# Gay Activists to Protest



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2008)

*Gay activists to protest Orlando event, notion that homosexuality is 'curable'*

  Jeff Kunerth |Sentinel Staff Writer June 6, 2008Orlando Sentinel Story
Excerpt:




  Gay activists and clergy are planning a silent protest Saturday morning outside a conference of ex-gays who contend homosexuality can be cured by religious counseling.

 The conference, called "Love Won Out" and sponsored by the conservative Colorado-based Christian organization Focus on the Family, has sparked controversy and outrage with several billboards in Orlando and other cities that host the traveling event. The billboards declare: "I Questioned Homosexuality and discovered love won out." The group's message is that change is possible.

 "For gays, this is the same as saying you don't have to be black, you don't have to be Jewish," said Wayne Besen, executive director of TruthWinsOut.org, a Brooklyn-based gay advocacy group. "They represent us as broken and incomplete people."

 Protesters, organized by Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays, will meet outside First Presbyterian Church in Orlando, where organizers say the conference is expected to draw about 500 participants. The conference coincides with Gay Days, which annually attracts thousands of gays to Orlando and Disney World.
(((END EXCERPT)))
Don't you just love their respect for freedom of speech?


> "For gays, this is the same as saying you don't have to be black, you don't have to be Jewish,"


 What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 7, 2008)

Some people and groups will never learn.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Don't you just love their respect for freedom of speech?


 
Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and nobody can oppose you, just that the government can't shut you up.  The gay rights activists here aren't trying to have the government shut down this Focus on the Family event, they're just protesting it.  Both groups have the right to speak, and the right to speak BACK.



> What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...


 
Ah, this can of worms.  Apparently, Mr. Besen disagrees with you on whether homosexuality is a choice--I won't offer my opinion, because I'm not gay and I haven't done extensive reading into the issue.  I certainly don't regard my being straight as a choice, just how I am.  However, if some group put together a rally to say "You don't have to be Christian (or Jewish, or Pagan, what have you), look, these people got over it!", there would be quite the vehement response.  What's the difference?


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2008)

the gay activist absolutely have the right to protest the event, but that shouldnt cause the event to be shut down.


----------



## Omar B (Jun 7, 2008)

Hell yeah protest.  By what right does a religious organization think it's their duty to fix people who do not fit into their narrow view of the world, love and sex.  Sexual orientation is not a choice and no amount of praying is gonna purge you of it,  just the same as no amount of praying will change your skin color or weight or whaterver else. 

Live and let live.  Gays don't cause you phisical or financial harm so I don't see why you should take up something that has absoulutly nothing to do with you and your existence upon your own head.  

I love and enjoy my gay friends and would not chance them one iota.  Love's beautiful thing wherever you see it and no matter the shape it takes.


----------



## Ray (Jun 7, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want and nobody can oppose you, just that the government can't shut you up.  The gay rights activists here aren't trying to have the government shut down this Focus on the Family event, they're just protesting it.  Both groups have the right to speak, and the right to speak BACK.


I too agree with the right of the people to hold divergent views and to articulate them; so long as they don't disagree with me.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 7, 2008)

Guess these folks decided to just ignore that part of the Bible that says " Judge not, lest ye be judged...".


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do.



So, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> *Gay activists to protest Orlando event, notion that homosexuality is 'curable'*. The conference coincides with Gay Days, which annually attracts thousands of gays to Orlando and Disney World.


 
Seems kind of deliberately provocative to me, having the conference coincide with _Gay Days_, but I guess that's kind of the point of freedom of speech.



Big Don said:


> Don't you just love their respect for freedom of speech?


 
Ironically enough, see above.



Big Don said:


> What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...


 
Well, I'm black-I kind of have a choice...maybe 'cause I'm _kind of black_. I have a kind of African name, genetically confused hair, and peanut-butter colored skin. I've been taken for black, American Indian and Polynesian  (Samoan, Hawaiian, etc...) all correcty. Labels like "black" should mean less and less all the time.....and apparently do.

....heck, some black people argue that Barack Obama isn't "black." :lol:

As for whether or not gays have a choice....well,I dunno. I've known about girls since kindergarten. Knew there was "something" I wanted to do with them since 1st grade-didn't know what it was, just knew it was something......can't imagine "choosing" to have sex with men anymore than I can "choosing" to be white. Know enough gay people who relate similar things about their pre-sexual feelings for the _same sex_ in childhood-including my daughter-to know that I'm on to something there.

Hell, Don, how much money would *you* take to "choose" to have sex with another man? :lol:

Would you have sex with Mike Tyson for a million dollars? Two million dollars? :lol:

Maybe Michael Jackson??

Lastly, most of the science being done indicates that homosexuality has at least a genetic component, if not genetic causes. Of course, those "scientists" are the same ones that say that global climate change has a man made component, that oil is a finite resource that we'll ultimately run out of, and that sometimes say (_usually_ say, if they're not from the U.S.A.) that there is no God, so they must be wrong......


----------



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> So, you could wake up tomorrow and choose to be attracted to men?


Is your gaydar so strong that you can spot them behind walls?
A black person is obviously black, to all those who see him, in this, he has no choice. To claim a gay person is the same is foolish, no one can read minds, ergo, unless the gay person CHOOSES to let everyone around him KNOW he is gay, no one knows. That is a significant difference.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Is your gaydar so strong that you can spot them behind walls?
> A black person is obviously black, to all those who see him, in this, he has no choice. To claim a gay person is the same is foolish, no one can read minds, ergo, unless the gay person CHOOSES to let everyone around him KNOW he is gay, no one knows. That is a significant difference.


 

THat's what you meant? I guess you're sort of right.

Of course, people immediately know I'm heterosexual when I show up holding my beautiful wife's hand, which, after ten years, we're still pretty silly about. Heck, I sing to her in public-show tunes, sometimes-some people think that's pretty gay, but she likes it, and the first rone of the rules of a good marriage is to find out what your partner wants and give it to them...:lol:

I guess gay people shouldn't hold hands.

At work, I have pictures on my desk: son, daughter, son &daughter in law, daughter & partner, wife, me & wife.....anyone can clearly see from the pictures that since I sired children and have a wife, I must be, ostensibly, heterosexual....

Guess gay people shouldn't have photographs at work..

I throw a lot of parties, and we get invited to a few. Everyone can clearly see that we're together, at our house or elsewhere....

Guess gay people should stay home, and not have anyone over....

Ditto restaruants, shopping, gas stations, church, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Is your gaydar so strong that you can spot them behind walls?
> A black person is obviously black, to all those who see him, in this, he has no choice. To claim a gay person is the same is foolish, no one can read minds, ergo, unless the gay person CHOOSES to let everyone around him KNOW he is gay, no one knows. That is a significant difference.



I see what you mean now, but you are still wrong on the merits.  It is still a question of identity and freedom, just like being black or Jewish.  Actually, Jewish is a good comparison which the person in the article mentioned and you ignored, since there are no obvious physical signs that one must be Jewish.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> THat's what you meant? I guess you're sort of right.
> 
> Of course, people immediately know I'm heterosexual when I show up holding my beautiful wife's hand, which, after ten years, we're still pretty silly about.


 are you compelled to? or do you have a CHOICE?





> Heck, I sing to her in public-show tunes, sometimes-some people think that's pretty gay, but she likes it, and the first rone of the rules of a good marriage is to find out what your partner wants and give it to them...:lol:


But, you do these things BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO





> I guess gay people shouldn't hold hands.
> 
> At work, I have pictures on my desk: son, daughter, son &daughter in law, daughter & partner, wife, me & wife.....anyone can clearly see from the pictures that since I sired children and have a wife, I must be, ostensibly, heterosexual....
> 
> ...


Yeah, you have to pity gay people, they have no control over their behavior... Oh, that wasn't what you meant? How odd, that is the implication you made.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Is your gaydar so strong that you can spot them behind walls?
> A black person is obviously black, to all those who see him, in this, he has no choice. To claim a gay person is the same is foolish, no one can read minds, ergo, unless the gay person CHOOSES to let everyone around him KNOW he is gay, no one knows. That is a significant difference.


 
Y'know, this would be a relevant point if we were talking about, say, an employment discrimination situation, where whether the gay person chooses to display their orientation would be a factor.  However, the issue we were discussing was _being gay_, not _displaying _being gay.  The Focus on the Family rally in this thread is addressing all homosexuals, whether they be in the closet, out but private about it, or flagrantly displaying their sexuality in a pink suit jacket and stilletos(sp?).  A subtle distinction (I guess), but an important one.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Jun 7, 2008)

Well let's see what being gay in this country gets you:

*Religious condemnation

*Public scorn

*Targeted for hate crimes

*Social ostracism still persists in many places.


Given this environment, common sense alone would beg the question:

If being gay was just a "choice" one could "make" why the hell would anyone CHOOSE it?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> are you compelled to? or do you have a CHOICE?But, you do these things BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO
> Yeah, you have to pity gay people, they have no control over their behavior... Oh, that wasn't what you meant? How odd, that is the implication you made.


 
So, what you're shouting is that gay people shouldn't choose to hold hands, have photographs, go out in public together at all, have people over to their house, etc., etc., etc.? That they shouldn't choose to exercise the same basic interactions than the rest of us, because...why,exactly? Becuse their "deviant" behavior is contagious? Offensive?

I mean, sure, I choose to do those things, and I don't see why a gay person shouldn't choose to do those things-or has to choose to do those things-so I'm quite confused at this point, Don. 

Are you saying gay people are okay as long as they stay in the closet "where they belong?"

I honestly don't understand what you mean-you're gonna have to be clear.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well let's see what being gay in this country gets you:
> 
> *Religious condemnation
> 
> ...




Not so fast

it also gets you:

protected class status, making it much harder to fire you

your credit isnt good enough to get that car or apartment? just scream "gay bashing" and you get your way

last time I checked, gay was now in, thanks to will and grace,  queer eye,  sex and the city, etc, hollywood practicly preaches how cool gay is....


sure, the bad things you mentioned do happen, but less and less these days.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 7, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Not so fast
> 
> it also gets you:
> 
> protected class status, making it much harder to fire you


 
Bunk. Sexual Orientation has yet to be added to the Civil Rights Act; thus, if sexual orientation is a protected class, it is based on state decision, not federal. Besides, if you're fired for a legitimate reason (work sucks, you're always late, etc.), being gay won't help in the least.



> your credit isnt good enough to get that car or apartment? just scream "gay bashing" and you get your way


 
Show me any significant evidence that this occurs with any regularity. 



> last time I checked, gay was now in, thanks to will and grace, queer eye, sex and the city, etc, hollywood practicly preaches how cool gay is....


 
Many argue that such glamorization of homosexuals is actually damaging. As we speak, my sister is watching "Queer as Folk", and I gotta say, its presentation of gays is unbelievably skewed. I wouldn't be so quick to use those shows as examples of gay people not having it so bad.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 7, 2008)

Ive often wondered on the nature vs nurture end of the sexual preference debate:

If sexual preference is somthing wired into your genetics...

Why do we only "extend our tolerence" based on Gender preference?


----------



## BrandiJo (Jun 7, 2008)

Churchs as a whole try and fix things that aren't broken, and from what i have seen and heard and been told homosexuals, gay people, lesbians and  trans gender people are broken. But are they really? I mean who are we to look at another human and say you are more flawed them me I must fix you weather you think you need it or not? They might not be the creation that God had in mind when he created us back when (if you believe that~ i do but thats just me) but he didn't intend for death to come to us either, or sickness, or any other sin that we brought to our selfs. So why is this "sin" so much more terrible then the rest? why don't we have group healing sessions for the lairs, thieves, blasphemers, and those who take his name in vein? Why is this group such a focus? 

But they are a focus, and they have just as much right to be how they are as i have a right to be how i am, and i hope they do protest and i hope that someone gets the message.. they are no more broken then the rest of this world and i hope that the group holding these meetings speaks out too, but i hope they do it with love instead of hate...


and the whole nature verse nurture I'm not so sure where i stand on that and for protected rights and gay bashing people need to grow up. What they do in their bedrooms does not hurt you or anyone else so keep your noise out of it and be blissfully clueless.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 7, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> If sexual preference is somthing wired into your genetics...



I think the current thinking is that it's based more on womb conditions than genetics, though teher's likely some genetic component too.


----------



## Kacey (Jun 7, 2008)

Whether you regard homosexuality as a preference or not (and I don't; it is my opinion that, while some events and/or potential consequences can cause you to act against your inclination) that does not change the fact that what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes and lives is no ones' business but their own, and those whose inborn preferences are different from others are welcome to protest those who disagree with them - from either side.

As has been mentioned, homosexuality appears to have a genetic component as well as an environmental component.  Homosexual behavior has been seen in a wide variety of species, including our own.  The sanctions against homosexuality in various cultures have been so extreme that I have trouble believing that one would "choose" to be homosexual in light of the possible outcomes, up to and including being stoned or burned to death.  Why would one even experiment with such a "preference" in light of the possible consequences?  That homosexuality continues to occur at the same percentage over the centuries and throughout cultures indicates, to me at least, that there is very little of "preference" about it; else, homosexuality would have died out some time since.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Guess these folks decided to just ignore that part of the Bible that says " Judge not, lest ye be judged...".


 It doesn't mean let or encourage people to do what ever they want. This part of the bible is just as mis-used as "Eye for an eye"
Sean.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> So, what you're shouting is that gay people shouldn't choose to hold hands, have photographs, go out in public together at all, have people over to their house, etc., etc., etc.? That they shouldn't choose to exercise the same basic interactions than the rest of us, because...why,exactly? Becuse their "deviant" behavior is contagious? Offensive?
> 
> I mean, sure, I choose to do those things, and I don't see why a gay person shouldn't choose to do those things-or has to choose to do those things-so I'm quite confused at this point, Don.
> 
> ...


Not speaking for Don, but a common fear of the christian right is that their children will be led into unfavorable situations and subsequent choices.
Sean


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 7, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Is your gaydar so strong that you can spot them behind walls?
> A black person is obviously black, to all those who see him, in this, he has no choice. To claim a gay person is the same is foolish, no one can read minds, ergo, unless the gay person CHOOSES to let everyone around him KNOW he is gay, no one knows. That is a significant difference.


So Don ... when did you choose to be straight?  It's a choice, right? Or is anything except what you do naturally the "choice" of someone else?  What about the portion of the animal kingdom that exhibits exclusively homosexual behaviors? Do they make a choice? Because *I* thought choice was part and parcel of free will - that which The Lord Your God gave only to Man?

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean your emotional feelings towards something that clearly threatens you and frightens you can decide whether something is a choice in another person or not.



Big Don said:


> are you compelled to? or do you have a CHOICE?But, you do these things BECAUSE YOU CHOOSE TO
> Yeah, you have to pity gay people, they have no control over their behavior... Oh, that wasn't what you meant? How odd, that is the implication you made.


You chose to be hetero too, didn't you?  You're trying to align the exhibition of affection with innate sexual choice. My god, man, that's like saying you wear white tube socks with your sandals because you're caucasian ... it has no relevance or bearing. Couples who love and dare to exhibit modest affection with the love of their lives come in all sizes, shapes, colors and orientations.



Twin Fist said:


> Not so fast
> 
> it also gets you:
> 
> protected class status, making it much harder to fire you


That could only be said by a hetero who's never lost his job because he's hetero.  People play games, people get fired.



> your credit isnt good enough to get that car or apartment? just scream "gay bashing" and you get your way


Wow. You have a lot of hostility towards homosexuals. Why is that? 



> last time I checked, gay was now in, thanks to will and grace,  queer eye,  sex and the city, etc, hollywood practicly preaches how cool gay is....


Yeah. They used to preach how cool interracial marriages were ... and civil rights were ... and being overweight is ... and ... oh wait ... there's no value in any of those things either.

The entertainment industry is a study in human behavior; some of it positive, some of it negative, some of it neutral ... and the rest are a smattering of other things.  I think you're just jealous that Will is richer than you are. 




> sure, the bad things you mentioned do happen, but less and less these days.


Just like hangings and glass ceilings and nazi parades in Skokie ... still done but much less these days.  Martha sez it's a good thing.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 7, 2008)

Shesulsa,
dont try to read my mind, you sort of suck at it.

I have no hostility towards gays. I speak up in favor of gay marraige whenever it is brought up. I had no problems with the gay dude that was on my ship.

What I am hostile towards is falsehoods. 

it is a truism that human nature is human nature. And human nature is to play any advantage we can to get those things we require. Some Women use thier periods and or kids to get out of work and get time off. Some men call in sick to go hunting, some non-whites scream racism to get thier way. 

it would be foolish to think that members of other protected classes (real or percieved) didnt do the same thing.

We are all human beings and as such we are all subject to human nature. Some people dont stoop to that, but some people do

Besides, i am SOOO much prettier than Will.............Well, i am prettier than Jack..............well, ok, I have a bigger rack than Grace...........wait....


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Besides, i am SOOO much prettier than Will.............Well, i am prettier than Jack..............well, ok, I have a bigger rack than Grace...........wait....


 
Now you get it.....:lol:


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 7, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Not speaking for Don, but a common fear of the christian right is that their children will be led into unfavorable situations and subsequent choices.
> Sean


 

Why does it have to be Christian *right*?

Black Americans, who if understood as a group, are far from being on the right of the political spectrum. But, if they are Christian, they would be just as much against gay marriage as any Republican, or as some like to term them, right-wringers.

Love the little rhetorical shots though.  They show where someone is really coming from.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 7, 2008)

I made the choice to be straight the same time I chose my natural hair color, my eye color and my skin color. Oh wait, I didn't have any choice in those matters.

I did however choose what car to by, what color my hair is now, what beard style I'll have, and the color of my tie. 

I didn't choose what foods I enjoy, the rate of degeneration effecting my eyes, and my lactose intolerance. 

I did however choose which ice cream I ate yesterday, what over priced sandwich I had today, and which of my partners butt cheeks-if any-that I smacked tonight.

The fact that those butt cheeks were attached to a girl and not a guy was not my choice.

In fact, I suppose I could go both ways...except....
beards don't thrill me
I'm not really an *** man
I'm not into "danglys"
I like a womans shape more than a mans shape
I'm not into hairy chests
I'm not into having anything rammed into my ***, and the thought of it happening does not excite me.

At no point do I recall sitting down and thinking "Well, Steve has faboo abs, but Sheila's got those amazing tatas. Oh which one do I wanna rub my face into? It's soooo hard to decide." 

Steve's abs may just be faboo, but Mr. Happy could care less.
Shelia however has a much different effect on him.
She however doesn't care.
She's too busy jilling off to the SI swimsuit issue to notice me.

(fictional examples)


----------



## exile (Jun 8, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-exile
-MT Senior Moderator-


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 8, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Bunk. Sexual Orientation has yet to be added to the Civil Rights Act; thus, if sexual orientation is a protected class, it is based on state decision, not federal. Besides, if you're fired for a legitimate reason (work sucks, you're always late, etc.), being gay won't help in the least.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Was she watching the original British "Queer as Folk" or the American version? I believe there's a bit difference between them. The sense of humour for one thing lol! the British one is set in a Northern town so it's likely you'd need subtitles as Micheal Bisping did in TUF.
Yes deliberate thread drift there.

I don't believe being gay is something one chooses on a whim, I believe you don't have a choice but if you did, does it really matter? Can't you just respect someone for who they are anyway?

Twin Fist,
"Do not reproach your fellow for a blemish that is in you"  Rashi.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 9, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> Shesulsa,
> dont try to read my mind, you sort of suck at it.


Why, thank you, Doctor. :spock:



> I have no hostility towards gays. I speak up in favor of gay marraige whenever it is brought up. I had no problems with the gay dude that was on my ship.
> 
> What I am hostile towards is falsehoods.
> 
> ...


I really think the low-lifes who pull that crap are in the minority rather than the majority.  I feel rather confident in saying that there are far too many people whom have been injured financially and carreer-wise from their orientation than have profited from it.



> Besides, i am SOOO much prettier than Will.............


Please, NObody's prettier than Will.



> Well, i am prettier than Jack..............


Pretty is as pretty does.



> well, ok, I have a bigger rack than Grace...........wait....


Heh ... who doesn't?


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

> *Big Don Scribbled with his little crayon:*
> What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...



I agree Don. What a load of crap your comment here is. Ignorance and Stupidity in one small phobic package. How convenient of you.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well let's see what being gay in this country gets you:
> 
> *Religious condemnation
> 
> ...



All of the reasons that Andy lists above, I could see causing someone who is gay to want so very badly not to be.  Years of bashing and being told how wrong it is to have those feelings, fear of public ridicule, fear of losing ones family support could lead a gay person to turn to god for answers, spiritual healing and guidance.  Does it "cure" them, no, probably not its who they are.  Does it allow them to hopefully sleep better and without fear, could be.  Faith is an amazing thing.  So for those gays that feel they have been "cured" I say congratulations.  For those gays that feel they should be able to live in an open society, I say, yes you should.

The choice is always in the way you want to live your life and how far you are willing to go and what you are willing to sacrifice to get it.


----------



## Bester (Jun 10, 2008)

> "Can't you just respect someone for who they are anyway?"



Some "people" can't repect anyone unless they are clones of themselves.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 10, 2008)

Bester said:


> Some "people" can't repect anyone unless they are clones of themselves.


 
That's a rather ironic statement from someone who jumped in here (and every other thread in The Study) to call people ignorant and stupid for having beliefs that are different from yours.


----------



## Lisa (Jun 10, 2008)

Come on people this thread is about Gay activists and protesting not who is the bigger butthead and who can be the biggest butthead of all by calling someone else a butthead.

We have two schools of thought here.  People who believe one can be changed through prayer and those that feel they don't need to be.

Which is right?  Which is wrong?  and why?


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 10, 2008)

Bester said:


> I agree Don. What a load of crap your comment here is. Ignorance and Stupidity in one small phobic package. How convenient of you.



Ease up dude, before the Hammer of Mod comes thundering down and blasts this thread into oblivion.


----------



## terryl965 (Jun 10, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS:*

Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/sho...d.php?p=427486. Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.
This will serve as the final notice, so please keep the converstation at a respectful level.

Terry Stoker
 Senior Moderator


----------



## Kreth (Jun 10, 2008)

Lisa said:


> We have two schools of thought here.  People who believe one can be changed through prayer and those that feel they don't need to be.


Yeah, prayer worked so well for those pedophile priests. :uhoh:
And no, I'm not equating homosexuality with pedophilia.


----------



## tellner (Jun 11, 2008)

elder999 said:


> ....heck, some black people argue that Barack Obama isn't "black." :lol:



The only reason you laugh is the because you've been brought up to believe the old racist "drop of blood crap" that was at the core of the *spit* Confederate slave holder  *spit* ideology. When the disgusting trade in human flesh started in North America there was a serious problem. The filth engaged in it enjoyed raping their victims. 

There's nothing quite like tail that's absolutely powerless to stop you and can be tortured or killed at your whim. I happen to think it's repugnant, but a lot of guys seem to have been excited by the idea. The problem is that these women sometimes got pregnant which left a troubling problem. What do you do with the babies? You couldn't think of them as human beings. Why, that would mean that a darky's sprog was just as good as a White Child and might inherit or use its legal status to get itself and its mother out of slavery. Heaven forfend.

The solution was straightforward. White women having sex with Black men became the ultimate betrayal of the Race. It was unthinkable which led to an awful lot of Strange Fruit hanging from trees later on and the subject of an awful lot of porn to this day. In much the same way the insatiable Jew-slut was a staple of Nazi stroke books. White men having sex with Black women was fine as long as it was done discreetly. 

The babies were dealt with by the simple expedient of saying that the tiniest bit of African genetic material made a person Black. Hence the "drop of blood" name. In some places this led to complicated systems of mulattoes, quadroons, "high yellow" and so on. But basically, the point was to ensure the purity of the White Race by denying the humanity or at least the privilege of being White to anyone with a trace of slave ancestry.

In South America it was different. White, Black and Indian are much looser and more defined by social roles than skin color with most people considering themselves vaguely mixed. I have a friend who spent eight years in Brazil doing Capoeira. He is paler than I am which is quite an accomplishment. But because of the kind of Portuguese he spoke, the job he had, his friends, neighborhood and the way he dressed he was Black by local standards. 

In Muslim countries the important thing was Islam. The children of a Muslim slave owner and his non-Muslim slave were generally raised as Muslims and freed because of it. 

There's just as much justification in saying that Obama is a White man with a Black father as saying that he's a Black man with a White mother. Your perception is the result of a very specific time in American history and no more obvious or natural than any other primitive taboo.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> The only reason you laugh is the because you've been brought up to believe the old racist "drop of blood crap" that was at the core of the *spit* Confederate slave holder *spit* ideology. .


 

I don't think so, but that's okay....."black" is a construct, I'll agree-hence my use of quotation marks around the very word in the preceding paragraph-as well as the preceding paragraph itself:



			
				el Brujo de la Cueva said:
			
		

> Well, I'm black-I kind of have a choice...maybe 'cause I'm kind of black. I have a kind of African name, genetically confused hair, and peanut-butter colored skin. I've been taken for black, American Indian and Polynesian (Samoan, Hawaiian, etc...) all correcty. Labels like "black" should mean less and less all the time.....and apparently do.





He "looks" more "black" than I do, and we both have African names.....in the end, in the America that we both have to walk around in the skins that we live in, it's how we look ....


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2008)

I shall continue to apply my skin moisturiser however every night, you know the one, it makes my skin darker day by day.
http://www.myshopping.com.au/PR--255782_Dove_Summer_Glow_Body_Lotion_Fair_To_Normal_Skin_250ml (Many other brands available of course as getting darker is very popular.

 Funny that isn't it? I would sit in the sun but we don't have a lot of it in North Yorkshire.


----------



## tellner (Jun 11, 2008)

Right Wingnuts love to prattle on about "protected categories" and "protected classes" without ever saying what that means or why it might be a good or bad thing. To hear them say it it means that everyone will undergo mandatory sodomy or gangsta rapping while the Communists pollute their precious bodily fluids and steal their jobs. 

If you look a little more closely the basic idea makes sense. Civil rights protections are only necessary when someone's are being violated. Gays, lesbians and let's not even get onto the subject of the transgendered are subject to harassment, vandalism, beating, rape and murder at the hands of their fellow citizens solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, what they do in their private lives and people's perception of those facts. That certainly cries out for some kind of special attention to their plight.

The attempt to redefine women, Jews and Africans as human beings has not been completely successful. But great strides have been made. A lot of it required busting down old barriers and passing laws that wouldn't allow people to deny them a seat at a table, a job, a place in school or a home based on their sex, their ancestry or the color of their skin. 

The same people who bleat in terror at the thought of two women getting married are the quickest to turn rabid in defense of the special privileges of their own unnatural chosen lifestyle. Religion, just to take a not at all random example, is a choice, not a condition you are born with. There's no gene which compels you to kneel and guzzle spoiled grape juice or chant "Hare Krishna". People change their religious orientation all the time. There is no move on the part of Conservatives to strip the churches of their tax-exempt splendor or stop them from recruiting and indoctrinating innocent children into their bizarre rituals.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> If you look a little more closely the basic idea makes sense. Civil rights protections are only necessary when someone's are being violated. Gays, lesbians and let's not even get onto the subject of the transgendered are subject to harassment, vandalism, beating, rape and murder at the hands of their fellow citizens solely on the basis of their sexual orientation, what they do in their private lives and people's perception of those facts. That certainly cries out for some kind of special attention to their plight.
> 
> The attempt to redefine women, Jews and Africans as human beings has not been completely successful. But great strides have been made. A lot of it required busting down old barriers and passing laws that wouldn't allow people to deny them a seat at a table, a job, a place in school or a home based on their sex, their ancestry or the color of their skin.


 
After reading these two posts I wounder as to your views on affrimative action. And, if in favor, should it be expanded to include members of the LGBT community.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 11, 2008)

tellner said:


> There's just as much justification in saying that Obama is a White man with a Black father as saying that he's a Black man with a White mother.



The people Elder is talking about didn't see Obama as "not black" because of his heritage.  They saw him as "not black" because he didn't share the cultural upbringing of black America.  Debra Dickerson made this argument explicitly.


----------



## tellner (Jun 11, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> After reading these two posts I wounder as to your views on affrimative action. And, if in favor, should it be expanded to include members of the LGBT community.



The rationale for affirmative action goes something like this:  

Certain groups of people have been disenfranchised socially and economically. Over many generations their ancestors have been denied the chance to achieve and compete in society. If this has been systematic the effects are worse. In effect, they have been taxed and penalized. 

Affirmative action is an attempt to quantify that penalty and provide something that counter its effect. Sometimes it has been done well. Sometimes it has been done poorly.   In essence it says "We realize that we have systematically taken from you what was or should have been yours. We wish to elevate you not to what you might have been but to the point where some of the effects of that theft are mitigated and you have close to the same shot at proving yourself that anyone else has."

Aboriginal peoples who have had their *treaty-guaranteed* lands, mineral wealth, water rights, health care and religion stolen should certainly be entitled to the value that was taken from them and the financial benefits they could have reasonably expected to get. An old proverb goes "He who sells what isn't his'n must buy it back or go to prison". That's why, with every new Administration there's the ritual holding of the Secretary of the Interior in contempt of Court when he or she fails to provide an accounting for Indian water, timber, uranium, oil leases and the Indian Health Care Service.

For four hundred years people almost all people of African descent were unable to profit from their own work. The fruits of their labor were systematically stolen from them. They were denied the right to the education, homestead land and other things by which people of European descent bettered their position. Even with the end of slavery there was more than a century of discrimination as official policy. To this day there is an abiding distrust of Africans in this country that stems from those policies to the point where mere skin pigment makes people question a man's ability to hold high government office. Affirmative Action for Africans was supposed to make up for that stolen wealth and allow entry where old methods of social control place an extra burden on them.

By any measure women have been subject to universal systematic discrimination in pretty much every sphere. It has cut across all economic, ethnic, religious and social classes. There are plenty of people alive today who lived in a time when women could not vote. In some parts of the country they could not own property, hold most jobs, enter into contracts or - again - all those other things which men enjoyed and which allowed men to manage their own affairs to their own benefit and accumulate the wealth that would naturally accrue from their work.

When I was a child I remember serious discussions as to whether a woman should be allowed into the professions if she were married, should female welders be considered welders or simply prostitutes and if it were proper for an unescorted woman to eat in a respectable restaurant. Until certain Supreme Court decisions and other laws married women were not permitted to own anything in their own names. In fact, they were considered extensions of their husbands for all legal purposes. There were and still are undeniable barriers to the entry of women into many fields and positions based solely on their gender. The point of Affirmative Action is to provide them not with everything that they might have had, but some reasonable approximation that allows women today a just chance to compete on the basis of their actual abilities rather than the unquestioned assumption of male superiority. 

Various groups of immigrants have suffered greater or lesser discrimination. "Man Wanted: No Irish Need Apply", The Anti-Chinese Society, questions about whether "Papists" could be loyal Americans and so on have all had their season. Once long ago I read old debates about the Sullivan Act. One of them which has some traction was the contention that it would keep guns out of the hands of "Jews, Italians and other criminals". 

My father and grandfathers were denied jobs and subject to educational quotas based on being Jewish. In those days "quota" meant that *no more than* a certain number of Jews was admitted to a university. The systematic effects of that oppression were really did not last more than forty years. And from the beginning Jews had access to intra-ethnic support and the ability to open legitimate businesses which they could own in communities which were permitted to support them. Capital was more difficult to acquire, but there were not artificial and official barriers to them gaining and using it.

In almost all cases it was short-lived. The people on the receiving end had their basic civil rights and could hold legal jobs, own property, enter into contracts, open businesses without legal restraint and accumulate and invest their property and labor as they saw fit. I would say, therefore, that Affirmative Action would not apply. These people were certainly sinned against, but it was transient and did not affect all of them collectively in a long-term systematic fashion. 

Glebits - my own collective term for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered - have certainly been on the receiving end of some pretty harsh treatment including imprisonment, execution, medieval torture disguised as medical treatment, rape, beating, vandalism and murder. But there is a difference. There have not been the same sort of multi-generational structures that steal the fruits of the labor of anyone who wasn't a Tab A in Slot B kind of person *and* all of their great-to-the-nth grandcestors. The children of Glebits do not suffer the effects of six or seven generations of inability to function in society, to benefit from their own work and so on taken away from them. The Glebit Tribe has never had its reservation lands taken and been forced to walk from Florida to Oklahoma at bayonet-point.

So I would say no. Affirmative Action as it has been traditionally understood would not be appropriate as a collective remedy for issues surrounding sexual orientation. Protections _against current discrimination_ in housing, public accommodation,  employment and firing, military service, marriage, adoption and a number of other things are only just. And insofar as Glebits are subject to all of these _as a group_ it's only acknowledging reality to recognize and deal with it the same way.

Ensuring that people are treated no worse or differently than anyone else is not the same as mandating that they be treated differently. The "Special Rights" that make the Family Values Crowd mindlessly screech about in terror are pretty reasonable . The queers want the right to marry free competent adults whom they choose to marry. They want the right to serve their country in the Armed Forces. They want to be able to take a job, rent an apartment, adopt a child, buy property or settle a spouse's affairs without the feat that should their membership in the Glebit Tribe become public knowledge it will be taken away. 

Compare that to just a few of the Special Rights that their strongest detractors enjoy and arrogantly demand as their natural due:

The right to decide who gets married to whom
Tax Exempt status for their meetings, their buildings and their attempts to indoctrinate people into their beliefs
The right to introduce their agents into the military at the country's expense and to proselytize soldiers
The right to stick both trotters into the Federal trough through the Office of Faith Based Initiatives including the right to use that money to lobby the government
The right to impose their beliefs on people who are seeking to buy medicine
The right to remove science from science classes and replace it with their un- and usually anti-scientific propaganda
The right to put people in jail for teaching science (cf. Scopes)
The right to put people in jail for expressing alternative beliefs - There are still blasphemy laws on the books in several places although they have been ruled unenforceable
The right to give their sexual taboos the force of law
The right to force people to stop their legal business and private affairs on some arbitrary days. Yes, there are still Sunday Closing laws in parts of the country
The right to dictate choices about divorce, hair style, clothing, and the suitability of other religions to enjoy the same status that they do

I could go on. If that's what they consider their natural due you can see why they fear "Special Rights". Fortunately, the Glebits aren't interested in that. They just want what regular non-Glebit citizens already have. If they try force through laws that make all single straight men subject to summary interior decoration and wardrobe consultation I will fight them to the last. We don't seem to be anywhere near that point :shrug:


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 11, 2008)

I thought of the justification as being more along the lines of "it's our only to repay you for 240 odd years of slavery and everything that went along with". And really, every group to come to the U.S. has dealt with some pretty serious issues with discrimantion and pseudo-slavery.

But, you do provide a few good justifactions for why to not include members of the LGBT community.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 12, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Why does it have to be Christian *right*?
> 
> Black Americans, who if understood as a group, are far from being on the right of the political spectrum. But, if they are Christian, they would be just as much against gay marriage as any Republican, or as some like to term them, right-wringers.
> 
> Love the little rhetorical shots though. They show where someone is really coming from.


Oh yeah, where is that?
sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 12, 2008)

Bester said:


> I agree Don. What a load of crap your comment here is. Ignorance and Stupidity in one small phobic package. How convenient of you.


No big deal but, there is a difference between behavior and race.
Sean


----------



## jim777 (Jun 12, 2008)

The first thing that popped into my head when seeing this thread was Mr. Show. Been there, done that!

[yt]lFo8NGO4nTA[/yt]


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Jun 12, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> Oh yeah, where is that?
> sean


 
It is an attempt, in this instance and by some, to show that the right are always on the wrong side of politics, while convienently ignoring that there are large segments of the political left who are against gay marriage as well.

It is an attempt to demonize the right, while ignoring others that hold a similar view, those who, on many other issues, hold the same ideas as the ones doing the demonization.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jun 19, 2008)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It is an attempt, in this instance and by some, to show that the right are always on the wrong side of politics, while convienently ignoring that there are large segments of the political left who are against gay marriage as well.
> 
> It is an attempt to demonize the right, while ignoring others that hold a similar view, those who, on many other issues, hold the same ideas as the ones doing the demonization.


Well I for one am making no attempt to demonize anybody. You have to realize that parents are aware of the simple MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO factor and want to limit there childs exposure to subcultures to which they don't approve. Calling them ignorant is... well... ignorant.
Sean


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 19, 2008)

I have heard the whole "no choice or born gay" argument.  I think it is a more complex issue than choice.

I have met many girls who thought being with another girl is the cool thing to do like on TV.  Are they gay?

I have met a few people who were abused as children (one of the theories out there) and are now gay.  Were they born that way, or did the abuse cause a severe trauma and "turned them gay" (I know the phrase isn't the best, it's the one I always hear in this scenario)?

I have also met people who just like sex anyway they can get it and would have it with both sexes.  Are they gay?

My thoughts on it.  I have friends that are gay, doesn't affect me at all.  I like them for who they are, and as they are.  Last time I checked, no one had died and left me charge.  So, if it is not hurting me, my family/friends or other people who am I to judge them?  If I am right and there is something else on the other side and we are responsible for what we do here on earth.  What happens to each person as they are judged does not involve me.  But, what DOES involve me, is how I treated people here on earth.  Did I show them kindness?  Did I treat them as if they were children of God, like me?  That is all I have to be concerned about.


----------



## JBrainard (Jun 19, 2008)

Big Don said:


> What a load of crap. Black people have NO CHOICE in whether people notice they are black. Gay people do. That, alone is a HUGE difference...


 
Sit right back and I'll tell you a tale...
My wife's best friend. She was raised fundamentalist Christian and remains one to this day. I have had many discussions / debates with her about Christianity over the years and I want to point out that she is strong in her convictions and faith, does not follow the "sheep" mentality of some churches, and is not a hypocrit when it comes to the teachings of Christ.
That's the set-up. The twist is that she is a lesbian. She has always been a lesbian. Being a very strong believer in her Church's views on homosexuals, she has gone through so much heartache over the years that it depresses me as I type this. *This is not something she chose. *She has always hated this part of her. So, a few years ago, she started to go to one of those "we'll turn you strait" Christian groups. She proclaims that she is now cured. The problem is that she isn't attracted to men, which makes it very hard to have a relationship with one. She will not admit to herself or to us that she is still, deep down, a lesbian. But it is so sadly obvious to anyone who knows her well. She has not had a relationship of any kind now for two years, and she is becoming suicidaly depressed. *If anyone doesn't want to be a homosexual, it's her.* After seeing all the pain and self hatred she has gone through, and the sad failure of her "turning strait," I find the opinion that homosexuals can "turn strait" offensive, insulting, and mean-hearted.
I'm sure there are people out there who are experimenting with their sexuality, calling themselves gay, and then, what do you know, being "turned strait" through Christ works. If that's what makes them happy, more power to them.
But, sorry folks, I've seen it with my own teary eyes, a true homosexual can't be unmade.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 19, 2008)

You can "cure" the ones who are playing at it. You might be able to "cure" the ones who like both genders but lack a real preference. I don't believe you can cure someone who is genetically wired that way. 

I'm wired straight. You can't "turn" me gay. I make the jokes about "well, maybe Legolas", but if you really think about it, it's a "girly man", not "Russ the Randy Roofer".  I'm just not 'wired' into being turned on by facial hair, a fuzzy chest, big pecks, and a body by Adonis. 
I've got a friend who on the other hand, likes all that and wish him well in finding it.

People need to realize that after all their fears, bigotry, hatred, and well meaning but misguided attempts to help, that in the end, you're dealing with another human being, with feelings and pain and heartbreak, just like us.  Maybe the world would be a better place if people stopped worrying about being right, and just worried about being.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 21, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm wired straight. You can't "turn" me gay. I make the jokes about "well, maybe Legolas", but if you really think about it, it's a "girly man", not "Russ the Randy Roofer". I'm just not 'wired' into being turned on by facial hair, a fuzzy chest, big pecks, and a body by Adonis.


 
Why do you have all those Russ The Randy Roofer Videos under your bed then? 

But seriously... I think their may be elements to this that go beyond genetics like Punsisher said above, but I won't completly discount genetics as playing a role... although we do try and blame Genetics for just about everything nowadays... Genetic pre-disposition to crime, genetic pre disposition to sexual gender preference, genetic predispostion to suicide: one has to wonder if everything really is genetic.  If so, could we not be genetically pre-dispositioned to Murder, and in that case, if its no longer a choice we can make should we be punished for it? Or if you want to take it back into the realm of sexual preference, Could only being attracted to having sex with minors be genetic, and if so, again, should those people who are "wired" that way be punished?  Obviously Murder, child abuse etc, have Victims, which simply having same-sex intercourse does not, but it does beg the question, how much of our behavior is truly genetic, and if it IS, how responsible should we be for it?


----------



## Kacey (Jun 21, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Why do you have all those Russ The Randy Roofer Videos under your bed then?
> 
> But seriously... I think their may be elements to this that go beyond genetics like Punsisher said above, but I won't completly discount genetics as playing a role... although we do try and blame Genetics for just about everything nowadays... Genetic pre-disposition to crime, genetic pre disposition to sexual gender preference, genetic predispostion to suicide: one has to wonder if everything really is genetic.  If so, could we not be genetically pre-dispositioned to Murder, and in that case, if its no longer a choice we can make should we be punished for it? Or if you want to take it back into the realm of sexual preference, Could only being attracted to having sex with minors be genetic, and if so, again, should those people who are "wired" that way be punished?  Obviously Murder, child abuse etc, have Victims, which simply having same-sex intercourse does not, but it does beg the question, how much of our behavior is truly genetic, and if it IS, how responsible should we be for it?



You cannot _choose_ who you are attracted to; that's determined by a genetic response to pheromones - that's why "chemistry" still plays such a big role in relationships, and why, no matter how carefully you are matched, people have to _meet_ people they are intellectually attracted to when using dating services, to see if they are really attracted to each other.  Homosexuality appears to have a genetic component - you can fight it, if you choose, and have intercourse with a heterosexual partner, certainly - but that won't change your response to pheromones.  In addition, homosexuality has been seen widely throughout the animal kingdom, as in this article from National Geographic:



> But, actually, some same-sex birds _do _do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.
> 
> Roy and Silo, two male chinstrap penguins at New York's Central Park Zoo have been inseparable for six years now. They display classic pair-bonding behaviorentwining of necks, mutual preening, flipper flapping, and the rest. They also have sex, while ignoring potential female mates.
> 
> ...


I seriously doubt that such behaviors (and there are more examples in the article) are cultural, or are the result of abuse or other actions in the animals' pasts - so to me, at least, it seems that there is a genetic component as well, which means there must be some kind of evolutionary payoff, or such seemingly counter-reproductive behavior would rapidly die off... or the species would.

As far as genetic predisposition to the other socially unacceptable behaviors you mention - that is what makes human society different from animal society; human society promotes rules that may run counter to individual predispositions, for the (supposed) good of society.  Whether or not the ultimate outcome of this is for the good of society is a topic for another thread.


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2008)

I'm reminded of a farmer with a prize rooster.
At least he used to be a prize rooster. He was getting on a bit, so the farmer decided to bring in some new blood.

The next day he came home with a big, bright, aggressive cockerel.

"Out of my way, Old Bird," said the new one, "I'm the rooster around here."

"Mebbe," came the reply, "But if you want those hens you'll have to prove you're better than me. What say we raise once around the farmyard?"

"You're on!"

And with that they were off. The first rooster started off fast, but the youngster started catching up. The older bird put on a burst of speed squawking and crowing.

The farmer came out of the house, blasted the younger bird with a shotgun and said

"I just can't figure it out. That's the fourth gay rooster I've brought home this year."


----------



## tellner (Jun 21, 2008)

And then, of course, there was the rabbit and his son. French Lops they were.

The young buck was all about getting to the does as quickly as possible with nothing more than a "Yippee!"

His father said "Ah, mon fils. It is not enough to have the does. You must_ make love_ to the does. Make them feel wanted. Make them passionate. And always be polite."

The younger rabbit was well brought up and respected his elders. So as the does lined up to be bred he added a little conversation....

"Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Ma PARDON PAPA! Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame. Bonjour Madame, Merci Madame...."


----------



## Gordon Nore (Jun 21, 2008)

Kacey said:


> ...it seems that there is a genetic component as well, which means there must be some kind of evolutionary payoff, or such seemingly counter-reproductive behavior would rapidly die off... or the species would...



Very well put. I suspect we'll discover in years to come that the progeny of the _epidemic_ of same-sex partnerships (biological or adoptive) are predominantly heterosexual, and the argument that homosexuality is a threat to the species will finally be laid to rest. Every gay person that I ever met was the product of a heterosexual union.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2008)

Kacey said:


> I seriously doubt that such behaviors (and there are more examples in the article) are cultural, or are the result of abuse or other actions in the animals' pasts - so to me, at least, it seems that there is a genetic component as well, which means there must be some kind of evolutionary payoff, or such seemingly counter-reproductive behavior would rapidly die off... or the species would.


 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's not, or that you are wrong, just musing out loud... If it was truly "genetic" and "counter reproductive" and that the traits would "breed out"... wouldn't that support the idea that environment and choice play some role in that lifestyle, which is why it not only exists but thrives?  

I can't help but think of a friend I have who is gay.  When he was very young, his mother died.  He was given over to the care of his grandmother, who then died not long after that.  So he was then sent to live with his father, and had an abusive stepmother.  Most of his friends seem to think, and I'm inclined to agree, that he is Gay because he has abandonment issues with women, and doesn't trust them.  Of course, we could all be way off base, but I'm inclined to believe that not all elements of Homosexuality are purely genetic, that there are psycological factors as well.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 22, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> If it was truly "genetic" and "counter reproductive" and that the traits would "breed out"... wouldn't that support the idea that environment and choice play some role in that lifestyle, which is why it not only exists but thrives?



No, not necessarily.  Some have advanced an evolutionary mechanism similar to the one proposed by Dawkins for altruism.  On the face of it, altruism would seem to make little genetic sense.  How would risking yourself for anyone other than your direct offspring help your genes survive?  Yet, we have direct evidence of genetic altruism in animals.  Dawkins hypothesized that sacrificing oneself for the group indirectly helps your genes in related individuals to survive, and thus would be evolutionarily selected for.  Some have made similar arguments for homosexuality in that a non-breeding homosexual would still help their genes survive in their relatives by acting as an unencumbered caregiver or altruist for the group.

Alternatively, carrying one or more genetic markers for homosexuality (it definitely is not single-gene) may confer other survival advantages.  This is the reason that the gene for sickle-cell anemia is so prevalent in populations of African descent - one copy of the gene confers resistance to malaria.  Perhaps something similar is working with homosexuality.

Or, the selection pressure on homosexuality just may not be enough to kill it off.  Selection is a random process, after all.  Many genes that have horrible effects (i.e. cystic fibrosis or similar) that kill off children young nevertheless still survive and kick around the gene pool.  With genes that have less selection pressure than these horrible diseases, these genes could easily stick around for a very long time.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

i think the real answer is that there is no "one answer" that fits for everyone.

some people choose, some dont.


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 22, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Alternatively, carrying one or more genetic markers for homosexuality (it definitely is not single-gene) may confer other survival advantages. This is the reason that the gene for sickle-cell anemia is so prevalent in populations of African descent - one copy of the gene confers resistance to malaria. Perhaps something similar is working with homosexuality.


 
This is what I've told several people who asked me for my views on such things (yes, people do ask). I tell them I think everyone is inherenitly bi-sexual, it's just a personal subconsioucous choice one way or anouther. And that this choice is so subconsious, that people wouldn't even notice. That this choice is effected by many things (mostly genes and psychological issues like what Cryo mentioned). But, if it's inherenit, it must have a purpose, right? Of course. There are many species of animals that can change there sex when there is too many of one in a breeding population. By changing there sex, they can help to stabilize the population, and keep there species alive. Maybe homosexuality/bisexuality is just our population begining to evolve to the same end. That we are evoliving a bisexual mentality to allow a similar end.

 Keep in mind, this is just my own geussing. So, what do I know?


----------



## Big Don (Jun 22, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I tell them I think everyone is inherenitly bi-sexual, it's just a personal subconsioucous choice one way or anouther.


One can't wait to see how that viewpoint goes over at the MCRD...


----------



## CuongNhuka (Jun 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> One can't wait to see how that viewpoint goes over at the MCRD...


 
It's a simple matter of NOT talking. Which is something I'm actually rather good at. You suck at it, but that's anouther matter.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

Steady, gentlemen.  It'd be a kindness if pointed words were not jabbed about.  Provocation is as frowned upon as the responses to that provocation.  

I've lost count of the amount of times it's been posted up that if someone 'winds your clock' then use the Ignore function.  That is the sole reason it exists i.e. so that, unlike in the real world, fundamental and insoluable personal differences can be simply made to disappear.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> It's a simple matter of NOT talking. Which is something I'm actually rather good at. You suck at it, but that's anouther matter.



uh, your post count is larger than Don's...............


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> I've lost count of the amount of times it's been posted up that if someone 'winds your clock' then use the Ignore function.  That is the sole reason it exists i.e. so that, unlike in the real world, fundamental and insoluable personal differences can be simply made to disappear.



that doesnt punish the antagonist


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, your post count is larger than Don's...............


He's also been here about two years longer.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

So true, *TF* but we're all grown-ups here and should have grown out of the need to snipe back at someone for taunting words.  

It's harder on-line than it is in the 3D world, I know; I find it very difficult at times to bite my tongue myself.

In the end, the board has functions for dealing with these conflicts.  *Ignore* and *RTM* are chief tools in the box for stopping _discourse_ from becoming _bickering_.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> He's also been here about two years longer.



you know, if i wanted facts, i would watch the news lady..................................%-}


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> In the end, the board has functions for dealing with these conflicts.  *Ignore* and *RTM* are chief tools in the box for stopping _discourse_ from becoming _bickering_.



but, bickering is FUN, and i might add, clears the air


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2008)

Or it just annoys the **** out of the rest of us who aren't involved in their repeated petty sqaubbles in every damn thread they post in.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> but, bickering is FUN, and i might add, clears the air


 
As *Cryo* just illustrated, it's not fun for everyone.  Also, it is most certainly not what MT terms and conditions tolerate.  

Mock arguments and 'snipes' between users who are friends is a different thing from one user sticking pins in another until they 'lose it'.  It isn't easy to seperate the two cases sometimes but in others (see above) it is very clear.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Or it just annoys the **** out of the rest of us who aren't involved in their repeated petty sqaubbles in every damn thread they post in.



To paraphrase the Kurgen

"ah Zombies...no sense of humor"

lol


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 22, 2008)

CuongNhuka said:


> I tell them I think everyone is inherenitly bi-sexual, it's just a personal subconsioucous choice one way or anouther.



Uh, that isn't at all what I said.  I was just exploring potential evolutionary mechanisms.



CuongNhuka said:


> But, if it's inherenit, it must have a purpose, right? Of course.



No, not at all.  This is a scientifically flawed method of reasoning.  Teleological (telos = purpose) reasoning is avoided at all costs in science.  There may be a reason that a gene is present, but it doesn't have an inherent "purpose."  To posit that it does is a violation of materialism, the basis of modern science.

Plus, there are a whole lot of things banging around biological systems with no real purpose.  Biology is not a "clean" system.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> To paraphrase the Kurgen



There can be only one!


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> To paraphrase the Kurgen
> 
> "ah Zombies...no sense of humor"
> 
> lol


 
You mean misquote, not paraphrase.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 22, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> uh, your post count is larger than Don's...............





shesulsa said:


> He's also been here about two years longer.





Twin Fist said:


> you know, if i wanted facts, i would watch the news lady..................................%-}



Now _that_ would be trolling ... baiting ... antagonistic sarcasm just to disrupt the thread.

So TF ... who do YOU think is cuter, Obama or McCain? :lol2:


----------



## Big Don (Jun 22, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> So TF ... who do YOU think is cuter, Obama or McCain? :lol2:


Well, that question is worthless without a picture of each to compare them.





Both are tall, in fairly good shape, look good in suits, 
McCain looks pretty damn old, mostly because he is.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 22, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> So TF ... who do YOU think is cuter, Obama or McCain? :lol2:



Well, Obama is skinny, so most likely a more limber fellow,,,,, but them McCain has age and experience, and if men are like women, they just get better in the sack as they get older, so I am gonna have to go for experience.......


----------



## tellner (Jun 22, 2008)

If I were gay I wouldn't be interested in either. They're both painfully straight.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 22, 2008)

tellner said:


> If I were gay I wouldn't be interested in either. They're both painfully straight.



But if the mike in Obama's hand was a penis... ZOMG!


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jun 23, 2008)

*ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please return to the original topic.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator *


----------

