Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Mad_Michael]

Indeed, homosexuals contribute a higher per capita tax remittance than heterosexuals do.

Ah, so we're hanging our hats on higher per capita happenings, eh?

No. Just countering one of the Kapitan's colourful arguments about his tax dollars.

I was pointing out that homosexuals (on average) pay more taxes per capita than heterosexuals. This is a function of homosexuals having (on average) higher incomes than heterosexuals.

Like the hugely disproportionate rates of pedophilia among homosexuals?

Please cite (FRC doesn't count!)

There is no reputatable source for this assertion. It is bogus. (probably originates from the infamous fact-challenged partisans at the Family Research Council).

Or the hugely disproportionate rate of AIDS among north american homosexuals? Wheee...this is fun!

And what does this have to do with anything?

And since you like to play games, how about the hugely disproportionate rate of Type II diabetes amongst heterosexual white males?

Or the hugely disproportionate rate of sickle cell anemia amongst black people?

I don't know where you are going with this, but I figured it might be fun to play along.

Or are we only talking about the good per capita happenings?

I don't know - you tell me since you are the one running with this argument...

Are all the not-so-good things merely "bigoted" when we talk about them? I wonder if we should have a poll to see whether Canadians prefer to keep the few dollars more in tax remittance from homosexuals, or if they'd trade it for the billions upon billions of dollars spent in various lawsuits and medical research fighting AIDS, and a signifigant reduction in pedophilia? Hmmmm...

Colourful if not anything else. Not worthy of a reply!

[Kapitän Rotbart]

And what, praytell, is the 'moral' difference between 95% vs 5% and 50.1% vs 49.9%?

Because when measuring statistics, 5% vs. 95% is the most widely used level of significance. A 1% or a 10% level of significance could also be used, but say you were to claim that an object bounces off the ground, and it bounces in fewer than 5% of the trials, then your statement is false. If the object bounces at least 5% of the time, we do not yet have enough evidence to not believe the statement.

If women are a majority, why are they given minority-like favoritism in countries like Canada?

Besides which, geniuses are mighty rare - are they allowed to be married? How about Jehovah's Witnesses? They must be less than 5% - are they allowed to have legal rights and get married? I could list a hundred 'minorities' or 'behaviours' (if you prefer) that fall in this category.

Genii are not genii based on behavior, but rather based on capacities. That's like asking if people over twenty five decimeters tall, or over ninety-eight inches tall should be allowed to marry. These characteristics are not based on behavior.

Religion is not "exactly" based on behavior. Fundamentalism maybe, but belonging to a religion in itself is not based on behavior.

Right. Like Christians for example. And rich people. And politicians. And members of the Republican party.

Does it annoy you when your arguments are proven to be foolish?

If I were annoyed, I wouldn't post. I will gladly explain and clarify my points until you manage to comprehend them, however it would help if you were to try a little harder to understand that unlike homosexuality, people are not genii, Christians, tall, Chinese, etc. based on behavior, therefore though they may be rarities, they are not anomalies.

Homosexual legal rights require NOTHING from you, save perhaps a limitation upon your cherished liberty to bash them to a pulp.

Your acceptance and celebration is not requested, nor is it desired.

I wish it were that simple, but by granting special legal rights to the gay fags, that means the government shows approval of homosexuality... a gov't I pay taxes to. In other words, if I pay taxes, some of that money is going towards the acceptance of gay faggotry, meaning my money is spent is ways that I disagree.

As a liberal, you probably see no problem in a large portion of the money you pay into the gov't go towards things you like less.

I suppose as long as 'carnal desires' are not involved, the government may do without your expressed permission to operate?

Yes and no.

Smoking marijuana is also a carnal desire, but I don't feel as strongly about it (I personally think it's more important for tobacco to be banned than marijuana). Legalizing marijuana would mean the government would show approval of it, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but I don't feel as strong about some other issues related to behavior.

I may also show concern regarding laws having nothing to do with carnal desires, for instance zoning.

Alas I am not in a strong power position in the Canadian gov't that I cannot enforce my views at the cost of Canadian taxpayers, so I can only complain about those who do.

Huh?

You are saying that when heterosexuals marry, it is none of anyone's business because they are heteros. But when gay people marry, this is essentially equal to the government giving their 'blessing' upon the union?

Marriage was defined by the unity of a man and a woman. If the gov't is to manage and regulate marriage, it makes sense that they manage and regulate marriage according to what it is: the unity of a man and a woman. If the gov't is to go beyond that, that means the gov't is giving extended catering to anomalies.

Right. All government actions must be approved by Kapitän Rotbart. I can see how you approach government and matters of public policy.

Oh I wish.

You seek to deny legal rights to my fellow law abiding citizens.

Actually, I don't.

I say that everyone, regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation should have the same right to marriage, that is the marriage between man and woman. No rights denied there.

The only other debated law concerning gay fags is adoption. I say regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation, I'd prefer adoptive children go to normal families having the capacities (financial and health) of offering the best home for adoptive children. In other words, I'd screen out active homosexuals, active pedophiles, smokers, swingers, recreational drug users, over-weight people, etc. because it would compromise the family they could offer to adoptive children. I wouldn't do the screening based on what people are, but rather how they behave. Doesn't that make sense? I wouldn't even ask if adoptive parents are gay, I'd ask if they practice homosexual relations. Two different things. If your fellow citizens choose to act selfishly, they do not deserve the priviliges of those who act responsibly. Makes sense, doesn't it?

However, you haven't explained to me precisely how their parade past my own house on Sunday morning caused me to be "forced to accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle? (whether it is a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade, it is irrelevant to my question since one was last week and the other is likely to follow the same path in a week or two hence). How does their existence cause me to be 'forced' into anything other than perhaps becoming aware of them?

By not complaining, you are giving your silent approval.

This isn't a big deal, because Falon Dong probably doesn't have political intentions, therefore you're giving your silent approval to something which isn't serious matter.

However, when it's with political intentions or social desensitization, it may be an issue of serious matter. If you don't react, you are giving your silent approval, which may or may not be good, depending on your own opinions.

[Mad_Michael]

I give up trying to fix the quote mechanism. I can find no code errors here!

And what, praytell, is the 'moral' difference between 95% vs 5% and 50.1% vs 49.9%?

Because when measuring statistics, 5% vs. 95% is the most widely used level of significance. A 1% or a 10% level of significance could also be used, but say you were to claim that an object bounces off the ground, and it bounces in fewer than 5% of the trials, then your statement is false. If the object bounces at least 5% of the time, we do not yet have enough evidence to not believe the statement.

I knew you wouldn't disappoint me!

Btw, a 95% distribution of data points is not the same as a 95% confidence level.

Your attempt to conflate the two is absurd - and amusing!

Get thee to a statistics class!

If women are a majority, why are they given minority-like favoritism in countries like Canada?

Isn't it obvious? White males like to pretend they are an absolute majority. For many decades, the laws in fact supported this absurdity.

Genii are not genii based on behavior, but rather based on capacities. That's like asking if people over twenty five decimeters tall, or over ninety-eight inches tall should be allowed to marry. These characteristics are not based on behavior.

But these 'genii' are less than 5% of the population. That is, by your argument, makes them 'insignificant'. WHy are they permitted to have legal equality if they are an insignificant minority?

Religion is not "exactly" based on behavior. Fundamentalism maybe, but belonging to a religion in itself is not based on behavior.

You are getting comical now.

Do you choose to believe in God? Do you choose to belong to a given religion? If so, it is behaviour.

Or are you suggesting that religion is genetic in origin?

If I were annoyed, I wouldn't post. I will gladly explain and clarify my points until you manage to comprehend them, however it would help if you were to try a little harder to understand that unlike homosexuality, people are not genii, Christians, tall, Chinese, etc. based on behavior, therefore though they may be rarities, they are not anomalies.

Just because I don't agree with your ideas does not mean I don't understand them. Indeed, the fact that I can critique them effectively is predicated upon my understanding them.

And I know my critiques are effective since you dodge them so studiously.

Christians are a behaviour. If not, it is genetic. Take your pick.

Jehovah Witnesses are a behaviour - and a tiny minority.

And your 'pin dancing' on the difference between a 'rarity' and an 'anomaly' is particularly amusing, self-serving and entirely predictable. This is all about word games apparently.

Changing your word doesn't change your argument.

I wish it were that simple, but by granting special legal rights to the gay fags, that means the government shows approval of homosexuality... a gov't I pay taxes to. In other words, if I pay taxes, some of that money is going towards the acceptance of gay faggotry, meaning my money is spent is ways that I disagree.

Right - I forgot - the government must have Kapitän Rotbart's permission!

Silly me.

As a liberal, you probably see no problem in a large portion of the money you pay into the gov't go towards things you like less.

As you have so often demonstrated here, you are wrong again!

Smoking marijuana is also a carnal desire, but I don't feel as strongly about it (I personally think it's more important for tobacco to be banned than marijuana). Legalizing marijuana would mean the government would show approval of it, despite the fact that I don't agree with it, but I don't feel as strong about some other issues related to behavior.

That's nice.

Do you just like the sound of your own voice? Or the sight of your own words? Because what you just stated has nothing to do with anything and isn't even remotely interesting.

To you, it is all about you. And you are not interesting to me.

I may also show concern regarding laws having nothing to do with carnal desires, for instance zoning.

Oh gosh, could this be true?

Alas I am not in a strong power position in the Canadian gov't that I cannot enforce my views at the cost of Canadian taxpayers, so I can only complain about those who do.

You haven't explained how equal rights for homosexuals costs the taxpayer anything.

Indeed, it can be shown that not giving homosexuals equal rights is very expensive in government litigation costs. When governments do things that are counter to the Charter of Rights, they end up spending lots of tax dollars playing legal games to defend themselves. Would you prefer this?

Marriage was defined by the unity of a man and a woman.

Actually no.

The whole issue in the USA is the fact that legally speaking, marriage isn't defined as such. That's why they need a constitutional ammendment to make it so.

And who's definition are you giving here? Marriage long predates the arrival of Christianity (old or new testament) and it rarely ever fit the definition that the religious fanatics want to insist upon now. You just have given the definition of marriage that you prefer. In the English language, definitions merely reflect usage, they don't define. You use it that way, its your definition. But that doesn't make it so.

Defining 'up' as 'down' doesn't make it so.

(See thread "God invented Marriage" - they could use your help over there)

If the gov't is to manage and regulate marriage, it makes sense that they manage and regulate marriage according to what it is: the unity of a man and a woman. If the gov't is to go beyond that, that means the gov't is giving extended catering to anomalies.

Right.

You define marriage as 'one man and one woman'

Then your take your own definition and assert that it is categorically true.

And this proves what?

I may define religion as belief in the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Thus, all religion is worship of the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Does this make it so?

You seek to deny legal rights to my fellow law abiding citizens.

Actually, I don't.

I say that everyone, regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation should have the same right to marriage, that is the marriage between man and woman. No rights denied there.

Except for those whom you don't permit to marry. They have no rights apparently.

Round and round we go! Following your argument can make a guy dizzy!

The only other debated law concerning gay fags is adoption.

What is a non-gay fag? Your term sounds redundant and absurd.

I say regardless of gender, race, age, religion or sexual orientation, I'd prefer adoptive children go to normal families having the capacities (financial and health) of offering the best home for adoptive children.

What is "normal"?

And your preference and a buck might buy you a cup of coffee.

The issue is not all about you. I know that's hard for you to grasp, but perhaps you might try.

No one cares what you think of the issue any more than they care what I think of the issue. The only issue is what is best for public policy. Your own personal subjectivity is irrelevant.

In other words, I'd screen out active homosexuals, active pedophiles, smokers, swingers, recreational drug users, over-weight people, etc. because it would compromise the family they could offer to adoptive children.

And someone else would screen out active Christians, white males, Republcans, Conservatives and other obnoxius people that would comprimse the family they could offer the adoptive children.

Why is your personal and subjective list any different than the next guy's personal and subjective list?

That's the key point here in case you didn't notice. If your personal subjective opinions are to be considered important, they have equal importance to 30 million other Canadian's own personal subjective opinions.

How do you choose amongst 30 million subjectivities? (answer is: you don't - personal subjectivities are considered irrelevant to good public policy).

I wouldn't do the screening based on what people are, but rather how they behave. Doesn't that make sense? I wouldn't even ask if adoptive parents are gay, I'd ask if they practice homosexual relations. Two different things. If your fellow citizens choose to act selfishly, they do not deserve the priviliges of those who act responsibly. Makes sense, doesn't it?

You apparently have 'control' issues. Your need to control other people is scary.

However, you haven't explained to me precisely how their parade past my own house on Sunday morning caused me to be "forced to accept, condone and celebrate" their lifestyle? (whether it is a Falon Gong parade or a gay parade, it is irrelevant to my question since one was last week and the other is likely to follow the same path in a week or two hence). How does their existence cause me to be 'forced' into anything other than perhaps becoming aware of them?

By not complaining, you are giving your silent approval.

This isn't a big deal, because Falon Dong probably doesn't have political intentions, therefore you're giving your silent approval to something which isn't serious matter.

However, when it's with political intentions or social desensitization, it may be an issue of serious matter. If you don't react, you are giving your silent approval, which may or may not be good, depending on your own opinions.

So, by ignoring the parade, I'm giving "silent approval"??? You mean I have to go out there and disrupt the parade and make an ass of myself in order to avoid giving my "silent approval"???

Is that what you are doing here?

And you still haven't explained how the mere existence of a Falon Gong parade "forces me to accept, condone and celebrate" this religion the way the existence of a gay parade forces people to "accept, condone and celebrate" homosexuality.

Dodge, dodge, dodge. I can't say I'm surprised.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Btw, a 95% distribution of data points is not the same as a 95% confidence level.

I'm aware. Those represented by less than 50% of the population may be a minority, but if they're less than 5% of the population, then they're an insignificant minority.

And I do not see the point in our gov't making special catering for the genii... but they don't need special catering because they excel in the current system.

Do you choose to believe in God? Do you choose to belong to a given religion? If so, it is behaviour.

I'd like to say that religion is based on behavior, however many people are registered of a given religion without practicing it, so when it comes to stats, it's not so much the case anymore, but rather a name to divide people.

Right - I forgot - the government must have Kapitän Rotbart's permission!

I wish.

You haven't explained how equal rights for homosexuals costs the taxpayer anything.

The idea of equal rights is utopic, but if gay fags are granted the "equal rights" pro-gay fag activists request, then they would be granted superior rights.

Direct costs are easy to explain. The legislation, for instance... updating marriage and divorce forms, the time spent debating certain legalities in Parliament...

Indirect costs are tougher to measure. If an employer is forced to hire a certain proportion of gay fags, costing the employer much time finding a member of less than 2% of the general population should also be a considered cost.

Marriage long predates the arrival of Christianity

3 000 years of recorded civilization (since the beginning of literature) have predated Christianity.

Marriage was still originally a practice pertaining to some sort of belief, to some sort of religion providing the need for a formal recognition of a union between two people. Gov't only recognize marriage for tax and immigration purposes. I'd like to see the gov't abolishing marriage altogether and leaving it up to the religious institutions to recognize or not recognize marriage.

To you, it is all about you. And you are not interesting to me.

I beg to differ. You enjoy responding to my posts.

Thus, all religion is worship of the Flying Spagetti Monster.

Do you read uncyclopedia.org? You can choose to believe what you like, doesn't mean others will agree with you.

What is a non-gay fag? Your term sounds redundant and absurd.

Because superfluous redundancies are fun.

How do you choose amongst 30 million subjectivities? (answer is: you don't - personal subjectivities are considered irrelevant to good public policy).

Fortunately I'm not the only Canuck against giving superior rights to the gay fags.

You apparently have 'control' issues. Your need to control other people is scary.

I don't . Adpotion is an interesting issue. Caeteris paribus, children are preferably raised by their biological parents. However, given other variables, sometimes adoption is preferable (and sometimes the only option). I'd prefer to see adopted children to go to the most ideal families. It's not a matter of control, it's a matter of the future of adopted children in Canada.

And you still haven't explained how the mere existence of a Falon Gong parade "forces me to accept, condone and celebrate" this religion the way the existence of a gay parade forces people to "accept, condone and celebrate" homosexuality.

The absence of disapproval is approval. Nothing wrong with giving your silent approval, provided you don't object to it.

[Drea]

Less than 5% of the population is handicapped, yet buildings must be wheelchair accessible. Why are we making concessions for such a small portion of the populace? Hmmmm...

No I don't have anything against handicapped folk -- just pointing out Kaptain's hipocracy -- "why make concessions for such a small percentage?"

[Mad_Michael]

Btw, a 95% distribution of data points is not the same as a 95% confidence level.

I'm aware. Those represented by less than 50% of the population may be a minority, but if they're less than 5% of the population, then they're an insignificant minority.

Right. Like geniuses, Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks in Canada, blind people, millionaires, etc.

You just go round and round with your argument. You are not even trying to make sense.

I'd like to say that religion is based on behavior, however many people are registered of a given religion without practicing it, so when it comes to stats, it's not so much the case anymore, but rather a name to divide people.

Gibberish!

You can't say that religion is behaviour because that makes your whole argument come crashing down.

So you disemble. I don't think you are fooling very many people with this one.

The idea of equal rights is utopic, but if gay fags are granted the "equal rights" pro-gay fag activists request, then they would be granted superior rights.

Direct costs are easy to explain. The legislation, for instance... updating marriage and divorce forms, the time spent debating certain legalities in Parliament...

Indirect costs are tougher to measure. If an employer is forced to hire a certain proportion of gay fags, costing the employer much time finding a member of less than 2% of the general population should also be a considered cost.

Even by your own standards, this argument is rather lame.

3 000 years of recorded civilization (since the beginning of literature) have predated Christianity.

Marriage was still originally a practice pertaining to some sort of belief, to some sort of religion providing the need for a formal recognition of a union between two people. Gov't only recognize marriage for tax and immigration purposes. I'd like to see the gov't abolishing marriage altogether and leaving it up to the religious institutions to recognize or not recognize marriage.

You got this one backwards. Marriage has always been a state sanctioned, state regulated enterprise. See Hammurabi's Babylonian Law Code.

Btw, Christian obsession with marriage and the Christian claim of jurisdiction over it is comparatively recent - circa 13th century AD.

To you, it is all about you. And you are not interesting to me.

I beg to differ. You enjoy responding to my posts.

No, I am playing you for sport.

I have no delusions about the unseriousness of your arguments. There are no principles at stake here - only your subjective caprice, your demands and your temper tantrum because the government won't do what you say.

The absence of disapproval is approval.

Just like the absence of proof is proof of absence right?

Your logic is colourful if not anything else. Don't try that one at a university - they fail people for making statements like that.

Nothing wrong with giving your silent approval, provided you don't object to it.

Your gibberish factor appears to be rising.

[Mad_Michael]

Less than 5% of the population is handicapped, yet buildings must be wheelchair accessible. Why are we making concessions for such a small portion of the populace? Hmmmm...

No I don't have anything against handicapped folk -- just pointing out Kaptain's hipocracy -- "why make concessions for such a small percentage?"

If the good Kapitän Rotbart doesn't approve of something, it ought to be banned. It really is as simple as that.

That's the only real argument that Kapitän Rotbart is advancing in this thread. Every other argument he's given has been either circular, illogical, absurd or trite.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

@Drea:

Less than 5% of the population is handicapped, yet buildings must be wheelchair accessible. Why are we making concessions for such a small portion of the populace? Hmmmm...

No I don't have anything against handicapped folk -- just pointing out Kaptain's hipocracy -- "why make concessions for such a small percentage?"

We take care of the handicaped because there's nothing they can do to no longer be handicaped. Gay fags can choose to no longer be gay.

@Mad_Michael:

Right. Like geniuses, Jehovah's Witnesses, Blacks in Canada, blind people, millionaires, etc.

But those are not minorities based on behavior. Genii, blacks and millionaires seem to be doing just fine without special attention from the gov't. I'd say we do hardly anything to help the blind in society, and if it's really an issue, it could be changed. There's no controversy going on about the extent to which we help blind people.

You can't say that religion is behaviour because that makes your whole argument come crashing down.

Religion should be saved for a whole other topic... I'm for the seperation of church and state and the desecularization of marriage. The church doesn't need the gov't telling it what to do and vice versa. However, anything pertaining to the church should be desecularized.

Many people are identified by a given religion and unless they do anything to change that, they are still identified as a member of that religion. Using religion nowadays is not an effective way of measuring minorities.

You got this one backwards. Marriage has always been a state sanctioned, state regulated enterprise. See Hammurabi's Babylonian Law Code.

Btw, Christian obsession with marriage and the Christian claim of jurisdiction over it is comparatively recent - circa 13th century AD.

Do you have any links/references?

No, I am playing you for sport.

You wouldn't do it if you didn't enjoy responding to my posts.

What temper? I'm simply posting my opinions and stating what I'd do had I been gov't/king. What temper tantrum? Man, this is a fun sport indeed!

Just like the absence of proof is proof of absence right?

No, because you switched subject and a possessive, making no sense. I stated that everything outside the circle A stands in circle B, which makes more sense than what you stated.

Your gibberish factor appears to be rising.

You appear to be silly.

[ScottSA]

Less than 5% of the population is handicapped, yet buildings must be wheelchair accessible. Why are we making concessions for such a small portion of the populace? Hmmmm...

No I don't have anything against handicapped folk -- just pointing out Kaptain's hipocracy -- "why make concessions for such a small percentage?"

Handicapped folks are not handicapped by choice or self-definition. Further, the "concessions" made for handicapped people are in aid of them living to potential, whereas fags have no such bar to their potentiality.

[Drea]

According to gay folks they don't choose to be gay, they are born that way. I don't know personally as I am not gay so I personally cannot say whether this is true.

To be clear -- I was not comparing gays to handicapped folks -- simply pointing out the percentages thingy

[cybercoma]

For all those declaring homosexuals should 'choose' to be straight, would you find it so easy to 'choose' to be gay? Presumably you're straight, unless some of you are gay and have made the choice to lie to your partners and be in heterosexual relationships. As stupid as that is, it may explain a lot of your resentment towards homosexuals who do not try to hide who they are.

[ScottSA]

For all those declaring homosexuals should 'choose' to be straight, would you find it so easy to 'choose' to be gay? Presumably you're straight, unless some of you are gay and have made the choice to lie to your partners and be in heterosexual relationships. As stupid as that is, it may explain a lot of your resentment towards homosexuals who do not try to hide who they are.

Yawn...yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with celebrating bumbuggery is a closet homosexual. Right. That must make everyone who pretends to accept it closet homophobes?

[Kapitän Rotbart]

According to gay folks they don't choose to be gay, they are born that way. I don't know personally as I am not gay so I personally cannot say whether this is true.

To be clear -- I was not comparing gays to handicapped folks -- simply pointing out the percentages thingy

You did make the comparison. Gay fags have a mental condition just like the hadicapped have a physical condition.

However, there is still no concrete proof that people are born gay. People are not always born physically challenged, though.

[cybercoma]

For all those declaring homosexuals should 'choose' to be straight, would you find it so easy to 'choose' to be gay? Presumably you're straight, unless some of you are gay and have made the choice to lie to your partners and be in heterosexual relationships. As stupid as that is, it may explain a lot of your resentment towards homosexuals who do not try to hide who they are.

Yawn...yeah, everyone who doesn't agree with celebrating bumbuggery is a closet homosexual. Right. That must make everyone who pretends to accept it closet homophobes?

Not necessarily, but possibly.

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

That was more to the point.

[guyser]

Gay fags have a mental condition just like the hadicapped have a physical condition.

Gee, let me guess, another definition you got from the dictionary?

[Mad_Michael]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

[cybercoma]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

[ScottSA]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

Actually, most heterosexuals couldn't care less whether fags convert. Most of us would just like fags to shut up about it already. No one is going after homosexuals...homosexuals are coming after us and our institutions and our approval. I for one would never say another word about faggotry if I didn't have it shoved in my face on a daily basis.

[Mad_Michael]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

Actually, most heterosexuals couldn't care less whether fags convert. Most of us would just like fags to shut up about it already. No one is going after homosexuals...homosexuals are coming after us and our institutions and our approval. I for one would never say another word about faggotry if I didn't have it shoved in my face on a daily basis.

I'm pretty sure that most homosexuals don't want your approval given that they are apparently doing so much to annoy you.

Indeed, given your stated opinions, most homosexuals would likely hold you in extreme contempt, rather than seek your approval.

Btw, your assertion that homosexuals are seeking your approval tells us more about you than it presumes to say about homosexuals. Just sayin'.

[Mad_Michael]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

I don't believe the ears are deaf. Just perhaps refusing to listen. Rather like a child who puts their hands over their ears and says "la-la-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".

[ScottSA]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

Actually, most heterosexuals couldn't care less whether fags convert. Most of us would just like fags to shut up about it already. No one is going after homosexuals...homosexuals are coming after us and our institutions and our approval. I for one would never say another word about faggotry if I didn't have it shoved in my face on a daily basis.

I'm pretty sure that most homosexuals don't want your approval given that they are apparently doing so much to annoy you.

Indeed, given your stated opinions, most homosexuals would likely hold you in extreme contempt, rather than seek your approval.

Btw, your assertion that homosexuals are seeking your approval tells us more about you than it presumes to say about homosexuals. Just sayin'.

I'll just ignore streetcorner psychology slag and let it speak for you by itself.

I'd be very pleased if fags were not trying to get everyone's approval, but unfortunately they are, and demonstrably...nay, obviously...so.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Why is it that heterosexuals claim homosexuals are going to recruit people to be gay, when it is actually the heterosexual bigots that are trying to make the homosexuals convert?

Damn good point.

Thank-you. It's just unfortunate that the question will fall on deaf ears.

I don't believe the ears are deaf. Just perhaps refusing to listen. Rather like a child who puts their hands over their ears and says "la-la-la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you".

Sounds like the pro-gay fag activists' response to the Truth.

[Mad_Michael]

Sounds like the pro-gay fag activists' response to the Truth.

The "Truth" eh?

That is only the alleged word of God and thus holds no rational validity over me, or our government.

[Kapitän Rotbart]

Sounds like the pro-gay fag activists' response to the Truth.

The "Truth" eh?

That is only the alleged word of God and thus holds no rational validity over me, or our government.

You just proved my point.

Check out http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnS...hosx_lifspn.htm and read the whole page out loud (it's not that long, could probably print to a page or two). Here's an interesting quote from it:

In 1998, another study using four contemporary databases suggested that homosexual activity may be associated with a lifespan shortened by 20 to 30 years. Source: Cameron, P., Cameron, K., Playfair, WL., " Does Homosexual Activity Shorten Life? ", Psychological Reports, 1998, 83, pp. 847-66.

It's all medical research, none of this truth is pulled out of the Bible book in this case, but rather found through research, confirming the beliefs of the Believers. Now if you won't believe medical research, then you've double-proved my point.

[Melanie_]

http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnS...hosx_lifspn.htm

Your link leads back to a very biased website, with an ultra Christian agenda. Anything this website posts has to be viewed as subjective, rather than objective. There aren't links to the studies cited, and the two studies listed are 9 and 10 years old. I don't think you've proven your point at all.

Through the narrow gate.....

Spiritually and Intellectually aggressive Re-Sources

for Christian living in a pre-Christian age.

Western Civilization is Christian Civilization.

The Biblical re-conversion of the West is a Necessary & Winnable Battle...

"The logical end of defensive war is surrender..." Napoleon

Christians must learn to take the intellectual, moral, & spiritual offensive...