After exhaustive research, "Gay is not genetic"

[wiffleball 4,790]

Who cares?

 

He's going to the Lake Of Fire, so he will get his in the end.

 

How is that supposed Christians who think sodomy is a crime rely entirely on people getting it in the end?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Come on Bucs, you're better than that. Don't make fun of people's beliefs, even if you don't agree with them.

 

People who believe in God and Heaven do so because it's comforting to them to think they are rewarded for living a good life and thinking of others. That's hardly a crime and certainly not deserving of ridicule.

 

But again, you've got to go back to the OP. The Fundies took a swipe at the APA as being somehow illigitimate in their science - yet were completely wrong (like Philly) in their jump - and then said the 'cure' is a relationship with a leprochaun or something.

[KSB2424 3,148]

Sometimes it's hard to tell sarcasm or not, when I read your post with a hint of "OMG don't make fun of what believe believvvve!!"

 

Also, it is more ignorant to blindly accept rather than challenge beliefs IMO.

 

And "harmless" beliefs? No, I dont buy into that at all.

I think it is more that the 'non-believers' constantly pull the ridicule card. Everytime religion comes up it is the Easer Bunny joke, or the moron jokes, or you are stupid jokes. Instead of actual dialog or debate.

 

Meh, whatever. I usually stay away.

[wiffleball 4,790]

I'm sure there may be a few retarded gays who believe this, but it's funny that this arguement is the exact one the right wing uses to oppose gay marriage---while most activist groups I've read are concerned only with being afforded the same rights as everyone else and they realize that you can't sue the church to force them to marry you, when they don't recognize the union. Same as a catholic suing a synogogue to married there...

 

I find BB's story to be as grounded in reality as GettnHuge's conversations where he debated his way to changing an entire families beliefs about voting for Obama...

 

Bottom line: The Church should have no place in determining civil matters like life insurance, who gets to make life and death decisions, who can visit in the hopsital when you're dying, estate law, etc.

 

 

Yet, it does. That's the fundamental flaw in the system. It has nothing to do with Gays. Why should a man and woman who are married by a medicine man not be legitimately married, but the same two find some 'Priest' mainlining crack and diddling little boys - and that marriage is suddenly now afforded all the same rights as mom and dad? Take the focking church out of the civil side of marriage entirely.

[wiffleball 4,790]

I think it is more that the 'non-believers' constantly pull the ridicule card. Everytime religion comes up it is the Easer Bunny joke, or the moron jokes, or you are stupid jokes. Instead of actual dialog or debate.

 

Meh, whatever. I usually stay away.

 

It's pretty hard to have a logical argument based upon the existence of something which cannot be proven to exist.

[KSB2424 3,148]

It's pretty hard to have a logical argument based upon the existence of something which cannot be proven to exist.

You mean like the ghey gene?

[wiffleball 4,790]

You mean like the ghey gene?

 

I've never posited that.

 

 

Most of the gheys I've seen don't have genes - they wear jorts!

[jerryskids 6,825]

I've never posited that.

Most of the gheys I've seen don't have genes - they wear jorts!

I occasionally wear jorts.

[jgcrawfish 232]

See, this is a huge problem in modern American culture. You aren't supposed to judge anything, especially if it has to do with culture or religion.

 

Well fock that. I say every man has an obligation to judge every idea he comes in contact with. I judge most aspects of Muslim culture to be ignorant, backward, and barbaric. I don't give a fock if its your culture, its wrong. Fix it.

 

TBBOM, normally, I'm right there with you on a lot of your viewpoints. But you're focked on this one, and as an attorney, you should know it. A Law is a law because typically the majority of a population deems a certain behavior detrimental to the good of the whole or seeks to protect something they feel needs protection. Whether you agree or not with that law matters not, as long as as you abide by it. If you choose not to abide by it, then society deems you a law breaker. That doesn't mean the law is right, in fact, there is no wrong or right, there is only the prevailing public thought which sets the policy. It's no different with religion. I'm not going to disagree with you on the idea that religion is likely based "belief" only, that there is no factual proof for it. But FACT that the belief does exist in a hugely prevailing percentage of the world population makes it akin to a law, in that it's there because the majority of the people believe to be right. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's the prevailing thought.

 

As an educated person, I pride myself on being able to examine both sides of an argument and make informed decisions. As someone who was raised Catholic I also see the need for people to believe in something more than their own meek and mortal lives, namely an immortal soul. I've questioned (and still do) the existence of a higher power and the concept of life after death. But unlike you, I don't deem someone wrong just because they do not believe what I choose to believe in. It's not a "culture"...it's a belief...and it's no more wrong or right than your "belief" in nothing, just different.

 

 

I judge the "Christian Mythology" to be no more compelling or comforting (and in some ways less so) than Greek, Norse, Mayan, Aztec, Egyptian, Indian, etc. ad nauseum, and judge it to be basically an intellectual crutch that has been used for thousands of years to oppress people, retard the growth of society, and to clothe abject evil in a veneer of righteousness. The world would be much better off if it didn't exist.

 

Again, I won't disagree with you in principle. However, I will disgree on your assertion that the world would be better off if it didn't exist. As you point out, for as much as doing things in the name of God has been used to commit atrocities, and yes, oppress people. However, much good has also been done in the name God. And please don't tell me that you're nieve enough to belive that we would be better off if everyone in the world knew not only that they were going to die, but also that their death marked the absolute end of all things about them AND they would not be judged for any of the things they did during their lifetime? Retard the growth of society with religion??? Well that would damn near kill society in general. Chaos would ensue. The one thing all religions have in common is the healthy fear of being judged by their God(s) that makes people more accountable for their actions. Right or wrong, true or false,

 

Now, those are my beliefs, judge them for what you will. Of course, you don't have to think about it, because your belief already conveniently judges it for you in your little book. At least I've never advocated the eternal damnation and torture of those who disagree with me.

 

See, here's where we differ. I don't judge you. I don't know that my belief is any more right than anybody else's belief and could care less that my book says they're going to hell and their book says I'm going to hell because our beliefs differ. In fact, I'm not qualified to judge anybody, and honestly, neither are you. You are entitled to question. You are entitled to differ. But who gave you the right to judge anyone particularly since you're in the minority of people in the believers vs not believers debate??? To judge someone means you take the facts and acertain the truth. You can no more prove that God(s) don't exist than I can prove he/they do. You can't judge, you can only opinion...and your opinion isn't necessarily right.

 

People who demand facts and proof? They are called rational people. Evidence? No, sorry, there isn't. You confirm that in your next sentence when you say the whole thing is about faith.

 

Again, you're just as intolerant at the people you complain about.

 

Its much easier to believe in nothing? No, it isn't. Every caveman and nomadic hunter and gatherer believed in some kind of "spirit" or "ju ju" or God. This is because he did not understand his surroundings, and needed an explanation. It is also a hard truth to face that we, as a species, are in this universe alone, with only our wits to protect us. Most people seem to need the security blanket of a benevolent boogey man who is there to pick them up when they fall. Throughout history, very few people have had the courage to challenge that (largely because you guys had a nasty habit of tying them to sticks and setting them on fire, but that's just you guys being judgemental). And most people are far too arrogant and self absorbed to accept that, in the grand scheme of the cosmos, they are nothing. A speck of dust, that will die, and never be heard from again. Just one of trillions.

 

But I believe it is becoming important for us as a society to face those truths. You know the old saying "You can pray in one hand, and sh!t in the other, and see which gets filled first?" Well, same theory. This society faces massive problems. We can either pray for someone to fix them for us, or get to work fixing them ourselves.

 

No, I am not "acting enlightened" nor am I saying that all religious people are hypocrites. But religion having the gall to place a burden of proof on anyone is hypocritical as hell.

 

If its so easy to prove what exists, then why have you guys failed to do so in the two plus millenia you've been making your claims?

 

And proving that something does not exist is a logical impossibility. But the fact remains that there is about as much evidence supporting a God as there is for the tooth fairy.

 

Anyway, ya'll have fun now!

 

Actually, it is easier to believe in nothing. Believing in nothing requires no imagination, no creativity and no faith. I know the next response, "You're saying that religion is nothing more than imagination and creativity"...well, maybe. I can't prove there are ghosts or aliens, but I'm damned convinced those suckers are around. And just because nobody has "proof" doesn't mean they're not there. An enlightned person recognizes the possibility of things existing despite appearances to the contrary or lack of proof. The world was flat until it wasn't. Breaking the speed of sound was impossible until it wasn't. Just because something hasn't been found, seen or proven doesn't negate it's existence. Quite honestly, I'm completely capable of standing on both sides of this fence. I can debate a religious zealot all day long about their beliefs and turn right around the next day and debate a complete non-believer about theirs. And I can honestly say that neither is right and neither is wrong, just as I am.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Oh and while we're at it with the "you shouldn't ridicule me for what I believe!" bullshiit:

 

 

Let's remember how the Fundies speak about Homosexuals. Let's also remember how 'Christians' shout BABY KILLER at scared little girls who are getting their first abortion. Let's think back to all the past halloweens when thousands of christians staged and attended "hell houses" showing what happens to homosexual and people who get abortions. Let's think back to the 'Christians' openly deriding and dismissing the 'absurd notion we all come from monkeys'.

 

 

Here's your great Christian leaders on 9/11:

 

JERRY FALWELL: The ACLU's got to take a lot of blame for this.

 

PAT ROBERTSON: Well, yes.

 

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way--all of them who have tried to secularize America--I point the finger in their face and say "you helped this happen."

 

So anybody who whines about being targeted, ridiculed, persecuted - from a religion that made its focking BONES on doing exactly that on a massive scale - Go suck a diick.

[parrot 789]

TBBOM, normally, I'm right there with you on a lot of your viewpoints. But you're focked on this one, and as an attorney, you should know it. A Law is a law because typically the majority of a population deems a certain behavior detrimental to the good of the whole or seeks to protect something they feel needs protection. Whether you agree or not with that law matters not, as long as as you abide by it. If you choose not to abide by it, then society deems you a law breaker. That doesn't mean the law is right, in fact, there is no wrong or right, there is only the prevailing public thought which sets the policy. It's no different with religion. I'm not going to disagree with you on the idea that religion is likely based "belief" only, that there is no factual proof for it. But FACT that the belief does exist in a hugely prevailing percentage of the world population makes it akin to a law, in that it's there because the majority of the people believe to be right. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's the prevailing thought.

 

I'm not sure what your point is here? I think we have LOTS of inane, moronic, idiotic laws. The fact they've become law doesn't make them less idiotic, or the people who support them less of an idiot. That's a judgment. Maybe it's a toothless, meaningless judgment, but it's a judgment.

[jerryskids 6,825]

An enlightned person recognizes the possibility of things existing despite appearances to the contrary or lack of proof. The world was flat until it wasn't. Breaking the speed of sound was impossible until it wasn't. Just because something hasn't been found, seen or proven doesn't negate it's existence.

What about the Cubs winning the world series?

[Frank M 181]

I'm sure there may be a few retarded gays who believe this, but it's funny that this arguement is the exact one the right wing uses to oppose gay marriage---while most activist groups I've read are concerned only with being afforded the same rights as everyone else and they realize that you can't sue the church to force them to marry you, when they don't recognize the union. Same as a catholic suing a synogogue to married there...

 

I find BB's story to be as grounded in reality as GettnHuge's conversations where he debated his way to changing an entire families beliefs about voting for Obama...

 

What, you don't think he could have changed peoples' minds just by reminding them that Obama is just one changed letter away from Osama?

 

You underestimate him.

[Bigtraine 30]

And please don't tell me that you're nieve enough to belive that we would be better off if everyone in the world knew not only that they were going to die, but also that their death marked the absolute end of all things about them AND they would not be judged for any of the things they did during their lifetime? Retard the growth of society with religion??? Well that would damn near kill society in general. Chaos would ensue. The one thing all religions have in common is the healthy fear of being judged by their God(s) that makes people more accountable for their actions.

 

I strongly disagree with you here. Alot of people seem to think that people "behave" because of the fear of God, but I don't buy that. Frankly, if there is a person that would be raping and killing but for the fear of judgment in the afterlife, then that's not a very good person to start with (I realize I am judging here). You can be a fine person with excellent morals without religion telling you that you need to be that way. Society would not crumble without religion. Chaos would not ensue. Civilization would still recognize the laws of man. In order to build and maintain strong socities that encourage growth, safety, etc... there would still be laws on the books forbidding murder, raping, speeding. It would be a world based on rational thought, without superstitions or clunky out-dated traditions stifling real progress.

 

As an aside - I am curious now - anyone know of any good studies comparing the effect of religion on crime rates? Are atheists/agnostics more likely to commit crimes?

[wiffleball 4,790]

Just because something hasn't been found, seen or proven doesn't negate it's existence.

 

Like the Gay Gene?

 

 

POWSERS! VEALATED!!

 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

All right, I was trying to end the religion debate thingy, but whatever, allow me to retort. I'll type my responses in bold.

 

TBBOM, normally, I'm right there with you on a lot of your viewpoints. But you're focked on this one, and as an attorney, you should know it. A Law is a law because typically the majority of a population deems a certain behavior detrimental to the good of the whole or seeks to protect something they feel needs protection. Whether you agree or not with that law matters not, as long as as you abide by it. If you choose not to abide by it, then society deems you a law breaker. That doesn't mean the law is right, in fact, there is no wrong or right, there is only the prevailing public thought which sets the policy. It's no different with religion. I'm not going to disagree with you on the idea that religion is likely based "belief" only, that there is no factual proof for it. But FACT that the belief does exist in a hugely prevailing percentage of the world population makes it akin to a law, in that it's there because the majority of the people believe to be right. Again, I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that it's the prevailing thought.

 

Yes, this is all true. But laws are challenged all the time. In fact, there are myriad institutions (courts, legislatures, etc.) that exist only to hear challenges to the law, and reevaluate the position.

 

That's all I'm doing here. Challenging the prevailing view on religion. I realize that I am a part of a tiny minority here, and I would fight to the death to prevent government from imposing my beliefs on others, as that is every bit as wrong as the converse. However, I don't think it is wrong at all for me to challenge other people's views, and express my own. If I sometimes do so in a disrespectful manner, well, sorry, but A) this is the internet, and a seedy corner of it at that, and B ) Well, I quite frankly don't respect it. Sorry.

 

As an educated person, I pride myself on being able to examine both sides of an argument and make informed decisions. As someone who was raised Catholic I also see the need for people to believe in something more than their own meek and mortal lives, namely an immortal soul. I've questioned (and still do) the existence of a higher power and the concept of life after death. But unlike you, I don't deem someone wrong just because they do not believe what I choose to believe in. It's not a "culture"...it's a belief...and it's no more wrong or right than your "belief" in nothing, just different.

 

Again, sure, you are correct. My opinions and beliefs are just that, my opinion. They are like asswholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink. Do I know for a fact that there is no God? No, of course I don't. I don't claim to. In fact, I would love to find, after I die, that there is a just and loving God, and that there is a plan, and justice in the universe. I doubt it, but that is just, once again, my opinion based upon my observations of the universe. No more or less valid than anyone else's.

 

I do have a problem with the fact that their (religious persons) opinion is automatically sacred and inviolable. They are free to prostletize, evangelize, publish and broadcast at will, as they should be. However the opposing viewpoint is still considered largely taboo, boorish, rude, and inappropriate. I don't buy that. Debate is fair game, and its not fair to hamstring one side by saying "you shouldn't criticize other's beliefs." This is especially true when the other side is constantly trying to inject their worldview into politics, as they do.

 

Again, I won't disagree with you in principle. However, I will disgree on your assertion that the world would be better off if it didn't exist. As you point out, for as much as doing things in the name of God has been used to commit atrocities, and yes, oppress people. However, much good has also been done in the name God. And please don't tell me that you're nieve enough to belive that we would be better off if everyone in the world knew not only that they were going to die, but also that their death marked the absolute end of all things about them AND they would not be judged for any of the things they did during their lifetime? Retard the growth of society with religion??? Well that would damn near kill society in general. Chaos would ensue. The one thing all religions have in common is the healthy fear of being judged by their God(s) that makes people more accountable for their actions. Right or wrong, true or false.

 

It is my opinion that we would have been much better off if religion never existed. You take the opposing view. I'll admit, maybe I am giving to much credit to humanity. Perhaps I am giving people to much credit to think that simply the law of their brothers and their own compass of right and wrong can keep society under control. Maybe society isn't ready, and maybe it never will be, to discard the social construct of eternal punishment. I don't know. However, there are societies on this earth (parts of Europe for example) where religion is largely dead, and the society is a secular one. They don't seem to be running amok killing each other. Now they did periodically kill each other over various interpretations of God, but that is past.

 

And yes, religion has a wretched past in terms of evil. The inquisition, pograms against Jews, persecuting religious minorities, making starving people pay money to the church, to build their lavish temples. the crusades, etc. etc. Hell, the Catholic Church even had a hand in the Holocaust. But let's leave the past in the past and look at now.

 

The Catholic Church, along with Baptists and others, tells AIDS riddled Africa that if they use condoms, they will go to hell. They still collect tithes from people in the starving third world, while the Vatican sits on a pile of jewels and money. They prohibit medical research, in the name of the sanctity of life, as they throw said life in the incinerator. The attempt to use their views to oppress gays. In Muslim countries, they use god to oppress women, and send children into the market with bombs, in gods name.

 

Is good done in the name of religion? Sure. But I'm betting that if religion didn't exist, those people would do good anyway. Because they are good people. They don't do it for cosmic reward (because as Christ tells us, good works do not get you to heaven, only faith does) they do it because it is the right thing to do.

 

See, here's where we differ. I don't judge you. I don't know that my belief is any more right than anybody else's belief and could care less that my book says they're going to hell and their book says I'm going to hell because our beliefs differ. In fact, I'm not qualified to judge anybody, and honestly, neither are you. You are entitled to question. You are entitled to differ. But who gave you the right to judge anyone particularly since you're in the minority of people in the believers vs not believers debate??? To judge someone means you take the facts and acertain the truth. You can no more prove that God(s) don't exist than I can prove he/they do. You can't judge, you can only opinion...and your opinion isn't necessarily right.

Again, you're just as intolerant at the people you complain about.

 

Yes, you do judge me. Well, you judge my beliefs anyway. You looked at the world and on the question of "Is there a God?" you judged yes, and I judged no. Everyone who has beliefs has judged. And yes, you do believe your belief is more right than mine, otherwise you wouldn't believe it.

 

That is my earlier point. Judgement is not wrong. It is man's duty, all men, to judge the world around them, based on the facts they have at hand. Am I anymore qualified than you? No. Is my opinion right? I think so. Do I know for a fact it is? No, I don't. I don't claim to. But most religious people do.

 

Actually, it is easier to believe in nothing. Believing in nothing requires no imagination, no creativity and no faith. I know the next response, "You're saying that religion is nothing more than imagination and creativity"...well, maybe. I can't prove there are ghosts or aliens, but I'm damned convinced those suckers are around. And just because nobody has "proof" doesn't mean they're not there. An enlightned person recognizes the possibility of things existing despite appearances to the contrary or lack of proof. The world was flat until it wasn't. Breaking the speed of sound was impossible until it wasn't. Just because something hasn't been found, seen or proven doesn't negate it's existence. Quite honestly, I'm completely capable of standing on both sides of this fence. I can debate a religious zealot all day long about their beliefs and turn right around the next day and debate a complete non-believer about theirs. And I can honestly say that neither is right and neither is wrong, just as I am.

 

Yes, the Earth was flat. It was flat largely based on readings of the Bible. That is, until someone stepped up and challenged it, and proved otherwise.

 

Creativity and faith, those are interesting questions. Does it take less faith to believe as I do? I have faith in the mind of man. I have faith that the mind and spirit of man can solve any problem we may face. Faith in God did not cure smallpox. Faith in science, in reason, in MAN did. Creativity goes hand in hand with that faith. Man is a creator. We create new things, new ways of doing things. This is how our society has progressed from people living in caves, to the wonders of our modern world.

 

People think that not believing in God is a dour, hopeless view. I disagree. I have hope that man can overcome the trials of nature. We can cure disease. We can find new ways of producing food in greater bounty and efficiency. We can find new sources of energy to power our world. We can do all these things and more. But for that to happen, we need to get off our knees, and quit begging for blessings, and MAKE THEM HAPPEN.

 

Now, am I intolerant of religion? Yes and no. Thomas Jefferson said "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." To that extent, I agree. I strongly oppose government meddling with religion. Howver, that is a two way street. I strongly oppose religion meddling in government too.

 

Now, as to religion itself, yes, personally, it makes me sick. It sickens me to see the vast amounts of time and money people pour into religion, time and money that could easily be used to actually accomplish something. I bet if you closed all the churches, mosques, temples, etc. in America, and took the money that was put in all those collection plates weekly, you could end hunger in America overnight. Boom, done. But instead, we build giant tax free workout centers for the church. We buy the priest a large parsonage. We give money so that they may oppress others, and try to talk Obambo the African out of using a condom, which we all know will likely lead to his death. Yes, that disgusts me, and I am fairly intolerant of it. Sorry, that's just my view.

[parrot 789]

Like the Gay Gene?

POWSERS! VEALATED!!

 

 

Except jgcrawfish was never in that camp.

[wiffleball 4,790]

Except jgcrawfish was never in that camp.

 

Don't harsh me man. Don't you focking do it!

[parrot 789]

Don't harsh me man. Don't you focking do it!

 

[NewbieJr 541]

Sometimes it's hard to tell sarcasm or not, when I read your post with a hint of "OMG don't make fun of what believe believvvve!!"

 

Also, it is more ignorant to blindly accept rather than challenge beliefs IMO.

 

And "harmless" beliefs? No, I dont buy into that at all.

I'm not talking about teh militant dooshbags who do suicide bombings in the name of religeon. I'm talking about the family who sends their children to church and tries to do right by others in hopes that they get to heaven.

[kutulu 1,680]

When you say "exhaustive research" just how many rest areas did you go to?

[wiffleball 4,790]

When you say "exhaustive research" just how many rest areas did you go to?

[jgcrawfish 232]

Like the Gay Gene?

 

POWSERS! VEALATED!!

 

yeah, i wasn't in the genetic camp...although I'm not far off by saying that it very well could be a developmental thing. I think someone can be born gay, i just don't happen to think it's a genetic thing...but more of a programming thing.

 

All right, I was trying to end the religion debate thingy, but whatever, allow me to retort. I'll type my responses in bold.

 

I really wasn't attacking you, in fact I toned down some of my comments. As I mentioned, religion is an issue I've struggled with and I clearly see both sides. I guess in my case it boils down to a choice I made or hope that I keep. But it don't condemn anyone who makes a different choice.

 

Except jgcrawfish was never in that camp.

 

 

Nope. I might be a hom0phobe for other reasons, but i'm not prejudiced bigot like phillybear.

[phillybear 366]

Nope. I might be a hom0phobe for other reasons, but i'm not prejudiced bigot like phillybear.

 

That's a mightly big leap of faith there, Bubba.

 

My whole point of this thread was to rebuke people who say people are born gay, and it's a fact. How you can possibly turn that into phillybear is a bigot is just unconscionable. I suppose you grew up without schoolin' cause learnin' is fer queers.

[BunnysBastatrds 2,448]

I'm sure there may be a few retarded gays who believe this, but it's funny that this arguement is the exact one the right wing uses to oppose gay marriage---while most activist groups I've read are concerned only with being afforded the same rights as everyone else and they realize that you can't sue the church to force them to marry you, when they don't recognize the union. Same as a catholic suing a synogogue to married there...

 

I find BB's story to be as grounded in reality as GettnHuge's conversations where he debated his way to changing an entire families beliefs about voting for Obama...

 

 

Where did I say in my post that she was a smart carpet muncher activist? She believes that one day, she will be married in a Catholic Church, and it will be recognized by the church. I used the same argument about a Catholic suing to be married in a synogogue. She doesn't get it, because the radicals she hangs out with have corrupted her thinking. To her, accepting civil unions is a defeat.

[jgcrawfish 232]

That's a mightly big leap of faith there, Bubba.

 

My whole point of this thread was to rebuke people who say people are born gay, and it's a fact. How you can possibly turn that into phillybear is a bigot is just unconscionable. I suppose you grew up without schoolin' cause learnin' is fer queers.

 

see, but that's just it...my "learnin" tells me you didn't rebuke anything...you spouted worthless drivel of an organization that would love to convince the world that gay is a state of mind that they can change with counseling and therapy so freakin psychiatrists and psychologists can make even more money than they do. There are clear findings that hormal issues in utero have huge impacts on developing fetuses and that the pathology and thought processes of may gays are more in line with that of the opposite sex than their own sex. 9 years ago their viewpoint was different, and 9 years from now it may change again. Your whole point of this thread is to get on your little soapbox and tell people about how gay is a choice, a wrong one, and how they deserve AIDS for making it.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

see, but that's just it...my "learnin" tells me you didn't rebuke anything...you spouted worthless drivel of an organization that would love to convince the world that gay is a state of mind that they can change with counseling and therapy so freakin psychiatrists and psychologists can make even more money than they do. There are clear findings that hormal issues in utero have huge impacts on developing fetuses and that the pathology and thought processes of may gays are more in line with that of the opposite sex than their own sex. 9 years ago their viewpoint was different, and 9 years from now it may change again. Your whole point of this thread is to get on your little soapbox and tell people about how gay is a choice, a wrong one, and how they deserve AIDS for making it.

 

POW!

[TD Ryan2 316]

My whole point of this thread was to rebuke people who say people are born gay

 

so then there's either:

those who make a conscious choice

or

those who don't make a conscious choice.

 

and IMO, the majority don't choose it.

[phillybear 366]

see, but that's just it...my "learnin" tells me you didn't rebuke anything...you spouted worthless drivel of an organization that would love to convince the world that gay is a state of mind that they can change with counseling and therapy so freakin psychiatrists and psychologists can make even more money than they do. There are clear findings that hormal issues in utero have huge impacts on developing fetuses and that the pathology and thought processes of may gays are more in line with that of the opposite sex than their own sex. 9 years ago their viewpoint was different, and 9 years from now it may change again. Your whole point of this thread is to get on your little soapbox and tell people about how gay is a choice, a wrong one, and how they deserve AIDS for making it.

 

Exactly right. Except it's the complete opposite.

 

I simply can't fathom how somebody can read 5 pages of this crap, and come to the narrowminded and hateful conclusions that you have arrived at. If you had any decency, you would delete your post and hide the proof of your ugly, ignorant intolerance.

[phillybear 366]

POW!

 

May that be the last sound you hear as you eat a couple of bullets.

[phillycub 0]

Why all the anger against the gheys dad? I saw you smoking pole just last week. It was that edjr guy I think. You focking hypocrite!

[phillybear 366]

Why all the anger against the gheys dad? I saw you smoking pole just last week. It was that edjr guy I think. You focking hypocrite!

 

I feel honored that after so many motherfocking, sack of c0ck sucking, falling off a horse and breaking your neck on an iceblock of AIDS years, somebody finally created an alias to mock me. Took long enough.

 

 

Carry on.

[jgcrawfish 232]

Exactly right. Except it's the complete opposite.

 

I simply can't fathom how somebody can read 5 pages of this crap, and come to the narrowminded and hateful conclusions that you have arrived at. If you had any decency, you would delete your post and hide the proof of your ugly, ignorant intolerance.

 

whatever you want to call it, orientation/lifestyle, i don't condone it...but i also recognize the right people have to make their own choices or live their lives the way they feel compelled to do so. i wasn't given a choice to be hetero, it's just they way I was made, I like chicks. maybe some gays have a choice, but i'm quite sure some don't...it's just who or what they are. but no way am i going to stand here and have you turn this around on me after you posted the clearly biased article that lost all relevancy and fairness when it swung over to the "and God can help you fix what's wrong with you" angle near the end. And speaking of rubes, you're the dumbass who was thoughtless not only to buy their argument, but to quote it when the last half clearly is geared toward you and the other bigots.

 

and I quote:

 

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

 

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."

 

Matt Barber with Liberty Counsel feels the pronouncement may have something to do with saving face. "Well, I think here the American Psychological Association is finally trying to restore some credibility that they've lost over the years by having become a clearly political organization as opposed to an objective, scientific organization," he states. (Hear audio report)

 

With the new information from the APA, Barber wonders if the organization will admit that homosexuals who want to change can change.

 

The part you bolded about the "gay gene" theory are the words of a guy who essentially head an Anti-Gay group. The new statement issued by the APA also comes from an organization that hasn't admitted homosexuals previously. You're re-spewing information from groups that have a clear bias against a group of people as justification for your feelings on the subject. Who's the rube now?

[TD Ryan2 316]

Peter LaBarbera,... the gay agenda

 

what is the gay agenda?

[phillybear 366]

whatever you want to call it, orientation/lifestyle, i don't condone it...but i also recognize the right people have to make their own choices or live their lives the way they feel compelled to do so. i wasn't given a choice to be hetero, it's just they way I was made, I like chicks. maybe some gays have a choice, but i'm quite sure some don't...it's just who or what they are. but no way am i going to stand here and have you turn this around on me after you posted the clearly biased article that lost all relevancy and fairness when it swung over to the "and God can help you fix what's wrong with you" angle near the end. And speaking of rubes, you're the dumbass who was thoughtless not only to buy their argument, but to quote it when the last half clearly is geared toward you and the other bigots.

 

and I quote:

The part you bolded about the "gay gene" theory are the words of a guy who essentially head an Anti-Gay group. The new statement issued by the APA also comes from an organization that hasn't admitted homosexuals previously. You're re-spewing information from groups that have a clear bias against a group of people as justification for your feelings on the subject. Who's the rube now?

 

You just don't get it. A lesser man would tell you to take your sexist views and go peddle them somewhere else.

 

This thread is all about exposing the lies that the gays have been shoving down your more than willing throat. You decided that since you don't care for the messenger, the APA, you chose to roll yourself up in quilt of dumbness. For fock's sake, why would someone consider the American Psychological Association an Anti-Gay group is just baffling.

[jgcrawfish 232]

You just don't get it. A lesser man would tell you to take your sexist views and go peddle them somewhere else.

 

This thread is all about exposing the lies that the gays have been shoving down your more than willing throat. You decided that since you don't care for the messenger, the APA, you chose to roll yourself up in quilt of dumbness.

 

You're right, I don't care for the messenger...mainly you. I could give a shiot about the APA.

[SUXBNME 1,512]

This thread still sucks

[phillybear 366]

You're right, I don't care for the messenger...

 

BEEP. BEEP. HERE COMES THE FAYULEDOZER.

[jgcrawfish 232]

BEEP. BEEP. HERE COMES THE FAYULEDOZER.

 

oh...it sound long ago...when you posted this thread.

[MDC 7,471]

MDC, CH, listen up.

 

You are fighting with the wrong person. I am a Libertarian. I believe that the government should keep their d!cks out of our lives. I have no beef with abortion and gay marriage. I have personal opinions, but it doesn't matter what I think. The government shouldn't be legislating on these things. I'm a strict Constitutionalist.

 

My issue is that for years, the media and national gay groups have been shoving the mantra "You are born GAY" as a fact, and so many people have been buying the bullsh!t. I ranted and raved against hypocrisy for years and years and years. I am a facts man. Always have been, always will. And reference my pro-free speech opinions supporting every broadcaster in every thread on this site, regardless of comments or political affiliation.

 

I hate bullsh!tters. Period.

 

Personally, I think there may be some environmental factors but for the most part you ARE born straight or gay. I'm basing this on the fact that the % of the population that is gay has stayed pretty consistent over the years, but you'd expect more gay people since as a society we've become much more tolerant of homersexuals. There are also cases of homersexuality among apes in roughly the same rates as in humans. Unless you think environmental factors are leading to gay apes, I think that's a pretty stunning coincidence that points toward some kind of genetic cause. And just based on the few gay people I've known well, every one of them can recall having sexual feelings toward the same sex at a very early age - like 5 or 6. Some of these people come from backgrounds that actively discourage homersexuality. So based on all of that I don't believe it's just a choice, although I'm open to the idea that some environments let people who are pre-disposed to being gay act on those impulses.

 

There are so many better instances of bullsh1tting, I don't know why you'd pick on a group of people who are already stigmatized and treated like second class citizens.