Very well-written and expresses my own opinions completely and accurately.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/gayson.html

Seems as though you Bible haters tend to characterize Christians as people who "hate" gays. The extremists may but they are few and far between. I think homosexuality is wrong and I also think there IS a "homosexual agenda," however I don't think it has anything to do with "having sex with childeren" as the letter mentions. I would never treat a homosexual with disrespect because of their lifestyle. I simply believe it's wrong. Is that SOOOOO horrible of me? Me thinking that is not hurting anyone is it?

Also I am against gay marriages but my opinion on that has nothing to do with religious beliefs.

This is a letter against fundies: the most moronic people on Earth. Not general Christians.

I'm with Dave on this, I think Gays are sick. This is a free country they can do what they want as long as they keep it to themselfs. What I can't stand are all these damn fagget marches and gay rights conventions. When are we going to have straight sex marches and conventions? Maybe this Mother should have tried to straighten her kid out instead of adding to his problem.... Just a thought.

Alright fellas, let's see where you really stand.....

Should sodomy be a crime?

I don't think sodomy should be a CRIME just keep it to ones self. What a person does behind closed doors is there business. I think gays are sick, but that is my opion, they have the right to do what they want just keep it to themselfs.

No, I don't think it should be a crime.

I think what happened to this lady's son in school really didn't have that much to do with him being gay. In today's public schools, a student doesn’t have to act gay to be called a "Faggot." The only reason school bullies use this word is because they know it’s insulting. I doubt that the kids who put this boy through hell in school were all “Fundies;” most likely, they were just a couple of punks who done the same to all the “un-popular” students.

Originally posted by Mopoloton
I think what happened to this lady's son in school really didn't have that much to do with him being gay. In today's public schools, a student doesn’t have to act gay to be called a "Faggot." The only reason school bullies use this word is because they know it’s insulting. I doubt that the kids who put this boy through hell in school were all “Fundies;” most likely, they were just a couple of punks who done the same to all the “un-popular” students.

True. My big brother used to call me "faggot" all the time just to be insulting. Of course, I didn't take it personally....much.:(

Originally posted by mad dog
I don't think sodomy should be a CRIME just keep it to ones self. What a person does behind closed doors is there business. I think gays are sick, but that is my opion, they have the right to do what they want just keep it to themselfs.
Ah, but that is skewed in favor of heterosexuals. What if the homosexuals think it's "sick" to see heterosexuals kissing in public...?

Borg you are right. The most I have ever done with my wife in public is hold hands and the occasional peck(light kiss that is :D)
In fact a couple of months ago I walked up to a couple (man and woman) they were carrying on rather quite heavily, I told them that there public display was not needed and they should go get a room. There were about 3-4 groups of people next to me and quess what, they all said thanks, and that they just didn't have the courage to say anything.

Mopoloton you might be exactly right, kids can be very mean.

Leper are you trying to tell us something :D :D

I've told more than one couple to "get a room".

Whatever goes on beween consenting adults (key word: consenting) is thier business alone. Everybody else out of the bedroom - local, county, parish, state, fed, religious/moral leadership of every ilk, and anyone I've missed out there who think they have any business interfering, that goes for you too.

I refuse to believe that humans presently have any more choice in their sexual identity, than they do the color of their eyes. I've never met someone who made the deliberate choice to be gay. Maybe in the future, as the gene splicers & DNA mechanics work their charms, who knows?

Originally posted by es347fan
I've told more than one couple to "get a room".

Whatever goes on beween consenting adults (key word: consenting) is thier business alone. Everybody else out of the bedroom - local, county, parish, state, fed, religious/moral leadership of every ilk, and anyone I've missed out there who think they have any business interfering, that goes for you too.

I refuse to believe that humans presently have any more choice in their sexual identity, than they do the color of their eyes. I've never met someone who made the deliberate choice to be gay. Maybe in the future, as the gene splicers & DNA mechanics work their charms, who knows?

Homosexuality isn't inherited. Go look up an identical twin study. That's where you have a bunch of identical twins separated at birth and you study the similarities in lifestyle. If one's gay, that doesn't mean the other will be gay. i.e. Homosexuality isn't inherited (although there was a minor but significant corellation in the studies, suggesting that nature does play some small role). Homos that claim otherwise just don't want to or are unable to come to terms with the fact that they're a little twisted.

The thing I find almost funny is that gays want sexual preference to be on a par with "favorite color," "race" etc etc. How ridiculous. Homosexuality is the EXCEPTION and heterosexuality is the RULE. I have no problem with homosexuals and they can do whatever they want but give me a break...

Leper: are you thinking 'nature vs. nuture'?

If homosexuality comes from the environment, which part? Homosexuality has always been with us, how do you explain it?

Originally posted by es347fan
Leper: are you thinking 'nature vs. nuture'?

If homosexuality comes from the environment, which part? Homosexuality has always been with us, how do you explain it?

Yes, I wasn't clear but I was referencing the nature v. nurture argument. I think it's a kindof a silly debate when it comes to most homos (forgive the shorthand)....particularly the most flamboyant versions. Lisps, pink boas, and extravagant hand gesturing are never inherited traits. They are learned. I would surmise that many homos in our society are homos simply because it's a fad in our society and it's an almost surefit way to be accepted into a peer group. I personally find these sorts hard to deal with and don't believe for a second their sexuality is inherited.

Or course, the difficult question arises when you're dealing with homos who are practically normal in every respect except their sexuality. What percentage of homos fall into this category? Well below 50% I expect but since they're harder to detect, it's hard to say. I privately think of these sorts as the "true" homos. I have nothing against these sorts and am more accepting of the "I was born this way" argument when dealing with them. I can only conjecture, but I suspect their sexuality is brought about much the same way any true sexual fettish (the kind where a person can't "operate" without the presence of the triggering mechanism) is brought on.

Anyways, I'm getting sidetracked hypothesizing.

To answer your first question, "If homosexuality comes from the environment, which part?", I think it's the sexuality part. What we inherit is a sex drive, a need to orgasm (at least from the male perspective...I can't figure out the female sex drive). What we don't inherit is an attraction to the opposite sex. I think any sort of attraction or aesthetic value is learned.

Now for your second question, "homosexuality has always been with us, how do you explain it?" Well, I'll concede it's been with us throughout the advent of writing at least....I'm hesitant to concede to "always" been with us. Even so, I would explain it like masturbation. We have the inherited sex drive, the only question is how we satisfy it. Using homosexuality as a means to satisfy your sex drive probably came about as soon as a couple of adventurous same-sexed neanderthals somehow became isolated from the rest of the neanderthal population.

Originally posted by Leper
Using homosexuality as a means to satisfy your sex drive probably came about as soon as a couple of adventurous same-sexed neanderthals somehow became isolated from the rest of the neanderthal population.
Those bast***s I knew there was someone to blame :D

I think I'm going to side with leper on this one he brings up many good points, and nothing has been proven that being gay is in the blood. Take a group of teens, they all try to wear the instyle clothing because that is what society tells them to do. Now take a group of kids that go to school in farmland USA, and take a group of kids that go to school in San Fran CA. I would almost bet you'll have more gays from the San Fran area then the farm land area. I've also noticed there are becoming more and more gays around since society has become more tolerent. Sometimes I think a person is gay just because they are afraid of the oppposite sex, there not sure of how to handle themselfs around the opposite sex so they just hang around people of the same sex.

Now back to the theory that being gay is genetic, then how would a person explain people that have sex with animals?

Most homosexuals I've interviewed speak of knowing they were "different" at a very early age, like between 4 & 10. I've yet to meet a gay that talks about being "taught" or encouraged through parental or peer pressure.
You present a good point with there seeming to be an increase in the gay population. I've noticed that as well, and tend to believe that's a result of a more tolerant society giving them permission to come out. It also seems that there's an increase in acknowledged bi-sexual behavior as well, probably for some of the same reasons. Overall, I suspect the homosexual population remains approximately 10-12% of the whole.
Beastiality? Deviant behavior by choice.

The only gay person I know personally said he had no gay tendancies till later in life. Whether this has anything to do with it or not, I don't know, but he didn't "become" gay until during/after the time he served in the Navy. Take it for what you will.

Originally posted by es347fan
Most homosexuals I've interviewed speak of knowing they were "different" at a very early age, like between 4 & 10. I've yet to meet a gay that talks about being "taught" or encouraged through parental or peer pressure.
You present a good point with there seeming to be an increase in the gay population. I've noticed that as well, and tend to believe that's a result of a more tolerant society giving them permission to come out. It also seems that there's an increase in acknowledged bi-sexual behavior as well, probably for some of the same reasons. Overall, I suspect the homosexual population remains approximately 10-12% of the whole.
Beastiality? Deviant behavior by choice.

Personality is also established at a very early age. If you interview people about their personality, I'm sure the vast majority would speak of knowing they were "introverted" or "extraverted" from a very early age. That's no evidence of whether the trait is inherited genetically.

I don't really rely on my personal observations of an increase in gays in the populations to make any conclusions/theories. Like you said, that can easily be explained by a more tolerant society allowing them to express an unpopular trait.

Let's take it first from Freud's point of view. Sexuality is the drive to have SEX. Must have that. It all revolves around how you like your dish of sex. Some like it fried, some like it boiled. You may think it as an odd fietish, but you turn it around the other way and they will think you odd. Personality is not inherited, however many people claim it is. It is based on interaction with the enviroment. Being raised a certain way. You said that these homosexuals became that way just like how some take into different groups? WTF. How, they usually have no friends that way, it isn't another "group". It isn't the group of "gays" and the group of "straights". People don't like to be unpopular, they never do. It's always about trying to fit in as much as possible.

And onto a little history lesson. Homosexuals have been around forever, and at times they were accepted, and even into the point that the majority was "gay". Take ancient Greece for example. The vast majority was gay or bisexual. It was quite common for a teen to have an adult "friend". Then they became adults when they took up a wife, and quite often a husband too.

Onto the opposite sex area. I have seen that a lot of men like lesbians. They think that men homosexuality is gross, but female is erotic. It goes the opposite way too. The female population likes "gay" guys. Quite often a "gay" guy will have a lot of girl friends. I asked one why, and she said that it was because they had somebody who was sexy to talk too, but at the same time they knew they would never get asked out.

That's a little braoder interpretation of Greek acceptance of homosexuality than I ever heard.

I firmly believe the further we (not me...the guys with oak leaf clusters on their multiple degrees) delve into the human genome the more we're going to understand personality makeup. Certainly some of personality development is environmentally influenced, some is genetic. As our fund of knowledge increases, we can change certain beliefs. For example: alcoholism was once believed to be a behavioral disorder. That's not entirely the case presently. There is an element of behavior involved, yet we now know there's a disease element (very often inherited) along with the addictive factor. Look far enough into an alcoholic's family tree, and there's plenty of pertinent history there. Two people, appearing very normal in every respect, can produce offspring with major birth defects, (downs syndrome, MR/DD, siamese twins, etc) and no one really questions that those are genetic problems. Why is it so hard to assign the same beliefs to homosexuality? That's not to say that homosexuality is a birth defect, but to say that it is a genetic predisposition.

The Genome Project is finally done. It seems all of our questions are about to be answered.

The Genome Project is not "done"....they've only opened the first page of the table of contents. They've drawn a map. It's a start.

The Human Genome Project is done, the entire point was to map. The rest, the extreme details are not part of that project.

Originally posted by Blibblob
The Human Genome Project is done, the entire point was to map. The rest, the extreme details are not part of that project.
Isn't that kind of like having a brand new car in your drive way, but no keys to go with it? Kind of stupid to stop a project without researching.

Here is a question for those of you who say gays should adopt. Lets take a 15 year old he is already semi set in his ways, but he is not an adult. He already thinks fags are sick, but he his not violent towrds them. Now take that same kid, but younger, (let the gays adopt him) alot of you are saying gayism(if that is a word)is Genetic. So when junoir grows up he is straight and because of his Genetics he still thinks gays are sick, But now because he was picked on as a young kid he ends up violent against gays. My question again are we going to let gays adopt so they can be happy or are we doing it for the kids?

WHAT? No one ever said that thinking gays are sick was GENETIC! That is most definitely a part of one's upbringing! Saying that homophobia is genetic is like saying Christianity is genetic! LMAO!

Homophobia is definitely a learned behavior...nothing genetic about it.

So if someone is gay it is genetic but if someone is straight it is learned? I'll make my question easier, lets take a young child he/she is adopted by gays. As life goes by junior starts school kids at school pick on junior because he/she has 2 moms/dads. Now junior who is straight is embarassed and ashamed of his/her parents. The only way junior knows how to make the other kids realize that he/she is not gay is to prove it. The only way to prove it is with name calling and violence. Now junior ends up with alot of emotional problems because of his parents. This is not a far fetched example, heck alot of kids are embarassed about there straight parents. Now we(society) are going to let another problem in to a childs life. I have asked this question atleast three times and know one has answered, so I will take it for what it is. Question: Are gays thinking of the children or are they thinking of themselfs? Answer: They are only thinking of themselfs. This is the reason I think gays should not be alowed to adopt.

So if someone is gay it is genetic but if someone is straight it is learned?
How do you get that gay is genetic, or that straight is learned? The answer cannot be determined.

The only way junior knows how to make the other kids realize that he/she is not gay is to prove it. The only way to prove it is with name calling and violence.
How old is "junior" now? The problem isn't the kid, or his parents. The problem is with society itself. It's with society's disgust with gays. Don't go blaming the parents, blame yourself.

That's right, don't let junior be responsible for his own behaviors, it's all societies' fault. Everybody blames someone/something else for their misdeeds and failures...that's one of the biggest things wrong with today's society.

Sexual identity is genetic, primarily.

I'm not blaming anyone I'm just telling it like it is. BorgHunter asked a question I gave an answer. Wether it is societys fault, the parents fault, or the damn dogs fault doesn't really matter what matters is that junior will get picked on if his parents are gay.

mad dog....you're probably right, junior may very well get picked on if the parents are gay. The response was aimed at blibb.

Originally posted by es347fan
That's right, don't let junior be responsible for his own behaviors, it's all societies' fault. Everybody blames someone/something else for their misdeeds and failures...that's one of the biggest things wrong with today's society.

Sexual identity is genetic, primarily.

Completely agree with this. What is with people refusing to take responsability for themselves!?

If you beat someone with a baseball bat....it was the fault of your upbringing, a chemical imbalance, or the Louisville Slugger manufacturer........but was it YOUR fault......no way!

Originally posted by es347fan
That's right, don't let junior be responsible for his own behaviors, it's all societies' fault. Everybody blames someone/something else for their misdeeds and failures...that's one of the biggest things wrong with today's society.
.
I also feel this is a problem, but when you put a CHILD into a screwed up environment are you not adding to the problem?
I know we should not blame Mom and Dad when they have done everything in there power to be a good parent. Should we let parents off the hook when they personally put junior into a bad situation? Would you let junior into a crack house even if you new the people were nice? probably not because of the environment. All I'm trying to say is gays are laughed at and made fun of in society, so why would you want a CHILD to grow up in that type of situation?

If you beat someone with a baseball bat....it was the fault of your upbringing, a chemical imbalance, or the Louisville Slugger manufacturer........but was it YOUR fault......no way!
THATS why it's society's fault. It definatly isn't "junior's" fault, nor his parents. It's the fault of the ones who pick on them. The answer is NOT to change the parents or the child, or to keep him/her out of that situation. The answer is to change YOURSELF. You have no right to interfere with the lives of others or the lives of those who are kind enough to adopt, you HAVE to, change yourself, and society with you. The reason these kids are picked on is because of you, not them or their parents. It is YOUR stupidity and ignorance of the situation. The reason I feel so strongly about this is because what happened to the kid in the letter, happened to me. I was different, and odd. I was picked on and mocked throughout elementary school and middle school, it is different now, because if you screw with me, your nose gets bloodied. I've seen enough of it myself, I've seen enough to know that it wasn't my fault, it was the fault of the bastards who are popular in society. It is the fault of their parents and their parent's parents. The way things are passed down, the disgust of gays is not genetic nor are you born into it, it is taught, by your parents and within the school system. It is learned from others. If the school system did its job, you would never see bullying or hatred. Kindness has to be learned. It doesn't matter if being gay is genetic or whatever. Homosexuality has nothing to do with anything.

Originally posted by Blibblob
. I was different, and odd.
What do you mean WAS, you still are :D

I never once said that I picked on gays I said society picks on gays. For this reason I don't think a childs life should be compromised, I'm not going to say things won't be different in the future. At this time in history I feel that we should think about the CHILD not the gays. Who knows in the year 5000 maybe everyone will be gay :eek:

If everyone were gay, our species would die off. Common sense, mad dog.

"It's the fault of the ones who pick on them. "

Wow...that's way out of line. An individual's behavior is their own responsibility. Where's all that negotiation stuff they're supposed to be teaching you kids in school these days? Haven't you even paid attention in Psychology 100? No one makes you lose your temper, that's a decision you make all by yourself. Read the teachings of Albert Ellis. He just might make sense to you.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
If everyone were gay, our species would die off. Common sense, mad dog.
Test tube Babys...... Who nows what other scientific crap the world will come up with by the year 5000?

I was really only saying this to be a smart a** :D

Wow...that's way out of line.
How?
An individual's behavior is their own responsibility.
That's how it's not out of line.
Where's all that negotiation stuff they're supposed to be teaching you kids in school these days? Haven't you even paid attention in Psychology 100?
It's common sense to the fact if a kid gets picked on, it's the fault of the bully.
Read the teachings of Albert Ellis. He just might make sense to you.
Haven't heard of him, I've read information on and by Freud, his daughter, B.F. Skinner, John Watson, Pavlov, Abraham Maslow, and others I can't quite name off the top of my head. I think I know a little bit on how the human mind works.

Haven't heard of Albert? Then do a search! He's easy to find. I see you've studied behavioralists. Enjoy the strictness of a controlled environment, do ya?

Haven't heard of Albert? Then do a search! He's easy to find. I see you've studied behavioralists. Enjoy the strictness of a controlled environment, do ya?
Skinner had nothing to do with controled enviroments, he messed around with stimulating the mind of an unintelligent animal(such as the pigeon) to do a complicated task through step by step programs. All in the wild. And his invention, the Skinner Box. Maslow had his piramid of wants, thats not behaviorism, Watson and Pavlov were controled enviroments, but they were also the pioneers, they had almost no clue what they were doing at first.

Skinner is nothing but a behavioralist. Pure behavior therapy has limited uses. C-B-T, or Cognitive Behavior Therapy is often a much preferred approach. CBT also makes more sense to the patient.

Behavior therapy has limited uses because there is only a certain amout that is actually determined by your enviroment. Of course CBT makes more sense, what could make more?

Okay, so GLBT couples should not be allowed to adopt because other children will pick on them.

What about other groups which are prone to discrimination? If someone is in a wheelchair, or of a certain ethnic group, or of unusual religious beliefs (Buddhist, Pagan, etc.) should they not be allowed to adopt on the grounds that they would put those children in a potentially hostile situation?

I believe that anybody qualified to adopt, and indeed be a parent, should be capable of dealing with these situations and teach their children how to deal with actions based on ignorance.

What's worse, getting picked on in school or growing up without parents in a group home? I agree with Munch - if a person or couple can prove that they're not felons, let 'em adopt.

In most cases, going through the process of adoption is lengthy, costly, and personally intrusive. There are legions of Social Workers (MSW's) ready and more than willing to stop the process at any point. Imagine having 20 people inspect your anal cavity with a microscope, and reporting the results to 50 more. There are countless interviews, home visits, supervised visits with the child, ..the list goes on & on. The background check alone is more extensive than a banker's credit check when you ask for a mortgage. The process is managed by committee, so everyone and no one is responsible all at the same time. Any couple making it through this bureaucratic quagmire gets the kid. The process doesn't stop there, however, as the MSW's continue to make unscheduled home visits and other checks for years to come.
Remember: a committee is the only form of life known to man having 100 bellies and no brain.

If thats the case. Why the hell is somebody stopped from adopting due to a prejudiced and retarded reason? If somebody wants to go through that extensive of a check(that actually involves you, FBI doesn't ask you questions), let them!

Why does it even matter whether homosexuality (and for that matter heterosexuality) is genetic or learned?

The fact of the matter remains that it is either something that is engrained in a person from the day they're born, or is something which they believe so completely they dedicate themselves and their lives to it.

Who is someone to turn to another human being and say "You're messed up" or "You're wrong" or "You're just confused". Where do we get the balls to claim ourselves as superior to someone else? People who put others down because of what they are or what they believe are useless cretons.

The person is homosexual if they believe it wholeheartedly, whether they believe it because it is genetically part of them, or because they believe it like a Christian believes in God. In their mind, they ARE. And that's all it comes down to.

So let it be. A person's sexual orientation doesn't hurt other people or society. PEOPLE hurt other people and society. Before you're gay or straight, you're human, and as a human you deserve all the respect, and the rights that comes with that, whether you're gay, straight, old, young, black, white, male or female. There is no reason that a gay couple couldn't raise a perfectly emotionally and mentally healthy straight child, or for that matter a perfectly emotionally and mentally healthy gay child.

It's not the gay parents who hurt the child, it's the people who react negatively to those parents, and cause the child torment and pain, simply because they don't agree with what a person IS. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they can't be an absolutely wonderfully caring and amazing parent. I'd rather see a child be raised by two caring gay parents, then by two bigoted straight ones.

(And yes, for the record, if there's any question from this post, I am straight)

The reason it matters is because if homosexuality is learned, it's a form of behavior, and thus you exercise control over it. If it's genetic, there's no self-control involved. I personally, and we as a society, are more sympathetic to inherited "abnormalities."

You see all of those examples with which you grouped homosexuality? Race, sex, age? Those are all inherited characteristics. The fact that you listed only inherited characteristics makes me think whether homosexuality is inherited or not is a question that is important to you. You see, if it was something learned, you would more appropriately group homosexuality with things such as cleanliness, bigomy, or picking your nose. Those are traits for which I (and most of society) hold individuals answerable.

True, but why should it affect whether or not a couple is able to adopt a child?

Being Christian is a form of behavior (according to the principle that it's learned)... you excercise control of it. Would people look at a pair of Christian, or Muslim, or for that matter rich or poor parents like they would a pair of homosexual parents?

Where is being homosexual harmful? A homosexual person is no less caring, kind, considerate, responsible, respectable, honest or 'good' as a straight person. Sexual orientation is JUST what sex someone is drawn to... The same, or the opposite. Sure, a pair of gay parents could be harmful to a child in their upbringing of him or her, but so can a pair of straight parents.

Why not let a gay couple adopt a child?

Well, certain types of behaviors are considered immoral. What is considered immoral is determined by the society we live in. Practicing Christianity or Islam is not considered immoral in our society. Homosexuality, however, is considered immoral by much of society (since sodomy is criminal behavior in many states), much like bigamy and pornography....i.e. it's a form of sexual deviancy (assuming a homosexual actually acts on his
interests). The main harm springs from teaching "immoral" behavior to a child.

Alternatively, one could argue physical harms. Homosexuals have proven more succeptible to AIDS, for example, and I would guess have shorter life spans as a result. Teaching homosexuality to a child would also render them practically infertile. I would want niether of those results for a child of mine.

Personally, I don't think homosexuality should be depositive in deciding whether to let a couple to adopt, but I DO think it should be a discouraging factor.

Originally posted by Age
Sexual orientation is JUST what sex someone is drawn to... The same, or the opposite. Sure, a pair of gay parents could be harmful to a child in their upbringing of him or her, but so can a pair of straight parents. Pedophilia is a sexual oreintation that "is JUST what sex someone is drawn to.....". Does that mean that this should be allowed also? Of course not. We all know that this is a deviant behaivor. For some, homosexuality is a deviant behaivor. For some, anal sex "is JUST what sex someone is drawn to......." . This is a more accepted form of deviant behaivor. So the answere should not be to allow homosexuality because someone is drawn to it, in your opinion, naturally. Because everyone has an opinion on it, and like it or not, the popular opinion on homosexuality is that it is not natural. That is why we are having this debate on allowing homosexual's to adopt.

I agree that Gays could be as loving as straights, but should we be teaching the human race that gay is a way of life. We know for a fact that being gay will not let the human race survive. Being retarded is not a choice, sexual acts are. I'm not bashing gays, I'm just saying if that is the way they want to live then keep it to themselfs. Lets take a guy that kills skin heads, but he his otherwise a real nice guy, should he be alowed to have kids. For the most part he is helping society by getting rid of a hate group, but is it right for him to teach a child that killing is right?

But the difference between the gays and the skin-head killer in your example is that the gays don't hurt other people and the killer does, even if the person he hurts is a bad person. I guess that's actually my opinion. There are people convinced that the mere presence of gays in society makes everyone else far more likely to join in. I disagree with that.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
There are people convinced that the mere presence of gays in society makes everyone else far more likely to join in. I disagree with that. Yeah, homosexuality is not a disease you can catch. My aunt was gay before she left this world. I have had friends who are gay, and i have never felt any inclination for same sex frolicking. I dont honestly know that you are born that way, as i have never been gay. But it seems as though a lot of people are trying to teach me that this is so. The truth is, unless you are gay, you dont know what the answer is. But i say live and let live. What really would be the harm in letting a homosexual couple adopt a child? As long as they didnt beat the child or molest the child, who would it hurt? There is not enough love in this world to be denying someone the chance at love because of sexual orientation.

I'm not really disagreeing with you guys I just wanted to throw some debate out there. Like I've said before I don't think being gay is a natural thing, but as long as they do there thing in private, then I don't care what they do.

Lionelhutz I just threw the skinhead debate out there. You said atleast the gays don't kill, which is true, but if you kill something or someone evil are you not doing a favor for society?

As far as the gays adopting children, like I said you win. I was just trying to make apoint that kids grow up with alot of troubles in there life why would we want to add more. One more question was anybody on this forum adopted by gay parents?

Originally posted by mad dog
Lionelhutz I just threw the skinhead debate out there. You said atleast the gays don't kill, which is true, but if you kill something or someone evil are you not doing a favor for society?

Yeah, but society as a whole should agree if we're going to pursue that course of action, otherwise it's just vigilante justice, which is harmful to society.

true

Originally posted by HaVoK
Pedophilia is a sexual oreintation that "is JUST what sex someone is drawn to.....". Does that mean that this should be allowed also? The difference is that homosexuality is not harmful, whereas Pedophilia is. A pair of homosexual parents aren't where the damage to a child comes in. Homosexual parents can raise a child to be perfectly content with his or her sexuality, gay or straight. The problems to a child come from bigoted people outside who condemn the parents, and cause the child pain and anguish by shunning the relationship his or her parents have.

So we punish a homosexual couple because other people are bigoted? It doesn't seem right to me.

I agree with the point that homosexuality doesn't naturally push human reproduction and the continuation of the human race forward, but homosexuality has been around since people have been, and it hasn't caused the downfall of the human race yet. Unless the whole world turns gay, I don't think that's a major concern.

Originally posted by Age
The difference is that homosexuality is not harmful, whereas Pedophilia is. That is an opinion not shared by a lot of people. As i said earlier, if homosexuality were not viewed as harmful by a lot of people, there would be no need for this debate.

How is it harmful?

I don't know. Maybe they consider the male way of having sex a little bit too painful... Other than that, I can't see how or why.

The difference is that homosexuality is not harmful, whereas Pedophilia is. A pair of homosexual parents aren't where the damage to a child comes in. Homosexual parents can raise a child to be perfectly content with his or her sexuality, gay or straight. The problems to a child come from bigoted people outside who condemn the parents, and cause the child pain and anguish by shunning the relationship his or her parents have.

So we punish a homosexual couple because other people are bigoted? It doesn't seem right to me.

I agree with the point that homosexuality doesn't naturally push human reproduction and the continuation of the human race forward, but homosexuality has been around since people have been, and it hasn't caused the downfall of the human race yet. Unless the whole world turns gay, I don't think that's a major concern.
The bigoted part. That was my entire point a while back. That it is society's fault. They yelled at me... :(

Very good letter!

I'm tired of your foolish rhetoric about the "homosexual agenda" and your allegations that accepting homosexuality is the same thing as advocating sex with children. You are cruel and ignorant. You have been robbing me of the joys of motherhood ever since my children were tiny. People who dont like this are cutting her and her son down and i think its wrong!

He never professed to be gay or had any association with anything gay, but he had the misfortune not to walk or have gestures like the other boys. He was called "fag" incessantly, starting when he was 6.Unfortunetly alot of idiots like to call people "fag" for no reason!

A friend of mine was walking down the hall in school WITH A GIRL HOLDING HANDS and these idiots yelled out "Fag" ..

Now you tell me who the ignorant fools are!!

Been a while sense we had a conversation like this. Maybe the Dudes on to something? By bringing it back and what not...

Maybe the Dude has had some personal expierence lately that he'd like to get off his chest? Every now and then we need to toss in the homosexual debate in the Religious section.

Check this out.

I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals. Like everything you have your good with your bad and there are good homosexuals and bad homosexuals. Personally I think it's a defect though.
It does break the first law of evolution and one would think that if it wasn't a defect natural selection would have gotten rid of it long ago.
Thats not saying much. I'm bipolar and I see that as a major defect that I try to correct every day.

I kind of see the treatment of homosexuals the same as people who are mentally dissable. When it comes to marriage and the like.
I'll explain.
Mental people are denied quite a bit of their rights because they're not trusted with them. It seems to be the same way with homosexuals.

I think if they could just explain that they knew what the problem was they'd have their rights a lot sooner. Not that it matters. Kids now adays see the homosexual's fight for rights as the new rebelion against the man.
Like Hippies with peace rallies in the 60's or headbangers with rock and roll in the 80's. Freedom of expression became more outspoken in the 70's and 80's because of what people did in the 60's and sensorship was changed because of people's protest against it in the 80's. By the time this generation is grown up homosexuals will have the right to marry.


I tried to explain this before, but I did a really bad job. I said, quite a few straight people see homosexuality as disturbing in a much earlier thread I started a few years ago. Actually I think I said disgusting. Anyway, Vile replied that he seen lima beens or something as disgusting.
I should have been a little more clear.

I hate liver but I'll still eat it if I'm starving. I think for most heterosexual people gay sex really isn't an option. You cant describe gay sex to a straight person as "icky". It's really more then that.

It's like a pyromaniac telling his shrink that people don't like fire because it's hot. The shrink would put the pyro back in his cell.
On the other hand if the pyro said fire damages personal property and destroys human lives. The shrink might consider out patient therapy.

Homosexuality is akin to sleeping with a sibling. It's just gross.
You cant undermind how people view the act itself or you'll just sound like you cant help but disrespect their personal space.

I know most people cant tolerate ignorance or stupidity. I think thats how a biased person may view a homosexual. Simply because they believe homosexuals are incapable of understanding or explaining why homosexuality isn't the norm.

Me personaly, I think "everyone" has the right to be happy. I might think homosexuality is a defect. That in no way means I think homosexuals shouldn't be happy.

Well YES i know some people who are Gay...

The bible doesnt say "Men" cant have relations with "Men",the bible says "Man shall not have sexual relations with another man .. God doesnt like that"

If you follow this,then NO HUMAN ANIMAL ("Man") should have relations WITH ANYONE (Man or Woman)

Adam and Eve had sex (WHICH WAS FORBIDDEN but did it anyway)

Thats what the bible is saying,that god hates sex all together (@ least thats my interpretation)

Well YES i know some people who are Gay...

The bible doesnt say "Men" cant have relations with "Men",the bible says "Man shall not have sexual relations with another man .. God doesnt like that"

If you follow this,then NO HUMAN ANIMAL ("Man") should have relations WITH ANYONE (Man or Woman)

Adam and Eve had sex (WHICH WAS FORBIDDEN but did it anyway)

Thats what the bible is saying,that god hates sex all together (@ least thats my interpretation)

I dont think God "hates" sex. The bible says more about homosexuality then what you have left here. I just cant look it up at the moment so I cant show you.
It basically says, homosexuality is an impulse that can be over come.

I'm bipolar. I cant help but be bipolar. But I can recognize mistakes I will make and put fourth the effort to correcting them.
At the same time I cant say, if relations between two men are a mistake. Only the two men can determine that.
However, homosexuals can at the very least make an effort to understand how people view the act itself, "sex". So they can respond to peoples reactions correctly.
I can assure you, they will be far more respected then they currently are.

I'm fairly sure that most homosexuals understand the prevailing disgust for the homosexual act (especially among males) in our culture. What would you suggest they do in order to "respond correctly" to that reaction?

People seem to think homosexuality is a choice and im pretty sure its something that is predetermined @ birth and nothing can be done........ (I could be wrong though)

People seem to think homosexuality is a choice and im pretty sure its something that is predetermined @ birth and nothing can be done........ (I could be wrong though)
I believe you're right about this. I think that there could be environmental triggers that stimulate a genetic tendency towards homosexuality (although of course that's just speculation), but the point is that the genetic factor is there.

I'm fairly sure that most homosexuals understand the prevailing disgust for the homosexual act (especially among males) in our culture. What would you suggest they do in order to "respond correctly" to that reaction?

I dont think they are and if they are they need to rethink how they're getting that point across.

Remember about ten years ago when a gay guy took a straight guy on the Jenny Jones show to confess a crush he had one him?

After the show the straight dude went to the gay guys house and shot him dead. I'm fairly sure the gay guy would have never confessed his love to the straight guy if he understood he was going to get shot.

It also goes to show that the straight guy didn't have any problems with the gay guy up until that point. Otherwise the gay guy wouldn't have even known him let alone have a crush on him.

So it's not bigotry. Which is something I have seen homosexuals say quite often. It might be as ignorant as bigotry but a different form of ignorance.
I think it comes from the understanding that people who see homosexuality as something WAY more then "icky" feel homosexuals could never understand why they dont like the idea of gay sex. So they don't trust them.

They need to project an image that says, they completely understand that some people could "never" be gay and stop acting as if they think it might be a choice for all of us.

Remember about ten years ago when a gay guy took a straight guy on the Jenny Jones show to confess a crush he had one him?

After the show the straight dude went to the gay guys house and shot him dead. I'm fairly sure the gay guy would have never confessed his love to the straight guy if he understood he was going to get shot.
Are you saying that shooting the gay guy for having a crush on him was a rational response that the gay guy should have expected?? Would you react the same way if an ugly, morbidly obese, toothless woman had propositioned the guy and then been shot by him for it? "Oh, she should've known!", right?

They need to project an image that says, they completely understand that some people could "never" be gay and stop acting as if they think it might be a choice for all of us.
I've never met a homosexual who believes that homosexuality is a choice for anyone. In fact, it seems to me that the only people who act like homosexuality is a choice are those who believe it's wrong.

Are you saying that shooting the gay guy for having a crush on him was a rational response that the gay guy should have expected?? Would you react the same way if an ugly, morbidly obese, toothless woman had propositioned the guy and then been shot by him for it? "Oh, she should've known!", right?
Thats not what I'm saying and I apologize for making it sound that way.

It's simply a good example of how people can under estimate how people feel.
It's a good example from both sides. The fact that the straight guy was willing to kill someone should give a hint as to how deeply quite a few hetersexual people feel about gay sex.

It should also show how unprepared the gay guy was for the straight guys reaction to his decloration of love.
If it had been a fat, toothless chick, I don't think the guy would have shot her. It wouldn't have been any where near as upsetting.


I've never met a homosexual who believes that homosexuality is a choice for anyone. In fact, it seems to me that the only people who act like homosexuality is a choice are those who believe it's wrong.
I apologize again, let me re-word that.
While homosexuals understand that being homosexula wasnt a choice for them.
They also need to understand that a lot of hetersexuals have no choice but to be hetersexual and nothing else. If they do understand this they need to make it abundently clear.

While homosexuals understand that being homosexula wasnt a choice for them.
They also need to understand that a lot of hetersexuals have no choice but to be hetersexual and nothing else. If they do understand this they need to make it abundently clear.

What makes you believe that homosexuals think heterosexuality is a choice?

They also need to understand that a lot of hetersexuals have no choice but to be hetersexual and nothing else. If they do understand this they need to make it abundently clear.
When has a homosexual ever implied the double standard that homosexuality isn't a choice but heterosexuality is?

What makes you believe that homosexuals think heterosexuality is a choice?
i'd think it would better off being a "choice". a compulsion to use body parts for acts they're not designed for is always going to be looked down on by the majority. you can drink thru your nose, but it's always going to be looked down on in the lunch room.

When has a homosexual ever implied the double standard that homosexuality isn't a choice but heterosexuality is?
hetrosexual activity is what those parts are made for.

hetrosexual activity is what those parts are made for.
You're answering a question that was not asked, and what's more, making a claim that is not backed up by animal behaviorists.

That is an opinion not shared by a lot of people.

I disagree. I think the majority of people hold this view, but the minority who do not are extremely vocal.


As i said earlier, if homosexuality were not viewed as harmful by a lot of people, there would be no need for this debate.

A lot of people used to view interracial marriage as harmful too, and it wasn't true then either.

You're answering a question that was not asked, and what's more, making a claim that is not backed up by animal behaviorists.
consider it a bonus, and if they're not, what are they for? decoration?

what are they for? decoration?
Humans are not the only animals that masturbate, for one.

Humans are not the only animals that masturbate, for one.
at least that's practice for reproduction. if you flogged the log compulsively don't you think that would be something you'd get professional help for?

hetrosexual activity is what those parts are made for.

Made? Who do you think made the parts?

Personally I think it's a defect though.
It does break the first law of evolution and one would think that if it wasn't a defect natural selection would have gotten rid of it long ago.

Not necessarily. It seems certain that from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality isn't as much of a "defect" as you think. At present, the genetic link to homosexuality, if any, hasn't been determined. If there is a gene responsible, it may have benefits that we are unaware of. From a sociological standpoint, tribes that had some homosexual members may have fared better than tribes that didn't. This may be due to less competition for a limited supply of females, or simply because tribes with homosexual members would have more adults available for food gathering while they would also produce fewer mouths to feed. It may seem that with fewer offspring, those tribes would be at a disadvantage, but their members may have been better fed, and more well protected, and thus more likely to survive.


Homosexuality is akin to sleeping with a sibling. It's just gross.

An entirely subjective opinion, I assure you. :)


Me personaly, I think "everyone" has the right to be happy. I might think homosexuality is a defect. That in no way means I think homosexuals shouldn't be happy.

Does that also mean that you think the government has no place in passing laws that serve to deny homosexuals their happiness?

Made? Who do you think made the parts?
God thru nature. much in the same way you can thank the state for mandating that your school teach you how to read and write.

God thru nature. much in the same way you can thank the state for mandating that your school teach you how to read and write.

And much in the same way homosexuals are "made".

And much in the same way homosexuals are "made".
pretty much. as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, i don't really care what they do. but i do think it's wrong because it's wrong for me.

When has a homosexual ever implied the double standard that homosexuality isn't a choice but heterosexuality is?
My mom was a lesbian. Werd!

I wasnt always a Christian and I didn't always live a clean life. I did however always find homosexuality repulsive. The act not the person.
I have been in contact with several homosexuals and I can assure you quite a bit of them do have double standards.

They're people like everyone else and more then capable of having their own flaws and making their own mistakes, just like everyone else.

Not necessarily. It seems certain that from an evolutionary standpoint that homosexuality isn't as much of a "defect" as you think. At present, the genetic link to homosexuality, if any, hasn't been determined. If there is a gene responsible, it may have benefits that we are unaware of. From a sociological standpoint, tribes that had some homosexual members may have fared better than tribes that didn't. This may be due to less competition for a limited supply of females, or simply because tribes with homosexual members would have more adults available for food gathering while they would also produce fewer mouths to feed. It may seem that with fewer offspring, those tribes would be at a disadvantage, but their members may have been better fed, and more well protected, and thus more likely to survive.

Then again the tribe wouldn't be producing enough people to help hunt and eventaully die out. Because there were no men left to bear off spring or men who wanted to bear off spring. Actually I'm pretty sure this would be a subject you would know more about then me, so I'll just give it to you.


An entirely subjective opinion, I assure you. :)

Only from the view of a homosexual or someone who is questioning their sexuality.


Does that also mean that you think the government has no place in passing laws that serve to deny homosexuals their happiness?

No, if they're unresponsive to how people feel about their own sexuality then homosexuality should be policed in one form or another.

Then again the tribe wouldn't be producing enough people to help hunt and eventaully die out. Because there were no men left to bear off spring or men who wanted to bear off spring.

How do you figure? It's unlikely that homosexuals ever made up more than 5%-10% of any given population, and that would leave plenty of heterosexual males to breed with the females.


Only from the view of a homosexual or someone who is questioning their sexuality.

No, it's a subjective opinion no matter who holds it.


No, if they're unresponsive to how people feel about their own sexuality then homosexuality should be policed in one form or another.

So you're saying that because you or someone else thinks being gay is offensive, I should be careful not to offend you by being gay?

How do you figure? It's unlikely that homosexuals ever made up more than 5%-10% of any given population, and that would leave plenty of heterosexual males to breed with the females.

I cant really "figure" I dont know anything about this subject. So it's safe to say you will come out ahead when we're talking about this topic.



No, it's a subjective opinion no matter who holds it.

How did you come to this conclusion?


So you're saying that because you or someone else thinks being gay is offensive, I should be careful not to offend you by being gay?

No not at all. Be gay just dont try to push it on me and make an effort to understand how gay sex makes me feel. I'll respect your rights as long as you respect mine.

I just don't see the homosexual community making an effort to respect my rights at the moment. They only seem to have theirs in mind because they are lacking a few rights. The problem is, they dont seem to see "why" they are lacking them. Other wise they'd have them.

I apologize if I'm sounding blunt or hurtful Vile. I am really bad at making my point and I'm trying to make it as clear as I can to avoid confusion. I dont mean any disrespect and I hope you aren't feeling disrespected.

How did you come to this conclusion?
All opinions are subjective. That's why they're called opinions, not facts. And by the way, I'm a straight female and I don't find homosexuality (male or female) disgusting in the least.


I just don't see the homosexual community making an effort to respect my rights at the moment. They only seem to have theirs in mind because they are lacking a few rights. The problem is, they dont seem to see "why" they are lacking them. Other wise they'd have them.
We all know why homosexuals lack rights in this country. It's because some of the people who feel that homosexuality is wrong also feel that this opinion should be held by everyone else.

All opinions are subjective. That's why they're called opinions, not facts. And by the way, I'm a straight female and I don't find homosexuality (male or female) disgusting in the least.

Does this mean you'd have sex with another female?

Considering there is no evidence to back up the belief that homosexuality "isn't" a choice, I'd say thats subjective as well.
Of course people often point out that no one would willing submit themselves to the kind of ridicule homosexuals go through so there for it couldn't possibly by a choice.
Then again, homosexuals wouldn't have to go through any ridicule if people didn't think there was something overwhelmingly wrong with it.


We all know why homosexuals lack rights in this country. It's because some of the people who feel that homosexuality is wrong also feel that this opinion should be held by everyone else.

We all know but we dont all share the same opinion on the subject.
Here is where you're sharing your "opinion" with me.

Does this mean you'd have sex with another female?
I can't speak for her, but I can say that I don't find homosexuality disgusting either. But I'm not at all interested in bangin' a dude.
Then again, homosexuals wouldn't have to go through any ridicule if people didn't think there was something overwhelmingly wrong with it.
This is called "appeal to belief". It is a logical fallacy.

Very well-written and expresses my own opinions completely and accurately.
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/greywlf/gayson.html

If she is right,than let the Kid become a Monk.
That would prove her theory.
Short of that she is just a Screaming Mimi.
I really tire of all this Gay Rationale.
Being Gay means having a sex proclivity.
What God-forsaken dopes you buggers are tyrin to make of
decent folk.

All opinions are subjective. That's why they're called opinions, not facts. And by the way, I'm a straight female and I don't find homosexuality (male or female) disgusting in the least.


We all know why homosexuals lack rights in this country. It's because some of the people who feel that homosexuality is wrong also feel that this opinion should be held by everyone else.

Homosexuality IS wrong.Show me where in civilised Society it
isn't.Based on what it leads to.
A life devoid of propagating of the species and depravity.
Sheeeeeeeeeeeh are you folk such dupes.

Is there something wrong with not propagating the species? Do you call lifelong bachelors, priests, childless couples, etc. "depraved"?