Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about all those hate crimes. Or about some of those obvious hate crimes not labeled as such in court. Tell that statement to the parents of Mr. Broussard, Mr. Shepherd, etc. I think that statement is kind of out of place. I do agree with you on the criticizing a gay person and be labeld a bigot, just as I do not like people being called racist when only "criticizing" ethnic minorities. But only criticizing ok, beyond that I am definitely not ok with it. There is a difference.
Hate Crimes are discriminatory and should immediately abolished. As for Mathew Shepherd, that was disproven a long time ago. He was a meth head who was killed by some tweekers in a deal gone bad. But that does not fit the narrative.
Had they been afforded basic human treatment and rights, they wouldn't have had to take it to the political arena.
Darn all those mistreated people who take it to the political arena so they can stop being treated as second-class citizens!
You missed my point, which was not political nor either pro or anti the gay issues.......which was that Perry-the-politician (or anyone else in the political arena) would have no need to weigh in on those issues had not the issue been forced into the political arena by gays themselves. Politicians are politicians, not scientists. Nothing more than that.......
But since you bring it up........gays have hardly suffered the way blacks did 75 years ago with laws that explicitly excluded them from equal participation in many, many areas that whites, including white gays, were able to partake of. So your whining about how mistreated and abused they were as a group is a lie. Homosexuality is not as easily discerned as black skin.
Did you ever see a "gays only" sign on a public water fountain?
Now you're gonna make me hijack the thread, thanks. lol I never understood why someone who hasn't had a drop of alcohol in over twenty years still refers to themselves as an "alcoholic" yet you never hear someone who quit smoking years ago call themselves a "smoker" despite nicotine being the harder habit to kick.
The reason people still call themselves an "alcoholic" is because they'll never be able to drink like a normal person, or non alcoholic. Regardless of how long it's been since they've stopped drinking, they'll never not be alcoholics. However, most people who are alcoholic but don't drink call themselves recovering alcoholics, which makes the distinction. Just like people who don't smoke any more call themselves ex-smokers.
As far as the topic goes - you cannot be alcoholic until you've drunk enough to become one. While the predispostion is there, it won't take hold without alcohol. When you're 13 and have never drank, you don't have any kind of craving for alcohol whatsoever. It takes alcohol to make someone actually alcoholic, rather than potentially alcoholic.
If you're gay, even if you've never had sex (AFAIK from gay friends) you still are attracted to the same sex. You don't need sex to be gay. You either are or you aren't. You can be celibate your whole life and still be gay.
And after a while of being happily sober, no you do not have the insufferable craving for alcohol that you once had. It may pop into your head occasionally, but for some people the obsession is truly lifted. It usually happens after you have a realization that you're almost certainly going to die if you don't stop drinking. Once you've decided that, and are sober for a while, alcohol loses it's power over you. But you can't drink, because you'll always be an alcoholic. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber.
I doubt if a gay person stops having sex though, that they stop being attracted to the same sex, the same way alcoholics stop being obsessed with alcohol. One is a reaction to a poisonous substance, without which the craving disappears, and one is an innate attraction that lasts a lifetime. Two totally different beings.
Good post. I agree that one can not act on an attraction, but still have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FinsterRufus
The reason people still call themselves an "alcoholic" is because they'll never be able to drink like a normal person, or non alcoholic. Regardless of how long it's been since they've stopped drinking, they'll never not be alcoholics. However, most people who are alcoholic but don't drink call themselves recovering alcoholics, which makes the distinction. Just like people who don't smoke any more call themselves ex-smokers.
As far as the topic goes - you cannot be alcoholic until you've drunk enough to become one. While the predispostion is there, it won't take hold without alcohol. When you're 13 and have never drank, you don't have any kind of craving for alcohol whatsoever. It takes alcohol to make someone actually alcoholic, rather than potentially alcoholic.
If you're gay, even if you've never had sex (AFAIK from gay friends) you still are attracted to the same sex. You don't need sex to be gay. You either are or you aren't. You can be celibate your whole life and still be gay.
And after a while of being happily sober, no you do not have the insufferable craving for alcohol that you once had. It may pop into your head occasionally, but for some people the obsession is truly lifted. It usually happens after you have a realization that you're almost certainly going to die if you don't stop drinking. Once you've decided that, and are sober for a while, alcohol loses it's power over you. But you can't drink, because you'll always be an alcoholic. Once that line is crossed, there's no going back. You can't turn a pickle back into a cucumber.
I doubt if a gay person stops having sex though, that they stop being attracted to the same sex, the same way alcoholics stop being obsessed with alcohol. One is a reaction to a poisonous substance, without which the craving disappears, and one is an innate attraction that lasts a lifetime. Two totally different beings.
Hate Crimes are discriminatory and should immediately abolished. As for Mathew Shepherd, that was disproven a long time ago. He was a meth head who was killed by some tweekers in a deal gone bad. But that does not fit the narrative.
You know there are more than those too. Those are the ones I got from my head quickly. There is this gay Marine that was found dead in his barracks and after investigation it was found that he was attacked for being gay. Or that lesbian couple that was attacked in Kentucky, I think, during July 4th celebrations. Many many more.
You do know I can be turned away at the door of a bar if I am holding hands with a man right? That is discriminatory. There are no kids present, everyone is an adult, but it seems they cannot handle it.
No. I'm saying that a certain percentage of humans and members of the animal kingdom are wired to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It's not a "choice" when it's a natural occurrence in nature. For mankind to continue to label homosexuality as "a sin" is archaic.
A certain number of humans are pedophiles and dogs eat their own turds, so what's your point?
Good post. I agree that one can not act on an attraction, but still have it.
Just to clarify, I didn't by any means mean to suggest that if you're gay you shouldn't act on it. I meant that if you don't act on it, for whatever reason, that doesn't mean you're less gay. If you never have a drink, however, you're not going to become an alcoholic. Which is why the two are not the same, in fact not even vaguely similar.
Originally Posted by Wayland Woman No. I'm saying that a certain percentage of humans and members of the animal kingdom are wired to be homosexual rather than heterosexual. It's not a "choice" when it's a natural occurrence in nature. For mankind to continue to label homosexuality as "a sin" is archaic.
A certain number of humans are pedophiles and dogs eat their own turds, so what's your point?
Apples and oranges. Zoologists have not found the equivalent of pedophiles in the animal kingdom.
I'm not sure whether to think of his statement as ignorant or bizarre - or both.
If anyone here agrees with him, please explain why. I'm sure it will lead to an intellectually stimulating discussion. (Ha.)
If there is a similarity I'm sure Perry is aquainted with it
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
