T1B

I know that some of you won't be able to handle this topic like adults, but my hope is that more can.

How do you look at this issue? This often breaks down along along red and blue, religous and agnostic, and liberal and conservative lines. Both sides throw out 1000 pieces of trash and crap for every 1 fact or scientific study.

Personally I see this as a choice. Science hasn't proven that there is in fact a gene that "makes" someone homosexual. Just as they haven't shown there is a gene that "makes" someone an alcoholic. Yes, some people with a certain gene may be more likely to be an alcoholic, but not everyone becomes one. Other factors like upbringing, stress, and mental stablility play into one becoming an alcoholic. I think it is prolly similiar for homosexuality. Bottom line though for me is it a choice one makes. Sure other factors may influence the decision, but I think it is still a decision.

If however science is able to pinpoint a certain gene that " absolutely makes" someone homosexual then we should treat it as a birth defect and put the full effort of science behind it. Same with an alcoholic gene.

Does it matter?

Left Seater wrote:... then we should treat it as a birth defect and put the full effort of science behind it. Same with an alcoholic gene.

Let me guess, you hate yourself because you're an alcoholic fag?

Actually, LS, I was just wondering if somebody gave you some red-colored glasses lately. :wink:

A birth defect, huh?

So how has this affected you so personally that you would call for scientific research to eradicate this "flaw?" And while you're at it, why stop there? I propose scientific research that would eradicate any possible gene that would cause anyone to house a chickenshit, yappy dog and/or leave it in their backyard. That affects me more than one of my neighbors being gay.

Latest in Nature on this topic

Btw, to answer your question ... I think it's probably a combination of genes and personal choice.

Diego,

Because this is an opinion based message board.


RadioFan,

No one gave me anything which I why I had to "buy" my own red-colored glasses as you put it. As for the dog here's hoping that if that has happened to you you went next door and took it up with the owners. It is quite possible that some people have a stupid gene. If we can issolate it then, hell yeah lets fix it. ;)

Left Seater wrote:Personally I see this as a choice. Science hasn't proven that there is in fact a gene that "makes" someone homosexual. Just as they haven't shown there is a gene that "makes" someone an alcoholic. Yes, some people with a certain gene may be more likely to be an alcoholic, but not everyone becomes one.

Ho. Lee. Shit.

Do the rest of us a favor, and stay in Texas...please.

You might want to have some clue about what you're talking about before you start the topic, unless your goal was to amuse others by being a pile-on victim(if so, Rack you....I do that on an occasion, for myself).

While some people just can't let go of their superiority complex, and while some in the scientific community will always cry "foul" about methods and whatsuch, how many physiological differences are researchers going to have to find before you finally admit that it's not a matter of opinion, as you claim, but a matter of FACT? Geebus, the last comprehensive study on this came out less than a month ago(in addition to the Le Vay study), but since the thumpers of the world have stated for generations that it is a "choice," those same narcissistic dumbasses will never admit their mistake.

Sure, one can argue that prolonged sexual stimulation could increase/decrease function in certain parts of the brain, but THAT'S where the "junk science" falls flat on its face. So, where the scientific data that shows that thinking a certain way for a given amount of time can actually affect physical brain function, and the way it send electrical impulses? The naysayers are using unproven, unfounded arguments to argue that those studies were inconclusive. Kettle pot much?

And ponder this -- name ONE reason why someone would CHOOSE to be a fag? So they can hang around snappy dressers and get hints on decorating the living room? Yeah, tht'd be worth the persecution they endure(not to mention the internet ridicule they recieve).

Not one argument that the "it's a choice" side brings holds one drop of water, and is devoid of any and all common sense......:bigshocker: coming from the bible-thumping community.

So, your "opinion" is moot. Th4ere is FACT, and there is myth. Your "opinion" is of zero consequence to either.

And you're also clueless about alcoholism-btw. Alcoholism is a disease, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. You are born with alcoholism, or you're not. While some alcoholics never drink one drop of alcohol in their life, it doesn't change the FACT that they're alcoholics. Period. Your use of the phrase "becomes one" proves your complete lack of knowledge. It's an inability to produce an enzyme, you flaming tard. Just because a specific gene hasn't been pinpointed that causes this physical shortcoming, it doesn't change the physical shortcoming. A non-alcoholic can drink a keg a day, and will never "become one." An alcoholic can go a lifetime without drinking, and that enzyme will never magically appear. They "became one" at conception. Not opinion -- FACT. There's a boatload of information available on the subject(some court-ordered....d'oh!), obviously none of which you ever read before opening your yap.


While holier-than-thous can still make a reasonable argument against the obvious physical nature of homosexuality to make themselves feel somehow superior that they didn't make that "choice," save your retarded fucking self-propping about alcoholism. That one has been proven beyond any and all shodow of doubt(like homosexuality will be someday). Find some other point with which to boost your ego. You don't know enough about these subjects to even attempt it here.

Left Seater wrote:No one gave me anything which I why I had to "buy" my own red-colored glasses as you put it.

Just thought somebody pissed in your glass recently.

Left Seater wrote:As for the dog here's hoping that if that has happened to you you went next door and took it up with the owners.

No need, my labs can take care of it. All I need is access to the gate ... or some decent acid to melt steel.

Besides, it's not like dude is going to convert me, or dudette is going to convince me to have a sex-change operation, just so I can become her lover.

And RACK Dins.

RadioFan wrote:And RACK Dins.

He certainly likes to type.

Not that I bothered reading all of that crap.

The whole point of the "choice" vs "genetics" question is the perv community's assertion that 'you can't criticize/disagree with/discriminate against us"......

Because we were born this way.


The question is irrelevant because the assertion is false.


Should we respect NAMBLA because they were 'born that way"?


Respect the alternative lifestyle of the dipsomaniac?


How about civil rights for pyros?

I'd have to say while it's not a proven fact, I do believe that there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality.

The comparison to alcoholism is a neat one as well. This "enzyme".

Usually, this "enzyme" doesn't present a problem until the person that was alcoholic before he or she took a drink .... ends up in front of judges, behind bars, in straight jackets or in a pine box. The unfortunate FACT of alcoholism is that it is destructive. It destroys the drunk, the people around the drunk and sometimes innocent victims, because the drunk needed more booze ... even though he was already drunk ... and the drunk drives drunk and kills people.

The only solution to the genetic disposition towards alcoholism is for the alcoholic to not get drunk. The only way alcoholics don't get drunk is by complete and utter abstinence from drinking alcoholic drinks.

The point is. Just because things are "genetic", it doesn't excuse, justify, or somehow make "okay" indulgence. Nor does it nullify the ill effects those indulgences have on society.

I love the one about why would anyone choose to put up with the ridicule and abuse. As if no one ever goes against the norm to be different. Using your line of thinking the small group of goth kids in High School didn't choose to be that way, they were born that way. Why the hell would the put up with the teasing and abuse if they really had a choice in the matter. There are plenty of people that do things just to "give the finger" to others.

Furthermore, being homosexual allows for benefits that are not always extended to a male and female unmarried couple. Perfect example is the health insurance benefits offered by one of my previous employers. A gay employee could add their "significant other" to the policy as long as they where "together" for at least 6 months. Yet a male employee coun't add his girlfriend of 18 months to his health policy.

And furthermore thanks for letting us know you didn't read my post. I pointed out that there is fact and myth/opinion on both sides. The facts are greatly outweighed by the opinions. Yet this is a message board, hence my asking for your and others opinion.

You then go on to put your foot in your mouth about alcoholism. I know plenty about it. I hope you never have to have the learning experience I have had to face. (And no, I am not one myself.) One beer does not an alcoholic make. I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.


RadioFan,

I have a boxer and dalmation that I can lend you if the labs decide to make friendly. ;)

And granted no one is going to convert you, you would have to make that choice yourself. Just as you would to suddenly make a hole in your fence.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:And RACK Dins.

He certainly likes to type.

Not that I bothered reading all of that crap.

Why not?

Dude has a damn good take and puts time into it.

Diogenes wrote:The whole point of the "choice" vs "genetics" question is the perv community's assertion that 'you can't criticize/disagree with/discriminate against us"......

Because we were born this way.


The question is irrelevant because the assertion is false.


Should we respect NAMBLA because they were 'born that way"?


Respect the alternative lifestyle of the dipsomaniac?








How about civil rights for pyros?

How about civil rights for yappy small-dog owners, as I posted before?

I understand your position on this Dio, but I still don't understand why.

What's up with the hate?

Being gay is a choice. If it were genetic, their would be a lot more fags out there.

Tom In VA wrote:

Left Seater wrote:I agree that it is a disease, but it is as much if not more a mental disease than a genetic one.

You would be correct in that assessment. The genetic part doesn't come into play until the first drink is consumed.

LS is wrong. Your first sentence is wrong. Your last sentence is money.

Furthermore, being homosexual allows for benefits that are not always extended to a male and female unmarried couple. Perfect example is the health insurance benefits offered by one of my previous employers.

So, before the inception of organized health care, there was no homosexuality?

Nice arugument.

Can even one of you adress the REAL issue here......that being the issue of why some of you are so concerned about what willing orifice a dude puts his weewee into? It doesn't æffect me (or you, for that matter). Doesn't sound like the bad genes entirely passed some of you up. The day I start thinking about other dude's dicks and what they do with them, is the day I eat a bullet. The world would be much better if you tards felt the same way, and offed yourselves, you fucking perverts.

RadioFan wrote:What's up with the hate?

What 'hate'?

There is a differance between tolerance and acceptance.

The only hate I see some idiot raving about 'holier than thous' and 'thumpers'.

Personally, as long as they don't march on my street or get in my face, I could give a shit what someone does behind closed doors.


But claiming that something being inborn makes it acceptable per se is irrational.


And claiming that people who legitimatly believe (right or wrong, and whether you and/or I agree with them or not) that a particular lifestyle is unhealthy are "haters" is either disingenuous or intolerant in itself.




Stop the hate.

RadioFan wrote:So how has this affected you so personally that you would call for scientific research to eradicate this "flaw?" And while you're at it, why stop there? I propose scientific research that would eradicate any possible gene that would cause anyone to house a chickenshit, yappy dog and/or leave it in their backyard. That affects me more than one of my neighbors being gay.



Btw, to answer your question ... I think it's probably a combination of genes and personal choice.

Having chickenshit yappy dogs?


And I think his point was that the sexual deviant community is in favor of searching for a "gay gene" as a legitimization of the idea their lifestyle is 'normal'.

But that hereditary and normal aren't synonymous.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:What's up with the hate?

What 'hate'?

There is a differance between tolerance and acceptance.

Depends on what you mean.

It's what the discussion is about, it seems to me. What some tolerate, others find unacceptable, no?

Diogenes wrote:Personally, as long as they don't march on my street or get in my face, I could give a shit what someone does behind closed doors.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Sounds more like ... you'd like them off your streets. As would I like them off my radio. But hey, I'm in Oklahoma. You'd like it here, outside of no beach. (save the resets, Cuda).

Diogenes wrote:But claiming that something being inborn makes it acceptable per se is irrational.

As in the Christ within us?

Diogenes wrote:And claiming that people who legitimatly believe (right or wrong, and whether you and/or I agree with them or not) that a particular lifestyle is unhealthy are "haters" is either disingenuous or intolerant in itself.

Not for the sake of argument, it isn't.

Diogenes wrote:Stop the hate.

My bad.

~ grin ~

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:What's up with the hate?

What 'hate'?

There is a differance between tolerance and acceptance.

Depends on what you mean.

It's what the discussion is about, it seems to me. What some tolerate, others find unacceptable, no?

Not what I mean.

You can tolerate something as a personal choice (homosexuality) without finding it to be socially acceptable, something to be placed on the same level as heterosexuality.

The unreformed Mormons would settle for that (given the choice).

The gay community won't.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Personally, as long as they don't march on my street or get in my face, I could give a shit what someone does behind closed doors.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Sounds more like ... you'd like them off your streets. As would I like them off my radio. But hey, I'm in Oklahoma. You'd like it here, outside of no beach. (save the resets, Cuda).

I'm in Kalifornia.

It's the locals that want me off of their streets.

Out of their bars.

Off their internet......

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:But claiming that something being inborn makes it acceptable per se is irrational.

As in the Christ within us?

As in the Michael Jackson within.......


Why does Dimsdale get so pissy about this subject?



Nevermind, don't want to know.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And claiming that people who legitimatly believe (right or wrong, and whether you and/or I agree with them or not) that a particular lifestyle is unhealthy are "haters" is either disingenuous or intolerant in itself.

Not for the sake of argument, it isn't.

If it is mearly for the sake of argument, it is disingenuous by definition.

Tom In VA wrote:I'd have to say while it's not a proven fact, I do believe that there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality.

And on what experience / fact / reasoning are you basing this assumption?

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote: What 'hate'?

There is a differance between tolerance and acceptance.

Depends on what you mean.

It's what the discussion is about, it seems to me. What some tolerate, others find unacceptable, no?

Not what I mean.

You can tolerate something as a personal choice (homosexuality) without finding it to be socially acceptable, something to be placed on the same level as heterosexuality.

The unreformed Mormons would settle for that (given the choice).

The gay community won't.

Bullshit.

I've asked you this before ... find me one single link of someone who's had the shit beaten out of them or has been killed simply for being straight.

Sorry, until that is a common occurance, this whole argument about the "gay agenda" is a bunch of complete horseshit, especially right here, in Red Country, U.S.A.

"Hell, we don't need to know no Dos-shy-yet-sky. Sheet, for all I know, that commie basturd is just like them gays. All a bunch a forners to us good ole fashion Americuns."

Consider yourself lucky, my friend. At least you have more people who have even heard of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, than can give you a look of "Huh?" when you tell them "No thanks, first read this" at your door.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:Personally, as long as they don't march on my street or get in my face, I could give a shit what someone does behind closed doors.

Doesn't sound like it to me.

Sounds more like ... you'd like them off your streets. As would I like them off my radio. But hey, I'm in Oklahoma. You'd like it here, outside of no beach. (save the resets, Cuda).

I'm in Kalifornia.

It's the locals that want me off of their streets.

Out of their bars.

Off their internet......

Gay parades? There's one event here a year, with a few hundred people, and it's like a freak show here, and local radio goes on about it for months. I'm not kidding.

Btw: http://www.1170kfaq.com

They're "Standing up for what's right."

:roll: :roll:

(DiT, LK and a few others excluded, of course).

Eighty percent of the "men," and others in this POS hypocritical town couldn't handle this board, much less even consider the arguments on here, in Tulsa.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:But claiming that something being inborn makes it acceptable per se is irrational.

As in the Christ within us?

As in the Michael Jackson within.......


Why does Dimsdale get so pissy about this subject?



Nevermind, don't want to know.

He does?

I just enjoy dude's ramblings, as I do yours.

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:And claiming that people who legitimatly believe (right or wrong, and whether you and/or I agree with them or not) that a particular lifestyle is unhealthy are "haters" is either disingenuous or intolerant in itself.

Not for the sake of argument, it isn't.

If it is mearly for the sake of argument, it is disingenuous by definition.

Nothing disingenuous, bro.

Just arguing.

And you still haven't answered my question.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Which one?

If it's about me hating gays, I don't.

Intelectual dishonesty, I do.

I've asked you this before ... find me one single link of someone who's had the shit beaten out of them or has been killed simply for being straight.

Sorry, until that is a common occurance, this whole argument about the "gay agenda" is a bunch of complete horseshit, especially right here, in Red Country, U.S.A.

"Hell, we don't need to know no Dos-shy-yet-sky. Sheet, for all I know, that commie basturd is just like them gays. All a bunch a forners to us good ole fashion Americuns."

Consider yourself lucky, my friend. At least you have more people who have even heard of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, than can give you a look of "Huh?" when you tell them "No thanks, first read this" at your door.


So because some yahoos beat up on gays all people that disagree with their lifestle are 'haters" and potential bashers?

Is it remotely possible that SOME people think the lifestyle unhealthy and say so out of concern for the practicers, rather than keeping quiet to avoid being labeled a 'hater"?

I guess not.

Mister Bushice wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:I'd have to say while it's not a proven fact, I do believe that there are genetic tendencies towards homosexuality.

And on what experience / fact / reasoning are you basing this assumption?

It's not really an assumption, it's more of a belief and an opinion. I base it on the fact, I don't know why a guy would look at another guy's hairy ass and say "MMMMMMM, that looks good".

So, my ignorance of what it's like to be one, dictates my opinion.





As far as Dins,

No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot. It's a mental condition coupled with a physical condition. The physical condition does not manifest itself until the drink is consumed. It exists, but it's not in full effect. It only goes into effect when that first drink is consumed and the enzymes and such kick in and phenomena of craving commences.

He certainly likes to type.

Not that I bothered reading all of that crap.

Thanks for the self-administered ignominy.

Lefty,

I agree with those that express doubt that homosexuality is a "choice". I doubt it's that simple, though.

I think that folks are genetically predisposed toward homosexuality or heterosexuality. I think that after birth, that predisposition is generally advanced or inhibited by the life experience of the child.

Beyond that, there is a matter of choice involved...many folks choose not to act on their impulses freely. There are many "straight" people who probably are really gay, just as there are probably gays that are attracted to women. One chooses which impulses to act on.

Tom In VA wrote:
No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot.

Just curious here, Tom.

What do you consider "normal" drinking?

IMO, there are different thresholds for different people.

As I stated previously, and good old Bushice in his wisdom must have deleted it, an alchoholic, or problem drinker, is defined by their actions once they start consuming. It really doesn't matter how much or how little they consume, but the trouble that they get into, and the consequences that must be faced, as a result.

War Wagon wrote:
As I stated previously, and good old Bushice in his wisdom must have deleted it.....

You too, eh?

War Wagon wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:
No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot.

Just curious here, Tom.

What do you consider "normal" drinking?

IMO, there are different thresholds for different people.

As I stated previously, and good old Bushice in his wisdom must have deleted it, an alchoholic, or problem drinker, is defined by their actions once they start consuming. It really doesn't matter how much or how little they consume, but the trouble that they get into, and the consequences that must be faced, as a result.

Pay attention whitey, etc. The topic was split. It was worth it's own thread, that's all.

Look around first before you point fingers.

Cicero wrote:Being gay is a choice. If it were genetic, their would be a lot more fags out there.

Why? It can't be passed on from father to son, certainly not in the traditional sense. If there is a genetic link, it is a rare or random one, such as someone with an unusual color of hair, eyes that are different colors, or Jamie lee Curtis. Even Downs Syndrome falls into that category.

But I think environment can be a factor that can also trigger latent homosexuality.

Mister Bushice wrote:The topic was split. It was worth it's own thread, that's all.

Look around first before you point fingers.

You must have waaay too much time on your hands, and are waaaaaay too infatuated with the mod buttons.

There is nothing wrong with a topic digressing to include other subjects that folks might want to discuss, and you should quit meddling.

Personally, I think homosexuality is abominable, deviant behavior, and I've stated such many, many, times.

I just don't care to debate it anymore. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, and no one is going to change mine.

I just don't care to debate it anymore.

Honest question: WTF are you doing in this thread, then? Lefty stated at the outset that he wanted to have a debate on the topic. If you don't care to do so, then why are you posting in this thread?

War Wagon wrote: Personally, I think homosexuality is abominable, deviant behavior

I'm pretty much with you. I just don't think it's my place to tell consenting adults what they can and can't do inside their 4 walls.

I've engaged in some pretty deviant behavior with some nasty skanks. If I want to shove a cucumber up some dirty bitch's twat, I'm going to do it, assuming she's down. Get in my face and tell me I can't do it, and we've got a BIG problem. So, I'll just avoid the double-standard, thank you very much.

PSUFAN wrote:

I just don't care to debate it anymore.

Honest question: WTF are you doing in this thread, then? Lefty stated at the outset that he wanted to have a debate on the topic. If you don't care to do so, then why are you posting in this thread?

Because I can.

Well, that, and becuse the subject of alcoholism was broached in a thought provoking manner, and that does interest me. I could give two shits about what Lefty or anyone else wanted, or didn't want, to debate about. That's not a criteria I consider before hitting submit, sorry.

I'll answer in the new thread WW.

Yes, I have heard of recessive genes. I'm just not sure if you could even consider homosexuality as being in that category, since as far as my recollection goes, recessive genes still pop up quite frequently, depending on other factors.


I was thinking more of a domino type effect. If this certain sequence of genes falls into place just right, it could trigger homosexuality to appear as a trait but not necessarly as a recessive trait like certain hair color as much as a rare occurrence.

That is based on the assumption that there is a potentially "gay" gene combination.

I'm not a geneticist, I only play one on the internet. ;)

Mister Bushice wrote:

War Wagon wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:
No, the alcoholics biggest problem is that he/she thinks he/she can drink normally while their body progressively tells them they cannot.

Just curious here, Tom.

What do you consider "normal" drinking?

IMO, there are different thresholds for different people.

As I stated previously, and good old Bushice in his wisdom must have deleted it, an alchoholic, or problem drinker, is defined by their actions once they start consuming. It really doesn't matter how much or how little they consume, but the trouble that they get into, and the consequences that must be faced, as a result.

Pay attention whitey, etc. The topic was split. It was worth it's own thread, that's all.

Not really.

It was only brought up to demonstrate a point.

The whole nature vs environment debate is irrelevant to begin with.

Whether a trait is inborn or learned has nothing to do with whether it should be socialy acceptable or even tolerated, let alone encouraged by the public educational system. Pyromanics, pederasts and psychotics all were "born that way" yet society doesn't excuse them acting out on their natural proclivities. Alcoholics are "born that way", as are bipolor disorder sufferers.

Should we tolerate the diversity of NAMBLA?

Should we respect the lifestyle choices of the habitual drunkard?

And toleration and acceptance are not synonymous.

We tolerate alcoholics, but we don't try to teach them to embrace their inner drunk in high school, let alone grade school.

Maybe our educational system can teach our next generation of alcoholics to feel good about their alternative lifestyle choice and educate non-alkies on the nessecity to stop the hate.

RadioFan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

RadioFan wrote: Depends on what you mean.

It's what the discussion is about, it seems to me. What some tolerate, others find unacceptable, no?

Not what I mean.

You can tolerate something as a personal choice (homosexuality) without finding it to be socially acceptable, something to be placed on the same level as heterosexuality.

The unreformed Mormons would settle for that (given the choice).

The gay community won't.

Bullshit.

I've asked you this before ... find me one single link of someone who's had the shit beaten out of them or has been killed simply for being drunk..

FTFY.

Sorry, until that is a common occurance, this whole argument about the "gay agenda" is a bunch of complete horseshit, especially right here, in Red Country, U.S.A.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Was that the question?

Happens all the time.

Diogenes wrote:So because some yahoos beat up on gays all people that disagree with their lifestle are 'haters" and potential bashers?

No, but those who are silent ... well, it happened in Nazi Germany.

Diogenes wrote:Is it remotely possible that SOME people think the lifestyle unhealthy and say so out of concern for the practicers, rather than keeping quiet to avoid being labeled a 'hater"?

I guess not.

Absolutely.

But, it's not like there's a "silent" voice of those who think it's "unhealthy." Quite the contrary.

And not such a good argument. :wink:

Diogenes wrote:I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Diogenes.

The Dark Prince Of Hate.

I'm not buyin that last part, no way no how.

mvscal wrote:There have been studies of monozygotic twins that show that only in 50% these pairs are both twins homos rather than the nearly 100% figure that should be expected.

Link?

Or were you just surfing around the Nature site link that I posted a while back?

Btw, mvscal, if you were around during the "night of the long knives" in 1934, would you have embraced the killing of a few top homosexual leaders in the Riech, or have been shitting your pants ... given that you weren't already a "soldier" under Himmler's command, hypothetically?

Diogenes wrote:

The whole nature vs environment debate is irrelevant to begin with.

Whether a trait is inborn or learned has nothing to do with whether it should be socialy acceptable or even tolerated, let alone encouraged by the public educational system. Pyromanics, pederasts and psychotics all were "born that way" yet society doesn't excuse them acting out on their natural proclivities. Alcoholics are "born that way", as are bipolor disorder sufferers.

Should we tolerate the diversity of NAMBLA?

Should we respect the lifestyle choices of the habitual drunkard?

And toleration and acceptance are not synonymous.

We tolerate alcoholics, but we don't try to teach them to embrace their inner drunk in high school, let alone grade school.

Maybe our educational system can teach our next generation of alcoholics to feel good about their alternative lifestyle choice and educate non-alkies on the nessecity to stop the hate.

You can't be serious. Do you know what the "M" & "B" in NAMBLA stand for? I have a genetic disposition to like chicks, but I'm still not allowed to have sex with underage girls. Know why? Because it's against the fucking law. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is asinine.

As far as alcoholics go, their condition is harmful to themselves (at the very least) and potentially to others (if they're abusive or drive drunk). Last time I checked, homosexuals didn't pose a direct danger to themselves or others.

I just don't understand why some people get so worked up about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Personally, I find the idea of gay sex repulsive. I also find the idea of eating steamed broccoli repulsive, but I'm not going to bash on broccoli-eaters or try to deny them equal rights just because they're not like me.

MiketheangrydrunkenCUfan wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

The whole nature vs environment debate is irrelevant to begin with.

Whether a trait is inborn or learned has nothing to do with whether it should be socialy acceptable or even tolerated, let alone encouraged by the public educational system. Pyromanics, pederasts and psychotics all were "born that way" yet society doesn't excuse them acting out on their natural proclivities. Alcoholics are "born that way", as are bipolor disorder sufferers.

Should we tolerate the diversity of NAMBLA?

Should we respect the lifestyle choices of the habitual drunkard?

And toleration and acceptance are not synonymous.

We tolerate alcoholics, but we don't try to teach them to embrace their inner drunk in high school, let alone grade school.

Maybe our educational system can teach our next generation of alcoholics to feel good about their alternative lifestyle choice and educate non-alkies on the nessecity to stop the hate.

You can't be serious. Do you know what the "M" & "B" in NAMBLA stand for? I have a genetic disposition to like chicks, but I'm still not allowed to have sex with underage girls. Know why? Because it's against the fucking law. Comparing homosexuals to pedophiles is asinine.

As far as alcoholics go, their condition is harmful to themselves (at the very least) and potentially to others (if they're abusive or drive drunk). Last time I checked, homosexuals didn't pose a direct danger to themselves or others.

I just don't understand why some people get so worked up about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home. Personally, I find the idea of gay sex repulsive. I also find the idea of eating steamed broccoli repulsive, but I'm not going to bash on broccoli-eaters or try to deny them equal rights just because they're not like me.

Game, set, match.

Mike, to answer your last paragraph, it's about building their self-esteem by looking down their nose at others who aren't like them & pronouncing judgement. Pure and simple.