I am expressing how I feel and what I believe. Feelings and beliefs are different.

 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart, and thank you to all who spread the word of tolerance and love.

I will not be responding to DL from this point onwards. I tried to reconcile via PM but it was a pointless exercise, he has my begrudging sympathy but not my love.

I'm having a hard enough time trying to be true to myself and not hurting those I love without dealing with such a closed mind as his.

 

Reaching true validity is a really tough thing to do. A large portion of science is just which theories apply most soundly. It's a lot of best guessing and such.

In terms of lifespan, fields like genetics, molecular biology, and biochemistry are all relatively young. That's why there is still research being done today. Ideas that have held for years (or decades) may be disproved within a few weeks or years.

That being said, I'm not making any excuses on behalf of the current or established studies. I concur that there needs to be total analysis in order to accurately prove a theory. It's extremely difficult because one would need to track several cases through prenatal development into adulthood. That requires a massive amount of nutrient intake/dispersal, hormonal cycles/spikes/differences, gene expression, social interaction, environment interaction, etc. Hell, most scientists can't even agree on good nutrition, so I have no clue how it would be feasible.

 

You sound like a defense attorney or a speech writer for Bill Clinton.

 

Honestly do we have any more right to tell the gays that they can't get married as the gays have the right to tell straights they can't. How would you feel to not be aloud to marry the person you love?

 

+1

 

Some people think gay marriage is an attack on heterosexual marriage. I do not see the reasoning there.

 

In defence of DL, a lot of people are repulsed by homosexual behaviour, that alone does not make a person hateful, or a bad person. I myself am a little repulsed by male to male sexual acts (remember a lot of gay people are repulsed by sexual acts between opposing genders, that doesn't make them hateful). However, I still stand up for the right of consenting adults to engage in such acts. Likewise I am even more repulsed by someone being unnecessarily overly camp, heck that annoys the hell out of me and I would avoid any non-professional situation to engage with such a person like one would avoid the plague. But that doesn't mean I hate said person, that doesn't mean I condemn their behaviour, that doesn't mean I think they need changing, and again I would defend their right to be that way. You cannot help how you naturally respond to a situation, what matters is that you have enough rational thought and compassion to stand up and do what is right to protect their rights every bit as much as your own.

I have a male friend that is gay, and 3 (most likely 4) female friends that are gay. All are very good friends. I don't look and see their sexuality any more than I look at a straight person and see their sexuality. For the record I'm not alone in being annoyed by camp people, all of my gay friends are as equally annoyed and repulsed too !

 

The person I love and am married to often wishes that I wasn't quite so aloud.

 

But surely if twins are living in a gay lifestyle then they are more inclined to be Gay. As you have pointed out the chances fall when brought up apart in different enviroments.
So does this not show that lifestyle is a contributing factor, not just genetics?

Yet as homosexual behaviour also includes female-to-female sexual contact, would the thought of 2 females together repulse you

As by definition, homosexual is just that. Sexual contact between members of the same sex. Which means females and males.

 

I find DL's irresistible obsession with these kinds of questions to be bizarre and loathsome, almost reminiscent of Nazi theories on eugenics. Virtually every thread he gets involved with goes back to one of these tiresome discussions. Granted, some of his sparring partners bait him into it, but all it takes is a bare mention of The Bell Curve and he responds like Pavlov's dog. It's one thing to hold these kinds of views--they're certainly not uncommon--but to keep going back to them constantly, going to absurd lengths to document and justify his biases at every turn, is just bewildering. Can he really be surprised that people would react harshly to that statement earlier in the thread? Sometimes I almost think that he likes making these provocative statements that he knows will draw ire and outrage because it feeds into his martyr complex, the lone voice in the wilderness who's willing to speak the hard truths. He's a man without a country: The conservatives reject him for his liberal politics and the lefties can't abide by his open racism. (At least he has his new buddy Grimmtea now.)

Yes, I think gays should be allowed to get married and I think it's coming inevitably. They certainly deserve the same legal protections. I don't expect an institution like the Catholic Church to embrace it, but I can't fathom why anyone would argue that allowing gays to be together openly is somehow harmful to marriage.

 

Just who are WE to tell two people who love each other they can't get married? It's nobody's business but theirs.

It's going to happen anyway, it's just a matter of how long the bigots can delay legislation.

 

I accept people can feel repulsed by the thought of homosexual sex but that does not give them the right to call it a perversion, to call me a pervert. That is hateful in my book and I won't stand for it.

Likewise with the camp thing, I don't have a problem with such people but if you do that's just the way you feel, it doesn't anger me in the least and your additional comments show that you are a tolerant person.

 

The Lone Voice in the Wilderness

 

Pavlov's Dog & The Bell Curve

:razz:

 

If one identical twin has blond hair the other one does. The chance is 100 percent. If one identical twin is a homosexual there is about a 55 percent chance the other one will be a homosexual. This indicates that a number of factors are responsible. Genetics is one of them. There is no evidence I am aware of that volition is a factor at all.

 

I thought my post was quite clear. I'm repulsed by male to male sexual acts, not all homosexual acts, female to female homosexual acts don't repulse me at all. That is just my natural response, it is not something I have control over, it is not something I can change.

However, I do not judge people based on their sexuality, nor do I condemn them for it. I'm not repulsed by a gay person, only a gay act.(camp and gay are not mutually exclusive, straight camp people exist as well as many gay people that are not camp)

 

"Marriage" means 'a close and intimate union.' My son and his partner are more married than I was with my ex-wife. 'Civil union' vs 'marriage' is the 'separate but equal' of this generation. Its simply a way to allow bigots to be bigots, and still feel good about themselves.

 

What the fuck has this comment, go to do with the section you quoted. Check our post number 71 then your post number 78, and you will see that you have quoted the WRONG section.

Get bigger glasses, because your response, about twins, has absolutely NOTHING to do the word homosexual covering both male-to-male and female-to-female sexual contact.

You have lost the plot big time..:excited::excited::excited:

Now go away and find surveys to support your argument, that DO NOT include twins.

 

doggo is a dumb jerk, he trys both sides of the fence to see who is siding with him,he goes with the most people whe side with him ,, if most say they love being gay , he will say he loves gay intercourse,,,just a asshole is all he will be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,