Gay Marriage, Gay this and Gay that.

[heliochrome85]

*Sarcasm Alert*

Hmm...so we could eventually have a "gay spray" and people could be straight or gay by choice. That is interesting indeed. Would you want something like that added to the water Or hell, what if some terrorists, probably Muslim, get ahold of the spray that turns us gay and put THAT into our water

who said they didnt already get a hold of it? have you seen people's obsession with Dancing With The Stars?

[heliochrome85]

with all due respect steve, you are talking about something you know nothing about.

Isnt that par for the course around here?

All Im saying is, lets not be too quick to excuse something based on "proposed genetic influence", and really its become so popular theres really hardly any reason to excuse it anymore anyway. Like Aud said, wheres the gene? Not having mapped the gene neither proves or disproves the theory, but it still leaves it in the theory status.

And by slippery slope, I mean what will we decide to excuse next by using genetics? Its one thing if we have sound science that PROVES genetic origins of color, but to say so as fact now opens the flood gates for potentially other behaviors to be excused genetically, even behaviors we find reprehensible as a society now. Just because we find it reprehensible now doesnt mean we will in 20 years. If you had said 40 years ago that "in 40 years blacks will openly walk the streets hand in hand, marry, adopt children" you would have been laughed out of town, or worse, imprisoned or something, yet here we are. We are a fad based society, and it follows that "what one generation ALLOWS, the next generation tends to EMBRACE" thats just how we work, and if you build a construct for this embrace, such as unquestioned genetic involvement, then you set the stage for more issues down the road. Sure laugh at me, call me crazy, or whatever, but history shows, this is just how we work, and perhaps thats for the better sometimes, sometimes not, who's to judge?

funny how my revisions work too.

[audtatious]

if the founders were christian and perfect as to perfectly state their desires for the country, how does one explain the 3/5s argument? where in christian morality and rules is a black person 3/5ths a white person. how about women? non property holders?

Wasn't that the Dem-controlled south's rule?



Question, do you feel that humans by nature are moral people or do societal influences and law set their "morality"?

[AppleBonker]

I mean what will we decide to excuse next by using genetics?

Holy smokes I hope there is no "Muslim gene" as I will never be able to excuse them.

Seriously though, are you claiming that being gay is inexcusable unless there is a genetic link for it?

[audtatious]

Is he toe tappin?

get your republican gays right. mark foley didnt toe tap. he just sexted his underage staffers on aim. we could take a short trip down memory lane...

Meh...I don't keep up with them f***....

[stebo0728]

how does one explain the 3/5s argument? where in christian morality and rules is a black person 3/5ths a white person

Sorry but I gotta call you on this one, SO MANY people completely misunderstand the 3/5s Clause. Never did it seek to somehow limit the humanity of black people. It was actually a quite brilliant piece of political equipment. The Clause merely placed a vote value on slaves. The North argued for this clause, because they knew that if each slave suddenly represented a vote, a vote that would not be cast by the slave but by the plantation owner, then suddenly the south would have a hugely disproportionate voting power. The 3/5s Clause rebalanced the tables. This is how representative republics work best. A newer version of this same idea came at forming of the UN. USSR was demanding to receive a vote for each of its soviet states. But would each of these states have been able to cast their vote independantly? NO and the other UN founding nations knew this. Ultimately USSR received 3 votes (which by the way was really 3 too many). Black people LOVE to throw that argument out there without knowing the true intent of the clause. It never sought to degrade the slaves, only to keep from having their sheer masses used against them.

[WDRacing]

There's some good info ^^ well explained sir.

[stebo0728]

I mean what will we decide to excuse next by using genetics?

Holy smokes I hope there is no "Muslim gene" as I will never be able to excuse them.

Seriously though, are you claiming that being gay is inexcusable unless there is a genetic link for it?

No Im not making that claim at all, thats why I said that its so popular and accepted now that it really needs no excuse anymore anyway. I just dont want to open pandoras box by ascribing everything to genetics, otherwise suddenly everything is genetic, and theres really no personal responsibility of actions for anything anymore, my genes made me do it!

[heliochrome85]

i actually did know this, but thanks for pointing it out because you are right most people dont. that being said, the point still stands. what about property-owenership? what about women? how can a society treat groups differently yet still claim they are all equal? thats the argument here. those who are for gay marriage see it as an extension of the struggle every minority has had to fight. those arguing against gay marriage do it largely from a religious point of view, which while valid, is fairly worthless in the eyes of the law. that doesnt mean it isnt a real arguement, but rather an indefensable one since one has no real evidence showing how gay marriage would harm society other than hurt the feelings of the less than 50% of people who marry and dont divorce.

[AppleBonker]

Being gay should have never required an excuse. And popular? You can't honestly think being gay is popular, can you?

[heliochrome85]

No Im not making that claim at all, thats why I said that its so popular and accepted now that it really needs no excuse anymore anyway. I just dont want to open pandoras box by ascribing everything to genetics, otherwise suddenly everything is genetic, and theres really no personal responsibility of actions for anything anymore, my genes made me do it!

you are right steve, but to discount the value of genetics is jsut as fool hardy.

[stebo0728]

No Im not making that claim at all, thats why I said that its so popular and accepted now that it really needs no excuse anymore anyway. I just dont want to open pandoras box by ascribing everything to genetics, otherwise suddenly everything is genetic, and theres really no personal responsibility of actions for anything anymore, my genes made me do it!

you are right steve, but to discount the value of genetics is jsut as fool hardy.

Very true, I just am really and truely COMPLETELY disgusted with science altogether these days, theres no science to it anymore, its all who pays for the fudged results they want. With all the "global warming" and "string theory" and "big bang" crap, and all ,i just really dont trust science at the moment

[audtatious]

What about gay people who go un-gay and end up having a "normal" life with wife and kids?

[heliochrome85]

Very true, I just am really and truely COMPLETELY disgusted with science altogether these days, theres no science to it anymore, its all who pays for the fudged results they want. With all the "global warming" and "string theory" and "big bang" crap, and all ,i just really dont trust science at the moment

as bad as it sounds, science is as it always as been. i worked in a lab for 5 years. and have ongoing research projects here at the hospital. the reality is that all science tries to do is tease out possible explanations for the world. it doesnt serve to present itself as a easily accessable subject. this is an ongoing debate within the field. All im saying is that just because someone turned out to be a fraud does not mean that you should disbelieve in the benefits of this sort of research. it would be like swearing off christianity because one priest in boston touched a boy.

[heliochrome85]

What about gay people who go un-gay and end up having a "normal" life with wife and kids?

mark foley can tell you how well that works. so can ex-sen larry craig.

[audtatious]

No, that's two people who came out as liking d!ck after they were married. I'm talking about those who stopped being gay and went the other way......then again, you knew that

[heliochrome85]

well only those people really know if they have given up being gay or if they have for other reasons been forced to repress it. last i checked, those sort of programs arent exactly successful.

[heliochrome85]

No, that's two people who came out as liking d!ck after they were married. I'm talking about those who stopped being gay and went the other way......then again, you knew that

also what about chazz bono? he likes women? he used to gay, but now he is a heterosexual ...

[Gabes13]

You can't unGAY yourself. You oppress feelings. And if it weren't for the stigmatization of homosexuality constructed by our society then there wouldn't be any "coming out but hiding through conformity"

And as far as the gay gene, there isn't one. But there was a study done that showed that the hypothalamus in "homosexual" males was similar size to females. The catch: they all died of AIDS

[Eikon]

I'm am certainly no expert on being gay, despite what Brian would have you believe... But I do have one point to make about the topic that hasn't really been expressed properly yet in this thread.

So far everyone seems to think that being "gay" is 100% driven by a physical or sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. My understanding, from numerous gay friends that i've learned from in the past is that the physical thing is often a secondary motivation. It is frequently more of an emotional bond to someone of the same sex that leads a person into a homosexual relationship. The emotional bond then manifests itself through physical expression.

I wonder if it's emotional cravings that can only be fulfilled by someone of the same sex. Perhaps men who are genetically a bit less masculine feel like they are missing that masculinity and try to find it in a loving relationship with another man? I would never claim that bad parents cause gay kids, but I bet there are circumstances in which missing parents or bad parents create an emotional void that leads the kid to seek that in a gay lover? Hard to know.... But I just wanted to point out that being gay is not always about sex. (or so I'm told)

[audtatious]

also what about chazz bono? he likes women? he used to gay, but now he is a heterosexual ...

WOW...that's a loooooong reach around

[audtatious]

You can't unGAY yourself. You oppress feelings. And if it weren't for the stigmatization of homosexuality constructed by our society then there wouldn't be any "coming out but hiding through conformity"

So...

To gay, or not to gay....

is a choice based on feelings?

[audtatious]

I'm am certainly no expert on being gay, despite what Brian would have you believe... But I do have one point to make about the topic that hasn't really been expressed properly yet in this thread.

So far everyone seems to think that being "gay" is 100% driven by a physical or sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. My understanding, from numerous gay friends that i've learned from in the past is that the physical thing is often a secondary motivation. It is frequently more of an emotional bond to someone of the same sex that leads a person into a homosexual relationship. The emotional bond then manifests itself through physical expression.

I wonder if it's emotional cravings that can only be fulfilled by someone of the same sex. Perhaps men who are genetically a bit less masculine feel like they are missing that masculinity and try to find it in a loving relationship with another man? I would never claim that bad parents cause gay kids, but I bet there are circumstances in which missing parents or bad parents create an emotional void that leads the kid to seek that in a gay lover? Hard to know.... But I just wanted to point out that being gay is not always about sex. (or so I'm told)

So, the current generation, who don't do "manly activities" other than kill things online or on their Wii, has a higher chance at being gay than previous generations as a means to have male bonding that usually happens in a non-sex way during childhood?

[heliochrome85]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjaTRePk ... r_embedded#![/youtube]


i dont know who should be more offended. gays or christians.

[heliochrome85]

I'm am certainly no expert on being gay, despite what Brian would have you believe... But I do have one point to make about the topic that hasn't really been expressed properly yet in this thread.

So far everyone seems to think that being "gay" is 100% driven by a physical or sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. My understanding, from numerous gay friends that i've learned from in the past is that the physical thing is often a secondary motivation. It is frequently more of an emotional bond to someone of the same sex that leads a person into a homosexual relationship. The emotional bond then manifests itself through physical expression.

I wonder if it's emotional cravings that can only be fulfilled by someone of the same sex. Perhaps men who are genetically a bit less masculine feel like they are missing that masculinity and try to find it in a loving relationship with another man? I would never claim that bad parents cause gay kids, but I bet there are circumstances in which missing parents or bad parents create an emotional void that leads the kid to seek that in a gay lover? Hard to know.... But I just wanted to point out that being gay is not always about sex. (or so I'm told)

So, the current generation, who don't do "manly activities" other than kill things online or on their Wii, has a higher chance at being gay than previous generations as a means to have male bonding that usually happens in a non-sex way during childhood?

nico works just as well as the wii.

[Gabes13]

Eikon mentioned something important. The meaning of sexuality is more than physical attraction. Sexuality is the combination desires, beliefs, attractions and actions. So just because you like it in the butt doesn't mean youre gay. I do not agree with the last statement though. If youve ever been to Miami, Fl. you'll see plenty of gay men that look way more masculine than heterosexual men. and to believe that a physical presentation or upbringing can "influence" a homosexuality is false. that's basically saying that you can teach gay and places a stereotype that all homosexuals are fem.

[audtatious]

i dont know who should be more offended. gays or christians.

Or the chic cuz she has smaller boobz?

[heliochrome85]

i dont know who should be more offended. gays or christians.

Or the chic cuz she has smaller boobz?

i dont know why, but they are covered. as if someone wouldnt want us to see her brains. her magnificent brains.

yeah, im single for a reason.

[heliochrome85]

Three pages in less than 24 hours
Lots of gheys on NICOclub?

Anyways, I don't mind gay male couples AS LONG AS they keep it out of my face. Just like we should stay out of their personal business, I don't want to have them smooching in front of me (and a lot of them DO in public).

Gay female couples, well, that's a different story...

you're a whiz with photoshop. i think this thread could only be improved with some of your work...

[Gabes13]

Anyways, I don't mind gay male couples AS LONG AS they keep it out of my face. Just like we should stay out of their personal business, I don't want to have them smooching in front of me (and a lot of them DO in public).

Heterosexuals do that s*** all the time! what's the big deal?