for fuck's sake. Of course forwarding a political agenda based on
>>> homosexuality will encourage more people to be homosexual
>>
>> Of course it will not. There is absolutely no data that indicates anyone
>> can choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.
>>
>
> sexuality, and this person probably COULD change THEIR sexuality.
>
> As for the rest of us, we cannot change our sexuality like this person
> can.
Wow! That's a new one. A proponent of "no choice" claims I can choose. I'll
ignore the inherent contradiction in your statement and add, the argument
I'm proposing is not about my sexual preference.
Meldon Fens
>> > "Meldon Fens" <mel...@meldon.com> writes:
>> >
>> > Wrong - both (and I'll note that you snipped the URLs for some reason)
>> > describe measurements that have nothing to do with politics. If you
>> > want to claim that there is not a genetic component to one's sexual
>> > orentation, then it is incumbent on you to show why your hypothesis,
>> > model, or theory is not refuted by these results.
>> >
>> > See
>> > <http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html>
>> > <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article493668.ece>
>> > for details. If you are really interested, you should read the
>> > articles
>> > the researchers wrote describing their work.
>> >
>> > Your claim that it is "politics" is really silly: the twin studies in
>> > particular show that for identical twins, if one is gay then the
>> > chances that the other is gay is about 50%. You get a lower value for
>> > fraternal twins and a still lower value for siblings. There's a
>> > genetic factor, but genetics does not account for everything. Someone
>> > disguising political propaganda as reearch would have claimed 100% to
>> > make the numbers look better - the "activist" types nearly always
>> > exaggerate up to the point where they won't be laughed at.
>>
>> Total crap.
>
> ... on your part. You are ignoring and disparaging scientific
> reeearch because it doesn't fit your prejudices.
I strongly disagree. What is apparent is the mythology surrounding the issue
and why it occurs. Proponents entangled in political and financial motives
are more likely to ignore fact and logic and introduce myth supported up by
all manner of research. In this case you would still argue the issue is not
politically motivated hoping anyone reading the thread will ignore the
same-sex marriage debate which is indisputably a political one.
Its not about prejudice as much as it is about political motives and
financial gain in the form of government funding for advocates.