Gay Marriage

[Gebby69]

Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.
How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?

I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
bible claims it to be wrong.

[Simpleton]

Gebby69 wrote:
> Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.

Nothing other than provide tax deductions to more citizens.

> How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?
>

Hmm, I always have problems deciding whether Bubba would already have
what we get for Pootie on their anniversary.

>
> I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
> bible claims it to be wrong.

Does the bible even comment on gay marriage? I thought it suggested
that homosexuality was wrong; it said nothing about marriage.

[Jeff]

I can understand the fundies getting their panties in a bind over two
guys getting married, but two girls? Come on, that's hot.

In all seriousness, these people want gay guys out of monogamous
relationships in quiet suburban enclaves and back in the club scene
where they belong. Why? So it's easier to find them when the step out
from under the cover of their convenience marriages.

[Gebby69]

Why have no christians answered to this post?

Oh thats right. There really is no argument. THe bible says so and that
is that. My preacher/priest etc says so so I will be part of the flock.

Again I ask How will you personally be affected in your marriage to
know that two men or women are married? Will you decide that your wife
is no longer pretty? Or that you would rather be married to a man
becasue you can play playstation all day and not get hell for not
"visiting"?

[bob600]

Bob600 replies :- Its an issue because there are no kids. If everyone
was like that the human race would die out. Shelfish lot.

[RowanB]

There're always gonna be plenty of straight people though. Selfish?
What exactly can someone do about being gay? I really don't see how
it's a problem.

[bob600]

Bob600 replies :- Its in human nature for people to want others to be
like them, so it follows that gay's would like everyone to be like
them. No human race, selfish. How do you know there are always going to
be plenty of straight people, over the last few years there seems to be
more and more gays, if they keep "coming out " at this rate how long
before they outnumber straights. Or are you saying it will slow up and
stop at a certain point. Mind you its only an observation, I don't
realy care, by that time I will be dead and then I'm out of it, or if
the belivers are right I'm really in it. Either way they can fill their
boots, or anything else as I won't be here to see it.

[Simpleton]

Seafood allergies aside, are you actively campaigning for retraction of
marriage certificates that were handed out wily nily to heterosexual
couples who do not or cannot procreate?

[GofG]

If the human race were seriously in danger because of homosexuality
(which is an outrageous claim,) then I'm sure some homosexuals would be
able to engage in heterosexual sex, if it was for the sake of the human
race :D. To say that it's endangering the human race is ludicrous.

If you are running on the assumption (ASSUMPTION) that homosexuality is
a lifestyle choice, then the popularity of being "different" would wear
out once it got to a certain population.

If you are running on the assumption (again, ASSUMPTION) that
homosexuality is from birth, then there is a set probability that a man
is gay, and that probability might never change. Let's be honest, the
gay population is growing at a proportional rate as the straight
population. Saying that is rather discriminatory, because it makes them
"different", classifying them as different populations, and I don't
like saying it that way.

[Turner]

Are you fucking kidding me? I hope you're playing devil's advocate.
It's not a choice, being gay, so how the hell do you expect gay people
to make everyone like them? Do you mean that gay people will require
everyone to engage in gay sex only (I think we have a long way to go
before we have a totalitarian gay regime)? That would be absurd, and
yet it's the only way to make sense of your utterly moronic argument.

Look, if you have the urge to come out, you should. Step out of the
closet, I'm sure you'll feel much freer.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/2006 3:00:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JamesG...@gmail.com writes:

Why have no christians answered to this post?

LL: Because nobody's home.

[Bagel]

Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
against our very nature. Homosexuals will never be "married" because
they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
children.

Homosexuals should be given all of the help and support they need to
turn away from their unspeakable behaviour.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/20/2006 3:49:54 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bo...@nireland.com writes:

Its in human nature for people to want others to be
like them, so it follows that gay's would like everyone to be like
them.

 

LL: That's a ridiculous assertion. I thought I could expect better from you. I for one, don't want everyone to be the same sex as I am. Do you?

 

Bobs:  No human race, selfish. How do you know there are always going to

be plenty of straight people, over the last few years there seems to be
more and more gays, if they keep "coming out " at this rate how long
before they outnumber straights.

 

LL: It will never happen, Bobs, and you know it. If all the latent homosexuals came out today they would be far outnumbered by the heterosexuals and you know it.

 

 Using your fear that the human race would stop reproducing I assume you think heterosexuals who are infertile or too old to reproduce or who just don't want to have children should also be banned from marriage, right?

[Turner]

Bagel wrote:
> Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God,

Look, God, it's not you. Some girls just prefer other girls. You'll
find someone. You're still the man! Remember that Mary chick? Yeah, the
virgin! She was good, wasn't she?

> because it is a sin
> against our very nature.

Maybe against your nature. Aw, who are we kidding, it's not against
your nature. Don't worry, I get it. You have to perpetuate the social
stigma against homosexuality so you're not tempted to get a little
intimate with that cute guy at the gym with the hot ass. Your secret is
safe with me.

> Homosexuals will never be "married" because
> they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
> children.

Yeah, and that goes for women past menopause and infertile couples,
too!

>
> Homosexuals should be given all of the help and support they need to
> turn away from their unspeakable behaviour.

Aw, you're such a kind person.

[O W Mann]

LL:

Sorry, I just got home.... :)

My answer: makes me no nevermind or, better stated, it has no bearing
on my faith nor my walk.

Homosexuality is a "strawman" issue for many people, not to mention a
lightening rod (if straw can conduct electricity).

When I interviewed for a job with a socially progressive company, I was
asked point blank if I would find it difficult to work with a
homosexual (of course, I was not asked my sexual orientation - which
happens to be heterosexual). My response was basically the same as for
any other person I might be teamed with at work....I am comfortable as
long as no one puts the move on me, man or woman.

I continue to be amazed by my fellow Believers who attempt to love as
Christ loved on the one hand and point the accusing finger on the
other. It is akin to attempting to help someone up off the floor by
pulling with all your might on their extended arms while firmly
planting one of your size 11 boots in the middle of their gut for
leverage.

As another poster stated, I am not comfortable with our incessant
labelling process. Why do we have to classify based upon differences?

[AMD414]

>
> If the human race were seriously in danger because of homosexuality
> (which is an outrageous claim,) then I'm sure some homosexuals would be
> able to engage in heterosexual sex, if it was for the sake of the human
> race :D. To say that it's endangering the human race is ludicrous.

I have a friend who claims that the human race will die out if gay
marriage is allowed (personally, I think that's a long way off). I was
curious so I asked a gay male friend of mine if he would ever have
hetero sex purely for reproductive purposes IF the need ever came to be
that great, and he said of course he would. They are NOT selfish.

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:
> Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
> against our very nature. Homosexuals will never be "married" because
> they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
> children.

I've been an American for thirty-nine years and a trend has become
apparent. After years of getting the shit kicked out of them by
society, a persecuted minority fights and achieves rights enjoyed by
everyone else. At that moment a few assholes take the loud stink
they've been making and make it even louder. Once that happens, the
rest of society takes notice. "Those protest guys are pretty much a
bunch of assholes..." At that point, the milestone shifts to the status
quo in favor of the minority group. Like it or not, gay marriage is
here to stay.

>
> Homosexuals should be given all of the help and support they need to
> turn away from their unspeakable behaviour.

The case is getting stronger that their "unspeakable" behavior is
natural indeed. The single biggest predictor of whether or not a man is
gay is the number of older biological male siblings he has. The
original observation was made by an American. Recently, a Canadian team
was able to eliminate environment as a factor in those results. It
seems that each older brother increases a boy's chance of being gay by
33%. This means the mother's body keeps track of the number of male
children it delivers and finds some biological advantage in producing a
homosexual boy after several straight ones. We already know that the
brains of gay men respond to scent much like the brains of straight
women. At some point, overwhelming evidence will prevent you from
masking your bigotry under the guise of criticisms against "unnatural"
behavior.

[Bagel]

Turner, you are such a wierdo. You insult Mary who is so sacred and
holy, yet you defend the vilest, most disgusting behaviour. Don't
drag us into your perversions.

[Bagel]

WOW! That is so scientific, Jeff! Tell me, since my grandfather had
nine older brothers, what were the statistical chances that he was
straight? What were the statistical chances that NONE OF THEM were
gay? (none of them were remotely gay)

hmmm... makes you think. On second thought I'm sure it doesn't make
you think.

[Turner]

Isn't argument by fiat fun? And easy?

[bob600]

Bob600 replies :- Sorry LL you spotted the weakness in my postings, I
am pulling out of this one as I am having a job to come up with
suitable replies, I just posted the first thing I could think of as a
windup. I have no problem with gays, other than the importance given to
the subject when they take themselves to seriously,but then I have the
same problem taking the rest of the human race seriously. Can't say I
like the title or even the fact that its given one either. In fact in
my humble opinion it should not be a factor in anything at all, as a
persons sexual leanings are their own business, and make no differance
to me, so long as they don't hurt the innocent.

[Jeff]

You can do the math yourself. There is something like a 2-5% chance
that any given child is gay. And with each additional older male
sibling, the chances increase by 33% according to the American study.
At the high end, your grandfather had a 20.69% chance of being gay and
a 10.78% chance at the low end.

[Orbital]

There is an increasing amount of evidence to show that there is a 'gay
gene'. In other words some people are pre-programmed to be gay. So are
they going against nature if it is homosexuality is biologically
written into their nature.

By the way, the suggestion is that the presence of this gene increases
fertility amoung women. Thus it provides a survival advantage that off
sets any disadvantage caused by to men not having children.

[Gebby69]

OH. Sorry. I thaught I had stumped you guys.

[Gebby69]

Bagel wrote:
> Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God,

Oh right because you have never engaged in heterosexual acts that are
against nature like oral or anal sex.

because it is a sin
> against our very nature.

So by this statement flying in a plane is an abomination? Or scuba
diving? Or surgery? What about skying or driving a car? Medicine?
Sending an e mail to someone accross the world? None of these are
natural acts.

Homosexuals will never be "married" because they cannot consumate the
marriage and be open to the possibility of children.

So women with histerectamies and men with vasectamies are also not
meant to be married. WHat about people who just are infertile? No
marriage for them?

But back to the question. If gay marriage is made legal, how will it
change the marriage between you and your spouse? How will that hurt
your marriage?

[Gebby69]

> Bob600 replies :- Sorry LL you spotted the weakness in my postings, I
> am pulling out of this one as I am having a job to come up with
> suitable replies, I just posted the first thing I could think of as a
> windup. I have no problem with gays, other than the importance given to
> the subject when they take themselves to seriously,but then I have the
> same problem taking the rest of the human race seriously. Can't say I
> like the title or even the fact that its given one either. In fact in
> my humble opinion it should not be a factor in anything at all, as a
> persons sexual leanings are their own business, and make no differance
> to me, so long as they don't hurt the innocent.

I respect you more for that statement.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2006 5:16:52 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, stroke...@gmail.com writes:

I have a friend who claims that the human race will die out if gay
marriage is allowed (personally, I think that's a long way off).  I was
curious so I asked a gay male friend of mine if he would ever have
hetero sex purely for reproductive purposes IF the need ever came to be
that great, and he said of course he would.  They are NOT selfish.

LL: Besides that, plenty of homosexuals DO reproduce, usually through sperm donation (for the women) and surrogate mothers (for the men). But more often they take in the kids heterosexuals don't want--many because they are the "wrong" color for adoption by many heterosexuals, or have diseases (such as AIDS) or are deformed or "imperfect" in some  other way. In addition to that many homosexual people started out pretending to be heterosexual because of social pressure and reproduced in the natural way.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2006 7:25:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, joes...@gmail.com writes:

This means the mother's body keeps track of the number of male
children it delivers and finds some biological advantage in producing a
homosexual boy after several straight ones.

LL: The way I understand it, the mother produces anti-bodies against male children when she's pregnant with the first males and those anti-bodies tend to attack the male hormones of the later male child(ren).

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2006 7:34:11 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

t is so scientific, Jeff!  Tell me,  since my grandfather had
nine older brothers,  what were the statistical chances that he was
straight?  What were the statistical chances that NONE OF THEM were
gay?  (none of them were remotely gay)

LL: The chances are he WAS gay, but because of the time he lived and the approbation he would have had to suffer, he managed to hide it and act like a heterosexual. You say that none of them were remotely gay. How could you possibly know?

 

In any case, a tendency does not mean it happens every time or even most of the time. Read up on biology, why don't you?

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2006 7:52:24 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, bo...@nireland.com writes:

Can't say I
like the title or even the fact that its given one either. In fact in
my humble opinion it should not be a factor in anything at all, as a
persons sexual leanings are their own business, and make no differance
to me, so long as they don't hurt the innocent.

LL: Good, I'm glad to hear it. I hope you also take into consideration that heterosexuals hurt the innocent in far greater numbers than homosexuals do.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

Bagel wrote:
 Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
against our very nature. 

 

LL: That's one hell of an  argument, Bagel. If you say it, it must be so.

 

 

Homosexuals will never be "married"  because
they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
children.

 

LL: Hate to burst your balloon, but they are already legally married in several countries and in Massachusetts.

[Des]

> Bagel wrote:
>
> Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
> against our very nature.

Isn't it the nature of a homosexual to have homosexual sex. I thought
that was the point. Its either that or to be a snappy dresser.

[Kristen]

Gebby69 wrote:
> Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.
> How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?
>
> I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
> bible claims it to be wrong.

Gay marriage is an issue because that is not how God intened marriage
to be.
God created Adam and then created a companion for him so that he would
not be alone, that companion was a woman. God gives us a standard for
marriage. It is defined as a lifelong, monogamous union between one man
and one woman. Men and woman each, becuase of their inherent
differences, bring something unique and necessary to the relationship
that cannot be present when only one gender is represented.

Knowing that two men or two women are married would bother me because I
know that it is not a relationship that pleases God, but I would not
condemn them because my sins are just as great as theirs and I need to
still love them. But thier relationship also affects the people
involved. Homosexual relationships are not known to last. Only 15% of
homosexual relationships lasted 12 years or longer and 67% first
hetersexual marriages lasted 10 years or more. Most people who are in
a homosexual relationship have been hurt in thier lives and by being in
a homosexual relationship think that they will receive more love
through that relationship.
The statics show that they end up more heartbroken.

Someone who is very close to me is gay and is in a gay relationship.
As much as I hurt and am upset because of the decision he has made to
be in this relationship and live this lifestyle, I still love him and
will never stop. It saddens me though because I know God calls him to
something greater.

Kristen

[Turner]

Kristen wrote:
> Gebby69 wrote:
> > Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.
> > How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?
> >
> > I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
> > bible claims it to be wrong.
>
> Gay marriage is an issue because that is not how God intened marriage
> to be.
> God created Adam and then created a companion for him so that he would
> not be alone, that companion was a woman. God gives us a standard for
> marriage. It is defined as a lifelong, monogamous union between one man
> and one woman. Men and woman each, becuase of their inherent
> differences, bring something unique and necessary to the relationship
> that cannot be present when only one gender is represented.

So then obviously, single parents must give up their children for
adoption, right?

>
> Knowing that two men or two women are married would bother me because I
> know that it is not a relationship that pleases God,

I'm sure God will manage to survive somehow.

> but I would not
> condemn them because my sins are just as great as theirs and I need to
> still love them. But thier relationship also affects the people
> involved. Homosexual relationships are not known to last. Only 15% of
> homosexual relationships lasted 12 years or longer and 67% first
> hetersexual marriages lasted 10 years or more. Most people who are in
> a homosexual relationship have been hurt in thier lives and by being in
> a homosexual relationship think that they will receive more love
> through that relationship.
> The statics show that they end up more heartbroken.

Your statistics are entirely bogus. Where did you get them from?

>
> Someone who is very close to me is gay and is in a gay relationship.
> As much as I hurt and am upset because of the decision he has made to
> be in this relationship and live this lifestyle, I still love him and
> will never stop. It saddens me though because I know God calls him to
> something greater.

I sincerely hope he comes to his senses and drops a close-minded
"friend" like you. You really think it's a decision? None of the recent
research on the subject or the feelings of homosexuals confirm this
outrageously idiotic proposal. Who whould choose to enter a
relationship that would increase the probability of being descriminated
against and would make his less intelligent, more bigotted friends like
yourself view him as an unfortunate soul who is to be pitied. You think
you're loving and kind? You're nothing but an idiotic, close-minded
religious drone. Love. Hah. Don't make me laugh.

[Simpleton]

Kristen wrote:
> Gebby69 wrote:
> > Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.
> > How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?
> >
> > I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
> > bible claims it to be wrong.
>
> Gay marriage is an issue because that is not how God intened marriage
> to be.
> God created Adam and then created a companion for him so that he would
> not be alone, that companion was a woman. God gives us a standard for
> marriage. It is defined as a lifelong, monogamous union between one man
> and one woman.

So you must be crushed with the rampant divorces that go against this
definition. Incidentally, where is this God Standard defined?

> Men and woman each, becuase of their inherent
> differences, bring something unique and necessary to the relationship
> that cannot be present when only one gender is represented.
>

If that is your opinion, then all you have to do is look at your
friend, and you'll see that while it might be unique, it is definitely
not necessary.

> Knowing that two men or two women are married would bother me because I
> know that it is not a relationship that pleases God, but I would not
> condemn them because my sins are just as great as theirs and I need to
> still love them. But thier relationship also affects the people
> involved. Homosexual relationships are not known to last. Only 15% of
> homosexual relationships lasted 12 years or longer and 67% first
> hetersexual marriages lasted 10 years or more. Most people who are in
> a homosexual relationship have been hurt in thier lives and by being in
> a homosexual relationship think that they will receive more love
> through that relationship.
> The statics show that they end up more heartbroken.
>

You try to give the appearance of being a fair-minded person, so can
you please do a few things?

a. Cite the source of your statistics and factoids
b. Look into the divorce rates in the USA or the country that you live
in.
c. How about the bisexual folk?
d. Can you normalize your statistics a bit? Like if you use 12 years
for the homosexuals, use 12 years for the heterosexuals as well. If
you use "first" for the heterosexuals, do so for the homosexuals as
well. Otherwise, people might get the wrong idea.

> Someone who is very close to me is gay and is in a gay relationship.
> As much as I hurt and am upset because of the decision he has made to
> be in this relationship and live this lifestyle, I still love him and
> will never stop.

That is indeed big of you. With a capital B.

> It saddens me though because I know God calls him to
> something greater.
>

Interior design? Ice-skating? Snorkling? Masonry? Librarian?

Please do not keep me in suspense, I am dying to know.

> Kristen

[Sketch System]

Gebby69 wrote:
> Tell me what exactly would gay marriage do to the sanctity of marriage.

Nothing, unless heterosexual marriage is considered sanctimonious. I
think it's a non-issue, personally (as governments have no business
telling people who they can and can not marry or telling churches who
they must perform cerimonies for) but many people feel that their own
union is less special if its specificity is nullified. Though, they
are wrong, it's easy to see why they may think they're right.

> How would you be affected by knowing that two men or women are married?

In no way, other than having new knowledge.

> I am trying to understand why it is an issue besides the fact that the
> bible claims it to be wrong.

If it's an issue for a church, then it's an issue for a church. No one
has the right to force them to perform the ceremony, or otherwise
recognise the marriage anyway.

People don't need a church to marry.

[Sketch System]

O W Mann wrote:

> I continue to be amazed by my fellow Believers who attempt to love as
> Christ loved on the one hand and point the accusing finger on the
> other. It is akin to attempting to help someone up off the floor by
> pulling with all your might on their extended arms while firmly
> planting one of your size 11 boots in the middle of their gut for
> leverage.

Of course no one is required to love gay people. All that is required
of any member of any society it that they not interfere with the rights
of any other member of any society; we don't have to love everyone (or
even anyone). Whether I agree or disagree with gay marriage or gay
lifestyle is irrelevent. I will not interfere with their right to be
homosexual unless they somehow interfere with my right to be
heterosexual. At the moment, I can't think of how that's possible.

> As another poster stated, I am not comfortable with our incessant
> labelling process. Why do we have to classify based upon differences?

It's natural to notice differences and name them. Personally, I don't
want to live in a world where we're all considered the same because we
certainly are not.

[Sketch System]

Bagel wrote:

> Turner, you are such a wierdo. You insult Mary who is so sacred and
> holy, yet you defend the vilest, most disgusting behaviour. Don't
> drag us into your perversions.

There is nothing weird about insulting the imaginary while defending
the real.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/21/2006 4:08:31 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, monke...@juno.com writes:

Knowing that two men or two women are married would bother me because I
know that it is not a relationship that pleases God,

LL: Is your god pleased by a marriage where at least one of the participants is a murderer, a rapist, a child molester, a thief, an embezzler, a sadist?

 

If you think not, why are not the marriages of these people also banned because they don't please your god? All of those people can get married with no one suggesting that they should not, nor that god is not pleased--as long as they're heterosexual!

[Sketch System]

Kristen wrote:

> Gay marriage is an issue because that is not how God intened marriage
> to be.

Fortunately, God doesn't decide who can and can not get married.

> God created Adam and then created a companion for him so that he would
> not be alone, that companion was a woman. God gives us a standard for
> marriage. It is defined as a lifelong, monogamous union between one man
> and one woman. Men and woman each, becuase of their inherent
> differences, bring something unique and necessary to the relationship
> that cannot be present when only one gender is represented.

The story provides a standard, but it is meaningless to non-believers.

> Knowing that two men or two women are married would bother me because I
> know that it is not a relationship that pleases God, but I would not
> condemn them because my sins are just as great as theirs and I need to
> still love them.

It's brave of you to defy your God.

> But thier relationship also affects the people
> involved. Homosexual relationships are not known to last. Only 15% of
> homosexual relationships lasted 12 years or longer and 67% first
> hetersexual marriages lasted 10 years or more. Most people who are in
> a homosexual relationship have been hurt in thier lives and by being in
> a homosexual relationship think that they will receive more love
> through that relationship.
> The statics show that they end up more heartbroken.

If that is true, it is their risk to take. Besides, homosexual
relationships do not have a monopoly on failure.

> Someone who is very close to me is gay and is in a gay relationship.
> As much as I hurt and am upset because of the decision he has made to
> be in this relationship and live this lifestyle, I still love him and
> will never stop. It saddens me though because I know God calls him to
> something greater.

I guess you had better hope that your support of this homosexual does
not land you in hell.

As so many Christians, you seem to want it both ways: you want to speak
of God's will, yet you want to be able to defy it when it suits you.

We atheists are very fortunate to be able to care for those we care for
without dogmatic guilt.

[Jeff]

Kristen wrote:
>
> Someone who is very close to me is gay and is in a gay relationship.
> As much as I hurt and am upset because of the decision he has made to
> be in this relationship and live this lifestyle, I still love him and
> will never stop. It saddens me though because I know God calls him to
> something greater.
>

Um, what greatness is god calling him to and what means is he using to
transmit the message?

[Bagel]

Gebby69 wrote:
> Bagel wrote:
> > Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God,
>
> Oh right because you have never engaged in heterosexual acts that are
> against nature like oral or anal sex.

gross

>
> because it is a sin
> > against our very nature.
>
> So by this statement flying in a plane is an abomination? Or scuba
> diving? Or surgery? What about skying or driving a car? Medicine?
> Sending an e mail to someone accross the world? None of these are
> natural acts.

No, it is in our nature to build machines that allow us to do these
things. Why do you say they are not natural?

>
> Homosexuals will never be "married" because they cannot consumate the
> marriage and be open to the possibility of children.
>
> So women with histerectamies and men with vasectamies are also not

> meant to be married. What about people who just are infertile? No
> marriage for them?

Infertility and impotence have long been a valid reason to annul a
marriage, yes.

>
> But back to the question. If gay marriage is made legal, how will it
> change the marriage between you and your spouse? How will that hurt
> your marriage?

Societal standards define what is acceptable and what is not. We are
not immune to the status quo, however perverse. If marriage becomes
meaningless, then what is the point of getting married? If it is no
longer a sacrament, why bother?

[Bagel]

Even to an idiot, Mary is a historical figure that is highly respected
by all people of good will. (That excludes you). Yet you insult her,
knowing how sacred to us she is, while defending the vilest behaviour
imaginable.

That speaks volumes about you.

[Simpleton]

Bagel wrote:

> Gebby69 wrote:
> > But back to the question. If gay marriage is made legal, how will it
> > change the marriage between you and your spouse? How will that hurt
> > your marriage?
>
> Societal standards define what is acceptable and what is not. We are
> not immune to the status quo, however perverse. If marriage becomes
> meaningless, then what is the point of getting married? If it is no
> longer a sacrament, why bother?

Tax deductions

[Turner]

Which gets us back to where we started, why does gay marriage remove
the meaning behind marriage. Nice, that was a grand circle there.

[Turner]

Bagel wrote:
> Sketch System wrote:
> > Bagel wrote:
> >
> > > Turner, you are such a wierdo. You insult Mary who is so sacred and
> > > holy, yet you defend the vilest, most disgusting behaviour. Don't
> > > drag us into your perversions.
> >
> > There is nothing weird about insulting the imaginary while defending
> > the real.
>
> Even to an idiot, Mary is a historical figure that is highly respected
> by all people of good will.

You're quite good at sweeping generalizations, you know that? If only
you could make a living doing that. Is there a position of "priest"
available nearby for you?

> (That excludes you). Yet you insult her,
> knowing how sacred to us she is, while defending the vilest behaviour
> imaginable.

If that's the vilest behavior you can imagine, you need life experience
and\or a better imagination.

>
> That speaks volumes about you.

Likewise.

[Simpleton]

Turner wrote:

> Bagel wrote:
> > Societal standards define what is acceptable and what is not. We are
> > not immune to the status quo, however perverse. If marriage becomes
> > meaningless, then what is the point of getting married? If it is no
> > longer a sacrament, why bother?
>
> Which gets us back to where we started, why does gay marriage remove
> the meaning behind marriage. Nice, that was a grand circle there.

You misunderstood him, he said gay marriage would remove the meaning
behind *his* marriage.

That raises a question: since gays have been allowed to have sex, ...

[Turner]

And suddenly, the reason for Bagel's fear of sex becomes blindingly
obvious.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/23/2006 10:00:34 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

If marriage becomes
meaningless,  then what is the point of getting married? 

 

LL: I've often wondered that myself and it's a result of heterosexual marriage, not homosexual.

 

 JBT: If it is no

longer a sacrament,  why bother?

LL: It it's a sacrament secular government should have nothing to do with it. If it's a sacrament it belongs in churches and no where else. Secular government cannot be involved in any way with a sacrament. You are making my case for me. Homosexuals should be allowed to marry in a secular ceremony. Nobody is suggesting that churches be forced to marry or recognize the marriage of homosexuals. Believers have no right to impose their sacraments on the general public nor should they be permitted to try to control secular marriage.

 

[Bagel]

Jeff wrote:
> Bagel wrote:
> > Jeff wrote:
> > > Bagel wrote:
> > > > Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
> > > > against our very nature. Homosexuals will never be "married" because

> > > > they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
> > > > children.
> > >

> > > I've been an American for thirty-nine years and a trend has become
> > > apparent. After years of getting the shit kicked out of them by
> > > society, a persecuted minority fights and achieves rights enjoyed by
> > > everyone else. At that moment a few assholes take the loud stink
> > > they've been making and make it even louder. Once that happens, the
> > > rest of society takes notice. "Those protest guys are pretty much a
> > > bunch of assholes..." At that point, the milestone shifts to the status
> > > quo in favor of the minority group. Like it or not, gay marriage is
> > > here to stay.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Homosexuals should be given all of the help and support they need to
> > > > turn away from their unspeakable behaviour.
> > >
> > > The case is getting stronger that their "unspeakable" behavior is
> > > natural indeed. The single biggest predictor of whether or not a man is
> > > gay is the number of older biological male siblings he has. The
> > > original observation was made by an American. Recently, a Canadian team
> > > was able to eliminate environment as a factor in those results. It
> > > seems that each older brother increases a boy's chance of being gay by
> > > 33%. This means the mother's body keeps track of the number of male

> > > children it delivers and finds some biological advantage in producing a

> > > homosexual boy after several straight ones. We already know that the
> > > brains of gay men respond to scent much like the brains of straight
> > > women. At some point, overwhelming evidence will prevent you from
> > > masking your bigotry under the guise of criticisms against "unnatural"
> > > behavior.
> >
> > WOW! That is so scientific, Jeff! Tell me, since my grandfather had

> > nine older brothers, what were the statistical chances that he was
> > straight? What were the statistical chances that NONE OF THEM were
> > gay? (none of them were remotely gay)
> >

> > hmmm... makes you think. On second thought I'm sure it doesn't make
> > you think.
>
> You can do the math yourself. There is something like a 2-5% chance
> that any given child is gay. And with each additional older male
> sibling, the chances increase by 33% according to the American study.
> At the high end, your grandfather had a 20.69% chance of being gay and
> a 10.78% chance at the low end.

Are you really so naive and gullible that you actually believe that
drivel? It amazes me what goes under the guise of science. It's pure
bullshit.

[Bagel]

Orbital wrote:
> Bagel wrote:
> > Homosexual sex is an act of hatred against God, because it is a sin
> > against our very nature. Homosexuals will never be "married" because
> > they cannot consumate the marriage and be open to the possibility of
> > children.
> >

> > Homosexuals should be given all of the help and support they need to
> > turn away from their unspeakable behaviour.
>
>

> There is an increasing amount of evidence to show that there is a 'gay
> gene'. In other words some people are pre-programmed to be gay. So are
> they going against nature if it is homosexuality is biologically
> written into their nature.
>
> By the way, the suggestion is that the presence of this gene increases
> fertility amoung women. Thus it provides a survival advantage that off
> sets any disadvantage caused by to men not having children.

That reminds me of the new fad; whereby we call Alchoholism a disease.
A few decades ago a guy was a drunk bum, now he suffers from a
disease. It excuses the behaviour. Homosexuality is similar in that
there are undoubtedly predispositions to it, but it is still a
BEHAVIOUR. People make the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it
happen. Some eventually make the choice to go straight again.

[Simpleton]

Why, do you think there is in an error in the statistics you requested
him to compute?

BTW 20.69% chances of him being gay does not mean that he was 20.69%
gay.

[Turner]

So is heterosexuality.

> People make the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it
> happen.

No, you haven't. You've seen people come out, maybe, but that's not a
choice. It's a realization of their preferences.

> Some eventually make the choice to go straight again.

No they don't, social pressure forces them to feel ashamed of something
they can't control and they try to suppress their feelings. They are
thus able to pretend they are straight again so that they don't get
assaulted by ignorant Bagels. Either that, or they were never gay in
the first place.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 5:12:38 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

Bagel:  You can do the math yourself. There is something like a 2-5% chance

> that any given child is gay. And with each additional older male
> sibling, the chances increase by 33% according to the American study.
> At the high end, your grandfather had a 20.69% chance of being gay and
> a 10.78% chance at the low end.

 

JBT: Are you really so naive and gullible that you actually believe that

drivel?  It amazes me what goes under the guise of science.  It's pure
bullshit.

LL: I think you're getting worried.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 5:17:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

Homosexuality is similar in that
there are undoubtedly predispositions to it,  but it is still a

BEHAVIOUR.  People make the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it
happen.  Some eventually make the choice to go straight again.

LL: Then you must also believe that heterosexuality is a choice and a behavior. When did you make that choice yourself? Do you remember the day? Do you remember the struggle to decide? Evidently you are saying you can make the choice to be homosexual. That's interesting.

[Bagel]

I've heard people talking about it. "So and so is confused; he thinks
he might be gay". "So and so decided he's not gay after all, he likes
girls". A person like that who perhaps has predispositions will be
influenced by environment. (who they're hanging around, etc) A major
environmental factor is the general acceptance or rejection of
homosexuality in the culture. That explains why the percentage of
homosexuals is not constant accross cultures and eras. Entire cultures
decide whether they accept or reject homosexuality.>
> -------------------------------1153793196
> Content-Type: text/html
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1402
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY id=3Drole_body=20
> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #008040; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman Balti=
> c"=20
> bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
> e_document=20
> face=3D"Times New Roman Baltic" color=3D#008040 size=3D3>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 7/24/2006 5:17:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20
> JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><FONT=20
> style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000=20
> size=3D2>Homosexuality is similar in that<BR>there are undoubtedly=20
> predispositions to it,&nbsp; but it is still a<BR>BEHAVIOUR.&nbsp; People=20=
> make=20
> the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it<BR>happen.&nbsp; Some eventually=
> =20
> make the choice to go straight again.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>LL: Then you must also believe that heterosexuality is a choice=
> and=20
> a behavior. When did you make that choice yourself? Do you remember the day?=
> Do=20
> you remember the struggle to decide?&nbsp;Evidently you are saying you=20
> can&nbsp;make the choice to be homosexual. That's=20
> interesting.</STRONG></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> -------------------------------1153793196--

[Bagel]

Being a hetero or homosexual is not a behavior. Having hetero or homo
sex is. >

[Bagel]

The idea that you can calculate the odds of someone being gay with such
precision is just laughable. Just because someone supports a notion
with a statistic doesn't mean it's valid. This one is obviously
ridiculous.

[Simpleton]

So why did you ask him to calculate the odds in the first place?

> Just because someone supports a notion with a statistic doesn't mean it's valid.

No one is saying otherwise. Jeff presented a study which lists the
odds.

> This one is obviously ridiculous.

Perhaps, you wanted to know the chances of yor grandfather being gay.
20.69% at the high end seems to match what you claimed. Not that it
proves whether your grandfather was gay or not.

Or are you dissatified with the results?

[Simpleton]

Bagel wrote:
> LLP...@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/24/2006 5:17:11 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > Homosexuality is similar in that
> > there are undoubtedly predispositions to it, but it is still a
> > BEHAVIOUR. People make the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it
> > happen. Some eventually make the choice to go straight again.
> >
> >
> >
> > LL: Then you must also believe that heterosexuality is a choice and a
> > behavior. When did you make that choice yourself? Do you remember the day? Do you
> > remember the struggle to decide? Evidently you are saying you can make the
> > choice to be homosexual. That's interesting.
>
> Being a hetero or homosexual is not a behavior. Having hetero or homo
> sex is. >

So a kid who has not had sex can exhibit neither homosexual nor
heterosexual behavior, correct?

That would put a damper on the no-sex-before-marriage doctrine,
wouldn't it? I mean until you were married and had sex, you never
displayed either heterosexual or homosexual behavior. Imagine the
tension your partner was under.

I think Turner has an overinflated opinion of himself.

[Turner]

Au contraire, I just have a very low opinion of Bagel.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 9:14:57 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

I've heard people talking about it.  "So and so is confused;  he thinks
he might be gay".  "So and so decided he's not gay after all,  he likes
girls". 

 

LL: In other words he wasn't gay.No choice was involved.

 

 

JBT: A person like that who perhaps has predispositions will be

influenced by environment.  (who they're hanging around, etc) 

 

LL: Untrue. A person is either gay or not. The only  decision is whether he/she will admit it.

 

JBT: A major environmental factor is the general acceptance or rejection of

homosexuality in the culture.  That explains why the percentage of
homosexuals is not constant accross cultures and eras.  Entire cultures
decide whether they accept or reject homosexuality.>

 

LL: That has nothing to do with how many homosexuals there are in any culture. It only affects how many homosexuals admit to their homosexuality.

 

Where do you get your information?

 

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 9:17:43 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

Being a hetero or homosexual is not a behavior.  Having hetero or homo
sex is.

LL: You are revealing your lack of intelligence. You are saying you engage in heterosexual behavior--as do many homosexuals. That tells nothing of what your orientation is and I'm beginning to suspect that it's all an act on your part, since you keep on insisting it is.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 9:42:16 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, hu...@whoever.com writes:

I think Turner has an overinflated opinion of himself.

LL: I agree. He thinks his heterosexual behavior and anti-homosexual words mean he is a heterosexual. Someone who protests that much is hiding something.

[Turner]

You're right. I want you, LL. There, you got me to say it. I can't
stand hiding this anymore. I want you, need you passionately. I want to
rub my man-rod all over your naked, greased-up chest. Your incisive
debating style gets me so hot. RAVISH ME, LL!!

[Kat]

Oooo, hot topic. If we were all atheists, then there would, I suspect,
be no discussion. Come on, give us poor, deluded fools credit for at
least spicing up your existence.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/24/2006 10:22:48 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lordla...@gmail.com writes:

You're right. I want you, LL. There, you got me to say it. I can't
stand hiding this anymore. I want you, need you passionately. I want to
rub my man-rod all over your naked, greased-up chest. Your incisive
debating style gets me so hot. RAVISH ME, LL!!

LL: You have no idea how funny that is.

[Turner]

Don't do this to me, LL. I can't take you laughing at me, it crushes
me. Don't you realize we were made (through a completely natural
evolutionary process, of course) for each other? Let's stop this silly
dance and give ourselves to each other, utterly, completely, without
reserve.

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:

> Simpleton wrote:
> >
> > BTW 20.69% chances of him being gay does not mean that he was 20.69%
> > gay.
>
> The idea that you can calculate the odds of someone being gay with such
> precision is just laughable. Just because someone supports a notion
> with a statistic doesn't mean it's valid. This one is obviously
> ridiculous.

I contend that you don't understand probability.

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:
>
> That reminds me of the new fad; whereby we call Alchoholism a disease.
> A few decades ago a guy was a drunk bum, now he suffers from a
> disease. It excuses the behaviour. Homosexuality is similar in that
> there are undoubtedly predispositions to it, but it is still a
> BEHAVIOUR. People make the choice to be homosexual; I've seen it
> happen. Some eventually make the choice to go straight again.

So each and every day you resist the siren song of hairy man-ass.
Congratulations, I guess. Personally I'm hardwired with an attraction
to women.

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:
>
> I've heard people talking about it. "So and so is confused; he thinks
> he might be gay". "So and so decided he's not gay after all, he likes
> girls". A person like that who perhaps has predispositions will be
> influenced by environment. (who they're hanging around, etc) A major
> environmental factor is the general acceptance or rejection of
> homosexuality in the culture. That explains why the percentage of
> homosexuals is not constant accross cultures and eras. Entire cultures
> decide whether they accept or reject homosexuality.

It sucks to be you (literally, perhaps). Personally, NO amount of
environmental influence could cause to to dabble in men. If you're
thinking about dabbling, then you're gay. Not that there's anything
wrong with that. Perhaps you should mention your "predispositions" to a
counselor....

[Bagel]

Doesn't it depend on what kind of bagel I am? Am I a pumpernickel
bagel with scrambled egg and havarti, or am I a chopped liver bagel?

[Turner]

I've met salt bagels before and you, sir, are no salt bagel.

[Bagel]

He was the one who claimed that the odds could be computed. I asked
him to go ahead and make the computation to reveal how stupid it was.
In my grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large, yet
the percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today. That
simple fact completely refutes the male sibling connection.

[Bagel]

Wrong again. What I don't understand is that supposedly educated
people could believe in a link between older male siblings and
homosexuality that is so precise that it can be computed with a
probability statistic.

[Simpleton]

No one educated is making such a claim. Which only leaves the
supposedly educated.

I agree with Jeff, you do not understand probability.

[Simpleton]

My guess is that you are a fruity bagel. With an estimated probability
of about 20.69% on the fruit part.

Do I win the toaster?

[Simpleton]

- Show quoted text -

He did. Rather easily.

> I asked
> him to go ahead and make the computation to reveal how stupid it was.

How is the computation stupid?

> In my grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large, yet
> the percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today.

That may or may not be true, but you need more data to conclude this:

> That simple fact completely refutes the male sibling connection.

- You need to account for how many actually came and admitted in those
times
- The study that Jeff mentions, which may or may not be validated yet,
but has some evidence.

It refutes the appearance that you understand probability.

When you toss a coin, the odds of getting heads or tail is each 50%.
You cannot conclude based on 20 coin flips in which you got 14 heads,
and 6 tails, that the premise is wrong.

Again 20.69% chances of your grandpa being gay does not mean he was
20.69% gay.

[Des]

Bagel wrote:
> Wrong again. What I don't understand is that supposedly educated
> people could believe in a link between older male siblings and
> homosexuality that is so precise that it can be computed with a
> probability statistic.

You completely misunderstand how these studies work. The probability is
computed by looking at what is currently the case. They take a large
enough sample and determine what percentage are homosexual (by whatever
standard the study proposes) and compare the occurrences of
homosexuality in the different family structures. This is the
statistic. It is only indicitive of the situation at the time the study
was performed. It cannot be wrong as such unless there was a fault in
the study or you disagree with the basic concepts of sampling (I would
like to hear you argue that one) or the very basic mathematics
involved. The bigger the sample the more accurate it will be. It is not
a prediction, although simple common sense would not expect it to
change day to day. The probability is rather high for statistical error
to be the cause. Do you propose a specific fault with the study or do
you just not like the result?

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:
> In my grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large, yet
> the percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today. That
> simple fact completely refutes the male sibling connection.

Do you have any reality-based evidence to support this "fact"?

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
> >
> > I contend that you don't understand probability.
>
> Wrong again. What I don't understand is that supposedly educated
> people could believe in a link between older male siblings and
> homosexuality that is so precise that it can be computed with a
> probability statistic.

Thank you. That statement perfectly demonstrates my point.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 6:31:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, joes...@gmail.com writes:

So each and every day you resist the siren song of hairy man-ass.
Congratulations, I guess. Personally I'm hardwired with an attraction
to women.

LL: Good point. I, too, am attracted to the opposite sex and I've never had to "struggle" with an attraction to the same sex. I've never felt it. The idea that anyone calling him/herself heterosexual who feels the need to engage in this "struggle" sounds pretty weird to me. If my sexual attraction caused me to struggle in that way, I'd worry a lot about what my actual orientation is.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 6:37:09 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, joes...@gmail.com writes:

It sucks to be you (literally, perhaps). Personally, NO amount of
environmental influence could cause to to dabble in men. If you're
thinking about dabbling, then you're gay. Not that there's anything
wrong with that. Perhaps you should mention your "predispositions" to a
counselor....

LL: And his partner(s).

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:05:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

Doesn't it depend on what kind of bagel I am?  Am I a pumpernickel
bagel with scrambled egg and havarti,  or am I a chopped liver bagel?

LL: We can't tell you your bagel orientation. Only you can do that, but be honest with yourself about your bagelness.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

In my grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large,  yet
the percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today.  That
simple fact completely refutes the male sibling connection.

LL: I made this point before, but you chose to ignore it. The percentage of homosexuals in any society has always been constant. The percentage of those willing to admit their homosexual orientation is what changes.

[Bagel]

I doubt if the study has been accurately reported here in this post.
No one but the idiots in here would believe that the probability
increases at a fixed percentage per additional male older sibling. You
see, the trouble is that I DO understand probability. As they say,
figures don't lie, but liars figure.

[Bagel]

OK, I admit it. I've been struggling with the scrambled egg - havarti
orientation, but it turns out I have a gene that forces me to be a
chopped liver bagel. I'm coming out.
>
> -------------------------------1153858014
> Content-Type: text/html
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1121
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY id=3Drole_body=20
> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #008040; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman Balti=
> c"=20
> bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
> e_document=20
> face=3D"Times New Roman Baltic" color=3D#008040 size=3D3>
> <DIV>
> <DIV>In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:05:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20
> JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><FONT=20
> style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=
> =3D2>Doesn't=20
> it depend on what kind of bagel I am?&nbsp; Am I a pumpernickel<BR>bagel w=
> ith=20
> scrambled egg and havarti,&nbsp; or am I a chopped liver=20
> bagel?<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>LL: We can't tell you your bagel orientation. Only you can do t=
> hat,=20
> but be honest with yourself about your=20
> bagelness.</STRONG></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> -------------------------------1153858014--

[Bagel]

That's the company line, but I don't believe it.
>
> -------------------------------1153858097
> Content-Type: text/html
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1292

>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
> <HTML><HEAD>
> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUS-ASCII">
> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2912" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
> <BODY id=3Drole_body=20
> style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #008040; FONT-FAMILY: Times New Roman Balti=
> c"=20
> bottomMargin=3D7 leftMargin=3D7 topMargin=3D7 rightMargin=3D7><FONT id=3Drol=
> e_document=20
> face=3D"Times New Roman Baltic" color=3D#008040 size=3D3>
> <DIV>

> <DIV>In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,=20

> JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:</DIV>
> <BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px"><FONT=20
> style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=3DArial color=3D#000000 size=

> =3D2>In my=20
> grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large,&nbsp; yet<BR>t=
> he=20
> percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today.&nbsp; That<BR>si=
> mple=20
> fact completely refutes the male sibling=20
> connection.<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
> <DIV></DIV>
> <DIV><STRONG>LL: I made this point before, but you chose to ignore it. The=20
> percentage of homosexuals in any society has always been constant. The=20
> percentage of those willing to admit their homosexual orientation is what=20
> changes.</STRONG></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>
>
> -------------------------------1153858097--

[Msgt_Billy]

Bagel wrote:

> That's the company line, but I don't believe it.

If you deny the facts, it doesn't negate them.

The biology of becoming gay is involved in the hormonal accidents that
occur after conception. Things don't work out the same way every time:

Every human embryo is programmed to become female, unless something
alters the process. Each fetus contains a Wolffian duct, a Mullerian
duct, a sex gland and a genital tubercle. If an embryo has two X
chromosomes, the Mullerian duct, the sex gland, and genital tubercle
develop automatically, without the aid of special hormones, into female
reproductive and sexual organs, while the Wolffian duct shrivels up,
leaving only remnants behind. But, it is quite a different story if the
embryo has both X and Y chromosomes. The road to maleness begins with a
brief signal from the SRY gene on the Y chromosome during the sixth or
seventh week of fetal development, which triggers other genes. One gene
carries the code for a protein, which causes the sex gland and genital
tubercle to develop into male sexual organs. But males also need
testosterone to develop the Wolffian duct and another hormone, called
MIH (Mullerian Inhibition Hormone), which causes the Mullerian duct to
wither. Both of these hormones are regulated by the TDF gene on the Y
chromosome. Becoming male is actually a transformation of the "normal"
process of development. Sometimes it doesn't happen. Sexuality
differentiation also occurs in the brain. The brain is sexed during by
the same hormones at about twenty weeks after conception. It is then
that a person becomes gay... or not. Wider and more improperly timed
swings in these hormones cause development of ambiguous genitalia and
mental sexuality. About once in 2000 times, a true intersexual
(hermaphrodite) is born.

I don't want to hear any more uneducated, unsophisticated bullshit
about "preference." Do you think these folks "prefer" to be harassed
and the target of incessant ignorant ridicule? If you want to base your
bias on religiously sponsored ignorance, I suggest you keep it to
yourself. It makes you sound troglodytic.

Billy

[Bagel]

So Billy, are you trying to tell us in your scientific way that your
dick dropped off?

Seriously, you are VERY cofident in your scientific theory of this,
aren't you? Let me remind you that there are two kinds and only two
kinds of theories:

1) Those that have been disproven, and
2) Those that have yet to be disproven

And who is ridiculing them? Not me.

[Simpleton]

If he was, you wouldn't understand it.

And why are you so fixated with the male reproductive organ?

> Seriously, you are VERY cofident in your scientific theory of this,
> aren't you? Let me remind you that there are two kinds and only two
> kinds of theories:
>
> 1) Those that have been disproven, and
> 2) Those that have yet to be disproven
>

Now I'd suggest that you do not understand what a theory is. In
addition to probability.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:56:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:

That's the company line,  but I don't believe it.

LL: Suit yourself. I agree with the scientists studying this.

[LLPENS@aol.com]

In a message dated 7/25/2006 8:26:58 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, wbr...@new.rr.com writes:

I don't want to hear any more uneducated, unsophisticated bullshit
about "preference." Do you think these folks "prefer" to be harassed
and the target of incessant ignorant ridicule? If you want to base your
bias on religiously sponsored ignorance, I suggest you keep it to
yourself. It makes you sound troglodytic.

Hear, hear!

[Des]

Bagel wrote:
> I doubt if the study has been accurately reported here in this post.
> No one but the idiots in here would believe that the probability
> increases at a fixed percentage per additional male older sibling. You
> see, the trouble is that I DO understand probability. As they say,
> figures don't lie, but liars figure.

I'm not sure why you are so against this being true. The study will be
subject to all the usual checks. Do you not believe all studies or is
there some reason that the result of this one makes you so doubtful?
What do you think are the scientists motives to lie in this case? Why
is an equal probability of homosexuality preferable to you? Without
addressing your doubts Bagel you are just making assertions rather than
debating. Give me some specifics.

The reasons for homosexuality are still in doubt. Its really a nature
versus nurture debate and it doesn't seem especially unlikely to me
that the results are real. It could be some biological or chemical
change in the mother after the first child or something to do with
growing up with a same sex person of a similar age (or possibly both).
In fact as I remember they did determine that the same statistic did
not hold true if the sibling was adopted which tends to infer a
biological link.

[Jeff]

Bagel wrote:
>
> I doubt if the study has been accurately reported here in this post.
> No one but the idiots in here would believe that the probability
> increases at a fixed percentage per additional male older sibling. You
> see, the trouble is that I DO understand probability. As they say,
> figures don't lie, but liars figure.

Babies are produced incrementally, why should an incremental change in
a corresponding probability surprise you? Beyond your difficulty with
math, we find another with problem-solving as you conflate group-level
with individual-level analysis. The descriptor in question is not
voided simply because you believe you've found an individual exception
to a group condition.

Nobody wants to change your faith-based beliefs but if you want to
challenge reality-based analysis then you should rebut with something
more substantial than a well-worn cliche. What's the point in playing
this game? A belief requires nothing but personal faith. Believe
whatever you like but leave analysis to the reality-based community.

[Turner]

Bagel wrote:
> LLP...@aol.com wrote:
> > In a message dated 7/25/2006 7:10:26 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> > JBTw...@yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > In my grandfather's generation families tended to be quite large, yet
> > the percentage of homosexuals was much less than it is today. That
> > simple fact completely refutes the male sibling connection.
> >
> >
> >
> > LL: I made this point before, but you chose to ignore it. The percentage of
> > homosexuals in any society has always been constant. The percentage of those
> > willing to admit their homosexual orientation is what changes.
>
> That's the company line, but I don't believe it.

Fortunately for everyone, reality does not depend on what you, Bagel,
believe or don't believe.