Are people born Gay?

[michel]

Good posts Pah. I only wish you could change some minds.

 

[Darkdale]

One more thing,

This ignorance thing is boring, I already know more about gays than I would really like to know. Just because someone doesn't see it your way doesn't make them ignorant. Look at all of the people that come in here and challenge everything religious. If I disagree with someone does that make them ignorant? I wouldn't lower myself to that kind of arrogance.

It seems as though homosexuality disgusts you, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be illegal. This is the problem with democracy. You've got everyone petitioning the government to persecute people they don't like and so the government screws everyone. eh... anyone. C'mon. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. I haven't heard any reasons why it shouldn't exist other than that you'all don't like gay sex.

 

[michel]

It seems as though homosexuality disgusts you, but that doesn't mean that homosexuals shouldn't be able to get married. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it should be illegal. This is the problem with democracy. You've got everyone petitioning the government to persecute people they don't like and so the government screws everyone. eh... anyone. C'mon. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage. I haven't heard any reasons why it shouldn't exist other than that you'all don't like gay sex.

Good post, Darkdale; Bennettresearch, what exactly is it that makes you want to deny homosexuals marriage ?

 

[Darkdale]

Good post, Darkdale; Bennettresearch, what exactly is it that makes you want to deny homosexuals marriage ?

I just think there should be a difference between disliking something and wanting it to be illegal. I think if we all minded our business a little more and passed legislation a little less, the world would be a happier place.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I just think there should be a difference between disliking something and wanting it to be illegal. I think if we all minded our business a little more and passed legislation a little less, the world would be a happier place.

:clap What a concept! :clap

 

[Flappycat]

1. Anyone who proposes major societal changes to accomodate their own personal activity needs to do the proving.

It isn't a major change for you, though. It will hardly affect you at all. Continuing to discriminate against a subset of society in a fashion that directly affects their lifestyle in a way that can only add to the political mayhem, however, does need something in the way of rational backing. If you wish to continue refusing to back your assertions, however, go ahead and see how many people you can convince that you don't have an argument and never will.

2. I am polite

For various reasons, I beg to differ.

and am not presenting a bunch of reasons that being gay is a bad thing. But you yourself have just indicated that it is some kind of anomaly and not just a normal thing of nature.

This is false, though. It shows up in nature all the time. Homosexuals are naturally drawn to the same sex. There is no evidence that it is due to developmental issues, and no other abnormalities are necessarily associated with it.

Maybe you should think before you fly off the handle.

Direct insult.

3. I was not claiming to know the minds of people in this forum. Only you could make a ridiculous insult like that.

Personal ridicule.

I am speaking of what people I have talked to about this have said and think on the subject. Maybe you should drive a cab and learn something about the world.

Implied insult.

4. Police bursting into someone's room? Do you ever listen?

You ever gonna calm down?

You are up front and in your face about your gay thing, this is dragging your bedroom around with you.

Me? Pffffffffffft! If I were less open about my sexual orientation, I'd be in the closet!

I personally don't even want to know what you do in there.

I don't want you to know what I'm doing in there! It's private!

5. Your emotional scatology does nothing to prove your case and if your were the spokesman for the gay community they would get nothing.

Pardon me, not into scat. I find it disgusting.

To make the point clear, you represent that you have the right to be in everyone's face about this and present a very irrational example of what it means to be gay.

Since when?

You attack and try to pound on anyone that you deem to not be in your camp on this.

Perhaps because I have a personal stake in this. Is there any part of this that you do not understand? This isn't a remote, intellectual issue for me. It isn't something that I'll never have to deal with. It's something that's in my face right now. It doesn't stop being in my face. Being forced to choose between not getting married and marrying some woman, by the holy command of your god and father, whom I don't have any belief in whatsoever and would disapprove of if I did, isn't going to make me want to do anything other than grind the people advocating it under my foot. How can this not make me incensed? Hmm?

Your emotional vendetta does nothing but make you look bad. Try and be rational and address a point or to in a debating manner and maybe I'll try to examine just what the heck you are trying to say.

I haven't even been particularly emotional. You, on the other hand, seem to spend more time complaining about gay people rubbing their sexual orientation up in your face than actually giving a real argument. Hey, I'm not going to give these people a free pass just for being gay; I think it's really stupid for homosexuals to be confrontational, all the time, about their sexual orientation. Try to realize, though, that homosexuals are just as prone to being complete idiots as most of the rest of the world, moreso because they've actually got something to be upset about. However, I don't have the faintest clue what this has to do with gay marriage. Gay people getting the marriage rights they're looking for would help you. The next time a gay man decided to get in your face, you could say "look, buddy, you have marriage rights now, and I'm one of the voters who helped to make it happen. Don't even start with me." Done! Gay man out of your face! If not, hey, keep a two-by-four handy! Heck, then you'd have ammo to say things like "hey, you guys spent so much time trying to get marriage rights. Use them, and stop drooling on me." Wouldn't that be wonderful? Hmm?

 

[Mike182]

hey flap

i agree with your post, and i really am sorry, but when you said

Me? Pffffffffffft! If I were less open about my sexual orientation, I'd be in the closet!

i was laughing for nearly 20 minutes ....



you are quite right in that you are fully justified to have your voice heard on this issue, but i thin BR is refering to the people she has come into contact, who, judging by the context of this contact, have a very "if you don't accept me you're an immoral ####er" attitude

from all that i've seen flap, you are not like thia at all, and a very mature in your responses where others would not be - you have my complete respect


pah:

a very nicely though out post, im just getting round to fruballing it

darkdale:

This is the problem with democracy. You've got everyone petitioning the government to persecute people they don't like and so the government screws everyone.

you have me very intruiged to say the least ........ :biglaugh:

you are quite right, democracy forgets the little people

hehehehe, mental image of george bush in his office, recieving his FBi report for the day:

"gay...people, who are these, gay peop......oh yer, them, erm, yes, well, we can ignore that" :biglaugh:

C_P

 

[Flappycat]

i thin BR is refering to the people she has come into contact, who, judging by the context of this contact, have a very "if you don't accept me you're an immoral ####er" attitude.

The thing is, I've stated time and time and time again that I sympathize with him on this. It doesn't seem to register, though, probably because I won't swallow him using it as a justification for withholding rights from homosexuals.

 

[linwood]

I'm gay. Was I born gay? I don't know, does it matter?

But I feel it's not something I made a conscience choice about to whom I am attracted and to whom I am not. I don't believe anyone can control that.

Exactly!!

It doesn`t matter.

I`m of the opinion that "The Gay Agenda" is making a serious mistake in pursuing the unfounded point that homosexuality is inherent.
If and when it is shown not to be they will have lost a battle they never needed to have.
They never needed to have it because "It doesn`t matter" and it`s not the point.

 

[linwood]

The fact that science has discovered homosexuality in some 300 to 400 species, let alone humans, suggests to me that homosexuality is not something learned from ones culture. For if it were something learned from ones culture, then why would it appear in 300 to 400 different species of animal?

Please supply the evidence that science has in fact discovered homosexuality in 300-400 species.
They haven`t, what they have discovered is bisexuality in 300-400 species.
This places homosexuals and bisexuals on an equal footing with heterosexuals.

People keep saying that sexual orientation can be changed but I don`t think so.
Are there any here who are heterosexuals who could change their orientation?

 

[Flappycat]

Personally, I don't see how this could not be my natural sexual orientation. When I was in school, I couldn't always stand up straight while I was in the presence of a male and even now tend to falter a step if I pass by an attractive fellow who's gone out of his way to draw people's eyes to his belt. This was taken as intimidation, which is, oddly enough, one of the things that pretty much protected me from physical abuse, combined with the fact that I showed myself on a couple of occassions to be perfectly capable of fending off three guys at once and leaving bruises for them to remember me by, simply because I was never one to let something like a busted lip stop me and had absolutely no scruples. In any event, if I was situated right next to an attractive guy and happened to brush up against him the wrong way, I'd have to turn away in embarrassment to hide that my mouth was watering and would, of course, be fighting down the butterflies on some occassions. However, women were an entirely different matter. I found their advances disturbing, and nothing stirred in me at all when I happened to brush against them. I could speak rationally around them a lot more often, and I generally found them easier to hang with as long as they kept comfortably cool. This is all before I even knew there were many other homosexuals out there or consciously cared one way or the other about homosexuality. My sex drive has calmed quite a lot, but it remains that I'm attracted strictly and entirely to guys. If there are others in the world like me, then yes, people are born gay. That's all there is to it.

 

[painted wolf]

actually Linwood Homosexuality has been documented in Penguins for one... not just bisexuality. The boys in question have shown absolutely no intrest in any of the females they live with.

I for one would never choose to change what Creator made me... I would never demand that anyone elce do it either. I have faith that God knew what he was doing when he created 'gay-ness' or whatever you want to call it.
Who am I to say God made a mistake?

wa:do

 

[Pah]

:banghead3 arrgghhh :banghead3

I just lost a detailed exposition of a purely male homosexual fish and a recount of the big horn sheep :sigh:. The point was, Linwood, although the vast majority of homosexual animals are bisexual, the label has been applied to any that exhibit homosexual sex. And that the human animal displays almost all of the sexual behaviours present in the rest of the animal kingdom.

Geez- you would have really liked the post :sigh:

 

[painted wolf]

ahh... don't forget transexual fish... they go from male to female (some clownfish) or female to male... the joys of biology.
Then there are the entirely female populations of certen lizards...
life knows no hard and fast rules when it comes to reproduction... anything goes for someone.

wa:do

 

[linwood]

Personally, I don't see how this could not be my natural sexual orientation.

Don`t misunderstand me Flappy, I`m not implying homosexuality is "un-natural".
I`m simply stating that I`m not so sure it`s a genetic physical trait.

The point was, Linwood, although the vast majority of homosexual animals are bisexual, the label has been applied to any that exhibit homosexual sex.

Oh..I know that label has been applied in such a manner.
I just find it narrows the discussion of this topic into black and white categories when I don`t think there`s anything black and white about it if you know what I mean.
I don`t think it`s that simple and I don`t think many will understand the different degrees involved if we keep the debate limited to such simple terms.

Geez- you would have really liked the post :sigh:

Maybe you can just point me to a reference?
It is something I`m interested in.

actually Linwood Homosexuality has been documented in Penguins for one... not just bisexuality. The boys in question have shown absolutely no intrest in any of the females they live with.

I`m not opposing this truth PW as it`s apparent within humanity.
I just think that preference is determined as much by environment as it may be by genetics or personal taste if you will.
Although I did just read about the two "gay" penguins in the zoo breaking up because one took a liking to a little girl penguin from Sea World.

It was really pretty interesting.
The two male penguins nested and hatched an egg (donated to them) then cared for the child but eventually divorced due to infidelity on one penguins part with a female penguin.
The rejected penguin was displaying signs of severe heartbreak.
It was kind of sad but the whole episode was so humanlike to read about.

I don`t believe we`ll find any genetic evidence of homosexuality.
What I know of natural selection doesn`t seem to work that way.
it would seem to me that all animals would have a sexual drive (desire for pleasure) in order to assure procreation.
No where in the theory of sexual selection and natural selection does it even hint at any reason or need for that drive to be sexually determined.
It`s just not necessary, the odds are that the necessary procreation will happen without it.

However I`d love to be wrong on this point.
It would imediately invalidate any argument against gay marriage.
I don`t think it`s really necessary considering I`ve yet to see an actual argument against it to begin with.

 

[painted wolf]

hadn't heard of the 'break up'... but I can't say I'm surprized...penguins don't mate for life, they pick a new partner every season... perhaps his mate for the year was 'bi' and decided to play the other side.. all bets are off once the season is done so 'infidelity' doesn't really come into it.

we still have alot of work on the Human Geneome to do before I think anyone should be saying anytihng 100% either way... We are finding that many genes function in tandem with other genes and that a change in one has a cascading effect on several genes. It may well (and I think likely is) that sexuality isn't a product of a single gene but a combined effect of several different ones effecting everything from brain chemistry on...

There are many theories as to why 'gayness' would be an evolutionary 'advantage' in a percentage of the population... from the 'sneaky male' idea to the 'adoptive parents in waiting' idea... are any of them right? Who knows?

I agree that regardless its no excuse to deny basic rights to a whole segment of the population.

wa:do

 

[Pah]

Exclusive homosexuality
lifetime 47-48; mammals 283,
296,344-45,420; birds 481,
494, 554, 629, 648-49
other long-term 47-49, 177,
677nlO-12
mammals: primates 277-78, 283,291,296; marine 344-45, 363, 368; hoofed 395,404,407,411,415, 419-20,429; other 434, 438,466
birds: waterfowl 481,489, 493-94,507; shore 531, 546, 554; perching 568, 571,574,576,589; other 629,638,648-49,653 short-term 49-50,177
mammals: primates 283, 286,304-5,327,332; ma*rine 363,372; hoofed 385,414,423; other 463, 472
birds: waterfowl 489; shore 550, 558, 564; perching 538,576,595,608; other
- 629,638,642
see also Preference (homosexual)

Explanations of homosexuality
bisexual superiority 173-83,
709n20-21 contributing to heterosexuality! breeding 185-94, 711n54,
712n64,712n77
dominance 107-15,
691n74-76,692n81-82,
692n85, 693n89, 694n96-97
helpers 169-72, 707n7, 707n9,
707nll
mistaken sex indentification
148-55, 702n76, 703n83-86
nonsexual 115-21, 689n58,
689-90n59,690-91n69,
692n86,694nl01-3
pathology-captivity 156-63,
682n76
pathology-hormonal, other physiological 145,147, 163-67, 682n76, 702n73, 706n116
population control 172-73,
708n13,708nI6
practice for heterosexuality
183-85, 711n49, 711n52
pseudoheterosexuality 124-33,
165, 679n41, 698n28
shortage of opposite sex
134-48, 678n16, 699n43,
701n65-70
see also Behavioral!sexual plasticity
Extra-pair (promiscuous) copulations see Nonmonogarnous pair-bonds

A part of the subject index from Biological Exuberance by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D.

That fish I was telling you about, the exclusive homosexual (oh that was in the post that blew up) Well anyway, this creature is diminutive compared to the bisexual male and that would indicate a generic influence.

In the bonobo, I would expect a great deal of influence from environment but not in the big horn sheep here the "straight" male sheep has no male horns. I say "straight" but is probably more properly termed asexual. The "horned" male is bisexual only dring the matting season and is exclusively homosexual the rest of the time. Again, the horns being another indication of generic influence.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Good post, Darkdale; Bennettresearch, what exactly is it that makes you want to deny homosexuals marriage ?

Hi Michel,

I haven't actually come out and denied anything. Just as a Christian tolerates other views form let's say an Atheist, I think that that those advocating Gay rights should take a lesson from this. Any little opposition that I have presented has brought on all kinds of flack. Pah's posts are getting to be more civil and I can debate on a level like this. I am happy to clarify my position in this matter. I have been around since the beginning of the really big liberal push of the 70's. I was simpler back then. Civil rights was a racial issue. A no brainer. I was pretty much a liberal in every sense of the word. I didn't think that it was right to supress anyone and if there was a clear case of this I would support change.

Now, let's fast forward. I ended up driving a cab and was just a joe dokes surviving. Enter the pro-active liberals who are hyper vigilant and see a guy like me as a target. This didn't make me want to sign on with any new agendas, and believe me I got accused of every single one of their claims against the evil white man of society that everyone hates. Pretty ridiculous but all to real. Just as I hear of someone reacting to an encounter with a right wing fundamentalist, I was getting it from the left for no other reason than being a WHM. (caps for emphasis only). Why am I responsible for any of this? I am just leading my own life.

This is what I have been pointing out, that all of the increasing demands on society come from an ever increasing demand form people with some kind of gripe. This hyperactivity doesn't put on a good face for these causes anymore. It has come down to a new list of the special priviledged classes and it has been made clear that I can forget about being included.

People get so wrapped up in their victimhood that they become the very thing they are claiming that they are fighting against. I am a supervisor and I have to deal with people trying to play their special status as a trump card to gain special priveledges over other people. A turning of the tables so to speak. So I say, practice what you preach!!! I am for equality for all and the more divisive our society becomes because of these movements the farther away we get from true equality. I challenge people who are wrapped up in their agendas to take a step back and look at what they represent. This is where my opposition has come from.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Flappy,

Since the replies I have given to you are about statements in other posts by you, I can see where others have missed it and it looks like I am picking on you. What they don't realize is that you drew first blood in the insult department and was so busy shotgunning your responnse that you presented nothing in the way of debate, only flack that was a total misunderstanding of what I said. So while you make think that you have acheived a reversal, we both know that you went over the line.

The animal kingdom is irrelevant. As humans we are higher beings and are expected to act as such. The statement, by someone else, about a biblical dominion is the type of assumptions that get thrown out by defenders in this thread. I never said that or made that reference. Maybe we can make something clear here. You can't rightfully make bad assumptions and attacks on someone else and then claim some kind of victimhood.

My challenge here is to quit representing yourself as a victim. I had bullies attack me in and out of school. Maybe I am more fortunate because I could stand up to them and fight back. Everyone here has to quit assuming that any resistance is an anti-gay thing. I am clearly stating that regardless of how strongly you feel on the subject, Gay Marriage is a very major social change. If there wasn't any societal resistance to this change then there wouldn't be such a vehement defense coming from your side. This is what strikes someone who is not part of your movement, and you should be mindful to not be offensive because it does nothing for your cause.

Let's put it all in proper perspective. The majority of nuclear families view their unions as something that is sacred in society. The Gay movement is doing more to try and force them than to persuade them. Just as you don't want something forced on you, you have to be mindful not to force something on others. THis is where the debate lies. I have stated too many times that what you do or what you think you are is very much your own business and I practice what I preach when I don't force my values onto someone else. It is not me that your are really fighting, it is society. So please try and have some perspective in a debate and refrain from making accusations and try presenting your point.

 

[Pah]

..
People get so wrapped up in their victimhood that they become the very thing they are claiming that they are fighting against. I am a supervisor and I have to deal with people trying to play their special status as a trump card to gain special priveledges over other people. A turning of the tables so to speak. So I say, practice what you preach!!! I am for equality for all and the more divisive our society becomes because of these movements the farther away we get from true equality. I challenge people who are wrapped up in their agendas to take a step back and look at what they represent. This is where my opposition has come from.

Well, that let's me out. I'm not a victim. I'm not homosexual. I must be one of those ultra-liberals who see the status quo as insult.

What is my stake in "ultra-liberalism? Let's see, I don''t want to practise homosexual sex so that isn't the motivation behind my advocacy. I'm never going to carry a baby. so my advocacy of women's choice has no personal edge. I'm white - a member of the privilaged so that seems counter intuitive to support racial equality. My wife works but her salary is stipulated by law for both males and females so why am I for woman's rights? I fight some religious battles but as an atheist I don't care about Gods of any sort (but, in fact, I encourgae a personal faith). So just what is that feeds me? Is "ultra-liberal" an appropiate label?

Actually I'm a mediocre liberal and share the libertarian goals of responsible government. What I really am is an ultra-patriot if you have consider I'm "ultra" at all. I'm a strong secular humanist who believes totally in the rights of humanity and the freedoms the Constitution promises and safeguards. And that's why I work so hard.

I work hard against religious organizations that would substitute religious principle for humanistic principle (that goes against the First Amendment). I work hard to see that constitutional promise is available and actuated for all. And I work hard to see that the gains wrested in prolonged struggle from the privilaged are kept. I'm against reactionaries and those that still claim privilage.

I see the homosexual "agenda" as nothing more than an accualiztion of constitutional freedom. I oppose those who would stop that for any reason. And I oppose them with passion, with facts, and with whatever writing talent I have. I'm not a vocal pacifist - just like my vociferious opponents

So what are you really doing in this discussion? I hope it is not just a projection of distaste for ultra-liberals.