Being Gay, Choice, Disease or Other? (liberal, Democrats, Republicans, conservatives)

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Arizona1

Well the world is loaded with pricks of every persuation. The American Psychological Association is continually underfire for their political stances on several issues which has nothing to do with science. They are underfire for being used in prisoner interrogations, ADD & ADHD fraud and drug medication of normal children. Take a look at this stiry. I think it will be very enlightening. Misology in America Part 3:Scientific Fraud - Homosexuality Here is another interesting read everyone needs to be aware of whaen science as a tool of fraud to push any political agenda and I mean left or right! The PinkSwastika 4th Edition - Final Nuff said!

Right. The APA used to be a credible organization, consisting of volunteer members from the psychological community.

Now it is primarily a left-wing political machine.

And our "obsessed with everything homosexual" member, who claims that the APA is the end-all of scientific understanding regarding homosexuality, is delusional. Kind of bizarre, actually.

[Arizona1]

Originally Posted by Memphis1979

You say you don't care about peer reviewed science, yet you post science yourself that supports your position. However, its not proven science, and when it has been reviewed by other scientists, they see that their findings are wrong.

We live in a world of variables. He having his peer review is like all the cigarette companies hiring their own doctors and scientists claiming their own perverted version of peer review for their poltical economic agendas. I actually did look up those studies, and found that many others since then have come to similiar conclusions about our environment since those early reports and yes I've just ordered that book that was mentioned. Homosexual behavior in nature is not a natural occurance, it's a perversion of those organism's genetics, and oh yeah, Yay Science, on that one. On a funny note, it's a bit strange that a fire and brimstone damnation Crister would be siding with the opposition. Are'nt Gays all going to hell or something? Oh that's right, you're an open minded Crister.

[Omaha Rocks]

Originally Posted by Arizona1

We live in a world of variables. He having his peer review is like all the cigarette companies hiring their own doctors and scientists claiming their own perverted version of peer review for their poltical economic agendas. I actually did look up those studies, and found that many others since then have come to similiar conclusions about our environment since those early reports and yes I've just ordered that book that was mentioned. Homosexual behavior in nature is not a natural occurance, it's a perversion of those organism's genetics, and oh yeah, Yay Science, on that one. On a funny note, it's a bit strange that a fire and brimstone damnation Crister would be siding with the opposition. Are'nt Gays all going to hell or something? Oh that's right, you're an open minded Crister.

The APA: Yeah, it's a joke. Their research pretty much concludes whatever the public/political tone of the day is. The are not the only mental health professionals. They are the mental health professionals of one particular agenda.

Homosexual behavior in nature: This is a ridiculous argument. 1.) Dogs hump each other all the time - even spayed and neutered dogs. They're not homosexuals or lesbians. It's a dominance thing. 2.) Cows (female bovines) mount other cows all the time. Doesn't mean they're lesbians. It means that the cow is in heat. 3.) One year, on the farm, we had two boars (male breeding pigs) that mounted each other regularly. Oh no, their homosexuals!!! No, not really. They also got all the sows bred. They were just two hogs - driven by pheromones and hormones - that were humping everything in sight. 4.) The relationship of animals of the same sex, who spend time together in nature, is not necessarily sexual. It's companionship and safety in numbers. Large herds of female deer will amass, graze together, lay down together, move together. Are they a bunch of lesbians? No. They're animals of the same species who increase their chances of survival by being in a herd.

Physiological differences in homosexuals: There simply has not been any conclusive evidence, despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent trying to find some. What does this mean? Not much - neither pro-homosexual or anti-homosexual.

Homosexuals embracing heterosexuality: This particular topic has raised absolute hell on this forum - with several militant pro-homosexual members going absolutely ballistic. "It is impossible!!!" "It is a lie!!!" "It NEVER happens!!!" But what's the problem here? Even if only 1 or 2 homosexuals decides to be heterosexual, what's the problem? Why such ire? Why is that, in any way, a threat to homosexuals - those who celebrate when a heterosexual abandons his family and embraces homosexuality, but are infuriated when it goes the other way? Why can't we leave people alone, and let them decide what they want to do?


I have several homosexual friends. Good people - just like other friends I have. Hard working, intelligent professionals who are good citizens and members of the community. But they're not the zealous, militant types who are thrusting their phallus in everyone's face, and flaunting their sexuality in ways that would not be accepted by the heterosexual community either. They're just living lives. And it doesn't seem like that should be so difficult for people to do.

[Panter88]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

Firstly, there is no difference for the purposes of this debate. Lack of any There is no emotion involved on my part whatsoever, unless one can claim that supporting Equality in the United States, attempting to educate those who remain purposefully ignorant, and fighting against an agenda of misinformation is somehow inheretly "emotional".

I am a hetero grandfather who laid aside his prejudice towards gays long ago, an unfounded bigotry that evaporated in the bright sunlight of rationality and sciences.

Good for you, I'm glad to know you have accepted the gay agenda. Anything else you would like share, because I don't think anyone who posted on this thread said they hated gay people. So I guess if a person doesn't accept the gay agenda that make him or her a bigot.

[fleetiebelle]

Originally Posted by Panter88

Good for you, I'm glad to know you have accepted the gay agenda. Anything else you would like share, because I don't think anyone who posted on this thread said they hated gay people. So I guess if a person doesn't accept the gay agenda that make him or her a bigot.

What exactly do you mean by "the gay agenda"? That gays want to have the same rights and priveleges as anyone else?

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks

Homosexuals embracing heterosexuality: This particular topic has raised absolute hell on this forum - with several militant pro-homosexual members going absolutely ballistic. "It is impossible!!!" "It is a lie!!!" "It NEVER happens!!!" But what's the problem here? Even if only 1 or 2 homosexuals decides to be heterosexual, what's the problem? Why such ire? Why is that, in any way, a threat to homosexuals - those who celebrate when a heterosexual abandons his family and embraces homosexuality, but are infuriated when it goes the other way? Why can't we leave people alone, and let them decide what they want to do?


.

It happens. I know of several examples. One of the more interesting examples being my high school sweetheart who later became a lesbian. She lived for decades in a lesbian relaionship. She was one of the most well known gay rights leaders in a certain area. She often touted the argument that gays are genetically gay. Later she de-lesbianized and married a guy. As far as I know, she is still happily married. She is still a gay rights activist, but she is very quiet about the fact that she is no longer gay.

I think that it is funny how people who have their mind locked around a model on this issue will simply dismiss examples that are contrary to their model. They say things like "Well that person as obviously bi-sexual and only thought that they were not" or "They are really still gay and just do not realize it" Of course the person making those statments would know far better about a person whom they never met who says that they are no longer gay, than the person making the statement would know about themselves. That is utterly bizzarre. They simply assume that if the person does not fit the model, then it is the person, not the model that is incorrect. It is amsusing to me when people are so singleminded.

The bottom line is that like evey generalization about humans, a model simply cannot work becuase we are all so different and incredibly complicated.

The same is true when people form a model in their mind about what all reubpicans, or all Democrats, or all liberal or all conservatives, or all Christians, or all blacks, or all Whites. . . . etc etc. . . No model of this sort is ever valid. Thus is is equally as absurd to say that all Gays were born that way, as it is to say that all Republicans are right wing Christina extremeists, or all Democrats are uneducated or power hungry and corrupt; or whatever other model soeone wants to apply to all persons of any group or classifications. It is simply not valid. I know that I cannot be compeltely classified in any manner with all of any group. I have at least some different motivations, positions, beliefs desires, etc than every person in any group. That is true of every single person that I know. Generalizations and models applied to people are invalid and are the basis for intolerance, prejudice, hatred, and loads of foolish assumptions and misconceptions.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by Arizona1

We live in a world of variables. He having his peer review is like all the cigarette companies hiring their own doctors and scientists claiming their own perverted version of peer review for their poltical economic agendas. I actually did look up those studies, and found that many others since then have come to similiar conclusions about our environment since those early reports and yes I've just ordered that book that was mentioned. Homosexual behavior in nature is not a natural occurance, it's a perversion of those organism's genetics, and oh yeah, Yay Science, on that one. On a funny note, it's a bit strange that a fire and brimstone damnation Crister would be siding with the opposition. Are'nt Gays all going to hell or something? Oh that's right, you're an open minded Crister.

The Bible does not say that all Gays are going to hell. It does say that homosexuality is an abomination to God. But Adultry, lying, gossip and lots of other things are an abomination to God. All of those things that other people may do are none of our business. If we do any of those things ourselves, that is between us and God. The Bible also says that we are not to judge others. What they do is between them and God. So a Christian's place is not to condemn homosexuals, but to love them just like everybody else. On the other hand, we should not celebrate what they do, or promote it. But then we should not be celebrating or promoting any sexual behavior at all. Many individual choices are left to the individual and God to sort out.

However Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with a discussion about whether Homosexuals are born that way, choose the lifestyle, or have a disease or additiction. Neither the Bible nor Christianity weigh in on that issue at all.

[Coldjensens]

Originally Posted by AxisMundi

Indeeed, you are correct. It is folly to generalize the gays, espeically as you have above.

Human sexuality falls into many catagories, from hetero- and homosexuality to bi-sexuality. Also involved is biological sex, which you confuse above as a "choice" for homosexuality.

Homosexuality isn't merely "all about sex". Homosexuals, and bi-sexuals, look for the same exact things in a relationship as any hetero does. We all look for companionship, understanding, emotional support, freindship, etc, and yes, intimacy as well.


.

Sexual behaviour is a choice. You can do it, or you can not do it. Just becasue someone has certain sexual feelings does not mean that they have to choose to act on them. You can pursue romantic relationships with men or women, or you can chose not to pursue romantic relationships at all. Lots of people make that choice. I do not condemn someone for choosing to act on their feelings as long as the act is consensual, and not pressured. However their action is a choice. Every single time it is a choice.

One of the most disgusting asepcts of current society trends ois to try to take away responsibility for actions. "This poor person did not have a choice he was made that way." Sorry, every single thing you do is a choice.

I was definitely made with a propensity to stay home never get out of bed and just read all day. But I choose not to do that. I have to make that choice every day.

[AxisMundi]

Originally Posted by Arizona1

Clearly a delusional misologist. No emotion uh? That's one of the most B.S. statements you've ever published and believe me I know because I'm a member of the other forum you frequent and view on the sidelines how you will bastardize a good discussion for purely hatred left-wing political agenda promotion. I'm not a fan of the Christer viewpoints either, but diliberately taking an otherwise interesting scientific discussion and baiting the christers to bring this discussion down to the level of dumba§§ found in that lower cesspool below is sick. Oh BTW, please dump the intellect speech, nobody's impressed and it does fit your persona.

I would ask you to substantiate your comments above, but I know you would be unable to in the least.

Your "purely hatred left-wing political agenda promotion" comment supplies more than enough proof where, exactly, your political loyalties lie, not to mention the compelet and utter lack of any rational thought or intelligence that usually accompanies the far-right-wing.

I support very little of the "purely hatred left-wing political agenda promotion", and even less of the "purely hatred RIGHT-wing political agenda promotion", so your attempt to denigerate my comments and attack me personally have fallen far short, sorry.

Since you cannot, or will not, attempt to address my points and instead launch imemdiatly into rather lame ad hominems, you are summarily dismissed.

[mainelander]

Originally Posted by Coldjensens

Sexual behaviour is a choice. You can do it, or you can not do it. Just becasue someone has certain sexual feelings does not mean that they have to choose to act on them. You can pursue romantic relationships with men or women, or you can chose not to pursue romantic relationships at all. Lots of people make that choice. I do not condemn someone for choosing to act on their feelings as long as the act is consensual, and not pressured. However their action is a choice. Every single time it is a choice.

One of the most disgusting asepcts of current society trends ois to try to take away responsibility for actions. "This poor person did not have a choice he was made that way." Sorry, every single thing you do is a choice.

I was definitely made with a propensity to stay home never get out of bed and just read all day. But I choose not to do that. I have to make that choice every day.

i dont think anyone is arguing that HAVING sex is a choice. the issue on hand is whether having the urges to have sex with a specific gender is a choice.