The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[Liquid]

A "free" thinker who disagrees with the so-called gay agenda.

Riiiiight. Doesn't sound very free to me.

 

[ledhed]

I am not even close to far right , unless far right now believes drugs should be legal and are pro Roe vs wade along with being a social activist for mental health issues who worked in a non profit and saw how those with nothing are treated In the USA .
Take your talking points from left wing media and use them elsewhere.
I see danger in power and this current Administration has been gaining and using power in the most dangerous ways for the individual.
My Brothers gay . He can outline the gay agenda , for the most part it started as an equal protection under the law agenda and morphed after radicals saw what power was .
Keep trying to figure out my slot so you can respond .
I am as pro gay rights as anyone who has a family member who is loved and accepted can be , as well as anyone who just has a decent sense of whats fair.
...
Your stuck on labeling.
Its bad, do not do it .

 

[TenEightyOne]

@squadops, more sarcasm?

@ledhed is clearly using a world spectrum to assess Obama (note his use of Comrade. Bearing in mind that he's WAY to the right of Obama (a very Conservative president in the political spectrum that you must have to have travelled in very small circles (possibly literally) to think of him as a moderate thinker.

I won't argue with free thinker though, not my place.

@ledhed, you realise that the US only has two parties... right wing and ultra-right wing?

If you're going to criticise US foreign policy you need, in my opinion, a greater understanding of US's wider place in world politics.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

Our President tramples the constitution on a regular basis

Let's have some proof here, O'Reilly.

 

[Famine]

Let's not. This isn't the America thread, it's the Homosexuality one - and unless Barack has got a serious chat to have with Michelle, there's precious little relevance.

Can't really bring up the Constitution either, since it doesn't say anything about own-gender-lovin'.

 

[squadops]

Ok Famine, but I still have a right to at least defend myself. I don't appreciate being called O'Reilly as that is a direct attack on my character.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Let's not. This isn't the America thread, it's the Homosexuality one - and unless Barack has got a serious chat to have with Michelle, there's precious little relevance.

Can't really bring up the Constitution either, since it doesn't say anything about own-gender-lovin'.

Sorry Famine, partly my fault. A lot of these discussions are trans-subject sometimes... but yeah, sorry

Interesting article addressing what the author considers to be the Top Ten Gay Myths.

@squadops, personally I find it racially offensive that YOU'D find being called O'Reilly offensive. And I think I said it... "Blimey O'Reilly". Not offensive at all unless you're offended by a link to Eire... an attitude which I'd find offensive being half-Irish.

 

[Liquid]

Ok Famine, but I still have a right to at least defend myself. I don't appreciate being called O'Reilly as that is a direct attack on my character.

Well as Famine said, take it to the America thread if you want to talk about your constitution or anything which isn't pertinent to this thread.

Or, use the PM system.

 

[ledhed]

Genetic code determines your disposition towards sexuality.
The law provides protection with the " equal protection " provisions.
Homosexual activity should only be a problem if someone is forcing it on you . And that us covered under " rape " , laws.
To many the true definition of marriage is hetrosexual .
So to satisfy the equal protection clause , you need treat Gay couples with same benifits you afford hetrosexuals.
Discrimination is wrong .
Period end of argument .
There is no homosexual problem , only a problem with education and reasonable discourse among adults .

 

[Liquid]

Genetic code determines your disposition towards sexuality.

[citation needed]

The law provides protection with the " equal protection " provisions.

As it should in this case.

Homosexual activity should only be a problem if someone is forcing it on you . And that us covered under " rape " , laws.

Correction: Any sexual activity is a problem if it is forced upon you. " Rape " is not an exclusively homosexual thing, is it? No, heterosexuals never rape each other at all (!)

To many the true definition of marriage is hetrosexual.

The many are wrong. And how exactly do you define "many"? Did you get 4 billion people agreeing with this?

So to satisfy the equal protection clause , you need treat Gay couples with same benifits you afford hetrosexuals.

No, you treat all human beings with the same levels of respect and rights regardless of race, colour, sexuality, gender (yes there is a difference), height, weight, shoe size...

Discrimination is wrong.

Correct. But...

There is no homosexual problem , only a problem with education and reasonable discourse among adults .

Why do you post an equal amount of tolerant and intolerant remarks?

 

[ledhed]

Liquid you look for argument where there is none .
You want a citation go to the highway and speed .
If you wish to read about sexuality and genetics and law that has been used to provide for transgender operarions by taxpayers using it , look it up.
Google has pages on it.

 

[Azure Flare]

You do realize he knows what he's talking about right?

 

[TenEightyOne]

You do realize he knows what he's talking about right?

You do realise that Google Has Pages On It right?

I think ledhed's just angry about the US Government from the sounds of things, and gay people. Somehow those have become confused by too much TV. He also seems to object to healthcare involving pyschological or sexual health, from his comments. He may be thinking freely, I'm sure he is, I'm just not sure he's thinking very pleasantly

 

[Imari]

Liquid you look for argument where there is none .
You want a citation go to the highway and speed .
If you wish to read about sexuality and genetics and law that has been used to provide for transgender operarions by taxpayers using it , look it up.
Google has pages on it.

That's not how it works.

You stated a fact.
You have some basis for stating this fact.
You either share it or withdraw it.

You don't get to say "Well, nah, now it's your job to prove my statements".

 

[Azuremen]

He also seems to object to healthcare involving pyschological or sexual health, from his comments.

Not to be an ass, but those of us not keen on "free" government provided healthcare do have issue with all of the healthcare. But this is a very, very different topic from here, but I don't see why my tax dollars should pay to address someone's gender identity issues. Or any of their issues, for that matter

 

[Liquid]

@ledhed14 How old are you? I think your username is a giveaway but if it isn't... Given that you called Obama "comrade" and "fascist" in the same post, I will question everything you tell me.

Even that my username is Liquid.

 

[squadops]

So all those in here screaming it's not a choice now want proof it's genetic? I'm confused, is it then a product of environment and/or upbringing?

If so...

 

[TenEightyOne]

So all those in here screaming it's not a choice now want proof it's genetic? I'm confused, is it then a product of environment and/or upbringing?

If so...

That tone's not really necessary, we're not all "screamers" as I'm sure you're really aware.

Could you complete the "if so...", please? Your meaning and total question weren't clear.

 

[squadops]

It's not actually possible to scream on the internet but whatever(calling me a wacko tv sensationalist is ok but saying 'screaming' is not? lol) , my point was a simple one; it's been stated several time that it is not a choice in this thread, has there not been a citation to back that up in all this time?

if so...

If it is a product of environment then as a practice it could be all but eliminated. That opens up a huge pandora's box btw. Is drug addiction genetic or a choice or a product of environment? Why are drug addicts treated as criminals?

I'm asking for some thought processes here, nothing more.

 

[TenEightyOne]

No, because "screamer" is a derogatory term for the uber-camp.

Addiction and sexuality are both a mixture, it seems, of genetic predisposition and environmental upbringing.

 

[Azuremen]

It's not actually possible to scream on the internet but whatever(calling me a wacko tv sensationalist is ok but saying 'screaming' is not? lol) , my point was a simple one; it's been stated several time that it is not a choice in this thread, has there not been a citation to back that up in all this time?

Genetic and not making a choice are different, as one implies a clear marker would exist in the genome. Would be like arguing that someone's favorite color is genetic.

If it is a product of environment then as a practice it could be all but eliminated.

This sentence opens up a huge Pandora's box, bee tea dub.

Calling it a practice and wondering if said practice could be eliminated is a bit extremist sounding. Just a bit. Secondly, if it is choice why try to eliminate it anyhow? Why compare it to drug addiction when drug use would be a more apt analogy (still poor either way) in this case?

 

[squadops]

No, because "screamer" is a derogatory term for the uber-camp.

And what is O'Reilly?

Addiction and sexuality are both a mixture, it seems, of genetic predisposition and environmental upbringing.

Citation required.

Genetic and not making a choice are different, as one implies a clear marker would exist in the genome. Would be like arguing that someone's favorite color is genetic.

Which it could be for all I know.

Calling it a practice and wondering if said practice could be eliminated is a bit extremist sounding. Just a bit. Secondly, if it is choice why try to eliminate it anyhow? Why compare it to drug addiction when drug use would be a more apt analogy (still poor either way) in this case?

Maybe maybe not, drug use would be a clear choice, addiction not so much. I was also pointing out a legit parallel simply as in homosexuality used to be just as criminal as drug use/addiction.

 

[Imari]

It's not actually possible to scream on the internet but whatever(calling me a wacko tv sensationalist is ok but saying 'screaming' is not? lol) , my point was a simple one; it's been stated several time that it is not a choice in this thread, has there not been a citation to back that up in all this time?

I don't know if there has or not, but just because the opposite hasn't been proved doesn't mean that a theory is true.

If anything, no choice is the null hypothesis. Mostly because most people's experience is that they're just attracted to one sex or the other (or both), including heterosexuals. There's certainly not a conscious choice on the part of most people. But also because it's the simplest possible explanation; people who are different are actually different.

That's the basic hurdle any theory of homosexuality (or sexuality in general) has to overcome. Explain the situation better than "they were born that way". And some studies do identify influences from environment and such, but as far as I'm aware nobody has been able to rule out all the predisposition factors, either genetic or otherwise.

Quite the opposite, twin studies tend to show that at least some of the influence on sexuality is genetic, like so: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986

 

[Azuremen]

And what is O'Reilly?

That is just @Beeblebrox237 hating on all things American and right wing sounding in the slightest.

Which it could be for all I know.

Fair enough, but does it matter?

Maybe maybe not, drug use would be a clear choice, addiction not so much. I was also pointing out a legit parallel simply as in homosexuality used to be just as criminal as drug use/addiction.

Oddly, most drugs weren't illegal till the past century or so, including cocaine, LSD, Sassafras, and so on. Prohibition is relatively new. Homosexuality has been legal and illegal depending on the era and culture - it was considered honorable in Japan before the 19th century influence of Westerners.

I'd hardly call the comparison legit due to legality, as both shouldn't be the issue of the law at all.

 

[squadops]

Well it is a social issue of importance in our era so to speak, forgot to mention both have been considered illnesses also in recent times.

In general I think as a whole we worry too much about things that will not effect us on a direct personal level, placing unreasonable importance on some sort of social pact. We violate human rights this way all the time.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Blimey O'Reilly", like "Really O'Reilly" is just an Irish saying, it often refers to a guard/police officer. Not sure where the offence might be in that.

In general I think as a whole we worry too much about things that will not effect us on a direct personal level, placing unreasonable importance on some sort of social pact.

So go talk about unsightly car modifications in another thread if you're not interested.

We violate human rights this way all the time.

Firstly you need to read UDHR and show how you think that's the case, secondly you need to be aware that you just uttered the Danoff Summoning Spell

 

[squadops]

That was not the meaning of the term said to me.

Where did I say I was not interested exactly? you are grasping at straws now.

There are so many instances of rights violations in the name of the greater good it's not really funny.

 

[TenEightyOne]

That was not the meaning of the term said to me.

Where did I say I was not interested exactly? you are grasping at straws now.

There are so many instances of rights violations in the name of the greater good it's not really funny.

To be fair I'll retract the first part; I inferred that you weren't interested in the discussion and therefore may have responded incorrectly.

The straws I'm grasping at are simply your argument disintegrating in the wind

To your second point; it's not up to me to do your research, please cite some examples (relevant to this thread) that support your claim.

 

[squadops]

Again with this nonsense, how is my argument disintegrating?

Any example where the rights of a few are sacrificed for the rights of the majority, I'm sure you know what the u.s. was founded on don't you? Any violation is relevant to this thread as homosexual discrimination is on the table.

I guess you think it's impossibru and has never happened? You know better then that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Any example where the rights of a few are sacrificed for the rights of the majority, I'm sure you know what the u.s. was founded on don't you? Any violation is relevant to this thread as homosexual discrimination is on the table.

I'm fairly sure in my knowledge of the Constitution, yes.

I'm not sure of any of the citations you've provided to back up your argument, perhaps because so far you haven't made them. Provide some, please