zinc

hahahahahah you're a comedian and don't even realize it I'd really love to see this empirical evidence, could you please post the sources, scientific community has apparently not caught on to this. Again, this is science I've never heard, please post your sources...I'm very interested in reading them. I'm not a fan of Dan Savage by any means but he's right in this case, most of those who have to assert their heterosexuality have (time and time again) been revealed as closeted homosexuals, and I'd say we've only 'caught' 1% of them. lmfao Anyone who hasn't caught on to this troll is just as big of an idiot as he is

The great thing about legitimacy is it isn't something that an authority simply establishes upon another entity, it's something that's earned. When I say legitimacy I don't mean to say "popular" but rather organizations that operate on the idea that their findings should and would be tested, attacked, and experimentalized to give the most accurate findings. I don't say prefer, I say just is. If you think that a heterosexual can become a homosexual (and vice versa) then by all means believe so, just understand that there's no scientific backing to claim such. I think the terms are really a little confusing because I see where people could read the terms at face value and assume black/women/gay rights are special rights. Just think of it like this, all those terms are another term for 'equal rights' - nothing more and nothing less. Nothing we are fighting for in the gay community will grant us greater rights than the average person. Perhaps I should've asked this a long time ago, but what are some "special rights" that gays are fighting for, could you give me some examples?

I'm sorry, perhaps you're not into the latest scientific discussions of the past 100 years but there isn't a single legitimate scientific organization that considers homosexuality abnormal, and literally every psychological association agrees....are they not authorities? You again fail to notice the fact that sexuality rests not as a gene, at least as much as science currently understands... So were 'black rights' special rights too? Does that thereby make infertile couples inevitably asexual beings? Actually he has a point, if you reread what he wrote he said: "Actually, no, there isn't any research that verifies genetics have much, if anything at all, to do with sexuality." ...it's not that research hasn't been done, you are most definitely correct in stating that it has. It's just the research has not yet connected sexuality (let alone homosexuality) to a gene, period! Which then, of course, the question could be asked; does sexuality actually lie on a gene and if so, where? We obviously don't know all the 20k genes and what they do, most of them are undoubtedly junk, but to decipher one that links to sexuality may or may never exist. I personally don't think it exists anymore than the preference for football over basketball exists in the average heterosexual male...that by no means makes it a choice, a common misconception amongst laymen

No you had it wrong by assuming people had to convinced left-handedness was evil but not homosexuality...when actually they're both in the category of "having to be convinced of being abnormal" What exactly does this have to do with homosexuality? Just because people are more accepting of homosexual unions, that doesn't mean it's creating more homosexuals, just a lot less repressed homosexuals...that is a good thing, isn't it? If everyone had equivalent rights then there wouldn't need to be an appeal for anything. Gay rights are equal rights, not special rights. What you're saying is equivalent to banning African-Americans from voting, waiting for them to complain, and then saying they're making a big deal out of it. Perhaps you fall under the category of a bigot because you're uneducated in certain areas and have preconceived views about people you've admittedly never met No, sorry, I'm not going to pretend that 'homosexuals' can be fixed (which usually implies something is broken to begin with). How's this for a compromise: we're just as different as black people are to the norm and have the same chance of becoming heterosexuals as heterosexuals are of being homosexuals? Like that? This really didn't answer anything, I was just pointing out religion as one of the factors for people's hatred towards homosexuals. I don't exactly understand what you're saying here, not to be rude but it sounds like a bunch of pseudoscientific gibberish. Confusion may arise in or around puberty but it certainly settles in as an adult, no one "changes" their sexual orientation, they just repress it. If I had a choice I'd become a heterosexual, why face the stigma at all? But I understand I can't be, I've tried to see what's physically attractive about women but I can't 'change' myself, it just is. And you keep saying "ah, well, we haven't figured out where homosexuality comes from" - did you also happen to notice that we don't know what sexuality comes from either? You know Pliny, I read your entire post and said to myself that perhaps this person is trying to debate from some sort of compassionate view. But then I read your last sentence and it all becomes obvious. To laugh at me calling you a bigot is in itself hypocritical. For instance, you don't know a single gay person but in your previous paragraph talked about how you find more and more people confused about their identity... I certainly think there is confusion and you do see it, but the confusion you see is from within. If you met me for 3 minutes you'd never believe I was gay, perhaps it'd be a start to desensitize you to people that are different. Instead of trying out to see ways to fix others, you can start with the man in the mirror

I'm against the above as well You had your first two sentences wrong, people had to be convinced that something was wrong with left-handedness just as they had to be convinced that something was wrong with being gay. And the idea of the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that's suppose to mean) is supposedly hedonistic is something that I can't fault stupid people for believing but fortunately the brain is capable of learning new things and organizing it into rational thought. For instance, a very (very, very!) common argument I constantly hear is the "destruction of the species" - this is assuming that 100% of people will be gay and on top of that, 100% would not obtain any medical procedures (ie: IV) to conceive children. This is something that logic and common sense can easily beat... No, think about it like this.... Having your children play basketball in the backyard hurts no one, I think we'd both agree with that as a logical statement...however maybe your elderly neighbors next door would, in fact, find it "bothers them" (for whatever reason) that your children are playing basketball at YOUR home. Going by your logic, we'd have to assume that the discomfort of the elderly couple is the direct result (or "fault") of your children, but I'd disagree. I'd say the reason for the elderly couple's discomfort is based on their constant proclivities to complain at meaningless activities done by other people. So are the children responsible for the elderly couple's discomfort? Perhaps if we try to indirectly link them, but the direct result (in my opinion) comes from within...the real problem lies in the elderly couple themselves. And so is the case with gays, no one is asking to, say, have sex in your house...or forcing you to come to such marriages. And to add to your example, sometimes the grocery store I go to plays Nickelback, I haaate Nickelback, but I have never once complained about it. They, are, essentially making a choice that really effects me not. We live in a society with different people, those who are xenophobic have to just correct themselves before they try to correct others. Thanks (I mean it) Both As far as I know, I'd say about 50% of heterosexuals have no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. The others are commonly the result of two poisons: 1 - Religion 2 - Social "Norms" (ie: The inclination of wanting to "fit in") First is obvious. The second deals with people's insecurities, especially men. No one wants to be labeled "the faggot", or "the queer", or "the homo" - all this plays into the supposed ideal of men having to be masculine, car loving, gun totting, football watching animals . I'm in college, so I do notice this first hand. This is a huge problem with society and one of the results of homophobia, men try to be too apathetic towards everything and the idea of "being a gay" certainly doesn't help....I bet the whole 'bottling of emotions' has a huge effect on the 4:1 ratio of suicide between men and women...

Wait, what? Excuse? For what? Biologically we don't know where sexuality lies period I know what you said, it's just you don't know what you said. Multiply the above with this statement... ...and all the sudden we require evidence. If you don't have any just say so, it's okay to admit you were wrong. One, where does the state encourage natural families (and thus discourage families with adopted children)? Next, show me one scientifically analyzed and peer-reviewed study that tells us a mother/father is better than a father/father (or mother/mother)...and also tell me how you also correlate this to race...for instance, would black family households who may or may not have a higher degree of fatherless homes make black people less viable to be parents? Marriage and adoption are two different issues, I don't understand why you continually squeeze marriage into these other uncorrelated terms which could be applied to your average unmarried heterosexual couple. I think the underlying issue is you don't know what marriage is, you seem to be under the impression that it's some sort of contract requiring couples to have sex and raise children... Could you elaborate on that, the whole "relationship should be with the child rearing part of it" - does this also apply to couples who adopt?

What you're asking is a question that biologically we have no answer... Contrast this with left-handedness, should such people have been more interested in WHY they're left-handed or more interested in being treated equally....in schools, in the community, and in life? To me, the former doesn't matter...it just is. Not trying to change anything, only updating on Western civilization's current restrictions...after all, people complained when polygamy was eliminated, when the age of consent was risen, and when the Married Women's Property Act was passed...sure there'll always be people that are offended, but I'm not interested in a person's feelings as much as I am in a person's rights. Pliny think of it like this, if many people are offended by rap music, should it stop being played? In all honesty I don't get called names often, but when I do it really doesn't effect me at all..you sort of get desensitized to it...you need to be confident in all walks of life otherwise simple words will effect you. Well I'm sure the Ku Klux Klan gets physically ill whenever they see a successful black man...but somehow I have no sympathy for their feelings, call me crazy but I dont....

The issue between us two is you somehow feel that I should "care" about being gay...I understand that it's different, just as our fingerprints are all different, I just don't care why they are and am more interested in the stigma than the cause, if any.

But the implication is somehow that it matters... I don't know why I'm gay, but I don't care...all I know is it hurts no one in any way, shape, or form. I'd like to know why humans are the way they are, period. Learn how to read properly, you say the above and then go on to say The word 'ALL' implies a context with proof, which you're not showing. Screaming and pouting that 'it just is!" is not convincing. And here's something else that's absolutely flabbergasting, you seem to think child rearing between individuals and marriage are somehow interchangeable terms. The straw man you're creating isn't even something I'm arguing, anyone reading your posts would think we're arguing on the mechanics of child rearing and it's requirements, that isn't marriage. If a professor has ever taught you such I suggest you hire a lawyer and sue them, and the University. So a homosexual couple adopting, say, 6 children and raising them 'out' of foster care is not worthy of tax deductions, all because the children they're raising aren't biologically theirs?

If you have a problem with a certain thread you certainly don't have to post it in, I swear...you don't.

Even the gay population has evil jerks? Who would've thought! Don't count on it... and for someone who has soooo much life experience it's pretty amazing you have time to post here several times per day, every day

awwww :,( Those evil sodomists, how dare they try to help eachother! I'm afraid I don't understand the harsh, HARSH world of living as a straight, white male...God bless your courage! haha, good point dude, that is awesome...I'm so glad you've done your research in the area of confused heterosexual hedonist sodomizers! It's a shame that anti-gay is becoming more & more synonymous with pro-stupidity

lol Exactly, it's different words describing the same thing

I'm sorry? It is an issue with me because there's no explanation for my behavior? What exactly is that suppose to mean? That's equivalent to me looking at a black male and telling him that the only reason he wants equal rights is because there is nothing explaining his preference for females with long red hair....so I'm afraid I don't see your point. About as possible as changing someone's heterosexuality to homosexuality, show me the evidence and I'll shake your hand and concede to defeat. Good luck with that I can see you've gotten a little confused... Let's back up the bus and look at the argument. I told you that the concept of marriage has changed, this is true...where would you like me to start, age of consent? Dowry prerequisites? Polygamous unions? Endogamy laws? Now hold on...don't confuse yourself any further, because marriage did not have a "one man - one woman" origin, if you are defending the idea of the status quo and your refusal to update definitions in our society then would it be fair for me to assume that you'd like to implement marraige restrictions dating back to the Mesopotamian era? What you see as a loophole I see as logic, you made a very specific claim: I'll break down what you said: i) Birth right is the PRIME motivator of ALL cultures ii) The above is true (or has been true) EVERYWHERE in the world All I'm asking is to see evidence of the above, how every single place and every single culture has created marriage for the prime purpose of propagation...and I'd like to know how such was implemented.

I'll just preface this by saying that I'll ignore your whines and cries about being deeply hurt by my terrible, terrible comments towards you...I understand being called religious is very offensive! Anyways, to get back on topic... First off, the correct terms to use were "polygamous and monogamous" relationships. Polyandry is nothing more than a specific form of polygamy. If you're going to use polyandry in the future, then replace polygamy with polygyny. Next, no one said "inventing a new term" - same-sex unions have existed throughout history...the idea of gay people wanting relationships is nothing new, to say so is simply ignorant. The burden of proof is on you to prove this, not on me to disprove it. Now show me (and the rest of the forum) laws or dictations specifically REQUIRING all couples of every recorded culture with marriage a requisite to propagate...I'd also like to know how this implied to infertile couples. Take your time on this, I understand that admitting you made a deliberately misleading statement may hurt your pride... It has everything to do with it...because restrictions were made based on the above. For instance, men and women of all cultures were not freely able to marry, even in the United States you'll remember the concept of miscegenation, the idea of allow interracial marriages did not effect the typical heterosexual marriages you see. The case is same with gender restrictions, same sort of fear mongering proposed just in a different light. You seem to have this unusual phobia of allowing homosexuals to marry and provide nothing but untruthful statements, I can't figure out why but I stopped trying a couple years ago...

So let me get this straight (puuuuun!), a group of radical and moronic churches decided to use their tax-exemption status and power to cultivate their cult into harassing and taking away rights from a stigmatized minority, yet are confused by the outrage and the anger proposed by such opponents? Now beyond the obvious stupidity, I'm no advocate of violence, even against cults...what I am against is hypocrisy, but then again religion and hypocrisy are of almost a becoming of interchangeable terms

Sorry to bump this thread ladies and gentlemen but I felt it important to respond to the confused OP I live on planet Earth, it's the 3rd planet from the sun and has approximately 6.7 Billion human beings living on it....it's also estimated to being 4.5 Billion years old... Now I'm not sure if this history you've gathered is from the same planet I live on but unfortunately your idea of marriage and it's supposed origins is quite hysterical. It's a institution in which only 1 man and 1 woman CHOOSE to belong to eachother? hahahaha I don't mean to sound rude but pick up a book in history and read the customs, go back to the Mesopotamian era and read about the oldest history of marriage laws we have. Here's some FYI; not only did it NOT originate in religion, it was not an institution linked exclusively to one man and one woman. Shocker, I know!

I've always wondered how creationists correlate their disbelief of evolution with some of the evolutionary adaptions that things such as bacteria go through. It's sort of like saying you don't believe in gravity despite seeing things fall

Nah, I only respond when it's bumped, if you check the times posted I'm not the one bumping them I've actually come to the realization that you're just an idiot, nothing but a troll seeking his evanescent time of infamy on an internet forum. Where are you guys when I'm debating the religious nuts in real life? The only time I ever witness your kind is through a Q&A, but after a quick response & a few exchanges they crawl back into fetal position...most likely going back to being the notorious e-thugs they are on internet forums. Wish you had more balls than the gay men you accuse of lacking Gays calling for the death penalty against those who hate them for who they are? LOL...yes yes, we're the one carrying signs with "God hates ____" and "All Christians go to hell!" aren't we OK but seriously, to answer your post of epic stupidity I think the problem can easily be solved using your method. How about this proposition; those who have a problem sharing the word 'marriage' with gay people can call their marriages something else....good idea, yes? Because...after reading your post I don't know if you're simply uneducated or simply ignorant (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former) but your idea of 'actual marriage' (whatever that means) is nothing more than a neologism created to cultivate the status quo. Marriage has changed thousands of times, so unless you're for keeping the tradition of child slaves, dowry perquisites, wife swapping, and polygamous unions then you're simply a hypocrite. And by the way, I don't mean to sound so harsh but after reading some of the posts here I realize that some people (fortunately not most) need a serious reality check, especially when it comes to anthropological and sociological history...

That's kind of a silly, rather stupid argument....it actually works both ways, many (say Christian) employees would probably often base their hiring standards on religious beliefs, so seeing an openly gay male would be enough for the religious employer to not hire them (despite being illegal to judge on sexual orientation, I doubt it's difficult to find a hole and work with it). Gay rights implies equality, nothing special, until you could name me one benefit than gays receive that no other minority receives then your point is flawed and inherently nonsensical. Oh I get it, you went to wikipedia and selected varying definitions that fit whatever dogma you're preaching. I know this because I was one of the founding editors of that page and recognized many of the definitions instantly, it'd be nice if you were a little less, biased? Try reading up on the history of marriage, what it mean in terms of dowry, bride price, etc etc...it's not all roses bloom Also, where did you get your definition from proclaiming marriage as a form of child rearing and/or varying (differentiating) elements? I don't see that definition anywhere, you can even break it down to what is varying...to me, two people are different, but that's not the point. I could just as easily say that two Christians are "the same" just as you say two gay men "are the same" - to me, and other intelligent people we see it as the union of individuals. This even by definition violates polygamous marriages (man + 3 women for example) and reiterates lax AoC laws, as in 50 year old man and 12 year old child...but let me guess, you'd make selective exceptions there, right? Oh but cmon, they're different! Then by your pseudo-anthropological definitions there can be no such thing as infertile woman + man marriages....and as someone who's studied anthropology I'm comically amused by your assertion with trying to associate man/woman marriages as the definite cause for marriage, where is your source for this? Well, at least you're not generalizi...oh wait Oleg, whenever you happen to get out of your parent's (God bless them) basement you'll inevitably run into the esoteric gay man! You'll probably be surprised to learn that we're not all androgynous & effeminate men who enjoy shopping and hate football...that we're your pastor, your teacher, your son, or your daughter...your neighbor, your doctor, and that best friend who you'd never have guessed. I know it's hard to understand, and for people that aren't that smart I can see why....but experience is everything, give it a try. Heck if you even have questions for me I'll try to answer them for you...I'll be just as nice as the Reverend Wade Watts was to Johnny Lee Clary

So should something like a black-history museum not be funded on the basis that corporations don't fund the Ku Klux Klan either?

I dont know, it's just I'm in that "community" and I never run across what you're referring to...if you don't mind me asking, where did you hear this? How do you know sexuality is not innate? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this post, what does this "kink factor" and homosexuality have in common? Sexualization of heterosexuality dominates television in literally every aspect, are you referring to that as well?

Reminds me of the people who complain about things like "black history month" or "BET" - you'll hear them say things like "Oh, are there things like white history month or white entertainment television? Nooooooo!" I'm pretty sure gays would trade the pride parades for the stigma, something straight people need not worry about

I was being sarcastic...you said that the gay community has some kind of "grudge" towards bisexuals and I'm saying that couldn't be further from the truth. A niche of nutcases (which I'm not even sure exist) certainly do not represent the entire community Whether or not sexuality is innate has nothing to do with the argument presented, what I'm trying to say is you can't "change" sexuality once it develops (whether that be in the womb or during adolescence)

I'm sorry, but which gay community are you talking about? There's a reason our community is commonly referred to as the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, & Transgender) community...there's many misconceptions in your post. Well it's like throwing a ball in the air and watching it come down, I say it comes down because of gravity while someone else may say it's coming down because of invisible space aliens shooting them down; of course, the space-alien believers may very well call me crazy and irrational, though common sense dictates otherwise