Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
tim jones
One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban
Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are
"born gay" and that their sexual orientation is fixed and
unchangeable. This persistent urban legend has been perpetuated not
only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations
like the American Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association.
Homosexuals have used this particular urban legend to fight for
anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide
special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to
heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for
homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of
providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have
also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by
homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who
cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now
claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal
laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special
Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")
Regrettably, great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our
society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend—but it is slowly but
surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative
psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual
researchers themselves.
One of the most recent articles to dispel the notion that
homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is:
"The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own
Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by
Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is
published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of
Homosexuality web site.
The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual
researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some
other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now
admitting that such evidence may never be found.
Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male
homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome.
He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental
factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes
people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who
will be gay."
Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic
differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men
noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove
that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.
I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake
people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in
the brain."
Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins
study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that
being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins
studied, 52% of identical twins were both homosexual; only 22% of
non-identical twins were both homosexual; and 9.2% of non-identical
twins.
This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as
supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually
proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually
provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in
the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been
homosexual."
In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that
homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove
no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit
their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality.
Catholic Psychiatrists Offer Insights
In June, 2002, Catholic psychiatrists with the Catholic Medical
Association in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, sent a letter of concern to the
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help the Catholic
Church deal with its scandals over priests with same-sex attractions.
Many of these priests are not pedophiles in the clinical sense or the
legal sense of the word. These are pederasts or homosexuals who are
attracted to teenage boys or young adults.
The letter of concern notes: "There is no verifiable evidence that
same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction
were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the
same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown
that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting
change of sexual attraction pattern (see ‘Homosexuality and Hope,'
available at www.cathmed.org). This entire statement is available on
the Catholic Medical Association web site. This association is helping
to debunk the notion that individuals are "born gay."
If Not Genes, Then What Causes Homosexuality?
Regent University's Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted
to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the
origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a
study, "Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and
Stony Olsen.
After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of
homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various
environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual
lifestyle.
Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity
Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on
homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should
Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of
Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers
stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the
single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of
the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of
being different from other children; perception of father as being
distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too
close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or
femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.
Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has
written: "Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost
always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly
between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy
does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops
homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model."
Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: "Many
studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals
have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The
most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals
includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile,
detached father."
Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana
Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been
sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as
non-molested boys to become homosexuals.
Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the
pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual
sons. His paper is entitled: "An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son
Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An
Object Relations Perspective."
Dr. Dickson's study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds
new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and
a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to
Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested
compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.
His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984),
which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more
likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were
non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: "It may be common for a boy who
has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself
as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2)
because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he
labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently
with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity." (Child Sexual
Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).
Dr. Dickson's study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in
evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult
homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: "An experience of sexual abuse
could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for
male affection, attention, and connection."
Dr. Dickson continues: "Given the relational deficits [with his
mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the
molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally,
simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first
form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is
not shared in common with his mother."
Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has
written: "…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one
yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent
development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found
stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally)
fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon
them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes
find these men have had early exposure to pornography…."
Homosexuals Are Made, Not Born
In summary, the most credible research to date on homosexuality—and
research conducted years ago—demonstrates that no one is "born gay."
The homosexual is suffering from a developmental problem, which
frequently starts out in childhood as gender confusion, family
dysfunction, or molestation. From a Christian perspective, homosexual
behavior is also labeled a sin and a sexual perversion. It is a
behavior that must be repented of. The sin is akin to allowing oneself
to become addicted to pornography or to drugs. These behaviors can be
overcome—but the person must want to change!
There is hope for homosexuals through developing a relationship with
Jesus Christ, through both religious and secular counseling programs,
and through support groups that provide accountability for those
struggling with same-sex attractions and self-destructive behaviors.
Organizations like Exodus International, Parents and Friends of
Ex-Gays, NARTH, Reality Resources, and others can provide the
resources that homosexuals need to be set free from these
self-destructive sexual behaviors. Freedom is possible for those who
wish to be free!
Ray Fischer
>Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
Scientific fact.
Cope.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
IAAH
> Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
>
>
Summary: There are both genetic and environmental
factors to homosexuality, the subject line is a
lie, and bigots will use any excuse to oppress
minorities.
The true hypocrisy is that god-botherers will rail
constantly that since they say being homosexual is
a "choice", it's okay to discriminate against
homosexuals in any way, but they will also claim
that their CHOSEN religion and CHOSEN religious
motives should be protected by law from scrutiny.
In short, fuck off and leave others alone, would you?
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
-Bertrand Russell
Lord Vetinari
news:40d6f21c-4cec-41ec...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
: Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
Not a shred of truth in anything this fuckless little shit says.
hoser1605
>
> could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for
> male affection, attention, and connection."
>
> Dr. Dickson continues: "Given the relational deficits [with his
> mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the
> molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally,
> simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first
> form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is
> not shared in common with his mother."
>
> Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has
> written: "…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one
> yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent
> development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found
> stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally)
> fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon
> them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes
> find these men have had early exposure to pornography…."
>
>
> read more »
Hope your dick falls off.
Lord Vetinari
news:hggeja$nkv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/18/09 12:15 PM, * tim jones wrote:
>> Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
>>
>>
>
> Summary: There are both genetic and environmental factors to
> homosexuality, the subject line is a lie, and bigots will use any excuse
> to oppress minorities.
>
> The true hypocrisy is that god-botherers will rail constantly that since
> they say being homosexual is a "choice", it's okay to discriminate against
> homosexuals in any way, but they will also claim that their CHOSEN
> religion and CHOSEN religious motives should be protected by law from
> scrutiny.
Not only that, but many of them believe in predestination, which rather
conflicts, eh?
Lord Vetinari
news:5dd50405-9e4f-4c7e...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...[snip]
: Hope your dick falls off.
It can't, he ain't got one, you see.
Budikka666
http://tinyurl.com/y9z32kt
arguably the best science reporting blog on the Internet, relates an
interesting story about gonads.
"As embryos, our gonads aren't specific to either gender. Their
default course is a female one, but they can be diverted through the
action of a gene called SRY that sits on the Y chromosome. SRY
activates another gene called Sox9, which sets off a chain reaction of
flicked genetic switches. The result is that premature gonads develop
into testes. Without SRY or Sox9, you get ovaries instead.
"But Henriette Uhlenhaut from the European Molecular Biology
Laboratory has found that this story is woefully incomplete. Maleness
isn't just forced onto developing gonads by the actions of SRY - it's
permanently kept at bay by another gene called FOXL2."
Please read the blog for the full story.
In short, and in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, we're
all born to be female. That one gene determines whether we stay that
way.
This "scale of gender" which runs almost uninterrupted between male
and female is something homophobes are too fundamentally stupid to
grasp and why this brain-dead dickhead got exactly what he deserved
when he went up against Rachel Maddow:
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/12/cure_teh_gay_meets_teh_gay.php
Budikka
Zacharias Mulletstein
tim jones wrote:
> Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
>
>
> One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban
> Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are
> "born gay" and that their sexual orientation is fixed and
> unchangeable. This persistent urban legend has been perpetuated not
> only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations
> like the American Psychological Association and the American
> Psychiatric Association.
>
> Homosexuals have used this particular urban legend to fight for
> anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide
> special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to
> heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for
> homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of
> providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have
> also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by
> homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who
> cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now
> claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal
> laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special
> Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")
>
> Regrettably, great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our
> society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend�ｿｽbut it is slowly but
> surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative
> psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual
> researchers themselves.
>
> One of the most recent articles to dispel the notion that
> homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is:
> "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own
> Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by
> Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is
> published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of
> Homosexuality web site.
>
> The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual
> researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some
> other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now
> admitting that such evidence may never be found.
>
> Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male
> homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome.
> He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic�ｿｽenvironmental
> change of sexual attraction pattern (see �ｿｽHomosexuality and Hope,'
> written: "�ｿｽIn counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one
> yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent
> development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found
> stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally)
> fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon
> them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes
> find these men have had early exposure to pornography�ｿｽ."
>
> Homosexuals Are Made, Not Born
> In summary, the most credible research to date on homosexuality�ｿｽand
> research conducted years ago�ｿｽdemonstrates that no one is "born gay."
> The homosexual is suffering from a developmental problem, which
> frequently starts out in childhood as gender confusion, family
> dysfunction, or molestation. From a Christian perspective, homosexual
> behavior is also labeled a sin and a sexual perversion. It is a
> behavior that must be repented of. The sin is akin to allowing oneself
> to become addicted to pornography or to drugs. These behaviors can be
> overcome�ｿｽbut the person must want to change!
anonymous
Heterosexual men and women produce offspring inside and outside of
marriage. A good example of what happens is that like some recent
sports heros, they are off doing their sport and having sex with other
women while the wife is at home with the kids. Rich or poor, the kids
are mostly raised by the mother and some mothers think other little boys
are a bad influence on her little boy so she ensures her boy is never
out of her sight and only plays with little girls and little passive
boys which are usually younger. Additionally, she contols the sons
every move, what he wears, ever detail of his life. As the father comes
home daily, weekly, monthly or worse, he may not like what he sees in
the development of his son, but he has two choices, say home and ensure
he is there for his son who already has some unusual habits or interests
or stay away from home and enjoy his sexual and financial freedom. Most
husbands don't want to piss off the wife whether they love her or not,
to they tend to leave the children as her domain and keep their
independance in the bar, on the road or working as a long haul truck or
sports hero. That is an example of how a homosexual can develope or be
created with in a heterosexual setting. The are probably millions of
different ways but it comes down to an imbalance in the upbringing
usually before the age of 4 and certainly by the start of school in
first year the rest of the boys knows the boy is different, thinks
different and reacts differently than an average little boy, thier
peers. Since the kids has only occasionally been in the company of his
peers, the kid doesn't really know how or why he is different unless he
has older brothers or possible young brothers who have greater outside
the home influences. If you just look at 4 to 6 year old boys and girls
you can pretty well tell their potential to be het or homo. My guess is
that parents ignore it as just being a little kid and hope it goes away
and he deveops heterosexual interests suddenly on his 12 birthday.
Ray Fischer
>Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
Research indicates otherwise.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
Amazing! There really are people who believe the above rubbish?
I thought that kind of ignorance died out in the 60's.
thomas p.
> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>
> Research indicates otherwise.
Yes, but research is all part of the (drum roll inserted here) HOMOSEXUAL
AGENDA!!!
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In article <4b2c552b$0$1668$742e...@news.sonic.net>
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>
> Research indicates otherwise.
Propaganda from the All Perverts Association (APA) doesn't
qualify as research.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>>
>> Research indicates otherwise.
>
>Propaganda from the All Perverts Association (APA) doesn't
>qualify as research.
Whining from anonymous cowards isn't a rebuttal.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Budikka666
> Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
And if you could support a single thing you said, you wouldn't be a
LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?
Budikka
Budikka666
<mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> In article <4b2c552b$0$1668$742ec...@news.sonic.net>
>
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>
> > Research indicates otherwise.
>
> Propaganda from the All Perverts Association (APA) doesn't
> qualify as research.
This proves you wrong, you pathetic piece of LYING shit:
Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience
http://tinyurl.com/y9z32kt
arguably the best science reporting blog on the Internet, relates an
interesting story about gonads.
"As embryos, our gonads aren't specific to either gender. Their
default course is a female one, but they can be diverted through the
action of a gene called SRY that sits on the Y chromosome. SRY
activates another gene called Sox9, which sets off a chain reaction of
flicked genetic switches. The result is that premature gonads develop
into testes. Without SRY or Sox9, you get ovaries instead.
"But Henriette Uhlenhaut from the European Molecular Biology
Laboratory has found that this story is woefully incomplete. Maleness
isn't just forced onto developing gonads by the actions of SRY - it's
permanently kept at bay by another gene called FOXL2."
In short, and in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, we're
anonymous
Research? What research? The only research I am aware of is that
heterosexuals produce homosexuals and by indirectly abandoning the son
and screwing up his influence, he is likely, but always going to turn
out queer or bisexual and, yes, sometimes heterosexual with an effected
voice and less than masculine mannerisms. But you tell me more,
please. I am all eyes.
Budikka666
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>
> > Research indicates otherwise.
>
> > --
> > Ray Fischer
>
> Research? What research?
Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience
http://tinyurl.com/y9z32kt
arguably the best science reporting blog on the Internet, relates an
interesting story about gonads.
"As embryos, our gonads aren't specific to either gender. Their
default course is a female one, but they can be diverted through the
action of a gene called SRY that sits on the Y chromosome. SRY
activates another gene called Sox9, which sets off a chain reaction of
flicked genetic switches. The result is that premature gonads develop
into testes. Without SRY or Sox9, you get ovaries instead.
"But Henriette Uhlenhaut from the European Molecular Biology
Laboratory has found that this story is woefully incomplete. Maleness
isn't just forced onto developing gonads by the actions of SRY - it's
permanently kept at bay by another gene called FOXL2."
Please read the blog for the full story.
In short, and in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, we're
anonymous
The only thing I know, sir, is that you are impolite and disrespectful.
If you have a question post it. If you think I have a error in judgment
or thinking, comment.
anonymous
Well, what you have highlighted about gonads is very interesting. But a
more practical approach is taken by the medical profession. When a
child is born, it is difficult in some cases to tell if it is a boy or a
girl. The reason it is difficult is because the testies have't dropped
yet and the still uncircumcised penis and cliteros look very similiar.
So the doctors measure it. If it is smaller than a certain measurement,
it is called a cliterous and if it is over a certain measurement it is
called a penis and the child is determined to be a boy. However, there
is a warning attached to this procedure. Middle eastern women/children
are known to have large cliteroses and so one has to be careful in such
cases not to mistake a large cliterous with a small penis because that
could affect classifying the sex of the child wrongly.
> In contradiction to what the Bible teaches, we're
> all born to be female. That one gene determines whether we stay that
> way.
>
That may be so that the bible is wrong on that issue. But the Bible was
written when Adam and Eve still weren't wearing clothes in the garden of
eden. The medical profession developed later after Noah's ark was
built.
> This "scale of gender" which runs almost uninterrupted between male
> and female is something homophobes are too fundamentally stupid to
> grasp and why this brain-dead dickhead got exactly what he deserved
> when he went up against Rachel Maddow:
That is one way of putting it. But in a free society religious and
non-religious people are able to justify what they do in the same way
that some societies execute known homosexuals and stone women who are
not virgins before marriage and other societies do not.
Remember, there was a time when women weren't allowed to vote, work or
have an education. Religion isn't about intelligence. Religion is the
right of every citizen to pay a pastor via the collection plate or
automatic bank withdrawal to tell them how to live their life.
> http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/12/cure_teh_gay_meets_teh_gay.php
>
> Budikka
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>>
>> Research indicates otherwise.
>
>Research? What research? The only research I am aware of is that
Anonymous cowards have no credibility. That mere fact that one
doesn't like the truth doesn't make the evidence go away.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Non scrivetemi
66d1dd...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> On Dec 19, 6:14�am, "Anonymous Remailer (austria)"
> <mixmas...@remailer.privacy.at> wrote:
> > In article <4b2c552b$0$1668$742ec...@news.sonic.net>
> >
> > rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >
> > > anonymous �<anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > > >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
> >
> > > Research indicates otherwise.
> >
> > Propaganda from the All Perverts Association (APA) doesn't
> > qualify as research.
>
> This proves you wrong, you pathetic piece of LYING shit:
> Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience
> http://tinyurl.com/y9z32kt
> arguably the best science reporting blog on the Internet
A "science writer" who has performed no actual scientific work,
is your authoritative source?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
spi...@freenet.co.uk
flushed that all away with the following comment...
"The bible was written when Adam and Eve were still wearing clothes in the
garden of eden."
AHA AHAHA... What a twonk, then he goes on about noah, but I'd tuned out by
then.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!" |
| in | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
| Computer Science | - Father Jack in "Father Ted" |
anonymous
....and you believe what?
anonymous
Some homosexuals may have an agenda just like some churches and
religions have an agenda. Homosexuals in Canada don't have an agenda
and never did. They have equality just like every other citizien
regardless of race, gender or religion.
thomas p.
"anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4B2E1A6B...@anonymous.com...
There is no such thing as the "Homosexual Agenda", which, I thought, was
obviously my point.
anonymous
>
> And verily, didst Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> hastily babble thusly:
> > anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >>Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
> >>>
> >>> Research indicates otherwise.
> >>
> >>Research? What research? The only research I am aware of is that
> >>> rfis...@sonic.net
> >
> > Anonymous cowards have no credibility. That mere fact that one
> > doesn't like the truth doesn't make the evidence go away.
>
> And even if he HAD had any credibility (which he didn't of course), he just
> flushed that all away with the following comment...
>
> "The bible was written when Adam and Eve were still wearing clothes in the
> garden of eden."
>
> AHA AHAHA... What a twonk, then he goes on about noah, but I'd tuned out by
> then.
I can't help it if you don't understand subtle humour.
The truth is homosexuals are made by heterosexuals - roughtly every 10th
offspring is homosexual. That is all that matters. The reason there is
not test yet to determine if offspring are homosexuals is that it is
mostly environmental so there will likely never be a test. More humour
is that the worst thing a person can do is produce a homosexual and it
is pretty funny to watch parents say nothing about their son after they
learn he is homosexual. Parents never recover from the fact they have
produced a homosexual offspring.
Budikka666
I've worked in pediatrics jackass. Everything you've said here - all
of it totally unsupported with objective evidence, is an outright
LIE. Clearly you haven't the smarts to even begin to grasp the
intricacies of gender. End of story.
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 10:20 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > > Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>
> > And if you could support a single thing you said, you wouldn't be a
> > LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?
>
> > Budikka
>
> The only thing I know, sir, is that you are impolite and disrespectful.
Respect has to be earned here, asswipe.
I disrespect LIES and ignorance purveyed on Usenet. Stop LYING, and
then maybe you'll earn respect., You sure as hell don't get it for
posting cowardly anonymous hate-filled anti-gay diatribes. That clear
enough for you?
> If you have a question post it. If you think I have a error in judgment
> or thinking, comment.
I did that and guess what? You ignored the fact that gender isn't
about "clitoris/penis" length, and told yet more LIES. You want
respect for that? Go fuck yourself
Budikka
thomas p.
It is not a matter of belief. I accept the opinion of the experts working
in the field based on
objective, peer-reviewed research not personal beliefs. The American
Psychological Association's position is that
there is no evidence for any social determinism as a cause of homosexuality;
this is based on
the work of people such as Dr. Evelyn Hooker.
The Lesbians
-- "tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40d6f21c-4cec-41ec...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Exposed: The "Born Gay" Legend
One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban
Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are
"born gay" and that their sexual orientation is fixed and
unchangeable. This persistent urban legend has been perpetuated not
only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations
like the American Psychological Association and the American
Psychiatric Association.
Response:
They are the medical experts. Relying on religion or pseudo-scientists
empolyed by the religious right to determine science gave us spectacals such
as the Trial for Heresy of Galileo.
Get over it. The innate nature of sexual orientation is well established.
Your so called ex gays are either bisexuals or they continue to have urgings
for the opposite sex. The dismal failure rate of conversion speaks
eloquently to that.
This sceintificically based response was brought to you by The Lesbians,
changing America one toaster oven at a time.
Ray Fischer
>spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> And verily, didst Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> hastily babble thusly:
>> > anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>> >>>
>> >>> Research indicates otherwise.
>> >>
>> >>Research? What research? The only research I am aware of is that
>> >>> rfis...@sonic.net
>> >
>> > Anonymous cowards have no credibility. That mere fact that one
>> > doesn't like the truth doesn't make the evidence go away.
>>
>> And even if he HAD had any credibility (which he didn't of course), he just
>> flushed that all away with the following comment...
>>
>> "The bible was written when Adam and Eve were still wearing clothes in the
>> garden of eden."
>>
>
>> AHA AHAHA... What a twonk, then he goes on about noah, but I'd tuned out by
>> then.
>
>I can't help it if you don't understand subtle humour.
There is no such thing on usenet.
>The truth is homosexuals are made by heterosexuals - roughtly every 10th
>offspring is homosexual. That is all that matters. The reason there is
>not test yet to determine if offspring are homosexuals is that it is
>mostly environmental so there will likely never be a test.
Made-up "facts" from an anonymous coward are not credible.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Budikka666 wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 10:20 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> > Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>>
>> And if you could support a single thing you said, you wouldn't be a
>> LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?
>
>The only thing I know, sir, is that you are impolite and disrespectful.
Anonymous posters don't deserve any respect.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:15:16 -0800, tim jones wrote:
> One of the most persistent and culturally damaging Homosexual Urban
> Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are
> "born gay" and that their sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable.
Fixed and unchangeable? Possibly not. As to "born gay", that's another
matter.
Let me ask you a simple question... well, two actually. First, at what
age did you, personally, sit down and decide to be straight, weighing the
pros and cons of each?
Second, what were the pros and cons on each side?
If you never actually sat down and seriously questioned whether or not
you, personally, should be gay or not, then you did not, in fact,
_choose_ to be straight, that's simply how you were "wired".
Why, then, would you assume gays approach the matter any differently?
--
The ‘baby’ doesn’t exist in Christanity. It was a myth designed to
justify the bath water. -- Fredric Rice
anonymous
And who are you, kind sir, such that you feel empowered to judge
others?
Tiger Woods is, I suppose, the most famous person on the planet these
days. Names are just names. It is the actions and beliefs of people
that make a difference.
You name is interesting. It may be your real name or it may not be.
Your name tells us nothing.
Your statement: "And if you could support a single thing you said, you
wouldn't be a
LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?"....tells us nothing about you either.
It doesn't tell us what you believe. It doesn't tell us what you don't
believe. It doesn't refer except vaguely to what someone else has
said. It is a statement of no weight.
anonymous
>
> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >> And verily, didst Ray Fischer <rfis...@sonic.net> hastily babble thusly:
> >> > anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >> >>Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>> >Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Research indicates otherwise.
> >> >>
> >> >>Research? What research? The only research I am aware of is that
> >> >>> rfis...@sonic.net
> >> >
> >> > Anonymous cowards have no credibility. That mere fact that one
> >> > doesn't like the truth doesn't make the evidence go away.
> >>
> >> And even if he HAD had any credibility (which he didn't of course), he just
> >> flushed that all away with the following comment...
> >>
> >> "The bible was written when Adam and Eve were still wearing clothes in the
> >> garden of eden."
> >>
> >
> >> AHA AHAHA... What a twonk, then he goes on about noah, but I'd tuned out by
> >> then.
> >
> >I can't help it if you don't understand subtle humour.
>
> There is no such thing on usenet.
You see, Ray, if you made this statement, it is another example of a
vague statement that doesn't refer to anything. The statement has no
weight. "There is no such thiing on usenet."
>
> >The truth is homosexuals are made by heterosexuals - roughtly every 10th
> >offspring is homosexual. That is all that matters. The reason there is
> >not test yet to determine if offspring are homosexuals is that it is
> >mostly environmental so there will likely never be a test.
>
> Made-up "facts" from an anonymous coward are not credible.
And again, Ray, "Made-up "facts" from an anonymous coward are not
credible."
Awesome, Ray. Pronouns everywhere. One liner of pronouns. Pastors are
famous for making them.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
anonymous
What do you mean when you use the phrase "no evidence of any social
determination as a cause of homosexuality"?
Who is Dr. Evelyn Hooker? Where was she educated? What book or papers
of hers supports your beliefs. Do you have Evelyn Hooker's curriculum
vitae? Can you point to or post here her curriculum vitae?
Thanks, thomas, for any help or imput.
anonymous
>
> On Dec 19, 6:09 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Budikka666 wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 18, 10:20 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > > > Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
> >
> > > And if you could support a single thing you said, you wouldn't be a
> > > LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?
> >
> > > Budikka
> >
> > The only thing I know, sir, is that you are impolite and disrespectful.
>
> Respect has to be earned here, asswipe.
>
> I disrespect LIES and ignorance purveyed on Usenet.
I don't know if you know that the only people who print in caps as you
do are police transcripts of sexual criminal matters where the
transcript has capital letters for rape, sex, etc. Very nice, Mr. B.
> Stop LYING, and
> then maybe you'll earn respect., You sure as hell don't get it for
> posting cowardly anonymous hate-filled anti-gay diatribes. That clear
> enough for you?
>
Nothing I have ever written is anti-gay. And nothing I have ever posted
was a hateful statement about anyone anywhere on the planet.
> > If you have a question post it. If you think I have a error in judgment
> > or thinking, comment.
>
> I did that and guess what? You ignored the fact that gender isn't
> about "clitoris/penis" length, and told yet more LIES. You want
> respect for that? Go fuck yourself
>
> Budikka
I believe you are correct, that I didn't understand the posting about
gender and another poster assisted me with my misunderstanding. I may
not have the education and knowlege you have, and I realize you have
only limited time to post here. I would never deliberately igore a fact
or ignore someone who helped me understand something. If you have a
moment, could you repost what it is you believe I misanswered or
misunderstood and I will attempt to answer it correctly. I would ask
that you post in simple easy to understand english so I don't have any
trouble answering your question, especially since you have already
attempted once and met with unintended frustration on my part.
thomas p.
"Social determination" would refer to the influence of the social
environment as a
cause of homosexuality, the idea that a homosexual was made that way by his
mother for example.
>
> Who is Dr. Evelyn Hooker? Where was she educated? What book or papers
> of hers supports your beliefs. Do you have Evelyn Hooker's curriculum
> vitae? Can you point to or post here her curriculum vitae?
>
> Thanks, thomas, for any help or imput.
From http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/hooker2.html#citation
Evelyn Hooker received the 1991 Award for Distinguished Contribution to
Psychology in the Public Interest, presented by the American Psychological
Association. The citation read:
"When homosexuals were considered to be mentally ill, were forced out of
government jobs, and were arrested in police raids, Evelyn Hooker
courageously sought and obtained research support from the National
Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) to compare a matched sample of homosexual
and heterosexual men. Her pioneering study, published in 1957, challenged
the widespread belief that homosexuality is a pathology by demonstrating
that experienced clinicians using psychological tests widely believed at the
time to be appropriate could not identify the nonclinical homosexual group.
This revolutionary study provided empirical evidence that normal homosexuals
existed, and supported the radical idea then emerging that homosexuality is
within the normal range of human behavior. Despite the stigma associated
with homosexuality, she received an NIMH Research Career Award in 1961 to
continue her work. In 1967, she became chair of the NIMH Task Force on
Homosexuality, which provided a stamp of validation and research support for
other major empirical studies. Her research, leadership, mentorship, and
tireless advocacy for an accurate scientific view of homosexuality for more
than three decades has been an outstanding contribution to psychology in the
public interest."
I used her as an example because of her recognized importance in the field
as demonstrated by the above award.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >> "The bible was written when Adam and Eve were still wearing clothes in the
>> >> garden of eden."
>> >>
>> >
>> >> AHA AHAHA... What a twonk, then he goes on about noah, but I'd tuned out by
>> >> then.
>> >
>> >I can't help it if you don't understand subtle humour.
>>
>> There is no such thing on usenet.
>
>You see, Ray, if you made this statement, it is another example of a
>vague statement that doesn't refer to anything.
Only if you're stupid.
>> >The truth is homosexuals are made by heterosexuals - roughtly every 10th
>> >offspring is homosexual. That is all that matters. The reason there is
>> >not test yet to determine if offspring are homosexuals is that it is
>> >mostly environmental so there will likely never be a test.
>>
>> Made-up "facts" from an anonymous coward are not credible.
>
>And again, Ray, "Made-up "facts" from an anonymous coward are not
>credible."
Quite whining, coward. Your claims are worthless crap because you
have nothing to support them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Budikka666 wrote:
>> I disrespect LIES and ignorance purveyed on Usenet.
>
>I don't know if you know that the only people who print in caps as you
Nobody cares about the pathetic whining of some anonymous coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>> >Budikka666 wrote:
>> >> On Dec 18, 10:20 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Homosexuals aren't born, gay, you are right, tim jones.
>> >>
>> >> And if you could support a single thing you said, you wouldn't be a
>> >> LYING PIECE OF SHIT, would you?
>> >
>> >The only thing I know, sir, is that you are impolite and disrespectful.
>>
>> Anonymous posters don't deserve any respect.
>
>others?
Who are you, chickenshit asshole, that you think you deserve ANY
respect when you hide behind anonymity?
>Tiger Woods is, I suppose, the most famous person on the planet these
The vast majority of humanity doesn't give a fetid rat's ass about
Woods.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
anonymous
Thanks, thomas. Much appreciated. I don't disagree with her findings.
Rodney Ulyate
<snip drivel>
It is risible how willing are the zealots and the charlatans to accept
science when it would seem to affirm their preconceived convictions,
but why (I ask rhetorically) do you not demand the same empiricism of
your faith? All the evidence there, certainly, is loaded against you.
And why (I ask this time in genuine hope of an answer) is it
considered so crucial that queerness be grounded in genetics? There
are countless legions of human behaviours whose biological basis we
have not yet altogether apprehended -- even speech, unless I am much
mistaken, falls into this category -- and yet do not thereby conclude
to be harmful. The fact is that some of us like cock, and do harm by
it to no-one. (Quite the opposite.) Even if it is not natural (in
which case it would be much like typing on one's computer, batting in
baseball or driving one's car), your work is all ahead of you if you
want to make the case that it is malign.
Yours aye,
Rodney Ulyate
anonymous
Awesome, Mr. B. but pediatrics is a huge field. I thank you for your
imput and opinion. Others I know will have insight to the knowledge I
learned and appreciate what I am saying.
anonymous
Well, written. The reason genetics is so important is two fold. There
are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
and it happened when I was in the birth canal. The other reason it is
so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may then
possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
spi...@freenet.co.uk
> Well, written. The reason genetics is so important is two fold. There
> are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
> my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
> and it happened when I was in the birth canal. The other reason it is
> so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may then
> possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
> determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
As if being homosexual would be grounds for abortion.
BTW, I thought you lot were against abortion, one of your ilk was accusing
me of murder just because I wasn't against it just last week.
--
| spi...@freenet.co,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
thomas p.
I am sure she would have been gratified.
thomas p.
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 18, 7:15 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip drivel>
>>
>> It is risible how willing are the zealots and the charlatans to accept
>> science when it would seem to affirm their preconceived convictions,
>> but why (I ask rhetorically) do you not demand the same empiricism of
>> your faith? All the evidence there, certainly, is loaded against you.
>>
>> And why (I ask this time in genuine hope of an answer) is it
>> considered so crucial that queerness be grounded in genetics? There
>> are countless legions of human behaviours whose biological basis we
>> have not yet altogether apprehended -- even speech, unless I am much
>> mistaken, falls into this category -- and yet do not thereby conclude
>> to be harmful. The fact is that some of us like cock, and do harm by
>> it to no-one. (Quite the opposite.) Even if it is not natural (in
>> which case it would be much like typing on one's computer, batting in
>> baseball or driving one's car), your work is all ahead of you if you
>> want to make the case that it is malign.
>>
>> Yours aye,
>> Rodney Ulyate
>
> Well, written. The reason genetics is so important is two fold. There
> are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
> my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
> and it happened when I was in the birth canal.
Whether or not that is true, what difference does it make, unless it can be
established that there is something malignant about homosexuality?
The other reason it is
> so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may then
> possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
> determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
Why do you ignore the question asked?
Budikka666
I would ask
> that you post in simple easy to understand english so I don't have any
> trouble answering your question, especially since you have already
> attempted once and met with unintended frustration on my part.
This is, I believe, the THIRD time I've posted this in response to one
of your messages. You now have no more excuses left:
Ed Yong at www.scienceblogs.com/notrocketscience
http://tinyurl.com/y9z32kt
arguably the best science reporting blog on the Internet, relates an
interesting story about gonads.
"As embryos, our gonads aren't specific to either gender. Their
default course is a female one, but they can be diverted through the
action of a gene called SRY that sits on the Y chromosome. SRY
activates another gene called Sox9, which sets off a chain reaction of
flicked genetic switches. The result is that premature gonads develop
into testes. Without SRY or Sox9, you get ovaries instead.
"But Henriette Uhlenhaut from the European Molecular Biology
Laboratory has found that this story is woefully incomplete. Maleness
isn't just forced onto developing gonads by the actions of SRY - it's
permanently kept at bay by another gene called FOXL2."
Please read the blog for the full story.
In short, and in direct contradiction to what the Bible teaches, we're
all born to be female. That one gene determines whether we stay that
way.
It has nothing to do with penis/clitoris length.
Got it now you laughably ignorant jackass?
Budikka
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 7:15 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > <snip drivel>
> > It is risible how willing are the zealots and the charlatans to accept
> > science when it would seem to affirm their preconceived convictions,
> > but why (I ask rhetorically) do you not demand the same empiricism of
> > your faith? All the evidence there, certainly, is loaded against you.
> > And why (I ask this time in genuine hope of an answer) is it
> > considered so crucial that queerness be grounded in genetics? There
> > are countless legions of human behaviours whose biological basis we
> > have not yet altogether apprehended -- even speech, unless I am much
> > mistaken, falls into this category -- and yet do not thereby conclude
> > to be harmful. The fact is that some of us like cock, and do harm by
> > it to no-one. (Quite the opposite.) Even if it is not natural (in
> > which case it would be much like typing on one's computer, batting in
> > baseball or driving one's car), your work is all ahead of you if you
> > want to make the case that it is malign.
> are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
> my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
> and it happened when I was in the birth canal.
With that much I concur. The problem is that the question is so often
cast as having some bearing on the *morality* of same sex. Which, so
far as I can see (not far at all, admittedly, because no justification
for this view is ever offered), it doesn't.
> The other reason it is so important for some to find the answer in
> genetics is that it may then possibly have a test developed to
> determine it just like we can determine the sex of a child before
> it is born and can abort the child.
This seems laughably implausible.
Best,
Rodney Ulyate
juanjo
> Legends is the erroneous claim by homosexual activists that they are
> "born gay" and that their sexual orientation is fixed and
> only by homosexual activist groups but by prestigious organizations
> like the American Psychological Association and the American
> Psychiatric Association.
>
> anti-discrimination laws and for "hate crime" laws that provide
> special legal protections for homosexuals not accorded to
> heterosexuals. They have also used this fraudulent claim to push for
> homosexual recruitment programs in public schools under the guise of
> providing "safe schools" for "homosexual" teenagers. Homosexuals have
> also demanded sensitivity training for those who are repelled by
> homosexual behavior. Currently, transgendered individuals (those who
> cross-dress or are undergoing sex change operations), are also now
> claiming to be "born transgender." Transgenders are demanding federal
> laws to protect them from societal disapproval. (See TVC's Special
> Report on this: "A Gender Identity Goes Mainstream.")
>
> Regrettably, great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our
> society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend—but it is slowly but
> surely being debunked. This is being done not only by conservative
> psychologists and psychiatrists, but by the admissions of homosexual
> researchers themselves.
>
> One of the most recent articles to dispel the notion that
> homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is:
> "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own
> Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by
> Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is
> published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of
> Homosexuality web site.
>
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZt Sorry but articles from NARTH are completely
worthless and discredited as valid research. Dr. Dean is a high
ranking Mormon, a reparative therapist and president of NARTH.
Shirley Cox is not a doctor, she is a social worker at BYU and Jeef
Robinson is a "reparative therapist" practicing in Orem Utah.
anonymous
especally effeminate homosexuals - they simply don't want to the exist.
There may be nothing malignant about homosexuality, so why then are
there no sports heros and most movie stars and sports heroes have to
wait until they retire to come out.
> The other reason it is
> > so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may then
> > possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
> > determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
>
> Why do you ignore the question asked?
Sorry, don't know what noun the word question is referring to.
thomas p.
Why didn't you answer the question?
>
>> The other reason it is
>>> so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may
>>> then possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
>>> determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the
>>> child.
>>
>> Why do you ignore the question asked?
>
> Sorry, don't know what noun the word question is referring to.
The question is quite clear, and you are ignoring it.
anonymous
>
> And verily, didst anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> hastily babble thusly:
> > Well, written. The reason genetics is so important is two fold. There
> > are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
> > my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
> > and it happened when I was in the birth canal. The other reason it is
> > so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may then
> > possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
> > determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
>
> As if being homosexual would be grounds for abortion.
Well, Spike, abortion isn't an issue because in the bigger picture
homoseuxals don't produce offspring. But if heterosexuals were asked
upon discovering they (the woman)
would like a test to determine if she was carrying a homosexual baby, I
suggest there isn't a woman on the planet or a husband at her urging to
deny wanting the test. Heterosexuals, in my opinion, don't want to
produce homosexuals. Women in Canada don't need a reason for an
abortion, but I am suggesting that most women would willingly a bort any
child that tested for homosexuality. Appreciate, I am arguing only if
such a test were ever developed and homosexuality was thought or proven
to be genetic.
> BTW, I thought you lot were against abortion, one of your ilk was accusing
> me of murder just because I wasn't against it just last week.
Well, there are a lot of homosexuals in the world and I suspect some
might be against abortion.
anonymous
know, but if a heterosexual person was asked, they would most willingly
take a test and abort of he child could be determined to be genetically
gay.
anonymous
And the question in one sentence is:...
Ben Kaufman
>Well, Spike, abortion isn't an issue because in the bigger picture
>homoseuxals don't produce offspring.
<SNIP>
That would be news to lesbians and gay sperm donors.
Ben
thomas p.
> spi...@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> And verily, didst anonymous <anon...@anonymous.com> hastily babble
>> thusly:
>> > Well, written. The reason genetics is so important is two fold. There
>> > are those homosexuals that can say I am a homosexual not as a result of
>> > my upbringing but as a result of genetics which I have no control over
>> > and it happened when I was in the birth canal. The other reason it is
>> > so important for some to find the answer in genetics is that it may
>> > then
>> > possibly have a test developed to determine it just like we can
>> > determine the sex of a child before it is born and can abort the child.
>>
>> As if being homosexual would be grounds for abortion.
>
> Well, Spike, abortion isn't an issue because in the bigger picture
> homoseuxals don't produce offspring. But if heterosexuals were asked
> upon discovering they (the woman)
> would like a test to determine if she was carrying a homosexual baby, I
> suggest there isn't a woman on the planet or a husband at her urging to
> deny wanting the test. Heterosexuals, in my opinion, don't want to
> produce homosexuals. Women in Canada don't need a reason for an
> abortion, but I am suggesting that most women would willingly a bort any
> child that tested for homosexuality. Appreciate, I am arguing only if
> such a test were ever developed and homosexuality was thought or proven
> to be genetic.
I also appreciate that you are still ignoring the question and merely
repeating
your opinion instead.
>
>> BTW, I thought you lot were against abortion, one of your ilk was
>> accusing
>> me of murder just because I wasn't against it just last week.
>
> Well, there are a lot of homosexuals in the world and I suspect some
> might be against abortion.
No doubt some are, just as some heterosexuals are. Are you ever going to
face up
to the question and answer it? Do you have any objective reason to believe
that there
is something wrong with homosexuality, something that homosexuals would
require an
excuse for? We all know, as you have pointed out, that there are many
people who
do not like it, and that perhaps there are many women who would abort if
they knew
their child would be homosexual; but is there any reason for that besides
bigotry?
thomas p.
"Ben Kaufman" <spaXm-mXe-anXd-p...@pobox.com> skrev i
meddelelsen news:pq73j59o09onckiok...@4ax.com...
And to homosexual men and women who have been in heterosexual
marriages or relationships that have produced children.
thomas p.
An objective reason for thinking that homosexuality is wrong,
not the opinions of no matter how many, but an objective
reason. Otherwise, as was pointed out, there really is no
reason for the homosexual to defend himself by saying his
orientation was not a choice. You have responded by
talking about what the opinions of many heterosexuals in
your opinion, but that does not answer the question.
anonymous
Absolutely 100 hundred percent not - I do not believe there is any
objective reason to believe that there is something wrong with
homosexuality, something that homosexuals would require an excuse for.
First off, once one realizes one cannot change their homosexuality, but
can only change how they deal with it, it leaves two options. They will
have sex, they will have no sex. Sex is important to every human being
be they heterosexual or homosexual. Sex is awesome. But so are the
other aspects of life.
Starting at the beginning, a homosxual either passes for being straight
or he doesn't. Those that pass have as many problems as those that
don't pass. Passers deal with living a double life and those that don't
pass deal with being hated and mistreated. A friend of mine said that
his psychiatrist told him there are two types of people. Those that had
an awesome chldhood and miss their childhood and those that had a
terrible childhood and are wanting for something they never had. Both
of them suffer the loss but for different reasons.
The world changes at about the age of 16 to pick a time. Straight boys
begin to realize as they try to date girls/women that they don't really
run the world. They must listen to women and play a safe role or they
won't get a woman's interest and no sex. Homosexual boys/men discovery
at about the same age that they have to live a double life
to some extent to survive but they gradually gain more freedom. While
straight guys will still be cruel and abusive, most straight guys spend
their spare moments trying to attract women for attention that leads to
a sexual purpose. Homosexual boys/men have no trouble getting sex if
they feel they want to go that route or wait until college. Women are
no problem for gay men so life begins to becomes awesome for gay men.
Heterosexual men start to feel pressure regarding careers, marriage,
etc. whereas homosexual men have moved to vocational or professional
careers, moved out or move away and again have more freedom.
Heterosexual men have trouble getting sex after the first child, often
finances are challenging, family pressures from both sides and the woman
regarding marriage, and the burdens for heterosexual men is heavier and
heavier.
Now religious guys who are homosexual usually become pirests/pastors/or
marry and live a double life or a double life without sex - remain
closeted.
Moving forward the sky is the limit on the way homosexuals live, travel,
work, live common law, get married (canada), or live apart or live
together, adopt children or not or just whatever they want to do. There
are not preassigned roles. They can sew drapes in the morning and build
a garage in the afternoon.
Now, from the outside world, it may appear that the life of a homosexual
is terrible and unhappy, but it isn't and it probably can't be because
at the very worst, they are equals, equals as a couple. They are
independent financially. The worlds of homosexuals cannot be the same
as heteroseuals because their cultures are different.
Of course some homosexuals get aids and some homosexuals don't. Some
heterosexuals cheat on their spouses and some heterosxuals don't. It is
not a pefect world for anyone.
But homosexuals don't talk about homosexuality. They live it. In the
same way that heterosexuals don't talk about being heterosexual. They
live it.
The world of the heterosexual is played out in the media and on
television and so there are no surprises. Homosexual life is basically
very boring in the sense it is just daily living, albeit different from
heteroseuals to some degree.
Heterosexuals, particularly religous ones, hold the 53 card. They say
that homosexuality is bad, evil and life threatening. It ain't remotely
true, but it is like being accused of stealing money you did't steal,
you can only deny the crime whether anyone believes you or not. But
life is awesome for homosexuals because there is total freedom. There
are usually no children so there is more money and freedom. Lesbians
often have no children so they are able to ski and hike and travel the
world into their 70s and 80s. And, of course, homosexual men do, too.
While the world thinks that homosexual men have 1,000 partners and spend
their whole life having sinful sex to use their words, the gay men and
women go to lots of movies, theatre, hike, travel year round, play golf,
soccer, bowing, sailing, fishing, camping skiing, snowboarding.
Seriously, most heteroseuxals I know complain that raising children is
so expensive. The parents say they are tired, worried about car
repairs. I have tired for a lifetime to get heterosexuals to describe
the excitement of being a heterosexual and nobody writes about it or
talks about it.
If you have specific questions, ask me. Or ask general questions. If I
have left anything out or not answer your question specificially enough,
it was not intentional. Keep me on track and funnel further enquiries.
cheers,
While homosexuals visit family members, most relatives keep their
distance from their homosexual relatives, so their is no family pressure
about what to do, how to live or such. I find that heterosexuals find
there is lots of pressure from parents and family members.
anonymous
Well, of course, but the majority of homosexuals don't take a woman
first. Often those homosexuals who married thought they would become
straight or solely attracted to women if they dated, married and had a
baby. But you will notice in the end, they go to same sex
relationships. So were they always homosexual, bisexual, homosexual
trying to hide behind a heterosexual relationship. There aren't
judgment comments, only observations of options of life.
0
anonymous
There is only a problem for religious people who are told that they must
follow the bible that was written by men thousands or millions of years
ago. People are free to live by that book as they interpret it.
Religion is a private matter. What religous people believe or don't
believe is between them and their pastor who they pay to tell them how
to live their life.
There is nothing about homosexuality that is wrong. It is an agreement
to live together
as a couple and have consenting sex as two mature adults within society,
in the same way that heterosexuals who are religous do what they are
told and only have vaginal sex for a procreation purpose. Oral sex in a
no-no, I think, in the eyes of most pastors and so is anal sex an no-no
in the eyes of most pastors because it does not permit the woman to get
pregnant. But those are private religious lifestyles set out by paid
pastors.
Homoseuxals believe many things individually but probably most believe
there is no fear the world will run out of offspring so homoseuals can
have sex for a fun purpose. Homosexuals believe that marriage is
awesome and they get married in Canada. Religous people who are
homosexual can't get married in some churches as the pastors have a
different standard or rule regarding homosexual marriage.
Homosexuality has no effect on society. Homosexuality has no effect on
the life of religous or non-religous heterosexuals. Heterosexuals
either follow their paid pastor or they don't. A heterosexual man
cannot be tempted by homosexuality. His penis doesn't get hard when he
see men, attractive men or nude men. He has no sexual response
in conjunction with men.
If one observes the life of a heterosexual couple, it is becoming more
like the life of homosexuals. For example, women and men are more equal
in a relationship. Men don't rule the home anymore. It is more of a
joint effort, joint input. Women work and earn money and have an
education. It is no longer, hi dear, what is for supper? She has been
a doctor or lawyer all day or 3 days a week and may even earn more money
then he does. And, of course, we have husband and wife judges with
lawyers as children (college kids). So women are equal today but not in
the church where women can do priest laundry, wash floors and make
sandwiches but not preach as a priest.
Some men are staying home, are house husbands. Some men are expected to
help domestically more than what happened in the 1950s.
Rodney Ulyate
(from which orifice it is impossible to say) the following:
[...]
> For the average heteroseuxal male, there is lots wrong with homosexuals,
> especally effeminate homosexuals - they simply don't want to the exist.
> There may be nothing malignant about homosexuality, so why then are
> there no sports heros and most movie stars and sports heroes have to
> wait until they retire to come out.
Because of illiberal cretins and poltroons like yourself.
Rodney Ulyate
Rodney Ulyate
[...]
> Yes, I agree it is laughable and implausible based on what little we do know, but if a heterosexual person was asked, they would most willingly take a test and abort of he child could be determined to be genetically gay.
Even if this generalisation were true -- and you seem merely to be
projecting -- it would surely be an argument not against the infants
but against the aborters. You also somehow miss the fact that many
(if not most) of the world's pro-life movement is also anti-gay. I
don't see that the promise of a queer kid would automatically lead a
homophobic mother who views abortion as baby-killing to ditch that
value.
Rodney Ulyate
Geode
> "anonymous" <anonym...@anonymous.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:4B316F0B...@anonymous.com...
>
>
>
> > thomas p. wrote:
>
> >> anonymous wrote:
> >> > thomas p. wrote:
>
this idea about homosexuality is wrong has come in the first place to
the mind of Ancient Jews priests who need it to punish some minorities
as a way to reinforce their power over common people. It is a form of
reinforcing power inspiring fear in people. They need to do that
performing human sacrifices. So they instituted this periodic
killings of human being as not to lose their grip on political power.
In this way, the Christians are in the same case. They need to
institute human sacrifices. They did in the past in Europe, and even
in America they use to do it. Remember the witches of Salem. Fourteen
women and five men were hanged. Many more were imprisoned. They had
a need to instill fear in the minds of people as a way to conserve
power.
So, the religious pest, will always need to create damned creatures.
For their tradition of control is through fear. Remember that their
god will punish sinners in hell for an eternity. But it is not enough
to have a criminal god punishing their creatures in hell for an
eternity. They need to keep their flock corralled in fear now and
here, to maintain their grip on political power.
Leopoldo
.
Geode
> thomas p. wrote:
>
------------
>
> Absolutely 100 hundred percent not - I do not believe there is any
> objective reason to believe that there is something wrong with
> homosexuality, something that homosexuals would require an excuse for.
>
> First off, once one realizes one cannot change their homosexuality, but
> can only change how they deal with it, it leaves two options. They will
> have sex, they will have no sex. Sex is important to every human being
> be they heterosexual or homosexual. Sex is awesome. But so are the
> other aspects of life.
It all depends on how do you define "homosexuality". There many
"passive homosexuals that from their adolescence are sexually excited
while watching other males. Even if they had not any previous
pleasant sexual experience. This has to be puzzling to say the
least. If we would had a fixed wired in our mind towards the opposite
sex, this excitement watching a person of the same sex as the observer
has not any sense at all; unless you think wiring of the mind is
faulty. Sex is not the only human attribute that can be faulty from
the beginning. A person can be born deaf or blind, or lame, or
otherwise faulty, since the start of embryonic development. And we
were to believe in god, we could say it is a very malevolent and
careless god, to say the least.
But if you call homosexuals to all that one day or the other is
involved in acts of sex with other males... You will be calling gays
to many heterosexuals that sodomice a passive gay if they have the
opportunity. Or to those heterosexual that put a gay to suck his cock
till ejaculation and so on.
In the folklore of the Mediterranean countries, the active partner, or
"inserter", is not considered gay. Only the "insertee" is considered
the gay. For his is playing the role of the females. A role considered
subordinated and low.
The same criterion is applied in prisons, where the more powerful
capos had a wife-male as his exclusive property. And any other young
man or gay that has not a permanent "husband" to protect his ass, is
considered a sort of sexual public property.
In prison, many underclass males, too young or too weak, are forced to
become the bitch of a powerful thug. Perhaps, after passing a time in
this sexual service, he would learn to be a dedicated bitch on his own
will. But this is nothing more than a speculation on my part.
On the other hand, the normal spread of testosterone levels in the
blood is very wide. For a limited group of age, the spread is from
200 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter) to 1,200 ng/mL This is a ratio
of six from the more manliness of to the least. This hight difference
in range has to have some meaning. So I dare to make the hypothesis
that the male with less testosterone are more subservient to the more
aggressive males full of testosterone. Even those with weak levels of
testosterone can feel attracted to more manly males. I have read
testimonies about gays that confessed they feel attracted not to other
gays, but to heterosexuals. The more manly is a man, the more
desirable it is.
I got another hypothesis.
Perhaps some males are so weak in testosterone, that they need
periodical injections of semen, via oral or anal, to improve their
wellbeing. Tghe semen is very rich in testosterone.
Well, this weak males would feel attracted to stronger males to get
this periodical supply of testosterone. This would explain why they
do not feel sexually attracted to ordinary gays, that look to girlish
and weak in male hormone as they are.
In other case, an apparent strong male is gay. Why? Perhaps, if you
measure his testosterone levels his is high. But he has a sensor in
his mind that is wrong, it does not work properly, and his kind works
as if he need it testosterone injections.
They can be considered other hypothetical cases. But these are
nothing more than speculations. We can keep considering many
hypothesis.
No any need for more.
leopoldo
anonymous
Well, firstly Rodney, very interesting last name. Rodney, the entire
planet is anti gay. Homosexuals are the most hated people on the planet
across all cultures, races, religions, ethnic groups and across all
countries.
Well, pro-life people are setting themselves up to be fooled. Most
religious people think homosexuality is a choice. And with that
assumption, I want religous people to help homos by letting their
daughters marry homos or those that have been converted to being het.
No women suffers like a woman who marries a homo or converted homo.
Don't believe me - ask one.
So on the basis that religous people can convert homos because it is a
choice, it is reasonable to assume that no religous person would
technically worry about anyone being a homo baby because it can be
converted in a worst case scenario.
But Rodney, let me make it clear, all those rednecks, sports guys
wouldn't want to take a chance no matter how religous and trusting their
woman/wife was. They would threaten their wife/woman if they didn't get
the homos test for their baby. And I suspect the father would threaten
a number of things to his woman/wife if the test the baby had tested
positive for being homo and the woman/wife didn't abort.
anonymous
>
> On 24 dic, 07:44, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > thomas p. wrote:
> >
> ------------
> >
> > Absolutely 100 hundred percent not - I do not believe there is any
> > objective reason to believe that there is something wrong with
> > homosexuality, something that homosexuals would require an excuse for.
> >
> > First off, once one realizes one cannot change their homosexuality, but
> > can only change how they deal with it, it leaves two options. They will
> > have sex, they will have no sex. Sex is important to every human being
> > be they heterosexual or homosexual. Sex is awesome. But so are the
> > other aspects of life.
>
> It all depends on how do you define "homosexuality". There many
> "passive homosexuals that from their adolescence are sexually excited
> while watching other males.
Hell, Geode, every male on the planet likes watching other males and
some are sexually excited by the war/fighting aspect of two men fighting
in boxing shorts or fully clothed outside a bar but it is not sexual, it
is the excitement of the smell of men fighting, the smell of blood and
sweat, the sight of mud and dirty.
> Even if they had not any previous
> pleasant sexual experience.
Again sex plays no part.
> This has to be puzzling to say the
> least.
No, not puzzling, men like watching men fight and box.
If we would had a fixed wired in our mind towards the opposite
> sex, this excitement watching a person of the same sex as the observer
> has not any sense at all; unless you think wiring of the mind is
> faulty.
Hey, Geode, men and women like to see women fight, box, get down and
dirty.
> Sex is not the only human attribute that can be faulty from
> the beginning.
You can say that agian, --- and again and again.
> A person can be born deaf or blind, or lame, or
> otherwise faulty, since the start of embryonic development. And we
> were to believe in god, we could say it is a very malevolent and
> careless god, to say the least.
Well, I wish you would leave God out of it, only because believing in
God or not believing in God is a private matter, a personal belief and
has nothing to do with anybody else.
>
> But if you call homosexuals to all that one day or the other is
> involved in acts of sex with other males...
Well, homosexuality is a private matter between two consenting adults
who may or may not have the right of marriage unless you live in Canada
and some other countries. But for a religous person, their religion may
or may not permit a person to be a homosexual. Quakers permit their
congregation, to be homosexual, too.
> You will be calling gays
> to many heterosexuals that sodomice a passive gay if they have the
> opportunity.
My english isn't strong enough to know what that sentence you wrote
above means.
> Or to those heterosexual that put a gay to suck his cock
> till ejaculation and so on.
Again, het men don't want a homo penis anywhere near them.
> In the folklore of the Mediterranean countries, the active partner, or
> "inserter", is not considered gay. Only the "insertee" is considered
> the gay. For his is playing the role of the females. A role considered
> subordinated and low.
Well, if it is consenting, it is two homos. If it is not consenting,
then it is rape.
Well, regardless of where one is on the planet, one can have any belief
they want.
I have never understood why het crossdressers want to wear female
clothes, are they homo, het or does the guy think of himself as a
lesbian married to his wife. Fortunately my beliefs are not important
to that guy.
> The same criterion is applied in prisons, where the more powerful
> capos had a wife-male as his exclusive property. And any other young
> man or gay that has not a permanent "husband" to protect his ass, is
> considered a sort of sexual public property.
> In prison, many underclass males, too young or too weak, are forced to
> become the bitch of a powerful thug. Perhaps, after passing a time in
> this sexual service, he would learn to be a dedicated bitch on his own
> will. But this is nothing more than a speculation on my part.
In prison setting it is rape period.
>
> On the other hand, the normal spread of testosterone levels in the
> blood is very wide. For a limited group of age, the spread is from
> 200 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter) to 1,200 ng/mL This is a ratio
> of six from the more manliness of to the least. This hight difference
> in range has to have some meaning. So I dare to make the hypothesis
> that the male with less testosterone are more subservient to the more
> aggressive males full of testosterone. Even those with weak levels of
> testosterone can feel attracted to more manly males.
My good man, some guys are tough truckers who are very physical and well
built and
will fuck passively or actively till breakfast every morning. Some like
to take it up the butt and some don't. Same is true with drag queens.
Smell pretty and all that, lots of make up, some can fuck till dawn in
spite of the sweet feminine voice and others like to take it up the
butt. So there is lots of variety and until one gets into bed is not
really clear who is doing what to whom.
> I have read
> testimonies about gays that confessed they feel attracted not to other
> gays, but to heterosexuals. The more manly is a man, the more
> desirable it is.
>
Well, as men and women will tell you, you can be attracted to any man or
woman, but unless they are attracted to you, you ain't touching them.
> I got another hypothesis.
> Perhaps some males are so weak in testosterone, that they need
> periodical injections of semen, via oral or anal, to improve their
> wellbeing. Tghe semen is very rich in testosterone.
> Well, this weak males would feel attracted to stronger males to get
> this periodical supply of testosterone. This would explain why they
> do not feel sexually attracted to ordinary gays, that look to girlish
> and weak in male hormone as they are.
Well, you sure do like to write about passive and and aggressive homos.
I hope your writing is scientific or medical purpose and not for an
erotic purpose.
Ric Locke
Merry Christmas, everyone!
Regards,
Ric
Geode
> "anonymous" <anonym...@anonymous.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:4B316F0B...@anonymous.com...
>
>
>
> > thomas p. wrote:
>
>
> > And the question in one sentence is:...
>
> An objective reason for thinking that homosexuality is wrong,
> not the opinions of no matter how many, but an objective
> reason. Otherwise, as was pointed out, there really is no
> reason for the homosexual to defend himself by saying his
> orientation was not a choice. You have responded by
> talking about what the opinions of many heterosexuals in
> your opinion, but that does not answer the question.
Religious conservatives commenting about gay always talk about "it is
a choice". What does mean, in fact, this assertion? That a boy of 15
or 16 that says "I'm gay" has had enough experience having intercourse
with girls and boys on equal amounts and then, after pondering what is
more pleasant, if it is to put the dick inside a girl's vagina, or to
have a dick inside his own ass, he choses to have a dick in his ass,
then he says, I am gay?
many of the young adolescents that think they are gay, it is because
they feel this way, not because they have had any sexual experience at
all.
To chose something "we have to know". This is an informed choice. If
someone have a sexual experience with this or that, either a girl or a
boy, this is not a choice, is only en experience. Most of the males,
even the adolescent males do not see other males as a sexual object of
lust or a potential source of pleasure. It is only a tiny minority who
feels this way.
Leopoldo
Rodney Ulyate
> > Even if this generalisation were true -- and you seem merely to be projecting -- it would surely be an argument not against the infants but against the aborters. You also somehow miss the fact that many (if not most) of the world's pro-life movement is also anti-gay. I don't see that the promise of a queer kid would automatically lead a homophobic mother who views abortion as baby-killing to ditch that value.
> > Rodney Ulyate
> Well, firstly Rodney, very interesting last name.
Scandinavian, I believe.
> Rodney, the entire planet is anti gay.
I'm sorry, but, unless you're fagging under the misapprehension that
your humble servant posts from Uranus, and that all shirtlifters are
self-loathing masochists, you can't possibly believe that.
> Homosexuals are the most hated people on the planet across all cultures, races, religions, ethnic groups and across all countries.
Completely untrue. So large-minded were the Ancient Greeks, for
instance, that they didn't even have a word for homosexuality, and the
rich queer history of Japan has been exhaustively documented. Would
that you'd take the time to explore it.
> Well, pro-life people are setting themselves up to be fooled.
Even if they are, the very fact of their being so would seem rather to
confute the barmy idea that they would all abort their gay foetuses.
> Most religious people think homosexuality is a choice.
Whereas most who consider the matter rationally and empirically,
setting aside all "faith-based" partis pris, either feel otherwise or
else hold the question not to signify. I don't know about you
(although I have very strong suspicions), but I would much rather put
my trust in the latter.
> And with that assumption, I want religous people to help homos by letting their daughters marry homos or those that have been converted to being het.
(Suspicions confirmed.)
> No women suffers like a woman who marries a homo or converted homo.
Curious that you should say that after having just enjoined religious
women (or, worse still, religious parents to impel their daughters) to
do precisely that. Do you mean to say that their ostensibly untold
woe would make a worthy sacrifice atop the altar of conversion
therapy? If you do, I'm afraid our disagreement is as insoluble as
our values are irreconcilable.
> [...] So on the basis that religous [sic] people can convert homos because it is a choice
I fail to see how you figure.
> it is reasonable to assume that no religous [sic] person would technically worry about anyone being a homo baby because it can be converted in a worst case scenario.
But there's rather a big gap between that premiss, wouldn't you say,
and the conclusion that if 'twere different the world would be rife
with homophobic abortions?
> But Rodney, let me make it clear, all those rednecks, sports guys wouldn't want to take a chance no matter how religous and trusting their woman/wife was. They would threaten their wife/woman if they didn't get the homos test for their baby. And I suspect the father would threaten a number of things to his woman/wife if the test the baby had tested positive for being homo and the woman/wife didn't abort.
It's remarkable how confident you are in presuming to speak for
everyone.
Rodney Ulyate
anonymous
>
> On Dec 25, 2:29 am, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> [...]
> > > Even if this generalisation were true -- and you seem merely to be projecting -- it would surely be an argument not against the infants but against the aborters. You also somehow miss the fact that many (if not most) of the world's pro-life movement is also anti-gay. I don't see that the promise of a queer kid would automatically lead a homophobic mother who views abortion as baby-killing to ditch that value.
> > > Rodney Ulyate
> > Well, firstly Rodney, very interesting last name.
>
> Scandinavian, I believe.
>
> > Rodney, the entire planet is anti gay.
>
> I'm sorry, but, unless you're fagging under the misapprehension that
> your humble servant posts from Uranus, and that all shirtlifters are
> self-loathing masochists, you can't possibly believe that.
>
> > Homosexuals are the most hated people on the planet across all cultures, races, religions, ethnic groups and across all countries.
>
> Completely untrue. So large-minded were the Ancient Greeks, for
> instance, that they didn't even have a word for homosexuality, and the
> rich queer history of Japan has been exhaustively documented. Would
> that you'd take the time to explore it.
I am speaking of today, my good man. Homosexuals have had a gay old
time since the beginning of time, but today, I suggest as I have said
before they are the most hated people on the planet. The foundation of
my submission is that no country, person or group of people who aren't
homosexual say the wish they had a homosexual son or daughter, or the
the company only hires homosexuals. I am not saying homosexuals don't
have support or aren't loved. Never got the impression that Japan was
terribly open about homosexuality. Hell, in Japan, you can marry a
woman, she can produce babies and neither will qualify for citizenship.
>
> > Well, pro-life people are setting themselves up to be fooled.
>
> Even if they are, the very fact of their being so would seem rather to
> confute the barmy idea that they would all abort their gay foetuses.
>
> > Most religious people think homosexuality is a choice.
>
> Whereas most who consider the matter rationally and empirically,
> setting aside all "faith-based" partis pris, either feel otherwise or
> else hold the question not to signify. I don't know about you
> (although I have very strong suspicions), but I would much rather put
> my trust in the latter.
>
Well, to be fair to religious people, they say, rightly so, that
homosexuals have a choice whether they act on their homosexuality.
Religion would rather you take a wife and lie to her and have her
produce babies. And if you must have queer sex secretly, I suppose the
church doesn't care as long as you give money to the church and perhaps
keep some otherwise single woman pregnant with child. Every child is a
potential person to put money in the collection plate and the churches
need money.
> > And with that assumption, I want religous people to help homos by letting their daughters marry homos or those that have been converted to being het.
>
> (Suspicions confirmed.)
>
> > No women suffers like a woman who marries a homo or converted homo.
>
> Curious that you should say that after having just enjoined religious
> women (or, worse still, religious parents to impel their daughters) to
> do precisely that. Do you mean to say that their ostensibly untold
> woe would make a worthy sacrifice atop the altar of conversion
> therapy? If you do, I'm afraid our disagreement is as insoluble as
> our values are irreconcilable.
I believe that no father or male really believes that homosexuality is
an option. They tell that line to homoseuals but they don't really
believe it. The proof is that no male or father would want his sister
or daugher to even date a known homosexual or any male even thought to
be a homosexual or perhaps even a bisexual. The reason is the potential
of the guy leaving for a guy or having guy sex on the side which I think
would be hard for his daughter or sister and hard for the brother or
father knowing what the woman's husband was doing with his penis.
>
> > [...] So on the basis that religous [sic] people can convert homos because it is a choice
>
> I fail to see how you figure.
>
Homos can't be converted. They can go closeted or lead a secret life,
but homos are attracted to men sexually and that can't change with
current science.
> > it is reasonable to assume that no religous [sic] person would technically worry about anyone being a homo baby because it can be converted in a worst case scenario.
Well, the conversion that religious or ex-gays keep as the standard is
that say take a wife and spend a life of praying. It is not my
understanding that ex-gay or the therapy programs say that the guy will
never be attracted to men. The therapy is to resist any attempt at
acting on homosexuality and praying as much as possible to keep the homo
thoughts out of the person's mind. Most religous web sites say if you
are having trouble being a homosexual, we can help you but if you are
very content being a homosexual you need not apply. In other words no
church wants happy homosexuals around people who are paying money to the
church to be converted. The church knows damn well, who will win.
>
> But there's rather a big gap between that premiss, wouldn't you say,
> and the conclusion that if 'twere different the world would be rife
> with homophobic abortions?
I am not sure exactly what you are saying in the line above, but women
maybe okay with a homosexual child, but no father would willing have a
homo child if it could be aborted. In fact, in some countries they used
to or still do kill daughters if they are born. Homosexuals would have
less status.
>
> > But Rodney, let me make it clear, all those rednecks, sports guys wouldn't want to take a chance no matter how religous and trusting their woman/wife was. They would threaten their wife/woman if they didn't get the homos test for their baby. And I suspect the father would threaten a number of things to his woman/wife if the test the baby had tested positive for being homo and the woman/wife didn't abort.
>
> It's remarkable how confident you are in presuming to speak for
> everyone.
>
It is not that I speak for anyone. I have heard all sorts of people say
the love their brother, sister, mother, father, best friend. But I have
never heard anyone say they were happy or excited about homosexuality on
any level. I mean just ask any guy on the street or in a bar, or ask
your friends? I mean no gay man would want to have a homosexual child
because of the discrimination globally. The difference is that at least
a homosexual parent would support the son emotionally, etc. To be fair,
the world tolerates homosexuals to some degree but that is quite
different from accepting homosexuality or homosexuals as equals. Canada
is the only country that I understand that homosexuals are equal under
all laws and regulations and that was made possible because of our
charter not because of democracy as we know it. The charter reads in a
certain way that every citizen is equal. The courts under such wording
said that included homosxual marriage etc.
> Rodney Ulyate
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
> Homosexuals have had a gay old
>time since the beginning of time, but today, I suggest as I have said
>before they are the most hated people on the planet. The foundation of
>my submission is that no country, person or group of people who aren't
>homosexual say the wish they had a homosexual son or daughter, or the
>the company only hires homosexuals.
<SNIP>
First and foremost parents want a healthy child. I would certainly prefer my
child to be gay and healthy rather than straight and unhealthy or deformed.
Your connection between a parents desire for a straight child and hatred of gays
is ludicrous.
Ben
Rodney Ulyate
> Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> > On Dec 25, 2:29 am, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > self-loathing masochists, you can't possibly believe that.
> > > Homosexuals are the most hated people on the planet across all cultures, races, religions, ethnic groups and across all countries.
> > Completely untrue. So large-minded were the Ancient Greeks, for
> > instance, that they didn't even have a word for homosexuality, and the
> > rich queer history of Japan has been exhaustively documented. Would
> > that you'd take the time to explore it.
> I am speaking of today, my good man.
Fine, then: What about Holland and Iceland and Canada? (I could cite
many more, but, in asserting that homophobia is pervasive "across all
cultures, races, religions, ethnic groups and across all countries,"
you've made my task much easier than it might otherwise have been.)
> Homosexuals have had a gay old time since the beginning of time, but
> today, I suggest as I have said before they are the most hated people on
> the planet.
Utter piffle. I'm staggered that it should be necessary to say this:
but what about rapists, murderers, paedophiles?
> The foundation of my submission is that no country, person or
> group of people who aren't homosexual say the wish they had a
> homosexual son or daughter
How many have you asked? And why, more to the point, do you bound
from this surmisal to your "most-hated" conclusion?
> [...] Never got the impression that Japan was terribly open about
> homosexuality.
She isn't -- coming out there, by all accounts, is as difficult a
process as practically anywhere else in the developed world -- but in
order for this to justify your bald proclamation there would have to
be some evidence of systemic hate and discrimination. There isn't.
> Hell, in Japan, you can marry a woman, she can produce babies
> and neither will qualify for citizenship.
Your point being?
> > > [...] Most religious people think homosexuality is a choice.
> > Whereas most who consider the matter rationally and empirically,
> > setting aside all "faith-based" partis pris, either feel otherwise or
> > else hold the question not to signify. I don't know about you
> > (although I have very strong suspicions), but I would much rather put
> > my trust in the latter.
> Well, to be fair to religious people, they say, rightly so, that
> homosexuals have a choice whether they act on their homosexuality.
> Religion would rather you take a wife and lie to her and have her
> produce babies. And if you must have queer sex secretly, I suppose the
> church doesn't care as long as you give money to the church and perhaps
> keep some otherwise single woman pregnant with child. Every child is a
> potential person to put money in the collection plate and the churches
> need money.
Did you really suppose I wouldn't notice the change of tone and
subject?
> > > [...] No women suffers like a woman who marries a homo or converted homo.
> > Curious that you should say that after having just enjoined religious
> > women (or, worse still, religious parents to impel their daughters) to
> > do precisely that. Do you mean to say that their ostensibly untold
> > woe would make a worthy sacrifice atop the altar of conversion
> > therapy? If you do, I'm afraid our disagreement is as insoluble as
> > our values are irreconcilable.
> I believe that no father or male really believes that homosexuality is
> an option.
What about those who take it?
> [... N]o male or father would want his sister or daugher [sic] to even date a
> known homosexual
Well, yes. That stance seems fair to both the "daugher" and the
homosexual: Relationships like that are generally doomed to failure.
Once more, though, I don't see your point; indeed, I'm not altogether
sure that *you* see it. Are we wasting our time?
> [...] The reason is the potential of the guy leaving for a guy or having guy
> sex on the side which I think would be hard for his daughter or sister
> and hard for the brother or father knowing what the woman's husband
> was doing with his penis.
Again, sir: your point?
> > > [...] So on the basis that religous [sic] people can convert homos because it is a choice
> > I fail to see how you figure.
> Homos can't be converted. They can go closeted or lead a secret life,
> but homos are attracted to men sexually and that can't change with
> current science.
That's the complete opposite of what you said about five lines up.
> > > it is reasonable to assume that no religous [sic] person would technically worry about anyone being a homo baby because it can be converted in a worst case scenario.
> Well
You realise, I hope, that you're talking to yourself.
> the conversion that religious or ex-gays keep as the standard is
> that say take a wife and spend a life of praying. It is not my
> understanding that ex-gay or the therapy programs say that the guy will
> never be attracted to men. The therapy is to resist any attempt at
> acting on homosexuality and praying as much as possible to keep the homo
> thoughts out of the person's mind. Most religous web sites say if you
> are having trouble being a homosexual, we can help you but if you are
> very content being a homosexual you need not apply. In other words no
> church wants happy homosexuals around people who are paying money to the
> church to be converted. The church knows damn well, who will win.
Quite.
> > But there's rather a big gap between that premiss, wouldn't you say,
> > and the conclusion that if 'twere different the world would be rife
> > with homophobic abortions?
> I am not sure exactly what you are saying in the line above
I'll rewrite it then: "But there's rather a big gap between the
premiss that 'it is reasonable to assume that no religous [sic] person
would technically worry about anyone being a homo baby because it can
be converted in a worst case scenario,' wouldn't you say, and the
conclusion that if 'twere different the world would be rife with
homophobic abortions?"
> but women maybe [sic] okay with a homosexual child, but no
> father would willing [sic] have a homo child if it could be aborted.
That would be a "yes," then?
> In fact, in some countries they used to or still do kill daughters if
> they are born. Homosexuals would have less status.
Kindly rephrase. I'm confused.
> > > But Rodney, let me make it clear, all those rednecks, sports guys wouldn't want to take a chance no matter how religous and trusting their woman/wife was. They would threaten their wife/woman if they didn't get the homos test for their baby. And I suspect the father would threaten a number of things to his woman/wife if the test the baby had tested positive for being homo and the woman/wife didn't abort.
> > It's remarkable how confident you are in presuming to speak for
> > everyone.
> It is not that I speak for anyone.
Oh, but you do.
> I have heard all sorts of people say the love their brother, sister, mother,
> father, best friend. But I have never heard anyone say they were happy
> or excited about homosexuality on any level.
That would suggest rather more about the company you keep than the
world in which you live.
> I mean just ask any guy on the street or in a bar, or ask your friends?
I have. And the feedback has been totally the opposite to yours.
(Full disclosure: I live in South Africa, whose constitution is
arguably the most liberal socially in the world.)
> I mean no gay man would want to have a homosexual child because of
> the discrimination globally.
Nonsense. I know tons of poofters who'd much rather have poofter kids
than hetero ones, on the perfectly reasonable grounds that they'd be
able better to empathise with them. (I'd actually hazard that that's
the case with most gay men.)
> [...] To be fair, the world tolerates homosexuals to some degree but that is quite
> different from accepting homosexuality or homosexuals as equals. Canada
> is the only country that I understand that homosexuals are equal under
> all laws and regulations and that was made possible because of our
> charter not because of democracy as we know it.
Well, now you know of South Africa, too.
Impatiently,
Rodney Ulyate