Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
tim jones
For decades, homosexual activists have claimed that their same-sex
attractions are inborn, genetic, and unchangeable. Now, transgender
activists and their homosexual allies are beginning to claim that
sexual orientation is fluid. So, which is it?
A strange thing is occurring within the homosexual movement. In the
early years of homosexual activism, homosexuals referred to their
same-sex desires as "sexual preferences," but soon rejected this term
because it indicated that "choice" might be involved in their deviant
sexual behaviors.
The preferred term for decades has been "sexual orientation" because
it
conveys the impression that being a homosexual is morally neutral,
inborn, and unchangeable. In 1979, several homosexual groups worked
with federal legislators on passage of a pro-homosexual bill in
Congress. They insisted that "... the old term 'affectional or sexual
preference,' has been changed to 'affectional or sexual orientation.'
The reason for this is that it was felt 'orientation' best expresses
the nature of human sexuality, while 'preference' raises the
possibility that we believe that sexuality is a matter of choice."
(Rueda & Schwartz, Gays, AIDS, and You, The Devin Adair Company, Old
Greenwich, CT, 1987, pgs. 70- 71.)
"Sexual orientation is one component of a person's identity, which
is made up of many other components..." NEA/ APA Booklet
The homosexual movement has gained immense political power by claiming
that homosexuals are "born gay" and that it is harmful to try to
change
them. The University of Washington's homosexual lobbying group Gay,
Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender Commission, for example, makes this
claim on its web site: "Homosexuality is not a choice any more than
being left-handed or having blue eyes or being heterosexual is a
choice. It's an orientation, part of who you are. The choice is in
deciding how to live your life."
The National Education Association and the American Psychological
Association have helped perpetuate the "born gay" myth through its
pamphlet, Just The Facts, which was sent to every school
superintendent
in the country. Just the Facts claims that "Sexual orientation is one
component of a person's identity, which is made up of many other
components, such as culture, ethnicity, gender, and personality
traits."
The author of this NEA/APA pamphlet then goes on to promote
homosexuality as normal and attacks any attempts by ministries or
psychological groups like the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) from helping individuals become free
of same-sex attractions.
Homosexual activists and their allies at the NEA and APA believe that
"sexual orientation" is just part of who a person is and that we must
not only tolerate but support individuals who have differing sexual
desires. Pro-homosexual politicians insist that we must pass special
rights laws to protect homosexuals from alleged discrimination.
Moreover, those who oppose homosexuality are considered to be
suffering
from a non-existent mental illness called "homophobia."
"No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous. . . Homosexuality is an
adaptation, not an inborn trait." - Camille Paglia
In recent years, however, even homosexual researchers and philosophers
are beginning to admit that there is no such thing as a "gay gene"
that
predisposes homosexuals to engage in sodomy. The National Association
for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has published a series of
these admissions by homosexual researchers and philosophers in "The
Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science." Homosexual
researcher Dean Hamer has stated: "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." Simon LeVay, a homosexual researcher and activist
studied the differences in the brains of homosexual and heterosexual
men. He admits: "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."
Lesbian author and activist Camille Paglia has stated: "Homosexuality
is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm ...
Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature,
procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our
sexual
bodies were designed for reproduction ... No one is born gay. The idea
is ridiculous ... homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn
trait."
Here Comes The
Sexual Continuum Concept
After decades of claiming that homosexuality is inborn and
unchangeable, homosexual activists who are allied with the growing
transgender movement are now beginning to assert that sexual
orientation is fluid-and that one can become whatever he or she wants
to be along a sexual continuum. The sexual continuum concept is not
new. Sex researcher Alfred Kinsey invented what is known as the
"Kinsey
Scale" that places heterosexuality on one end of a sevenpoint scale
and
homosexuality on the other end. In between are varying degrees of
either homosexual or heterosexual behaviors. Bisexuality is in the
middle and was considered by Kinsey to be the ideal. Kinsey believed
that all sexual behaviors were normal-even bestiality. Kinsey's
co-author Wardell Pomeroy, for example, described the possibility that
boys could have a loving relationship with farm animals in his 1981
book, Boys and Sex. Some boys, says Pomeroy, "...build a strong
emotional attachment to a particular animal ... a loving sexual
relationship with an animal ..."
Kinsey's sexual continuum scale is ideally suited to the transgender
movement, which claims that maleness and femaleness are simply social
constructions-not genetic realities. Gender- Pac, for example, has
created a whole new vocabulary to blur the distinctions between male
and female. In its online "Glossary of Terms," GenderPac defines
"Gender" as "...the way we perceive things to be masculine or
feminine." GenderPac also defines "Gender Expression" as "...things
like clothing and behavior that manifests a person's fundamental sense
of themselves as masculine or feminine, male or female." It then
defines "Gender Identity" as "... an individual's fundamental sense of
themselves as masculine or feminine, and male or female."
GenderPac has successfully redefined what it means to be male or
female
by describing gender as simply a perception or a feeling. Not only is
gender relegated to a person's opinion about himself, anyone who
disagrees with this view is guilty of "genderphobia."
GenderPac leader Ricki Wilchins, a male-to-female transgender compares
"genderphobia" with the non-existent condition called "homophobia" in
a
press release issued on April 17, 2003. He notes that GenderPac has
joined forces with the homosexual group Human Rights Campaign in order
to fight for federal laws to protect "gender expression" and "gender
identity" in the workplace. According to Wilchins, "...homophobia
comes
from the same hateful place as genderphobia." Transgenderism is
considered a sexual orientation just like homosexuality -and
transgender activists are working to gain protected minority status
under hate crimes laws and laws ostensibly designed to protect
minorities from discrimination.
Do Changing Sexual Behaviors Deserve Legal Protections?
If the new homosexual/transgender view is correct-that sexual
orientations are fluid and not fixed, then why should government
protect-what in essence are lifestyle choices-not fixed identities?
Why should any individuals who engage in freely chosen, unsafe sexual
behaviors be given protected status under our nation's
anti-discrimination laws?
If sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed, then homosexuality,
transgenderism, pedophilia, etc., are all due to freely chosen or
compulsive behaviors-not genetics. They do not deserve protected
class status because these behaviors are no different than smoking,
alcoholism, drug addiction, or other self-destructive behaviors. These
behaviors can-and should be-modified or eliminated.
The behavior of homosexuality, for example, is inherently unsafe and
frequently leads to serious infections from sexually transmitted
diseases, including AIDS. Likewise, sadomasochism is inherently
abnormal and unsafe. These behaviors need not be protected. Nor,
should
our culture be overhauled in order to cater to transgenders who "feel"
as if they're trapped in an opposite sex body. A person may "feel" he
is from another planet-like Rael, the head of the Raelians, a cloning
cult, but we should not pass laws based upon a person's distorted view
of reality. Transgenderism is the evidence of a disturbed mental
condition, not a fixed identity that should be protected in federal
law. We cannot allow our culture's future to be determined by
individuals who are mentally disturbed-yet that is what is occurring.
Which Sexual Orientation Will Next Achieve Protected Status?
There are literally dozens of groups of individuals who engage in
bizarre sexual behaviors and who have mental conditions known as
paraphilias or behaviors known as fetishes. These include
Coprophagia-individuals who get sexual satisfaction from eating
feces; Klismaphilia- individuals who are sexually aroused by enemas;
Pederasty-male homosexuals who enjoy having sex with children;
Sadomasochism-individuals who derive sexual pleasure from receiving
or inflicting pain upon others; Diaper fetishes-adults who get sexual
pleasure from wearing diapers and wetting themselves;
Necrophilia-individuals who are sexually aroused by viewing or having
sex with corpses.
All of these behaviors could be considered to be "sexual
orientations"-and many of the individuals who engage in these
behaviors are working to have their peculiar sexual behaviors declared
to be normal in psychiatry and in the culture at large.
At a symposium sponsored by the American Psychiatric Association (APA)
in San Francisco on May 19, 2003, two psychiatrists presented a paper
arguing for such deviant sexual behaviors as Pedophilia,
Sadomasochism,
as well as other Gender Identity Disorders to be removed from the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR). The
presenters were Drs. Charles Moser from the Institute for Advanced
Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco and Peggy Kleinplatz of the
University of Ottawa. Both are involved in an international
organization called "ReviseF65 Project," a subsidiary group of the
Norwegian National Association for Lesbian and Gay Liberation. This
group lobbies national governments to remove Sadomasochism as a mental
disorder from psychiatric guidelines.
Sociologists refer to groups of individuals who engage in bizarre sex
practices as "deviant subcultures." With the success of homosexuals
and
transgenders in organizing as pressure groups to normalize what has
been considered abnormal behaviors, other groups will feel empowered
to
do the same. Pedophiles, for example, have found allies in academia
who
support adult/child sex. In 1999, the University of Minnesota press
published Judith Levine's book, Harmful to Minors, which argues that
adult/child sex is not necessarily a bad thing. The foreword to her
book was penned by former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders.
In addition, the deviant homosexual subculture has fueled efforts to
normalize adult/child sex and to lower the age of sexual consent. Mary
Eberstadt's article, "'Pedophilia Chic' Reconsidered," in The Weekly
Standard (January 8, 2001) details the close linkage between
homosexuals and the pedophile movement. Eberstadt observes that the
reason why sex with boys is being openly debated today is because it's
driven by "certain parts of the gay rights movement. The more that
movement has entered the mainstream, the more this 'question' [of
adult/child sex] has bubbled forth from that previously distant realm
into the public square."
Pedophilia and Sadomasochism are just two of many sexual orientations
that may eventually be normalized in our society. The sad truth is
that
because of the pervasiveness of the Internet, many sexually confused
and mentally disturbed individuals are finding mutual support in
forums
and chat rooms. They are reinforcing their mental illnesses instead of
finding the help they need to overcome these sexual perversions.
Author
Carl Elliott details this dangerous social trend in "A New Way To Be
Mad," published in the December, 2000 issue of The Atlantic Monthly.
Elliott describes a bizarre online underworld of individuals who
suffer
from what is called "Apotemnophilia." These individuals "feel" like
they should not have arms or legs. In essence, they wish to have their
arms or legs amputated in order to "feel" normal. One amputee said:
"My
left foot was not part of me." Is Apotemnophilia a "sexual
orientation," a paraphilia, or a fetish? Whatever the psychiatric
diagnosis, the fact is that this is a serious condition that must be
treated, not given societal approval. Yet we may not find much solace
in so-called mainstream psychiatry. Fortunately, the National
Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) is
providing a voice of sanity in a world that seems to have gone insane.
Likewise, Traditional Values Coalition will continue to promote a
realistic view of sexuality and expose the dangers that homosexuality,
transgenderism, and other deviant sexual subcultures pose to our
nation
and families.
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
Syd M.
> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
PDW
David Hartung
Your evidence?
anonymous
Sexual attraction is fixed. You can see guy of any age including men in
late 80s and way beyond who still look at women or men as the
orientation exists. The best examples are those married men (married to
women) who look at men. Wife and husband walking side by side anywhere
on the planet. The come across a guy going the opposite way and the
husband gives the guy the once over look, possibly more than once over
look. The wife probably knows from years of experience, but the guy
probably thinks she can't see him looking. Additionally, women can tell
because when the husband looks, the guy being looked at, you or me,
straight or gay, has a stunned look, and that is what the wife see and
she knows what has happened. It never ceases to surprise another guy
when a guy is walking with his wife/girlfriend and then cruises another
guy. It is just so unexpected that we react with facial surprise.
That sadly overall is really boring. What is way more interesting is
what is going on in the woman's mind. Why is she with this guy who is
attracted to men. And bisexuals don't have to cruise or look like
that. They are more free and liberated because they live openly that
they are attracted to both sexes their mind set is different.
Enkidu
And who gives anyone the right to change someone else, even if it were
possible? My neighbor may have been born gay, or he might have made a
choice. I don't care because it's his birth or choice, his life, not
mine.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
- Mark Twain
pyjamarama
> Syd M. wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> And who gives anyone the right to change someone else,
So you don't think doctors should be able to "change" people vis-a-vis
sex reassignment surgery?
It's tough to be a liberal AND intellectually consistent, isn't it?
spi...@freenet.co.uk
>> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>>
>> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>>
>> And who gives anyone the right to change someone else,
>
> So you don't think doctors should be able to "change" people vis-a-vis
> sex reassignment surgery?
He meant against their will ya great twonk.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't |
| in | suck is probably the day they start making |
| Computer science | vacuum cleaners" - Ernst Jan Plugge |
Budikka666
Budikka666
> David Hartung wrote:
>
> > Syd M. wrote:
> > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> > Your evidence?
>
> Sexual attraction is fixed.
The title of the thread, you cowardly moron, is "sexual Orientation"
not sexual attraction. Learn to read then maybe you won't be such an
insufferable asswipe.
Mitchell Holman
$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:
"You could try disproving the claim, if it is
that important to you."
David Hartung, Sept 9, 2007.
pyjamarama
> And verily, didst pyjamarama <pyjamaram...@yahoo.com> hastily babble thusly:
> >> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> >> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> >> And who gives anyone the right to change someone else,
>
> > So you don't think doctors should be able to "change" people vis-a-vis
> > sex reassignment surgery?
>
> He meant against their will ya great twonk.
Nobody in the US is "forcing" homosexuals to change their
preference...
Those seeking help do so willingly.
You have a shred of evidence to the contrary?
Enkidu
> On Dec 18, 8:53�pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
>> Syd M. wrote:
>> > On Dec 18, 1:13�pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>>
>> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>>
>> And who gives anyone the right to change someone else,
>
> So you don't think doctors should be able to "change" people vis-a-vis
> sex reassignment surgery?
Against their will? No.
> It's tough to be a liberal AND intellectually consistent, isn't it?
Not if you understand the concepts of "consenting adult" and "personal
liberty".
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
"No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means."
- George Bernard Shaw
anonymous
>
> On Dec 18, 8:53 pm, Enkidu <enk...@nogodhere.net> wrote:
> > Syd M. wrote:
> > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
> >
> > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
> >
> > And who gives anyone the right to change someone else,
>
> So you don't think doctors should be able to "change" people vis-a-vis
> sex reassignment surgery?
>
were lesbian and then tran'd to be a male but don't want the operation,
wear men's clothes, want to be called Bobby which is a boy and girls
names, but they want to be referred as she and not he. Then there are
those trans that have their female organs removed and then some want to
date men and others want to date women. It is very complex and
individual.
But in terms of men who have to have an active penis, they can't change
to being heterosexual. They can become a passive female with an
operation and pills, heterosexual, I guess. They can become a lesbian
with an operation and pills.
But heterosexual men can't become homosexual and homosexual men can't
become straight.
At best, I suppose, they could become bisexual.
Once a homosexual always a homosexual. Once a heterosexual always a
heterosexual. But don't confuse that with guys who said they never knew
they were gay until they were older or after their divorce from their
wife, beause after careful cross-examination, they will reveal they had
sexual thoughts as young men about other young men.
anonymous
>
> On Dec 18, 10:32 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >
> > > Syd M. wrote:
> > > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
> >
> > > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
> >
> > > Your evidence?
> >
> > Sexual attraction is fixed.
>
> The title of the thread, you cowardly moron, is "sexual Orientation"
> not sexual attraction.
Well, if you are a guy and you are attracted to males and you get an
erection when thinking about males, then it is pretty hard for the guy
to orient as a heterosexual male. I mean lots of guys whose fathers are
pastors orient as a heterosexual even though they are attracted to
males, but they orient to eliminate embarrassment for them, the family
and community. Usually, years after being married to a woman and
sexually attracted to men in spite of nightly heterosexual sex with
their wife, they then leave their wife and offspring and allow their
sexual orientation to follow their sex drive or their sexual
attraction.
Chemistry always wins over emotion. The smell of a man or woman is much
stronger than
the mental images, for example, the brain in terms of being a homosexual
or heterosexual. Guys always say the love the smell of their woman's
hair. Women on the other hand don't usually like the way any guy
smells.
Lord Calvert
And, you know, it really isn't even that important a question. To
lovers of freedom, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not sexual
orientation is fixed or changeable.
The real question is, "Should government, at any level, be given the
power to discriminate because of sexual orientation as well as be
given the power to regulate consensual sexual conduct?" Tim, like his
ideological allies in fundamentalist Muslim states and totalitarian
Communist states, believes that government should indeed have this
power to maintain the supremacy of state authority. Genuine
conservatives (and not the big-government loving America-hating
Taliban-wannabees in the Deep South who fraudulently call themselves
conservative) believe that that is far too much power for government
to have. Government simply cannot be trusted with this kind of
authority because it WILL be abused, just as it was abused in the
Loving case when government agents broke into their home to see if
they were having sex.
The so-called "conservative revival" in the United States isn't
conservative in the least. It is simply Maoist Communism wrapped up in
a Southern Baptist package. Then again, I guess that's why we call
them "Red" States.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country
in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people
just because they're gay. You don't have to agree with it, but they
have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into
it." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), the "Father of Conservatism",
Washington Post interview, 28 July 1994
Budikka666
When you can support anything you said above with objective and/or
scientific evidence instead of just knee-jerk posting it, you won't be
a homophobic LYING piece of shit, will you?
Budikka
David Hartung
As I recall, the original discussion was whether or not there is a
genetic basis for homosexuality. Currently there seems to be no sound
science which indicates that homosexuality has a genetic basis. Can you
provide such evidence?
anonymous
Nothing you have written in the post would suggest that anything I have
posted is wrong.
There is no scientific evidence that there is anything that determines
or is a predisposition for someone being a homosexual. Perhaps you
could take a moment and post a few sentences which contain a statement
you are saying is true and then you could post in simply language why
what you say is true and can be the only answer. Remember, in so doing,
you are not only helping perhaps myself, but the hundreds or thousands
of people of various ages and education to understand what you are
trying to say. Getting angry and insulting people has questionable
value. Remember great leaders of the world can disagree but sometimes
it is understanding or the use of language rather than disagreement.
You sound pretty young to be so hot tempered. Patience, please.
anonymous
Thanks for clarifying the question.
From what I have read or heard from people more enlightened there is no
absolute proof there is a genetic basis for homosexuality. I understand
science is very close to hopefully determining such a connection. There
is some suggestion, too, I understand that some people believe it may be
partly genetic and partly environmental. There is to my understanding
as of yet no absolutely proof. If there was proof, it would create many
issues for lack of a better word because people would try to test for a
gay child to ensure they had an abortion. It would it would be to
heterosexual society a more important test globally across all cultures
and religions than determining the sex of a child which today is still a
pretty imporant test even in western society where there are 6 girls and
they keep hoping for a boy! - to carry on the family name....
Historically, there is lots of examples, perhaps less scientific, that
environment plays a significant role in determining homosexuality. But,
too, there is a lot that can't be explained like why one twin daughter
is lesbian and one is not, but again, each child is different, even
twins, and each child on a moment by moment and daily basis relates to
each parent differently.
Thanks again for your enlightenment.
Homosexuals Are Failures At Living
a9e507...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
Homophobic, a made-up word from insecure queers to make
themselves feel better.
Other than that, it doesn't mean anything. Nobody is afraid of
queers.
leroy blue
No, they can't. All they have are homo legends and bedroom
fantasies about being women.
Mitchell Holman
$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:
"If you believe the claim to be incorrect,
you are welcome to disprove it."
David Hartung, Sept 8, 2007.
thomas p.
"Homosexuals Are Failures At Living" <ab...@2havepussy.com> skrev i
meddelelsen
news:15cb64d652363645...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
The word does not mean fear of homosexuals but of homosexuality,
the homophobe's fear that he might be homosexual. Most heterosexuals,
even those who think that homosexuality is a sin or some kind of sickness
spend very little time thinking or talking about it. The homophobe, on the
other hand spends a great deal of time thinking, talking and writing about
it. Look around you, how many others spend as much time on the subject
as you do. The insecurity is yours, and you are obvious.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
anonymous
Homosexuals feel awesome because they have the freedom to live their
life in most societies. The only people who feel in secure about
homosexuals are usually heterosexual men and religous people in
general. Homosexuals have nothing to complain about. When a religious
person wakes up in the morning and feels he has to spend another day
hating homosexuals and letting the world know about it, he has got
problems.
> Other than that, it doesn't mean anything. Nobody is afraid of
> queers.
Well, of course nobody is afraid of queers. The life of any
heterosexuals has nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuality. The
love, hate, debts, divorce and life's ambitions of any heterosexual is
only related to himself and nobody else. Your average heterosexuals
doesn't even say the word homosexual, doesn't know homosexuals and has
no involvement in the lives of homosexuals. Pastors speaks about giving
money to the church, volunteering for the church, infidelity, marriages
and deaths but homosexuality is not a subject for the church on a daily
basis.
anonymous
Believe me, homosexuals don't want to be women. They love the sex drive
that all men have including homosexuals. Even effeminate men don't want
to be women. They may wish to be camp and dress up in women's clothes
but don't confuse that with any guy not wanting the male sex drive.
Syd
> On Dec 18, 11:04 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> And, you know, it really isn't even that important a question. To
> lovers of freedom, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not sexual
> orientation is fixed or changeable.
>
To Talibam wanna-be's, it's important. If it's a choice, they can go
after them all they want; If it's biological, they have to pull back.
> The real question is, "Should government, at any level, be given the
> power to discriminate because of sexual orientation as well as be
> given the power to regulate consensual sexual conduct?" Tim, like his
> ideological allies in fundamentalist Muslim states and totalitarian
> Communist states, believes that government should indeed have this
> power to maintain the supremacy of state authority. Genuine
> conservatives (and not the big-government loving America-hating
> Taliban-wannabees in the Deep South who fraudulently call themselves
> conservative) believe that that is far too much power for government
> to have. Government simply cannot be trusted with this kind of
> authority because it WILL be abused, just as it was abused in the
> Loving case when government agents broke into their home to see if
> they were having sex.
>
> The so-called "conservative revival" in the United States isn't
> conservative in the least. It is simply Maoist Communism wrapped up in
> a Southern Baptist package. Then again, I guess that's why we call
> them "Red" States.
>
Agreed with all.
It's interesting to note that they don't trust the government with
their money, but want it behind their faith.
PDW
Syd
> Syd M. wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> And who gives anyone the right to change someone else, even if it were
> possible?
I'd say noone, but then, I'm not one of the Talaban wannabes.
My neighbor may have been born gay, or he might have made a
> choice. I don't care because it's his birth or choice, his life, not
> mine.
>
Me too.
PDW
Syd
Addressed below, by people with more knowledge on it then I could
express.
PDW
Lord Calvert
> On Dec 19, 6:08 pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 18, 11:04 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> > And, you know, it really isn't even that important a question. To
> > lovers of freedom, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not sexual
> > orientation is fixed or changeable.
>
> To Talibam wanna-be's, it's important. If it's a choice, they can go
> after them all they want; If it's biological, they have to pull back.
No, they don't have to pull back. They'll just do what they're trying
to do in Uganda...kill them for the betterment of the race.
> > The so-called "conservative revival" in the United States isn't
> > conservative in the least. It is simply Maoist Communism wrapped up in
> > a Southern Baptist package. Then again, I guess that's why we call
> > them "Red" States.
>
> Agreed with all.
> It's interesting to note that they don't trust the government with
> their money, but want it behind their faith.
I keep reposting Paul Craig Roberts' famous quote from 2004, but the
so-called "conservatives" just don't seem to get it.
"They [liberals] believed that as the people controlled government
through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which
should be increased in order to accomplish more good. The conservative
movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals' abiding faith
in government. 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.' Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to
defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won
around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in
their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the
Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil
liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus,
preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries
based on unverified assertions. There is nothing conservative about
these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error
as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative."
That, in a nutshell, is today's "conservative" agenda. As long as the
power of government is in their hands, they want it ruthlessly
expanded. Only when their political opponents control the reins of
government do they switch back to traditional limited-government
conservatism. That's why the teabagger movement is so entirely
fraudulent. If they were genuinely concerned about the expansion of
government power, they would have been screaming mad during the last
eight years. But, as has been amply demonstrated, limiting government
power is not now nor has it ever been their agenda. When government
power is in their hands, they will use it as a theological hammer to
strip "dissenting" churches of their religious independence in favor
of a unified government-mandated and sponsored "faith."
"Communists in choir robes" is a harsh, but entirely accurate
description of them and that is why so many genuine limited-government
conservatives have simply had enough of the Republican Party.
Rich Goranson
Amherst, NY, USA
aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1
EAC Department of Paranormal Phycology
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others
unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has
no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known
without trying to make their views the only alternatives...We have
succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from
the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop
now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of
conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this
democratic republic." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate Speech, 16
September 1981
anonymous
I love the arty, abstract descriptions.
Syd
> On Dec 20, 12:51 pm, Syd <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 19, 6:08 pm, Lord Calvert <CalvertdeG...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 18, 11:04 pm, "Syd M." <pdwrigh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> > > And, you know, it really isn't even that important a question. To
> > > lovers of freedom, it is wholly irrelevant whether or not sexual
> > > orientation is fixed or changeable.
>
> > To Talibam wanna-be's, it's important. If it's a choice, they can go
> > after them all they want; If it's biological, they have to pull back.
>
> No, they don't have to pull back. They'll just do what they're trying
> to do in Uganda...kill them for the betterment of the race.
>
> > > The so-called "conservative revival" in the United States isn't
> > > conservative in the least. It is simply Maoist Communism wrapped up in
> > > a Southern Baptist package. Then again, I guess that's why we call
> > > them "Red" States.
>
> > Agreed with all.
> > It's interesting to note that they don't trust the government with
> > their money, but want it behind their faith.
>
> I keep reposting Paul Craig Roberts' famous quote from 2004, but the
> so-called "conservatives" just don't seem to get it.
>
Of course they don't; It's not what they want to hear, the truth.
>
> "The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others
> unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has
> no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known
> without trying to make their views the only alternatives...We have
> succeeded for 205 years in keeping the affairs of state separate from
> the uncompromising idealism of religious groups and we mustn't stop
> now. To retreat from that separation would violate the principles of
> conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this
> democratic republic." - Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate Speech, 16
> September 1981
Great quotes, BTW.
PDW
juanjo
> Syd M. wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
When did you decide to become a heterosexual? How did you evaluate
the factors that made you decide between having sexual relations with
members of the same sex or the opposite sex? When did you determine
that this was what you wished? Did you experiment? A little trial
and error perhaps. Did you have a little slip and slide with a cheer
leader and then do the hokey pokey with a foot ball player? Perhaps
then wrote down the pros and cons of both and did a cost benefit
evaluation?
David Hartung
Once again, the initial post i this thread was for the purpose of
pointing out that no matter how heard they have tried, researchers have
been unable to find a genetic basis for homosexuality.
If there is no genetic basis, then the argument that homosexuality is
immutable, is very debatable.
Mitchell Holman
$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:
Ditto for left-handedness. Does that mean infants "choose"
to be left or right handed?
> If there is no genetic basis, then the argument that homosexuality is
> immutable, is very debatable.
>
The argument that it is a matter of choice is even more debatable.
BE-VA
> On Dec 18, 8:11�pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Syd M. wrote:
>>> On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>>
>>> No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>>
>> Your evidence?
>
> When did you decide to become a heterosexual?
The existence of life on this planet is based on heterosexuality. Is
there something about that that you don't understand?
Olrik
How does a few percent of the population being homosexual contradicts
your statement?
thomas p.
If everything depended on whether it is genetic or not, you would be
correct. It doesn't. You are not. Are you going to address the questions
asked above?
Dr. Barry Worthington
<a...@2havepussy.com> wrote:
> In article <3de0e5b5-2ea5-4ca4-a8b0-
> a9e507997...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
I suppose that they beat themselves up as well!
>
> Other than that, it doesn't mean anything. Nobody is afraid of
> queers.
You clearly are, otherwise you wouldn't be so obsessed with them. As
far as I'm aware, I'm a heterosexual male. You appear to be a nasty
(and probably immature) bigot.
Dr. Barry Worthington
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Geode
> On Dec 18, 10:11 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Syd M. wrote:
> > > On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>
> > > No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>
> > Your evidence?
>
> 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
I have some ideas more to add.
not only this argument. The story can be a lot more complex than this.
There is a lot of sensors involved in the existence and feeling of our
sexuality. It needs only a sensor to be wrong and someone with normal
levels of testosterone can live as he has none, and feel like a
female.
Other cases can be the different degrees of testosterone in the blood
of the males, that can present a difference from 200 to 1200 ng/mL
(nanograms per milliliter of blood).
There is a lot of reasons for our sexual orientations to go wrong, or
faulty, in comparison to normality. Taking normality in a the
mathematical sense it has. For a person very intelligent is as
abnormal as one with little intelligence.
And all this nonsense talk of fundies talking about the man was made
to procreate does not run when you see so many people who are sterile,
other are impotent, other do not feel any sexual drive at all, etc. If
man were created to procreate why Jesus did not made any children we
had not heard of? And what about those catholic priest, monks and
nuns? Why do they do not procreate? They must be living a sinful
life.
And if one translate the obligation to procreate to most male
herbivores why most of them, about 85%, do not have any chance to
procreate in their whole lives? They are all males.
About normality and the putative obligations that fundies see.
A person born blind is not normal. There is not normal a person born
deaf. Not is normal a very intelligent person, or is normal a dull
one like a Christian fundie.
As for the idea that a gay man is abnormal, we want to avoid telling
this, for there is a old tradition of killing and assassinate people
publicly designated as abnormals, like it happened in the past with
small minorities like Jews, blacks, gipsies, catholics and
protestants, etc.
About two weeks ago, an adolescent gay of sixteen was assassinated in
Florida. It appeared with about 20 stabs and was also beheaded. So
the Christian doctrine of calling gay abnormal beings is working
beautifully.
The question now is to answer who were more abnormal, the assassins
that
beheaded of a gay adolescent of 16 or the gay adolescent?
Other question, how normal are those preachers that do not see where
this poisonous Christian doctrine that is crying aloud the abomination
of being gay person?
These fundie preachers are real criminals preachers. They are inciting
to other morons to commit assassinations.
leopoldo
Geode
There is not yet such evidence, because we barely had started to know
something about genetics. We know very little yet.
It is the same case of someone who is born blind, or deaf of with two
heads, or four limbs, or just deformed limbs, or so. We cannot tell
what exactly was wrong. We do not know yet enough genetics but we know
the best explanation had to be "something is wrong is his DNA.
To understand homosexuality is genetic, you had to contemplate the
case of a passive homosexual. A passive homosexual feels attracted to
other males of his age, or even to those a little older than him,
without any previous sexual experience.
This cannot be explained in a rational way, unless we assume a genetic
mechanism is wrong.
We do not know what precise spot is wrong in his DNA, but it must be
that something wrong. You cannot explain it by other means.
Other case is the "active" partner in a homosexual act.
A normal man can be sodomizing a gay because it is easy to fuck a gay
than a girl. So this normal man is using a gay as a substitute of a
female.
Not that the active sodomite is a gay, but just very horny. So, if he
cannot find a girl willing to let him fuck, he would look for a
substitute passive receptor.
And this happens because the Christians had concocted the doctrine a
Chastity, of not having any sexual experience before marriage.
If were not for the Christian doctrine of chastity, girls would be
more prone to have sex with boys of his own age or older, using some
devices to avoid getting pregnant.
In rural places, I heard of some horny boys using sheep and other
animals to alleviate their horniness. But when in secret... they would
not mind to sodomize any gay, or to give him his penis for a good act
of cocksucking.
Try to explain, why a boy, sometimes an adolescent, want to risk
social opprobrium and despise by sucking dicks of other males, or
letting other males to sodomize them, if this were not explained by a
genetic condition. If it is not genetic, why are they doing it? They
do it for free, very rarely are young gays involved in prostitution.
Leopoldo
Geode
We do not know yet enough about genetics to explain homosexuality.
And there some added reasons for not search on this topic, that is
mostly a taboo. Very few searchers are bent to choose such a
controversial topic. For most of the genetic search need outside
funds to go on. And this is not the favorite topic to study.
On the other hand, there is not any need that homosexuality could be
explained by a single DNA spot that is wrong. This condition can be
explained with different spots making a contributing.
For there are not only "passive" homosexuals, or "feminine
homosexuals", but there are also "partial passives", that are not
always basic passives but they are occasional or cyclical passives.
They have cycles of being passive ("insertees") and cycles of being
active ("inserters"). The most often a homosexual feels as an
"inserter" the higher is the possibility that he could marry. In this
case, he would be contributing to spread out the genetic markers of
homosexuality in the human DNA.
Leopoldo
David Hartung
What response do you want?
All I have done is to point out to another poster what the initial
subject of this thread was.
Since I first came to Usenet, I have been told by the pro-homosexual
crowd that homosexuality is immutable, and probably genetic. The initial
post in this thread merely pointed out that scientists have been unable
to find such a basis. This lack, according to the initial post casts
doubt on the immutability of homosexuality.
In other words, from a scientific standpoint, we still do not know if
homosexuality is an immutable trait, or not. This means that further
research is called for.
David Hartung
> Other question, how normal are those preachers that do not see where
> this poisonous Christian doctrine that is crying aloud the abomination
> of being gay person?
> These fundie preachers are real criminals preachers. They are inciting
> to other morons to commit assassinations.
The interesting thing is that sound Christian doctrine does not call for
the mistreatment of homosexuals. Sound doctrine sees homosexuals the
same way it sees any other human, as sinners who are in need of the
forgiveness earned for us by Christ.
Robibnikoff
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b3201b8$0$5315$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
What a load of bullshit.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & Belly Dancer Supreme
BAAWA Knight
#1557
thomas p.
It does not have to be genetic in order for someone to be born homosexual.
thomas p.
No it doesn't. As I pointed out above, even without a genetic difference, a
person can still be born homosexual. There is no real doubt however that
a person's sexual identity is set very early in life if not before birth.
The idea
that it is a choice remains absurd. Even if it were a choice, there is no
justification for discrimination against homosexuals; which is clearly what
is
being implied by the claim that it is a choice.
>
> In other words, from a scientific standpoint, we still do not know if
> homosexuality is an immutable trait, or not. This means that further
> research is called for.
No doubt research on sexuality in general will continue including
homosexuality.
thomas p.
There is no such thing as sound Christian doctrine.
David Hartung
You are welcome to your opinion, wrong though it is.
Robibnikoff
juanjo
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That said, the OP places before us cherry picked gobbets of pseudo-
information from a website that promotes anti-homosexual positions.
Thus the article is hardly objective nor can it be shown to be
accurate. In addition, the fact that there is no evidence of a
genetic factor in sexual orientation does not mean that sexual
orientation is a "choice" capable of being changed.
juanjo
The fundamental absurdity of this argument is immediately obvious.
David Hartung
Why is it absurd?
bodytemp
Get a freshman microbiology text, go through it, and then
go back to your statement, reread what you wrote,
and kick yourself for being an ignorant cracker.
Man_of_Mind
Two words.. Look 'em up if you're that ignorant..
--"asexual reproduction"
David Hartung
Are you saying that mankind can reproduce asexually? That anything
higher than simple organisms can reproduce asexually?
bodytemp
You said "The existence of life on this planet is based on heterosexuality."
David Hartung
Actually, that was someone else.
bodytemp
Whatever. It was the crack being responded to.
Free Lunch
Sex was a relatively late invention for life on earth. Life existed
without sex for millions of years and still does for most organisms.
Man_of_Mind
> Man_of_Mind was replying to the absurd nonsense posted by:
>>
>> David Hartung sputtered the usual right-wing nonsense:
>>>
>>> juanjo wrote:
>>>>> The existence of life on this planet is based on heterosexuality.
>>>>> Is there something about that that you don't understand?
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental absurdity of this argument is immediately obvious.
>>>
>>> Why is it absurd?
>>
>> Two words.. Look 'em up if you're that ignorant..
>>
>> --"asexual reproduction"
>
> Are you saying that mankind can reproduce asexually?
Nope. The "existence of life on this planet" isn't based
upon 'heterosexual' reproduction, despite what you might
want to believe..
> That anything higher than simple organisms
Oh, so you're some kind of 'creationist' nut-job too?
--That figures..
Free Lunch
<d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>Man_of_Mind wrote:
>> David Hartung sputtered the usual right-wing nonsense:
>>>
>>> juanjo wrote:
>
>>>>> The existence of life on this planet is based on heterosexuality.
>>>>> Is there something about that that you don't understand?
>>>>
>>>> The fundamental absurdity of this argument is immediately obvious.
>>>
>>> Why is it absurd?
>>
>> Two words.. Look 'em up if you're that ignorant..
>>
>> --"asexual reproduction"
>
>Are you saying that mankind can reproduce asexually?
That is not what brought the howls of derision. The comment was that the
existence of _life_ on this planet is based on heterosexuality.
>That anything higher than simple organisms can reproduce asexually?
Doesn't matter. Read the silly comment above.
anonymous
BE-VA wrote:
>
> On 2009-12-22 18:51:40 -0500, juanjo <jonp...@mindspring.com> said:
>
> > On Dec 18, 8:11 pm, David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Syd M. wrote:
> >>> On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
> >>
> >>> No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
> >>
> >> Your evidence?
> >
> > When did you decide to become a heterosexual?
>
> The existence of life on this planet is based on heterosexuality. Is
> there something about that that you don't understand?
Well, I submit you are wrong. The existance of life on this planet is
based on three basic types of people, homoseuxals, bisexuals and
heteroseuxals. No homosexual would exist without the heterosexual and
the bisexual.
Every heterosexual produces 1 homosexual for every 10 heterosexual
offspring.
Over population of the planet is as a sresult of heterosexuals producing
9 heterosexuals to every homosexual. Ther is math that can be doen to
inicate how much faster the planet would be over populated if the
heterosexual couple produced no homosexuals and th 10 child was a
heterosexual who produced their 9 heterosexuals.
But none of that matters. The world if full of heterosexuals and
homosexuals and only the heterosexual sare unhappy about it.
Homosexuals could care less about how many heterosexuals are produced.
Homosexuals would have some concerns if no omosexuals were produced but
it would appear that will never, ever happen.
thomas p.
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4b32d2c9$0$5315$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
You were defending it, which amounts to saying it.
anonymous
>
> David Hartung wrote:
> > juanjo wrote:
> >>> Syd M. wrote:
> >>>> On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
> >>>> No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
> >>> Your evidence?
> >>
> >> When did you decide to become a heterosexual?
will never want sex with men. Awesome, I thought. One doesn't become a
heterosexual or a homosexual. One has sexual awareness and moves slowly
and expores what he is or likes and what he is not and dislikes.
Decisions step by step.
> How did you evaluate
> >> the factors that made you decide between having sexual relations with
> >> members of the same sex or the opposite sex?
Usually, young men have a tremendous objective to have sex with women.
They either succeed or fail or they succeed by thinking about men to
keep their erection even if they have never had homosexual sex. Sex
with women is awesome, oral sex with women is expecially awesome, too.
But some men are attracted to men, so they have sex with both men and
women. Today that is possible and so more men are not picking to have
sex with men or women, they are simply having sex with both.
Culturally, in the past it was difficult to have bisexual relationships
in small towns or even big cities. So men would often make a choice.
They may wish to have sex with women but they didn't want to have to
think of sex with a guy to keep themselves erect. The also discovered
that sex with men for those particualr men was beyond word description.
It wasn't just about the friction of the penis in the vaginal canal, it
was about the back of the guy's neck, the cut of his hair, the feel of
his fat fingers, the taste of his ear, and so on down the body. It was
the way he walked, talked, dressed, everything about the guy, and so the
guy not having the same acute appitite for women as he did for men
realized he was more, way, way more attracted to men. So does he live a
double life, life as an openly bisexual, does he marry a woman and have
queer sex the side, out of town, in town during lunch, after work,
after working late, afte being out with the guys from the office. How
does the guy life his life. Some just say, hey, I want to be honest
with myself, my sexual partners and the world at large. They then lead
an opoenly homosexual life.
> When did you determine that this was what you wished?
By age 27 after living a sexual life with both men and women.
> Did you experiment?
Lots
>A little trial and error perhaps.
No, lots.
> Did you have a little slip and slide with a cheer leader and then do the hokey pokey > with a football player? Perhaps then wrote down the pros and cons of both and did a > cost benefit evaluation?
No, love is not based on money.
>
> > Once again, the initial post i this thread was for the purpose of
> > pointing out that no matter how heard they have tried, researchers
> > have been unable to find a genetic basis for homosexuality.
I totally believe there is no genetic basis for homosexuality.
> >
> > If there is no genetic basis, then the argument that homosexuality is
> > immutable, is very debatable.
One either likes the taste of men or they don't.
anonymous
No, no, not at all. Lots of homosexuals are very active in persuing
thier
sexual interest and go looking for willing homosexual partners.
> A passive homosexual feels attracted to
> other males of his age, or even to those a little older than him,
> without any previous sexual experience.
No, not at all. Lots of homosexuals only like guys their own age or
younger with or without previous sexual experience. Obviously, there
has to be a first time for everyone.
> This cannot be explained in a rational way, unless we assume a genetic
> mechanism is wrong.
> We do not know what precise spot is wrong in his DNA, but it must be
> that something wrong. You cannot explain it by other means.
>
> Other case is the "active" partner in a homosexual act.
> A normal man can be sodomizing a gay because it is easy to fuck a gay
> than a girl.
Girls deveope sexually first so lots of guys come onto guys who are
exploring and ultiamtely turn out homosexual.
No, there are lots of guys who have had sex with women and those that
have never had sex with women who are very active partners in a
homosexual act.
> So this normal man is using a gay as a substitute of a
> female.
Pipe dream, dude. That only happens in prison.
> Not that the active sodomite is a gay, but just very horny. So, if he
> cannot find a girl willing to let him fuck, he would look for a
> substitute passive receptor.
Nice story line by not the way it is. The crusing areas of the world,
the telephone lines and the internet is full of guys looking for other
guys and they aren't doing that
because they can't find a woman are are lazy.
> And this happens because the Christians had concocted the doctrine a
> Chastity, of not having any sexual experience before marriage.
>
Religous boys are no different than non-religous boys, they fuck when
they can even
at the risk of getting a disease or going to hell.
> If were not for the Christian doctrine of chastity, girls would be
> more prone to have sex with boys of his own age or older, using some
> devices to avoid getting pregnant.
Girls are watched by their parents so keep them from screwing.
>
> In rural places, I heard of some horny boys using sheep and other
> animals to alleviate their horniness.
Yes, farm boys will do just about anything. But did you know that the
RCMP ask that question of men if they have ever screwed an animal and if
they say yes, they are automatically overlooked. That is what I was
told, believe it or not.
> But when in secret... they would
> not mind to sodomize any gay, or to give him his penis for a good act
> of cocksucking.
Oh, it is true that the difference between a gay guy and a straight guy
is a six pack of beer. Some straight guys would allow a gay guy to blow
them, but most don't want to because they hope is a woman is gong to
come by and they don't want to be spent if she arrives.
>
> Try to explain, why a boy, sometimes an adolescent, want to risk
> social opprobrium and despise by sucking dicks of other males, or
> letting other males to sodomize them, if this were not explained by a
> genetic condition. If it is not genetic, why are they doing it? They
> do it for free, very rarely are young gays involved in prostitution.
>
Well, we would have to know a little bit more about the boy/guy,
wouldn't we?
> Leopoldo
anonymous
Well, in the end regardless of the result, it doesn't matter.
Homosexuality and its marriage thereto is legal in Canada. Homosexual
life is good, damn good and the world has never been better.
anonymous
Well, sadly, very sadly, that only applies to religous homos because
they are bound by and pay the pastor to tell them how to lead their life
in their private religous life.
Such private religion does not apply or have any bearing on the rest of
the world outside of that lot with the church, parked cars, and paid
pastor with an ever increasing congregation.
David Hartung
The simple truth, which all well eventually realize, is that God is
real, and the scriptures are his word. Your unbelief does not change
that. Those who do not come to faith in this life, will realize the
truth when they, just like the believers, stand before the Lord in judgment.
This is not meant to be a threat, just a simple statement of fact.
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> The simple truth, which all well eventually realize, is that God is
> real, and the scriptures are his word.
Even when those scriptures contradict each other?
Dan Listermann
"David Hartung" <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b337458$0$5346$bbae...@news.suddenlink.net...
> The simple truth, which all well eventually realize, is that God is real,
> and the scriptures are his word. Your unbelief does not change that. Those
> who do not come to faith in this life, will realize the truth when they,
> just like the believers, stand before the Lord in judgment.
And that is raw religobabble.
Geode
> anonymous wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >> Geode wrote:
>
> >>> Other question, how normal are those preachers that do not see where
> >>> this poisonous Christian doctrine that is crying aloud the abomination
> >>> of being gay person?
> >>> These fundie preachers are real criminals preachers. They are inciting
> >>> to other morons to commit assassinations.
> >> The interesting thing is that sound Christian doctrine does not call for
> >> the mistreatment of homosexuals. Sound doctrine sees homosexuals the
> >> same way it sees any other human, as sinners who are in need of the
> >> forgiveness earned for us by Christ.
>
> > Well, sadly, very sadly, that only applies to religous homos because
> > they are bound by and pay the pastor to tell them how to lead their life
> > in their private religous life.
>
> > Such private religion does not apply or have any bearing on the rest of
> > the world outside of that lot with the church, parked cars, and paid
> > pastor with an ever increasing congregation.
>
> The simple truth, which all well eventually realize, is that God is
> real, and the scriptures are his word.
By scriptures of God you are thinking of the Ramayana? I only believe
in Rama
Man_of_Mind
>
> anonymous wrote:
>>
>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>
>>> Geode wrote:
>>>
>>>> Other question, how normal are those preachers that do not see where
>>>> this poisonous Christian doctrine that is crying aloud the abomination
>>>> of being gay person?
>>>> These fundie preachers are real criminals preachers. They are inciting
>>>> to other morons to commit assassinations.
>>>
>>> The interesting thing is that sound Christian doctrine does not call for
>>> the mistreatment of homosexuals. Sound doctrine sees homosexuals the
>>> same way it sees any other human, as sinners who are in need of the
>>> forgiveness earned for us by Christ.
>>
>> Well, sadly, very sadly, that only applies to religous homos because
>> they are bound by and pay the pastor to tell them how to lead their life
>> in their private religous life.
>>
>> Such private religion does not apply or have any bearing on the rest of
>> the world outside of that lot with the church, parked cars, and paid
>> pastor with an ever increasing congregation.
>
> The simple truth, which all well eventually realize,
I don't recognize what your 'simple truth' is, but lies..
> is that God is real,
Very, and we are but fractalized reflections of God's manifestations..
> and the scriptures are his word.
Hint: God doesn't need 'words'..
> Your unbelief does not change that.
Likewise, your beliefs do not change God..
> Those who do not come to faith in this life, will realize the
> truth when they, just like the believers, stand before the Lord
We stand before God, even as we are alive. Death is undefined
except by mythologies and perpetrated ideologies that have no
basis in fact, faith or logical conventions..
> This is not meant to be a threat, just a simple statement of fact.
You shouldn't mis-state your faith or opinions as 'fact'. David..
--See faith without acts, sounding brass, etc..
anonymous
>
> anonymous wrote:
> > David Hartung wrote:
> >> Geode wrote:
> >>
> >>> Other question, how normal are those preachers that do not see where
> >>> this poisonous Christian doctrine that is crying aloud the abomination
> >>> of being gay person?
> >>> These fundie preachers are real criminals preachers. They are inciting
> >>> to other morons to commit assassinations.
> >> The interesting thing is that sound Christian doctrine does not call for
> >> the mistreatment of homosexuals. Sound doctrine sees homosexuals the
> >> same way it sees any other human, as sinners who are in need of the
> >> forgiveness earned for us by Christ.
> >
> > Well, sadly, very sadly, that only applies to religous homos because
> > they are bound by and pay the pastor to tell them how to lead their life
> > in their private religous life.
> >
> > Such private religion does not apply or have any bearing on the rest of
> > the world outside of that lot with the church, parked cars, and paid
> > pastor with an ever increasing congregation.
>
> The simple truth, which all well eventually realize, is that God is
> real, and the scriptures are his word.
Well, sorry to correct you. There is no proof that God exists. There
is no proof that God doesn't exist. Those that choose to believe may do
so with the support of the community around them. The Bible was written
by humans, what, thousands of years ago. Most of what is written in the
Bible isnt' true anymore. We don't stone people etc.
> Your unbelief does not change
> that.
You are wrong to assume that I belief or don't believe.
> Those who do not come to faith in this life, will realize the
> truth when they, just like the believers, stand before the Lord in judgment.
I am not saying your last sentence is your belief. What anyone believes
is nobody's business as long as it doesn't cause harm to another
person. Believes are a personal matter and are only a guide for that
person. Some men and women may believe that they should or should not
use birth control or they should or should not pray or eat fish.
Those are private matters and only bind them in their beliefs.
>
> This is not meant to be a threat, just a simple statement of fact.
Religious people can say they believe that this person or that person or
this person who does this or that person who does that will die early,
go to hell, go to heaven, and they are entitled to those beliefs. But
that doesn't make those beliefs true or untrue but that doesn't matter
either because again they are their private beliefs to which most of us
in a free world are entitled to believe and are entitled to share with
others for whatever it is worth.
The Chief Instigator
...a simple statement that you're psychotic, as usal.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Grand Rapids 3 (December 20)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, December 26 vs. San Antonio, 7:35
bob young
On 12/20/09 11:37 AM, in article
Xns9CE6DC1168D2D...@216.196.97.130, "Mitchell Holman"
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> David Hartung <d_ha...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:4b2d60be$0$5336
> $bbae...@news.suddenlink.net:
>
>> anonymous wrote:
>>> Budikka666 wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 10:32 pm, anonymous <anonym...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Syd M. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Dec 18, 1:13 pm, tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sexual Orientation: Fixed Or Changeable?
>>>>>>> No matter how many times you post this lie, its still a lie.
>>>>>> Your evidence?
Yes. One can analyse a group of people who enjoy classical music using a
Bell Curve. Classical music lovers will be small moving over to the other
extreme of classical music haters.
It is exactly the same with sexual attraction by men towards men. The
homosexual sector will be small.
This can be applied to everything to do with humans. Take the height of a
classroom full of boys, there will be the almost freakish tall feller right
over to the smallest one there. Psychiatrists measure this using a graph
with height on the left column and numbers across the bottom they call it a
Bell Curve. What we would assume to be 'normal' people are always found in
the uppermost part of the bell.
On the sexual attraction Bell Curve 'men towards men' Homosexuals will be
located on the edge of the bell in small numbers.
Homosexuality is genetic as a brief look at animal characteristics will soon
confirm.
>
>
>
>
> "If you believe the claim to be incorrect,
> you are welcome to disprove it."
> David Hartung, Sept 8, 2007.
>
>
>
>
>
anonymous
The homosexual sector will be small because society would be come
extinct if every offspring of a heterosexual couple was homosexual. As
it stands now, heteroseuxals have to produce 9 heterosexual offspring
before they produce one homosexual offspring.
>
> This can be applied to everything to do with humans. Take the height of a
> classroom full of boys, there will be the almost freakish tall feller right
> over to the smallest one there. Psychiatrists measure this using a graph
> with height on the left column and numbers across the bottom they call it a
> Bell Curve. What we would assume to be 'normal' people are always found in
> the uppermost part of the bell.
>
Well, you can search the earch for gold, oil, food, or anything precious
and it will always be a smaller group than the normal ordinary.
Millions of violins are sold everyday to musicians but only a handful
globally can play exceptionally well.
> On the sexual attraction Bell Curve 'men towards men' Homosexuals will be
> located on the edge of the bell in small numbers.
>
> Homosexuality is genetic as a brief look at animal characteristics will soon
> confirm.
> >
Homosexuality hasn't today been proven to be genetic. Most don't think
it is genetic.
thomas p.
In all likelihood homosexuals are born homosexuals. That
is not necessarily the same as it being genetic.
thomas p.
On the othe hand it is very likely that homosexuals are born
homosexuals. That may or may not be genetically linked.
anonymous
Homosexuals aren't born homosexual. Heterosexual imbalance in raising
their offspring create homosexuals.
anonymous
again, offspring are not homosexual, it is the imbalance of raising an
offspring that causes the homosexuality.
thomas p.
"anonymous" <anon...@anonymous.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:4B365463...@anonymous.com...
There is, in fact, a great deal of data indicating that homosexuals are born
homosexuals.
thomas p.
So you say.
Syd M.
> thomas p. wrote:
>
> > bob young wrote:
> > > On 12/20/09 11:37 AM, in article
> > > "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:4b2d60be$0$5336 $bbae4...@news.suddenlink.net:
Just refuse to stop lying, huh, anonymous coward?
PDW
Alan Ford
> Homosexuals aren't born homosexual. Heterosexual imbalance in raising
> their offspring create homosexuals.
There's imbalance, alright. Go see a specialist.
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
anonymous
Well, that is your opinion. The data you believe exists may be
recognized locally, reginally or internationally.
The reason is despute that argument is that boy would have know way of
talking, talking and acting womanly unless they were only around women
and had no significant male influence. The same can be said for
lesbians. To put it another way how many effeminate male heterosexual
friends does your husband have when he goes hunting, bar hopping, or
playing golf or riding his harley. It doesn't mean they don't exist
either.
That is my data and I am sticking to it. Sure there are lots of men who
can pass as heterosexual both on and off the sports field and in and
outside of the marine corp.
anonymous
Thanks, thomas, for your forceful and acknowledging response.
anonymous
>
> anonymous proudly displayed his idiocy by writing:
>
> > Homosexuals aren't born homosexual. Heterosexual imbalance in raising
> > their offspring create homosexuals.
>
> There's imbalance, alright. Go see a specialist.
>
the boys self confidence, like judo, and some sports if the kid isn't
tormented too much, else the kid will drop out. But most specialists
realzie that by the time the kid is 4 or 6, he ain't changing. He may
be with enough peers to pick up some of their more masculine ways but it
won't necessarily change his sexuality but it might be sufficient to
enable him to be a bisexual.
Sadly, most parents do not want to accept their child could be anything
but a heterosexual. Additionally, they think that homosexuality happens
when the guys testicales drop but unfortunately that is when the boy may
be sufficiently alert to
understand his sexual interests or attractions which as a result of
hearing his peers and parent trash homos, the kid is going to distance
himself from homosexualilty or other homos until he is finacially
independent or other considerations make it possible.
Alan Ford
>>> Homosexuals aren't born homosexual. Heterosexual imbalance in raising
>>> their offspring create homosexuals.
>> There's imbalance, alright. Go see a specialist.
>>
> Well, the specialist, will likely suggest activities that will improve
> the boys self confidence, like judo, and some sports if the kid isn't
> tormented too much, else the kid will drop out. But most specialists
> realzie that by the time the kid is 4 or 6, he ain't changing. He may
> be with enough peers to pick up some of their more masculine ways but it
> won't necessarily change his sexuality but it might be sufficient to
> enable him to be a bisexual.
Amazing. You not only postulated your retarded bullshit hypothesis, you
actually expanded on it with more nonsensical crap that you picked up by
reading through Modern Christian Woman magazine or some such shit.
>
> Sadly, most parents do not want to accept their child could be anything
> but a heterosexual. Additionally, they think that homosexuality happens
> when the guys testicales drop but unfortunately that is when the boy may
> be sufficiently alert to
> understand his sexual interests or attractions which as a result of
> hearing his peers and parent trash homos, the kid is going to distance
> himself from homosexualilty or other homos until he is finacially
> independent or other considerations make it possible.
Riiiight... uhm, I am sorry, but I think I am urgently needed on the
other side of the street. You keep fucking that chicken.
thomas p.
> thomas p. wrote:
snip
>> >> On the othe hand it is very likely that homosexuals are born
>> >> homosexuals. That may or may not be genetically linked.
>> >
>> > again, offspring are not homosexual, it is the imbalance of raising an
>> > offspring that causes the homosexuality.
>>
>> There is, in fact, a great deal of data indicating that homosexuals are
>> born
>> homosexuals.
>
> Well, that is your opinion. The data you believe exists may be
> recognized locally, reginally or internationally.
>
> The reason is despute that argument is that boy would have know way of
> talking, talking and acting womanly unless they were only around women
> and had no significant male influence. The same can be said for
> lesbians. To put it another way how many effeminate male heterosexual
> friends does your husband have when he goes hunting, bar hopping, or
> playing golf or riding his harley. It doesn't mean they don't exist
> either.
>
> That is my data and I am sticking to it. Sure there are lots of men who
> can pass as heterosexual both on and off the sports field and in and
> outside of the marine corp.
You have no data. You are sticking to your prejudice.
thomas p.
Considering your total lack of data to support your claims, I gave them
all they deserve.
Geode
> thomas p. wrote:
>
> > bob young wrote:
> > > On 12/20/09 11:37 AM, in article
> > > "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > >> David Hartung <d_hart...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> news:4b2d60be$0$5336 $bbae4...@news.suddenlink.net:
>
there is not any way your can prove that. We do not understand this
phenomenon yet. We can only make lucubrations.
Leopold
thomas p.
Or look at the studies done by professionals in the field, which
overwhelmingly point to homosexuals being born homosexual,
whether or not the cause is genetic is not known.
Mitchell Holman
news:4B365420...@anonymous.com:
> thomas p. wrote:
>>
>
> Homosexuals aren't born homosexual. Heterosexual imbalance in raising
> their offspring create homosexuals.
Mary Cheney?
mrbawana2u
baron.von.m...@gmail.com> stopped cornholing to squeeze:
>[who cares?]
1600 posts in dec, loadturd.
You're a pathetic retard.
Petr Tomeš
> again, offspring are not homosexual, it is the imbalance of raising an
> offspring that causes the homosexuality.
Knowledge of the facts, results of several decades of scientific
research and pretty obvious scientific consensus contribute to forming
informed opinions and positions on the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality#Choice_vs._innate