# discrimination and Gay softball teams



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

Here is a story from the Sweetness and Light website about a court ruling about a gay softball league allowed to discriminate against straight softball players.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/gay-softball-limit-on-bi-players-okayed


----------



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2011)

So, it is *WRONG *to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preference *UNLESS *they are *HETEROSEXUAL*.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Big Don said:


> So, it is *WRONG *to discriminate against someone based on their sexual preference *UNLESS *they are *HETEROSEXUAL*.


 
this surprises you?
its generally thought of as ok at this point in time to discriminate against White people, straight people, conservative people, and upper class people.

If they are attacked its considered ok because they have it good, if anyone else is attacked its considered racist, sexist, some other ist..or just plain hate speech.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Gee, Gays discriminate against Heteros over softball and Heteros discriminate against Gays over marriage. Yup, I understand why you find it sooo bitchworthy. After all, softball is important, marriage is not.

Move along folks, no story here...

:barf:


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Gee, Gays discriminate against Heteros over softball and Heteros discriminate against Gays over marriage. Yup, I understand why you find it sooo bitchworthy. After all, softball is important, marriage is not.
> 
> Move along folks, no story here...
> 
> :barf:


 
no story here? insert whites in place of homosexuals and you have a whole different story.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> no story here? insert whites in place of homosexuals and you have a whole different story.


 I sure will, once you insert blacks in place of gays.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> I sure will, once you insert blacks in place of gays.


 
show me the proof that homosexuality is a birth trait instead of a lifestyle choice.

personally I could care less if homosexuals get married, I think its stupid for anyone to get married unless they hare planning on haviing a family, but thats a whole other discussion.
besides replace homosexuals with Blacks in the softball case, and you get the same thing... the majority of people will leave it alone, but make it white and whammo you automatically get people coming out throwing the nazi and KKK and aryan stereotypes around.
my problem is not that I want an all white baseball team, my problem is I want this crap to be looked at equally across the board, not just when it matches a certain groups agendas.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Here, I'll fulfill both of our requrements:



> SEATTLE  *A *black* softball organization that runs an annual tournament called the *Black* Softball World Series can keep its rule limiting the number of *white* players on each team, a federal judge has ruled*.
> *The decision came in a lawsuit filed by three men who say they were disqualified from the annual tournament because they werent* black *enough*.
> *They said in the suit filed last year that their teams second-place finish in the 2008 tournament in Washington state was nullified because they are* mixed-race*, not *black*, and thus their team exceeded the limit of two non-*black* players*.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Here, I'll fulfill both of our requrements:


 
Lol that is just so ridiculous for so many reasons... this country will never get over race as long as crap like that is going on..


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> show me the proof that homosexuality is a birth trait instead of a lifestyle choice.



Kallman in 1952 found a concordance rate of 100% of homosexuality between monozygotic (identical) twins (37 pairs); among dizygotic (fraternal) twins, the concordance rate was 11.5% (26 pairs).


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> Lol that is just so ridiculous for so many reasons... this country will never get over race as long as crap like that is going on..


 Absolutely! Which is why I can't figure out why your country is as ****ed up as it is over race.

And the original text wa from billcihak's link, just modified by me.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Kallman in 1952 found a concordance rate of 100% of homosexuality between monozygotic (identical) twins (37 pairs); among dizygotic (fraternal) twins, the concordance rate was 11.5% (26 pairs).


 
The problem with homosexual rights in America is solely because no group have proven that its a trait of birth... like race... things that are unable to be changed as much as another group may want you to change them. The vast majority of Americans believe Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, not a trait that a person is born with and can not change. I have said it for years, people fighting for homosexual rights are doing themselves the worst disservice possible in the way they are trying to fight for them. They are trying to use threatening tactics, trying to compare it to the black civil rights movement, trying to make people feel ashamed for denying homosexual rights, etc.. instead of just coming up with proof that its a trait of birth and going from there. Until that argument is satisfied the country will probably never have a majority support for homosexual rights, when it is proven I think a vast majority will support homosexual rights... of course you cant kill ignorance and stupidity but the remaining small portion of people who would deny it at that point would not matter.
At this point there is no proof. Only theories, and there are far to many cases of  "cured" homosexuals or homosexuals who changed their lifestyles and become heterosexual for anyone to believe anything other then what they are going to believe without hard proof. Your numbers? they mean nothing.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ...instead of just coming up with proof that its a trait of birth and going from there. ...Your numbers? they mean nothing.



:lol:  Your own reply demonstrates how futile providing proof is.  You asked for it, I provided it, and you _immediately _dismissed it, and I know you didn't read the paper first.

Your own words prove your argument wrong.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> :lol: Your own reply demonstrates how futile providing proof is. You asked for it, I provided it, and you _immediately _dismissed it, and I know you didn't read the paper first.
> 
> Your own words prove your argument wrong.


 
no those stats you gave prove nothing, even you could pick the study apart easily.. the people chosen were hand picked etc... 

You have no clue what my personal opinion is, and my personal opinion doesn't even matter. I live in California, I have homosexual students in martial arts, I have homosexual renters in my apartments, I have homosexual neighbors, I have homosexual friends...we dont hang out at the same clubs  haha I did vote against homosexual marriage here in California, but then again I think marriage period is to easy, to lightly taken, and I think the vast majority of people getting married shouldnt be getting married as it is... If I had my way government would be out of the marriage business all together, if there was a vote for removing the two I would vote for it, the fact remains until they say WHAM here is the gay gene..... there will not be proof. the study you gave is not proof, its a trend based on who they picked. Too many factors could invalidate such a small study. Like I said even you can easily pick it apart, you just choose not to, and I did not have to read about it to make that comment... show me the gay gene... thats what its going to take to prove it to America../shrug until then its a lifestyle choice in our country as much as you, me, or anyone else may agree or disagree about it.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Gee, Gays discriminate against Heteros over softball and Heteros discriminate against Gays over marriage.


 
OHHHH.  I get it.  There are reasons Discrimination IS ok.  Now, lets decide who gets to Pick.  I vote for Straight White Christian Males.  

*rolls eyes*


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> the study you gave is not proof, its a trend based on who they picked. Too many factors could invalidate such a small study.



How do you know?  You admitted yourself that you didn't read it, so you have *no idea *what the selection criteria or methodology was.  There are also other studies that show a range of heritabilities of homosexuality.  Did you bother searching for them?  If you have no problem with gays, why are you so eager to instantly dismiss the evidence out there without even looking at it first?



LuckyKBoxer said:


> show me the gay gene... thats what its going to take to prove it to America..



Here is where you show your ignorance of genetics.  There is no single "gay gene", that's been obvious for a long time, since homosexuals and their offspring do not display simple Mendelian inheritance.

That doesn't mean it isn't genetic though.  There is no single "hair color gene" either - do you deny that hair color is genetically determined?  Do the terms "incomplete penetrance" or "blended inheritance" mean anything to you?  If not, you have no idea what you are even asking for.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 5, 2011)

And for another thing, why is it important whether or not homosexuality is genetic before we establish basic rights and equal protection?  Would you claim we should be perfectly content to discriminate against gun owners or Catholics because that is a "choice" and not genetic either?

Free society anyone?


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> show me the proof that homosexuality is a birth trait instead of a lifestyle choice.


 
I think it's both.  I think there are people who are genetically predispositioned to it, I think there are some people who's psycology pushes them to it, (childhood abuse, neglect, etc) and I think there are people who pick it for the kink.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> How do you know? You admitted yourself that you didn't read it, so you have *no idea *what the selection criteria or methodology was. There are also other studies that show a range of heritabilities of homosexuality. Did you bother searching for them? If you have no problem with gays, why are you so eager to instantly dismiss the evidence out there without even looking at it first?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
stop making it personal...
I am talking in general. I have no problem with homosexuals having equal rights to me.
I swear some of you people can not have a discussion without getting all pissy and cranky.
like I said I dont have to see the article because such a limited group being used is able to be picked apart easily, and even you could do it even though you want to use it as your proof, its not proof and there is a reason for it. Its a neat little  research group to pull to try to make a point but its not proof of anything.
and no they do not have a gene for hair color but a couple genes, and while it does not explain all the different variations they are extremely close to having the answers, where as in homosexuality they have nothing at all. Thats the point, they are figuring out the genetic code and showing the codes for different aspects that people are born with and then narrowing it down... the real question in these studies is when they do finally narrow down certain genes for specific things how will they be able to manipulate them to make changes on purpose... some might be good... say genetic heart conditions, changing them to be healthy normal hearts... but in some others it will be a much different thing... say they find a violence gene... do they remove it and replace it or not? What if there is a homosexual gene or group of genes... do they allow it or alter it? But if Homosexuality is a trait of birth and not a lifestyle choice based on a genetic code, and say so is a gene that makes a a violent streak, how do you justify accepting one and not the other? like I said personally I could care less who does what as long as they do not effect me, change my lifestyle, or put their crap on my kids. I simply said until its proven the majority of americans are not going to accept it, and then if and when it is, what if other current "lifestyle" choices are as well.... and what if some of those that are currently considered criminal are proven to be as well.... do we accept them? Change them? eliminate them? or what?...but I am curious if they find homosexual genes so to speak to prove that its not a lifestyle choice, will they find genes that also make some people like blond hair, or green eyes, or big boobs, or big butts in a potential lifepartner?
lol


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Cryozombie said:


> OHHHH. I get it. There are reasons Discrimination IS ok. Now, lets decide who gets to Pick. I vote for Straight White Christian Males.
> 
> *rolls eyes*


I was going to reply to this, but rereading it I realized that your reply is ridiculous (not my first choice of word) enough that it doesn't even warrant one.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> And for another thing, why is it important whether or not homosexuality is genetic before we establish basic rights and equal protection? Would you claim we should be perfectly content to discriminate against gun owners or Catholics because that is a "choice" and not genetic either?
> 
> Free society anyone?


 
oh but we do discriminate against gun owners and catholics.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

Scott T said:


> Gee, Gays discriminate against Heteros over softball and Heteros discriminate against Gays over marriage. Yup, I understand why you find it sooo bitchworthy. After all, softball is important, marriage is not.
> 
> Move along folks, no story here...
> 
> :barf:



disagree, there is a story here, a big story

do as we say, not as we do


----------



## billc (Jun 5, 2011)

I just think the story is funny and explains a lot about the left.  When you see people today who compain about racism, or homophobia, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the others,  they are not complaining about dismcrimination really.  What they are really complaining about is that they aren't the ones who are ABLE to discriminate against others as easily.  If they were really against discrimination, whatever form it may take, they would be against all discrimination.  They aren't.  They simply want the roles reversed, as is shown in this article.


----------



## Blade96 (Jun 5, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I just think the story is funny and explains a lot about the left.  When you see people today who compain about racism, or homophobia, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the others,  they are not complaining about dismcrimination really.  What they are really complaining about is that they aren't the ones who are ABLE to discriminate against others as easily.  If they were really against discrimination, whatever form it may take, they would be against all discrimination.  They aren't.  They simply want the roles reversed, as is shown in this article.



a - people.

discrimination is discrimination, no matter who does it.


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> disagree, there is a story here, a big story
> 
> do as we say, not as we do


Every side is guilty of that particular philosophy, and every side has a tendency to forget that their particular side likes to apply it to others while believing they should be immune to it.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

IF it is bad to discriminate, it is ALWAYS bad


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> IF it is bad to discriminate, it is ALWAYS bad


 
Isn't it discrimination to blame the 'left' for everything even when the left isn't actually the left but the right or even the middle but is deemed the left because some wazzock in the media says it is?


----------



## Scott T (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> IF it is bad to discriminate, it is ALWAYS bad


Absolutely, whether it's based on religion, race, sexual orientation, or myriad other criteria.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Isn't it discrimination to blame the 'left' for everything



unless it is true

the truth is the ultimate defense


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> unless it is true
> 
> the truth is the ultimate defense


 
Well sometimes it's a matter of opinion. The American definition of a Liberal is very different from ours, our Liberals aren't on the left, they don't believe what your liberals believe in, ours are centre right. Do you include our Liberals in the definition of being left? If you do and you are claiming all Liberals are  left, it's not the truth at all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

I'd just like to end tax payer subsidization and preferential treatment to the Mormon Youth Movement's Anti-Gay Brigade, err I mean the Boy Scouts of America. But that's a different argument I think.  As to the choice vs wiring issue, debunked that repeatedly the last few years, scroll back a few pages to the Prop 8 threads. It's in there.  It's wiring.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

i would say the jury is still out on that one.

And the boy scouts? is there anything you wont piss on....lol


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 5, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'd just like to end tax payer subsidization and preferential treatment to the Mormon Youth Movement's Anti-Gay Brigade, err I mean the Boy Scouts of America. But that's a different argument I think. As to the choice vs wiring issue, debunked that repeatedly the last few years, scroll back a few pages to the Prop 8 threads. It's in there. It's wiring.


 
nobody has been able to show proof that its in the wiring, loots of studies are provided that insinuate it, but the results have always been able to be debated. With a topic as controversial as homosexuality apparantly is in the US its going to take nothing less then irrefutable proof.. Like I said before though I live in California, I really don't see any issues other then the marriage issue that there is a problem from, and to be honest I want government out of marriage all together so I see no problem with that.

in regards to the boy scouts I see no reason for the government to fund them. Of course i see no reason for the government to fund anything but the military, a few public works projects either lol..


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> in regards to the boy scouts I see no reason for the government to fund them. Of course i see no reason for the government to fund anything but the military, a few public works projects either lol..




qft


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> i would say the jury is still out on that one.
> 
> And the boy scouts? is there anything you wont piss on....lol


Nope.


----------



## Big Don (Jun 5, 2011)

Twin Fist said:


> is there anything you wont piss on....lol


My ex wife's head if she was on fire


----------



## fangjian (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> nobody has been able to show proof that its in the wiring, loots of studies are provided that insinuate it, but the results have always been able to be debated. With a topic as controversial as homosexuality apparantly is in the US its going to take nothing less then irrefutable proof..



Even if there is concrete evidence, Americans wouldn't understand it anyways. We've understood Evolution by Natural Selection for over a century, and the American public proves ignorant when it comes to that as well. Unbelievable. 

For those who believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, I am interested in when 'you' chose to be heterosexual. hmm?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

I would wonder though if it were a 'lifestyle' choice why people would choose to be gay in places where you are killed for it, or locked up or shunned etc.

I can't see why it matters whether people 'choose' to be gay or not, it's such an old argument. Either it's equal rights for everyone or it's not, trying to work out why they are gay is clouding the argument and making it seem as if gay people are deliberarly being 'awkward' just to annoy people. If someone tells me they they are gay, they are gay as far as I'm concerned. I don't care and don't think about why they are gay.

Luckily I know nothing about softball, give me cricket everytime, yes there's gays in cricket, rugby and football here, no one cares, all that's important is whether they win or not! perhaps these softball players were getting bullied or abused by non gay teams, perhaps the other non gays teams didn't feel comfortable with the gay players...anyone ask any of the players how they feel?

As for Scouting, yes we have gays there too, it's also self funding and as we are the 'parent unit and founder' of Scouting I think we can safely say we are leaders here again. The Scouting Association actively supports gays, has brought advice videos out and gay Scouts are allowed to wear their uniforms on Pride marches etc. Scouting is for everyone, as it should be.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

Scouting in the US has been overtaken by the Mormon Church, the nice people who spent a buttload of cash fighting the "evil" of gay marriage. They are allowed to deny membership to gay children, eject gay scout masters, and actively discriminate against them. They also get tax payer funding, and little perks like being able to lease public lands for $1 (no one else can do that btw). They also don't like non-Christians very much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Scouting in the US has been overtaken by the Mormon Church, the nice people who spent a buttload of cash fighting the "evil" of gay marriage. They are allowed to deny membership to gay children, eject gay scout masters, and actively discriminate against them. They also get tax payer funding, and little perks like being able to lease public lands for $1 (no one else can do that btw). They also don't like non-Christians very much. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies


 
Not in the Baden-Powell tradition! I should think he's rolling in his grave at this.
 While nominally a Christian organisation in tune with the times it was formed in, here it has always been welcoming to non Christians. Nowadays, it's open to females and gays, it stresses equality, compassion, moral character and having fun. It's a really great organisation which has a huge lot to offer young people. Politicians and many others could take a leaf out of their book and we'd end up with a much better societies.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

The US program today little resembles the one started by Baden-Powell unfortunately. Which is a pity as I quite enjoyed my time in the program in the 80's.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Even if there is concrete evidence, Americans wouldn't understand it anyways. We've understood Evolution by Natural Selection for over a century, and the American public proves ignorant when it comes to that as well. Unbelievable.
> 
> For those who believe homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, I am interested in when 'you' chose to be heterosexual. hmm?


 
ya we all get you are anti religion to the point of being fanatical about it.
the problem as i see it is, Christianity at least, and evolution are not mutually exclusive and as far as I see it coexist completely together without contradiction. So that first point of yours is moot as far as I am concerned.

the last comment does not make sense, since pretty much all them main religious texts I know of push to procreate, make more kids and thus more followers of said religion, and evolution also forces species to procreate to carry forth and evolve. Anyone arguing against you will simply say that being heterosexual is natural according to the bible, koran, etc and also according to evolution, and any choice against it is exactly that a choice...


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I would wonder though if it were a 'lifestyle' choice why people would choose to be gay in places where you are killed for it, or locked up or shunned etc.
> 
> I can't see why it matters whether people 'choose' to be gay or not, it's such an old argument. Either it's equal rights for everyone or it's not, trying to work out why they are gay is clouding the argument and making it seem as if gay people are deliberarly being 'awkward' just to annoy people. If someone tells me they they are gay, they are gay as far as I'm concerned. I don't care and don't think about why they are gay.
> 
> ...


 
see there is the thing.. I don't care if someone is gay, I don't want it thrown in my face because then it pisses me off, just like having two horny teenagers trying to dry hump each other in a park while my 5 and 3 year olds want to play... go get a damn room, take care of your crap there, I don't want to know how you screw, or care how you screw.. I don't want to join in with you, so go have some decency and leave me alone.

in regards to teams I could care less, I do not watch sports to see who is gay and who likes big boobs. I could care less how the gay players feel, hwo the straight players feel, etc... other then maybe after they win the championships in general, or after a great player does something great... sexual preference in sports? who cares really? I dont care what players are doing, who they are doing as long as they are not breaking the law....i.e. the Kobe rape trial....

I also don't care is gays are involved in scouting, as long as they are not discussing with my kids. I also dont want heterosexual scoutmasters discussing sticking to their wife the night before with my kids either. I definitely do not want either of them touching my kids, but as long as they are dressed in the expected uniform, go over the expected activities, and are able to guide, direct, and advise my kids in the scouts activities and goals then I do not care.

once again, besides marriage what rights do homosexuals not have?
any?
like I said before and keep saying remove marriage from government and replace with a nice sterile process that allows heterosexual couples, homosexual couples, friends living together, groups of people living together, etc share in the benefits that a current married couple have, and just leave marriage to each individual religion, or group to handle as they choose. 
My marriage is a union between my wife and me, with my family and friends as witnesses and pledged defenders of my marriage, to look out for my wife and my best interests and advise us if they ever see us step out of line or in need of help. My government has nothing to do with my marriage other then some Tax breaks that should be available to anyone who lives together and works for some common goal or goals, and some authority in regards to my kids and wife and finances, another item that should be available to a dedicated pair raising a child, or a dedicated pair who plans to look out for each others best interests or depends on each other.... regardless of whether love is involved in that or not.


----------



## fangjian (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> ya we all get you are anti religion to the point of being fanatical about it.
> the problem as i see it is, Christianity at least, and evolution are not mutually exclusive and as far as I see it coexist completely together without contradiction. So that first point of yours is moot as far as I am concerned.


  I'm not talking about religion here. I was just stating that there is scientific evidence that many don't understand. So if there is a lot of scientific evidence that says homosexuality is genetic, many will not accept it anyway. Someone a couple days ago on here said that their opinion can't be changed on this. So how is it moot?   I didn't bring Christianity up, but if you wanna talk about it, that's fine. 





> the last comment does not make sense, since pretty much all them main religious texts I know of push to procreate, make more kids and thus more followers of said religion, and evolution also forces species to procreate to carry forth and evolve. Anyone arguing against you will simply say that being heterosexual is natural according to the bible, koran, etc and also according to evolution, and any choice against it is exactly that a choice...


 The argument is that sexual orientation is a choice. I'm just interested in when everybody chose to be heterosexual. What's the problem?


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> I'm not talking about religion here. I was just stating that there is scientific evidence that many don't understand. So if there is a lot of scientific evidence that says homosexuality is genetic, many will not accept it anyway. Someone a couple days ago on here said that their opinion can't be changed on this. So how is it moot? I didn't bring Christianity up, but if you wanna talk about it, that's fine. The argument is that sexual orientation is a choice. I'm just interested in when everybody chose to be heterosexual. What's the problem?


 
there is not one person on this planet that understands all scientific evidence... so ya everyone has a problem to some degree or another in that realm.
the argument is not that sexual orientation is a choice.
the argument is that the vast majority of people believe that there is a natural and normal thing with heterosexual procreation, or however you want to word it. They believe that homosexuality is a choice to stray from the norm. I get the argument you are making, but its invalid to the conversation. the people that need to be convinced to change their minds on homosexuality do not believe that heterosexuals make a lifestyle choice to be that, they just are that.
the choice as this group believes is whether you like women with blond or brown hair, or who are fat or fit, or who have teeth or no teeth , etc.etc..


----------



## fangjian (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> there is not one person on this planet that understands all scientific evidence... so ya everyone has a problem to some degree or another in that realm.
> the argument is not that sexual orientation is a choice.
> the argument is that the vast majority of people believe that there is a natural and normal thing with heterosexual procreation, or however you want to word it. They believe that homosexuality is a choice to stray from the norm. I get the argument you are making, but its invalid to the conversation. the people that need to be convinced to change their minds on homosexuality do not believe that heterosexuals make a lifestyle choice to be that, they just are that.
> the choice as this group believes is whether you like women with blond or brown hair, or who are fat or fit, or who have teeth or no teeth , etc.etc..



Homosexuality is very common among primates. It is commonly found in nature. Therefore it is natural. I understand this 'natural' argument, but it just comes from people ignorant to nature itself. Just like people who are racist toward those of darker skin and thought they are more like 'animals'. If they only understood *genetically* why we have the skin colors we do, I doubt that they would hold such ridiculous beliefs. Scientific literacy is the key.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Homosexuality is very common among primates. It is commonly found in nature. Therefore it is natural. I understand this 'natural' argument, but it just comes from people ignorant to nature itself. Just like people who are racist toward those of darker skin and thought they are more like 'animals'. If they only understood *genetically* why we have the skin colors we do, I doubt that they would hold such ridiculous beliefs. Scientific literacy is the key.


 
LOL 
um no, not even close to what i was talking about... but ok like most people do take the argument off on a tangent...I had the unfortunate chance of seeing a video on msn of a monkey in a zoo putting it to a frog... that does not make a case for bestiality though does it... what monkeys or apes are doing today has no bearing on what we do lol


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> what monkeys or apes are doing today has no bearing on what we do lol



The claim is often made by the "homosexuality is a choice!" crowd that homosexuality is unnatural, and not found in nature.  That claim is clearly wrong based on overwhelming evidence.  So yes, it does have bearing.

What always interests me though about the "homosexuality is a choice" claim is that the reverse is also implied, "heterosexuality is a choice".  The people that say this are thus implicitly claiming that they could wake up tomorrow morning and want nothing more than to suck a big fat cock.  There is absolutely no chance of that for me.  Unintentionally revealing on their part?


----------



## fangjian (Jun 6, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> LOL
> um no, not even close to what i was talking about... but ok like most people do take the argument off on a tangent...I had the unfortunate chance of seeing a video on msn of a monkey in a zoo putting it to a frog... that does not make a case for bestiality though does it... what monkeys or apes are doing today has no bearing on what we do lol



We *are* apes.

The argument is that homosexuality is _unnatural_. And I am saying that it is commonly found everywhere in _nature_. How is that off topic? It seems quite relevant.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 6, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> The claim is often made by the "homosexuality is a choice!" crowd that homosexuality is unnatural, and not found in nature. That claim is clearly wrong based on overwhelming evidence. So yes, it does have bearing.
> 
> What always interests me though about the "homosexuality is a choice" claim is that the reverse is also implied, "heterosexuality is a choice". The people that say this are thus implicitly claiming that they could wake up tomorrow morning and want nothing more than to suck a big fat cock. There is absolutely no chance of that for me. Unintentionally revealing on their part?


 

You have no idea what restraint I am showing not to reply as I wish to this post!!! :angel:


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 6, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> You have no idea what restraint I am showing not to reply as I wish to this post!!! :angel:



Self-restraint is overrated.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> We *are* apes.
> 
> The argument is that homosexuality is _unnatural_. And I am saying that it is commonly found everywhere in _nature_. How is that off topic? It seems quite relevant.


 
well since we share so much DNA with bananas and pigs some people could say we are nothing more then fruits and like to squeal... but that visually effects the discussion in quite a different way doesnt it?  haha


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jun 6, 2011)

fangjian said:


> We *are* apes.



I'm Klingon.


----------



## Carol (Jun 6, 2011)

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm Klingon.



I'm Vulcan. 

(We can still be friends, right?)


----------



## Big Don (Jun 6, 2011)

Carol said:


> I'm Vulcan.
> 
> (We can still be friends, right?)


That is not logical


----------



## Carol (Jun 6, 2011)

Big Don said:


> That is not logical



Maybe I'm only half Vulcan then.  The red hair had to come from somewhere


----------



## Ken Morgan (Jun 6, 2011)

And back to the op

So if you want to join this league and play softball with gays, just do it. 

How is anyone going to know youre not gay? Is there a test? Do they look at your sense of style and say, you cant possibly be gay judging by the way you dress. 

Whatever.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jun 7, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> And back to the op
> 
> So if you want to join this league and play softball with gays, just do it.
> 
> ...




 I was just thinking the same thing. How would they know their "gayness" level? Is there even such a thing? Maybe they have a meter to test gayness much like the Scientologists had to read thetan levels on that South Park episode. :boing1:


----------



## billc (Jun 7, 2011)

I think they said the test consists of a trip to the locker room, a couple of witnesses, a copy of the sports illustrated swim suit addition and a copy of a men's body building magazine.  After that the spokesman for the softball league became rather vague.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jun 8, 2011)

Ken Morgan said:


> How is anyone going to know youre not gay? Is there a test? Do they look at your sense of style and say, you cant possibly be gay judging by the way you dress.
> 
> Whatever.


 
Obviously there is a DNA test required, DUH.


----------

