Gay group: "Caliber" Ad is anything but cute

[Drew Dowdell]

As far as the 'high-risk lifestyle' - there is still a HUGE perception that the gay lifestyle is high-risk. I do not know what the actual numbers are - I am talking perceived - should have been clearer on that I guess.  Insurance companies will use this perception to drive everyone's rates up - watch. 

As if the insurance companies needed an excuse to drive rates up......

but still, insurance premiums are not calculated that way. There is no "perception" about it at all. It's all based on past performance.

The equation goes like this:

(Last years medical bills for the entire company + 10%)/number of members in the plan = individual insurance premium for the year.

again, it has nothing to do with any perception at all

Most of the fortune 500 companies, GM included, offer partner benefits. If the insurance thing was going to be an issue it would already have happened!

Which leads me to the question of why we have to change thousands of years of beliefs and general 'darwinism' ( male+female=Survival of the species ) to make a group with seperate beliefs than the status quo happy? Where does it end?  When people who practice Beastiality want to marry a goat or Ritual Sacrifice is made legal because a minority group says that it is not right for 'us' to challenge their religion or belief system?

You cannot marry a goat because a goat cannot legally consent. Same reason you cannot marry a child. The difference is that one day, the child becomes a legal adult, and then they can legally consent.

I like how you throw Darwinism and religion into the same rant.

You are using a logical fallacy call Slippery Slope.

What is it going to take to finally wake everyone up to the fact that certain beliefs that challenge the 'norm' are not acceptable to the majority - nor good for society as a whole.  Again - I don't care if you want to get hitched with another guy or girl or whatever - just don't ask the majority to change everything that they believe in to suit your needs for affirmation of your union.

I don't care if you affirm my union or not. That's your business. I just want my union legally protected in all the ways yours would if you were married.

I'll let the nature of english language take it's course on the rest. :AH-HA_wink:

And by the way:  Is walking in a mall with my kids rubbing my heterosexuality in your face as well?  Come ON!  I am sorry that my being with my wife in public offends a gay guy - get over it! 

No, it doesn't offend a gay person at all. But when I'm holding hands with my partner while walking through the mall... guess what, you can get over it.

Hetero animals and humans have been showing affection in public for millions of years - you want that to change too so that you are not offended? 

no, you took his statement the wrong way. He was saying how it is hipocritical of people to expect gay people to be invisible <no hand holding, etc> while straight people can be affectionate in public. It isn't the affection that is offensive, it's the hipocracy.

It seems there is no end to this argument...

because you keep setting up pins for me to knock down.

Case in point:  A stupid little comercial about a car that 99.999% of anyone on this board will say has NOTHING gay in it has now garnered 5+ pages of topics on gay rights issues, has been attacked in the press by a gay rights activist group, and probably done nothing to help DCX sell even one of the little cars to either side of the fence.  And I still have not had 1 Burbon, 1 Scotch or 1 beer.

eh, we pretty much all agreed it was a stupid commercial, and it is stupid for the gay rights group to get upset over it.... no one else had anything more to say about it so we moved on to a more important discussion.

[Drew Dowdell]

I stopped reading at the middle of page 3 but don't think I'm making a statement but Drewbert is a good looking guy and to read he is a millionaire is all the more worthwhile.

Honestly?

Two gays work at my place of employment openly. I've been informed there might be one more not that I care.

that said, I look at my gay coworkers and I can joke with them more than the straight ones.

It seems gays are more comfortable with jokes and having fun while straight men always try to nit pick like a f@#king wife.

I'm not a millionaire..... yet :AH-HA_wink:

I'll only call myself a milionaire once my net assets are over one million. Right now, only gross assets are there.

[Cadavillac]

Decent ,civil discussion everyone! I'm always glad to see the membership handle a contentious topic so well.

I just got in from work to find that this thread had grown drastically. As a moderator of a gay forum that has over 115,000 members, I can tell you this same thread over there would've been a moderator's worst nightmare.

C & Ger's continually impress me with their ability to handle such a hot topic well enough that it doesn't get out of hand.

[Paolino]

Total accident, quoted the wrong person,typed manually the correction and screwed it up. My bad

That's alright... was just making sure you weren't calling me "paolina" on purpose... That translates to "little Paula" or "Pauline" Edited April 8, 2006 by Paolino

[The O.C.]

Yeah right, I have never ever seen the gay rainbow bumper stickers on any cars anywhere! GET REAL, Gays advertise via bumper sticker more than anyone I know!

See?  My point exactly.  It goes BOTH ways.

Get joined, just don't call it marriage. Why is that so hard to understand?

BECAUSE I don't want to get "joined..."  I want to get MARRIED dammit....why can't you understand THAT...?

(I'd love to have a friendly debate with you....I could go on ALL night long......)

Edited April 8, 2006 by The O.C.

[The O.C.]

I would grant gay men/women the rights, but marriage is not a part of the rights in my mind.

And that is YOUR religious right to have.

However, by denying US the right to marry, then the government and individuals with beliefs like yours are denying US our religious beliefs and freedoms.

It should be up 100% to the churches. If I belong to a church that allows same-sex marriage, then the church can grant it. And government better recognize it.

That doesn't change what YOUR church believes or what YOUR church sanctions or what YOUR beliefs entail.....

(I still luv ya though....)

[The O.C.]

I have no problem with same sex couples enjoying all of the privileges of hetero couples, you just can't call it a marriage as it was not performed under the eyes of a recognized traditional religion. Of course you could always start a church just for this purpose and call it the rainbow church or something, but then you are not getting what you want which is universal acceptance and recognition or validation.

There are tons of Christian churches that DO sanctify same-sex marriages for religious purposes.......and I'm not talking about some kind of "gay" church either....

It's getting the government to RECOGNIZE these marriages that are supported by those churches.....

[The O.C.]

uh.... we're everywhere. Not all gays live in little clusters in big cities.

I live in a quiet, upscale suburb.

.....and I live in Orange County (not West Hollywood....)

There's tons of gay singles AND monogomous couples where I live.....and I'm very proud to say that, fortunately, acceptance of gay people by the straight people that live in coastal O.C. is by-and-large quite extensive....if not the majority.

[The O.C.]

Which leads me to the question of why we have to change thousands of years of beliefs and general 'darwinism' ( male+female=Survival of the species ) to make a group with seperate beliefs than the status quo happy?

Just an interesting thought.....

Who's to say that gay people aren't an integral part of "darwinism" themselves?

There's been more than one theory that homosexuals are one example of "population control" or some other sort of thing...

I know it sounds crazy....but it could be somewhat of a "darwinism" explanation....

Also, the animal species have shown homosexual tendancies for as long as they have been studying this stuff....

[tmp]

My parents were married at City Hall. Married, not merged. Pronounced Husband and Wife by the powers vested by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That's all I need, thanks.

The only person that can say with any surety that being gay is a "choice" is someone who chose to stop acting upon his homosexual urges. And that's called fooling yourself....

[The O.C.]

The only person that can say with any surety that being gay is a "choice" is someone who chose to stop acting upon his homosexual urges.  And that's called fooling yourself....

So true, so true, so true.......

You know....I wonder what Funkypunk would think if one of his kids ended up being gay...? (re...."being" gay....not "choosing" gay.)

[tmp]

He seems like a reasonable guy- he'd feel what most parents feel: love for their child tinged with slight disappointment that there may be no "conventional" family will be in the child's future (not knowing that any kid may not have that, and that gay kids can get pretty darned close), fear at what their child will have to face from society (luckily, it's not 1950) and eventual acceptance. Or at least detente.

[Cory Wolfe]

My parents were married at City Hall.    Married, not merged.  Pronounced Husband and Wife by the powers vested by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  That's all I need, thanks.

The only person that can say with any surety that being gay is a "choice" is someone who chose to stop acting upon his homosexual urges.  And that's called fooling yourself....

[Hudson]

O.k...looking at your last statement just proved my point - because you want to argue 'freedom of religion' as a basis to do whatever YOU feel is right, then common sense be damned?

It's common sense if it's YOUR belief, but if it's not, it's stupid? I'm not defending the idea of not showing someone's face on a driver's license but I am defending freedom of religion. And YES, the country is supposed to follow suit if someone's religious freedom is being denied...it's a founding principle of this great country.

As far as the 'high-risk lifestyle' - there is still a HUGE perception that the gay lifestyle is high-risk.

So if the "high-risk lifestyle" is being gay and that's the reason why insurance rates go up, it's wrong. But if it's the high-risk lifestyle of so many HETEROSEXUALS, it's okay? Either way, it's the high-risk lifestyle of HUMANS. You're in that group, right?

Which leads me to the question of why we have to change thousands of years of beliefs and general 'darwinism' ( male+female=Survival of the species ) to make a group with seperate beliefs than the status quo happy?

It's the basic principle of America...you haven't picked up on that one yet? So if it's not Christianity, it's wrong? If it's not the same sexual orientation as you, it's wrong? Where does it end? If it's not the same skin color as you, it's wrong? If it's not the same country of origin as you, it's wrong? At what point are we heading in the direction of the Nazis? Where's the line?

The beastiality comment has already be quite successfully argued (much better than I could), so I'll leave that alone.

And by the way:  Is walking in a mall with my kids rubbing my heterosexuality in your face as well?

Anyone hear about PDA (public displays of affection) being looked down upon...heterosexual or homosexual? Yes...touting your heterosexuality may be just as offense to someone as that other person showing off their homosexuality.

I personally don't have a problem...heterosexual or homosexual...showing affection in public. But I'm apparently in the minority.

[Paolino]

I just got in from work to find that this thread had grown drastically.  As a moderator of a gay forum that has over 115,000 members, I can tell you this same thread over there would've been a moderator's worst nightmare.

C & Ger's continually impress me with their ability to handle such a hot topic well enough that it doesn't get out of hand.

What forum are you a moderator of? I'm looking for a gay forum just to get involved with other gay members. Flyin' solo--all my friends (except "John" from the "Friends & Lovers" thread I started in the Lounge), are straight. It would be nice to share some experiences with other gay men.

I am very touched that there are so many accepting heterosexual men on this board... not to mention, so many are openly friendly about helping me educate myself about cars--since I'm fairly new to this hobby, I have MUCH to learn! I know stats for now, but I'd eventually like to understand how things work under the hood (other than the basics).

[funkypunnk]

So true, so true, so true.......

You know....I wonder what Funkypunk would think if one of his kids ended up being gay...?  (re...."being" gay....not "choosing" gay.)

He seems like a reasonable guy- he'd feel what most parents feel: love for their child tinged with slight disappointment that there may be no "conventional" family will be in the child's future (not knowing that any kid may not have that, and that gay kids can get pretty darned close), fear at what their child will have to face from society (luckily, it's not 1950) and eventual acceptance.  Or at least detente.

First, and I know this is not the answer you would like to hear, but I believe I can influence that decision and therefore he will not be gay. Second, he is the sole male left in my extended family to carry on our namesake, so I hope if I am wrong on the choice thing he is naturally disposed to be straight. Third, if he turns out to be gay someday then it would probably be pretty similar to TMC's description. I will always love my children regardless of their sexual manifestations (see I didn't say choices).

As far as the rest of this stuff goes, again we will have to agree to disagree. This is life, in every way, good and bad. Life is filled with frustrations, and trust me I get my share also. As frustrated as all of you may be that I keep calling it a choice, I am equally frustrated by all of you who insist this was somehow forced upon you genetically or guided by childhood traumas. I can never understand the workings of a gay mind as I am not gay, just as you can never understand the workings of my mind as you are not me. We are all, obviously, firmly entrenched in our own opinions and beliefs and therefore must respect the opposing viewpoint and move on. I do love all fellow humans, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Paolino]

First, and I know this is not the answer you would like to hear, but I believe I can influence that decision and therefore he will not be gay. Second, he is the sole male left in my extended family to carry on our namesake, so I hope if I am wrong on the choice thing he is naturally disposed to be straight. Third, if he turns out to be gay someday then it would probably be pretty similar to TMC's description. I will always love my children regardless of their sexual manifestations (see I didn't say choices).

As far as the rest of this stuff goes, again we will have to agree to disagree. This is life, in every way, good and bad. Life is filled with frustrations, and trust me I get my share also. As frustrated as all of you may be that I keep calling it a choice, I am equally frustrated by all of you who insist this was somehow forced upon you genetically or guided by childhood traumas. I can never understand the workings of a gay mind as I am not gay, just as you can never understand the workings of my mind as you are not me. We are all, obviously, firmly entrenched in our own opinions and beliefs and therefore must respect the opposing viewpoint and move on. I do love all fellow humans, regardless of sexual orientation.

Okay, well, listen... coming from the son of parents (in a way), like yourself, it'll be hard on your son if he is indeed gay.

Years and years went by that I refused to be happy, prayed daily that God would somehow "change" these feelings and make me straight. I even forced myself to date a couple of girls. Forced myself to be intimate with them. Forced myself to constantly lie to them and everyone around me that meant anything in my life. And for that, I became extremely depressed, and even suicidal.

The biggest pains to me were the thoughts that 1) I'm going to hell. 2) I'm going to disappoint my parents. 3) No matter how good a person I am, I was wrong. 4) And finally, the thought of not being able to pass on the family name (granted there are tons of Italians out there with my last name), because my brother and sister-in-law will probably not have children, and I feel the pressure as the last chance for them. I feel the pressure of watching them see ALL of my friends give their parents grandchildren. I feel the pressure of watching all of my parents' friends' children give their parents grandchildren. And I see the sadness, as much as they try to hide it, that I won't give them a grandchild--at least not in the conventional way.

And as much as I've worked on myself in the past 20 or so years (since I've known); as much as I've prayed; as much therapy as I've gone through; and as much positive support I've gotten from friends over the years, I still feel incomplete and a disappointment to my parents.

Now... I've been called by MANY, one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet. I go out of my way to help anyone. I partly became a teacher to help the youth and work with the young... not only to educate them about a subject I'm passionate about (Italy and it's language and culture), but to set an example, just by simply "being", a nice person, a caring person. And hoping that even for once, a child will emulate my ways rather than being cruel to someone else.

But, because of reactions of people like you (and I'm not calling you a "bad" person, I'm just saying we have different views on this topic), as well as my parents (who offered to place me in a "conversion camp of my choice" to hopefully alter my "choice" in being gay), I still feel like a disappointment, and utterly "bad" and "wrong" deep down. I still in a small way, feel ashamed of myself and lack the self-confidence I should have.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the gay group protesting this commercial, but I do wish to have others in the world change their views on gays, simply because I'm tired of hurting when I know, in my mind, that I shouldn't feel the ways I do, and I don't want others who may be in similar situations and hurting, to hurt for as long as I have.

[funkypunnk]

Okay, well, listen... coming from the son of parents (in a way), like yourself, it'll be hard on your son if he is indeed gay.

Years and years went by that I refused to be happy, prayed daily that God would somehow "change" these feelings and make me straight.  I even forced myself to date a couple of girls.  Forced myself to be intimate with them.  Forced myself to constantly lie to them and everyone around me that meant anything in my life.  And for that, I became extremely depressed, and even suicidal.

The biggest pains to me were the thoughts that 1)  I'm going to hell.  2)  I'm going to disappoint my parents.  3)  No matter how good a person I am, I was wrong.  4)  And finally, the thought of not being able to pass on the family name (granted there are tons of Italians out there with my last name), because my brother and sister-in-law will probably not have children, and I feel the pressure as the last chance for them.  I feel the pressure of watching them see ALL of my friends give their parents grandchildren.  I feel the pressure of watching all of my parents' friends' children give their parents grandchildren.  And I see the sadness, as much as they try to hide it, that I won't give them a grandchild--at least not in the conventional way.

And as much as I've worked on myself in the past 20 or so years (since I've known); as much as I've prayed; as much therapy as I've gone through; and as much positive support I've gotten from friends over the years, I still feel incomplete and a disappointment to my parents.

Now... I've been called by MANY, one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.  I go out of my way to help anyone.  I partly became a teacher to help the youth and work with the young... not only to educate them about a subject I'm passionate about (Italy and it's language and culture), but to set an example, just by simply "being", a nice person, a caring person.  And hoping that even for once, a child will emulate my ways rather than being cruel to someone else.

But, because of reactions of people like you (and I'm not calling you a "bad" person, I'm just saying we have different views on this topic), as well as my parents (who offered to place me in a "conversion camp of my choice" to hopefully alter my "choice" in being gay), I still feel like a disappointment, and utterly "bad" and "wrong" deep down.  I still in a small way, feel ashamed of myself and lack the self-confidence I should have.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the gay group protesting this commercial, but I do wish to have others in the world change their views on gays, simply because I'm tired of hurting when I know, in my mind, that I shouldn't feel the ways I do, and I don't want others who may be in similar situations and hurting, to hurt for as long as I have.

To clarify, if he is gay someday, by destiny or choice, I would not try to change him. My shot at that would have already passed. I will try to mold him into a wonderful young man as I am already trying to do. He is only 18 months right now. Once that opportunity has passed it is up to him to continue the process.

I accept people for who they are and do not expect conformity as long as they do the same for me. I may wonder or debate their motives or those experiences that got them to be who they are, but I would not want them to change. I do not wish for any of those people who are on this board and are gay to suddenly go straight. Follow your heart to whatever happiness God can provide, and you will find peace.

Your trials provided great emotional stress, and yet you have put that somewhat behind you and try to help the young in our society. You need to let the rest go as the only person in the mirror each day is you, and that is the only person you have to answer to! If my son cannot carry on my name, then that too will be God's will, and I will accept it. I am not criticizing your parents in any way, just clarifying what I will do should the situation arise. He will be loved then as he is loved now, more than most children get the opportunity to enjoy. I lost a son when I was 20, and it destroyed me for 8 years. I became a very cold person, and it was God that picked me back up and my life has been amazing since. I take nothing for granted and luckily I see God's love surrounding me in the world I live in. The greatest joy I was given was when I realized how many people loved me not because they knew me or knew my burdens, but just because I was a fellow human being in need of help and healing. They prayed for me by name without ever having met me. It was that UNIVERSAL Love that set my heart on fire, gave me an awareness of the good around me, and showed me for the first time in a very long time that I was not alone!!!! If it helps, you are not alone, and no matter what your choices or fates, people pray for your happiness. May you find true peace and Love behind every breath!

Thank You for sharing

[regfootball]

sh1t, Paulie.....I think you're alright! any parent will or should never be disappointed with their kid for being who they are. I guess I feel that about anybody. They may not be able to understand who you are fully, but I would hope there is unconditional love just the same.

UNLESS MY DAUGHTER GOES TO WORK FOR HYUNDAI or something....

Okay, well, listen... coming from the son of parents (in a way), like yourself, it'll be hard on your son if he is indeed gay.

Years and years went by that I refused to be happy, prayed daily that God would somehow "change" these feelings and make me straight.  I even forced myself to date a couple of girls.  Forced myself to be intimate with them.  Forced myself to constantly lie to them and everyone around me that meant anything in my life.  And for that, I became extremely depressed, and even suicidal.

The biggest pains to me were the thoughts that 1)  I'm going to hell.  2)  I'm going to disappoint my parents.  3)  No matter how good a person I am, I was wrong.  4)  And finally, the thought of not being able to pass on the family name (granted there are tons of Italians out there with my last name), because my brother and sister-in-law will probably not have children, and I feel the pressure as the last chance for them.  I feel the pressure of watching them see ALL of my friends give their parents grandchildren.  I feel the pressure of watching all of my parents' friends' children give their parents grandchildren.  And I see the sadness, as much as they try to hide it, that I won't give them a grandchild--at least not in the conventional way.

And as much as I've worked on myself in the past 20 or so years (since I've known); as much as I've prayed; as much therapy as I've gone through; and as much positive support I've gotten from friends over the years, I still feel incomplete and a disappointment to my parents.

Now... I've been called by MANY, one of the nicest guys you'll ever meet.  I go out of my way to help anyone.  I partly became a teacher to help the youth and work with the young... not only to educate them about a subject I'm passionate about (Italy and it's language and culture), but to set an example, just by simply "being", a nice person, a caring person.  And hoping that even for once, a child will emulate my ways rather than being cruel to someone else.

But, because of reactions of people like you (and I'm not calling you a "bad" person, I'm just saying we have different views on this topic), as well as my parents (who offered to place me in a "conversion camp of my choice" to hopefully alter my "choice" in being gay), I still feel like a disappointment, and utterly "bad" and "wrong" deep down.  I still in a small way, feel ashamed of myself and lack the self-confidence I should have.

Now, I'm not saying I agree with the gay group protesting this commercial, but I do wish to have others in the world change their views on gays, simply because I'm tired of hurting when I know, in my mind, that I shouldn't feel the ways I do, and I don't want others who may be in similar situations and hurting, to hurt for as long as I have.

Edited April 9, 2006 by regfootball

[Intrepidation]

Hmm, well this has become quite a thread. hah. Well, I could sit back and stop looking at it, but I guess throwing a little more imput in can't hurt. So here goes, I have 2 main points:

1.) As we've dicussed and more or less agreed on, the people bitching about the Caliber commercial need to lighten up and shut up, and that it didn't have anything to do with gay people, just cute things. So they must learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and not everything is in reference to them. I thought it was pretty clever/funny.

2.) The gay marrige stuff. I'm not gay, but at the same time I don't care if someone is or not. If they are, fine. For marrige itself...well I can see churches and stuff not wanting to grant married for whatever beliefs it may be going against (although considering they had the hold priest + child issue, gay marrige should be the least of their concerns). However I think the government should recognize and allow gay marrige in any state. Some people might not like, but most, like me, don't care. It's supposed to be a free country. Denying it is no than when women were denied the right to vote. It's discrimination and goes against our country's founding principles of freedom.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Dodgefan

[Cory Wolfe]

I am, in essense, a young Paulie in every way possible. I swear that everything he said, up until a certain point obviously, was about me. Fortunately, I guess I am getting things taken care of earlier than him and others... or atleast that's what I'm being told. I think I see a pattern here and it shows that this is definitely not a choice. I mean... I'm not the only that is/was having problems related to being gay and coming out of a... well, semi-normal family, I guess. Come on, funnkypunk... Why can't you accept that it is most definitely not a choice to be homosexual? Seriously, it's so clear to me, having actually gone through it to know whether it was a choice or not. You haven't. As far as I'm concerned, you don't have the life experience to declare anything about that.

[regfootball]

if it were a choice, why would anyone 'choose' to be subjected to so much scorn and persecution?

A person's sexual preference is most definitely 'who they are'. Not a conscious 'decision'. It would seem to me you could only hold back what is true to yourself for so long.

[funkypunnk]

if it were a choice, why would anyone 'choose' to be subjected to so much scorn and persecution?

A person's sexual preference is most definitely 'who they are'.  Not a conscious 'decision'.  It would seem to me you could only hold back what is true to yourself for so long.

There are many people who make choices that are contrary to the norm or mainstream. They do it for whatever personal reasons motivate their desire to be different or non-conformist. Why do "goth" people wear all blck clothes and makeup and pierce everything that you can put a hole in? They are ridiculed, singled out, shunned, and made fun of, yet they continue to go down that path happily.

Why would someone choose to be gay? Feminine influence at a sub-conscious level during pre-pubescence, or the loss of a close personal same-sex friend as a young child, or many other reasons. I am not saying it is a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.

This will just start a new round of heated discussion so again, let's agree to disagree. Thanks

[Drew Dowdell]

There are many people who make choices that are contrary to the norm or mainstream. They do it for whatever personal reasons motivate their desire to be different or non-conformist. Why do "goth" people wear all blck clothes and makeup and pierce everything that you can put a hole in? They are ridiculed, singled out, shunned, and made fun of, yet they continue to go down that path happily.

Why would someone choose to be gay? Feminine influence at a sub-conscious level during pre-pubescence, or the loss of a close personal same-sex friend as a young child, or many other reasons. I am not saying it is a conscious choice, but it is a choice nonetheless.

This will just start a new round of heated discussion so again, let's agree to disagree. Thanks

Let's not agree to disagree. That's just an easy way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want their beliefs challenged.

The percentage of homosexuals in the population is fairly consistant across cultures. Some cultures may hide it more than others, but that doesn't mean the people don't exist.

People who turn out to be gay come from so many different situtations, backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and countries. that to "blame" homosexuality on some kind of childhood trauma, upbringing, or accident is futile.

There is one population where the incidents of homosexuality are a bit skewed. In identical twins, if one twin turns out to be gay, there is a signifigantly increased chance that the other twin will also be gay. That has been shown to be the case even in situations where the twins are raised in seperate households.

Then there is the idea that homosexuality is "against nature". The falsehood there is that homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom. Pengiuns, Dolphins, dogs, the list goes on and on of other species displaying homosexual members.

So... no, I won't agree to disagree. You've been wrong in nearly every statement you've made about gay people and rather then learn from some of the, IMHO, finest examples of gay people around you choose to just sit there and continue to be wrong. Stop forming all of your opinions of gay people from what you see at the gay parade or when you're channel surfing and catch a glimps of Will & Grace.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[Paolino]

First of all, thanks Reg for your compliment

Secondly, BV, I'm glad you're catching this earlier... and I want to scream to your face for you to never let yourself think you're anything but the best. But that's just because I never want someone to go through the feelings I have gone through--even though you are. Keep fighting BV.

Thirdly, I can understand how some may view this as a possible "choice". I do feel that some people, while they are gay by birth, may choose how to show it... because for the love of me, I can't sometimes understand how some gay people act--that they want to throw it in your face, wear the brightest colors, most-intensive hairstyles--part of me simply wonders if they really like that, or if they simply want to constantly be in people's faces. I think it's a split down the middle--I really believe some choose to be in people's faces, and others just want to be like that for some rebellious reason.

I also can understand how some might think they're gay by influences when they're young... I understand how some can end up being confused.

But I know how I feel, and how it was for me. And I also know what I saw on a special the other day... I wonder if I can find it--it was on youtube...

... basically, it was about sets of twins, identical twins, and how one of each set was very masculine, and one very feminine. And how their mother treated them both the same, they had the same environments, but they're growing up very different from one another. It was showing how it could clearly be "nature" versus "nurture.

[funkypunnk]

Let's not agree to disagree. That's just an easy way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want their beliefs challenged.

The percentage of homosexuals in the population is fairly consistant across cultures. Some cultures may hide it more than others, but that doesn't mean the people don't exist.

People who turn out to be gay come from so many different situtations, backgrounds, ethnicities, cultures, and countries. that to "blame" homosexuality on some kind of childhood trauma, upbringing, or accident is futile.

There is one population where the incidents of homosexuality are a bit skewed. In identical twins, if one twin turns out to be gay, there is a signifigantly increased chance that the other twin will also be gay.  That has been shown to be the case even in situations where the twins are raised in seperate households.

Then there is the idea that homosexuality is "against nature".  The falsehood there is that homosexuality exists all over the animal kingdom.  Pengiuns, Dolphins, dogs, the list goes on and on of other species displaying homosexual members.

So... no, I won't agree to disagree.  You've been wrong in nearly every statement you've made about gay people and rather then learn from some of the, IMHO, finest examples of gay people around you choose to just sit there and continue to be wrong. Stop forming all of your opinions of gay people from what you see at the gay parade or when you're channel surfing and catch a glimps of Will & Grace.

In the eyes of gay people I have been wrong, but again how do you know you are right? I am straight, but I could not begin to tell you why. I don't remember any particular point where I realized I was straight. I can tell you that when I analyze it and realize that procreation is an instinctive behavior, it makes sense. Males have a naturally instinctive desire to hump any female they see. That desire is controlled by men so they can be accepted in a civilized society but in the end if we were allowed to choose any woman we wanted and have sex with them, we would choose every woman and have sex with them. It is hard-wired in our brain for the purpose of species preservation.

You are saying that either

a.-Your wiring is screwed up or

b.-Gays are designed to break the cycle of procreation naturally.

If it is b, then maybe it is some from of natural population control. Let's analyze that. If this is the case then it is guaranteed that you and your genetics will die upon your death. You will pass nothing on to the next generation. Natural selection dictates that only the strong and best of a species will survive, and since it is guaranteed that your bloodline will not, what does that tell you? If gays were designed as natural population control then it was done so with a system of checks and balances built right in. Gays would be reduced to a single generational flash-in-the-pan of pop control designed to die off and discontinue a genetic bloodline. A sacrificial lamb of sorts for the purpose of a better life for those who continue.

This surely sounds worse to me than the agree to disagree, but you wouldn't let me.

As a hetero, I know that if it is genetic, the problem will not continue past your existence, so why should I be concerned. If it is choice however, the problem can become a systemic one, and then procreation could be in trouble. In other words, I am choosing the less obvious and more problematic analysis so that I don't minimize the existence of a fellow human being. BUT-as you point out, there are many examples of lesser intelligence animals in the wild who are homosexual, reinforcing the single-incident pop control theory and negating your existence to a simple one of sacrifice for the greater good. Thank You and the next twenty generations of funkypunnks thank you as well. Hopefully one of them will visit your memory and remember your sacrifice.

See what I mean, how was this productive to co-existence in our society? Can't we now agree to disagree?

This is an example of logic showing me one outcome, and my heart completely disregarding that logic as I feel that any person's existence should be more important than a single generational influence. SO, if you want me to not "continue to be wrong" and instead debate these issues with you, I will be forced to truly explore all of the options and possibilities provided by science and nature, analyze them, and pick the most obvious explanation. Since species preservation is the common denominator of all time and life creatures, then I don't think there will be a very good explanation for a whole sub-society of people who guarantee that their species will not survive!!!!!!!!

Sorry to all who disagree, but this is what happens when the debate is encouraged past a productive level.

Now, let's agree to disagree.

[Drew Dowdell]

In the eyes of gay people I have been wrong, but again how do you know you are right?

Because I've been through it. I've had the "I better find a girlfriend even though I don't want one" thoughts. I know so many gay people who've had completely different situations to realize that since there are such huge differences in upbringing, it can't be a "nurture" thing. Since everyone is raised differently yet there is still a fairly consistant percentage of homosexuals.

I am straight, but I could not begin to tell you why. I don't remember any particular point where I realized I was straight. I can tell you that when I analyze it and realize that procreation is an instinctive behavior, it makes sense. Males have a naturally instinctive desire to hump any female they see. That desire is controlled by men so they can be accepted in a civilized society but in the end if we were allowed to choose any woman we wanted and have sex with them, we would choose every woman and have sex with them. It is hard-wired in our brain for the purpose of species preservation.

You are saying that either

a.-Your wiring is screwed up or

b.-Gays are designed to break the cycle of procreation naturally.

If it is b, then maybe it is some from of natural population control. Let's analyze that. If this is the case then it is guaranteed that you and your genetics will die upon your death. You will pass nothing on to the next generation. Natural selection dictates that only the strong and best of a species will survive, and since it is guaranteed that your bloodline will not, what does that tell you? If gays were designed as natural population control then it was done so with a system of checks and balances built right in. Gays would be reduced to a single generational flash-in-the-pan of pop control designed to die off and discontinue a genetic bloodline. A sacrificial lamb of sorts for the purpose of a better life for those who continue.

You've fallen down the slippery slope

You falsely assume that:

a. gays do not reproduce.

b. an entire generation of people would have to be born gay simultantiously for a check/balance to occur.

c. Only the best and strongest survive.

To address those:

a. gays do reproduce, usually having heterosexual children. I think it should be fairly obvious to you that gay people usually are born to heterosexual parents. My partner and I have every intention of having children some day.

b. the number of gay people has been fairly consistant. the number of openly gay people has increased though.

c. Jerry Springer show.

This surely sounds worse to me than the agree to disagree, but you wouldn't let me.

Not the first time I've heard these arguments and I'm sure it won't be the last. That doesn't make them less wrong.

As a hetero, I know that if it is genetic, the problem will not continue past your existence, so why should I be concerned. If it is choice however, the problem can become a systemic one, and then procreation could be in trouble. In other words, I am choosing the less obvious and more problematic analysis so that I don't minimize the existence of a fellow human being. BUT-as you point out, there are many examples of lesser intelligence animals in the wild who are homosexual, reinforcing the single-incident pop control theory and negating your existence to a simple one of sacrifice for the greater good. Thank You and the next twenty generations of funkypunnks thank you as well. Hopefully one of them will visit your memory and remember your sacrifice.

You need to study genetics. Which is odd because I think you've mentioned that you are a scientist <forgive me not remembering the field>.

My parents both have brown hair and brown eyes. I have blond hair and blue eyes. Both of my grandmothers had blond hair and blue eyes. It's called recessive gene.

As far as re-population is concerned. Heterosexuals are certainly capable of over supply.

See what I mean, how was this productive to co-existence in our society? Can't we now agree to disagree?

unlikely.... as you're still wrong.

This is an example of logic showing me one outcome, and my heart completely disregarding that logic as I feel that any person's existence should be more important than a single generational influence. SO, if you want me to not "continue to be wrong" and instead debate these issues with you, I will be forced to truly explore all of the options and possibilities provided by science and nature, analyze them, and pick the most obvious explanation. Since species preservation is the common denominator of all time and life creatures, then I don't think there will be a very good explanation for a whole sub-society of people who guarantee that their species will not survive!!!!!!!!

There are members of this society, regardless of sexuality, that never reproduce, yet contribute greatly to the common good. There is much more to society and life then spraying your DNA across the land. There are those in this society whos job it is to pump out kids. There are those who's job it is to pump out ideas. There are those who grow the food. There are those that own the land <me>. There are those who care for the ones who pump out the kids, and grow the food, and think of ideas, and own the land. Think of a bee colony. If producing offspring were required of every single member of the colony, bees would only be seen in chunks of amber. In a bee colony, only one member ever reproduces yet the species lives on. All the other members that never reproduce still contribute to society. Indeed, the be colony couldn't go on without the non-reproducing members. Obviously, this is an extreme example and we humans have a more hybrid system.

We like to think of ourselves as "higher beings" over the rest of the animal kingdom. We share traits with many other species. New York City, the worlds largest bee colony.

Sorry to all who disagree, but this is what happens when the debate is encouraged past a productive level.

Now, let's agree to disagree.

Again, agree to disagree is a way out for someone who is wrong but doesn't want to accept it.

You're not going to insult me and you're not going to come up with any argument that I haven't already encountered.

To summarize:

A. Gays reproduce.

B. Gays are the product of heterosexual sex.

C. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that homosexuality is gentic.

D. Homosexuality being genetic does not mean the human race will end.

E. People can contribute to the good of society without reproducing.

F. Regarless of the cause of homosexuality, there is no reason to deny the legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples.

G. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not cause more people to be gay.

H. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not harm anyone.

I. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will reduce the potential for "high risk behavior"

J. As we've already learned, seperate but equal isn't equal.

K. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not increase health insurance:

a. As if insurance companies needed an excuse to raise rates.

b. It would have happened already since most large companies offer partner benefits.

L. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not lead to beastiality.

M. Agreeing to disagree is not a solution.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Oldsmoboi

[Enzora]

Okay, from the perspective of someone who's incredibly interested in psychological/sociological issues:

Limiting the factors that influence to purely genetics or purely environment is just stupid. It's been pretty much proven that personality traits are a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influence. Someone mentioned twin studies where twins have much higher concordance rates of having the same sexuality than other groups. But at the same time, there are still plenty of cases where there are two people who are "wired" identically, but where one likes members of the same sex, while one likes members of the opposite sex. Weird, eh?

That puts a big dent in the idea that homosexuality is some genetic flaw or population control device. Another atttack on that one? The fact that homosexuals have been reproducing since the beginning of time. King James(of King James Bible fame) is a good example. His gay affairs were quite well-known, but he still had heirs. (Which reminds me of a good tangent--anyone find it funny that the Bible that homophobic zealots are always thumping is named after a gay guy? ) Still, he's not the best example, since he was a king, and thus pressured to produce an heir. A better example can also see this everyday with homosexual couples who want children of their own. Even though they may not be inclined to have sex with women, many still have that ingrained urge to reproduce/be parents. The opposite is also true--there are also many heterosexuals who don't have any desire to have kids. There have been many ways in which people have done this, with more developing all the time. Artificial fertilization, adoption, or, in many cases in history, just sucking it up and getting it on with someone of the opposite sex.

I think another angle that deserves looking at is the treatment of homosexual relations by different cultures. The ancient Greeks were so sexist that homosexuality was seen as superior, the reasoning being that men are just naturally better at everything, even sex. For them, heterosexual sex was just for procreation. (But still notice how the desire to procreate was there, even in gay societies.) Ancient Rome (one of the most dominant societies in all of history, I might add) didn't even have a concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality. Julius Caesar was often ridiculed for being a whore who slept his way to the top and was referred to as "every woman's husband and every man's wife." For someone to like men or women exclusively was considered an anomaly.

Which brings me to my final point, one which this thread has actually adressed pretty well, though most likely unwittingly. That is the fact that although in Rome, everyone was bisexual, and such reports such as Mr. Kinsey's also support the idea that a large portion of the population is bisexual, bisexuals are often not even recognized as a real group, often even by homosexuals. Ever hear the phrase "bi now, gay later?" We live in a VERY polarizing society. Gay or straight, capitalist pig or commie bastard, black or white, the list goes on and on. The idea of bisexuals goes against a lot of the common notions of this country. Remember when I said that personality traits were a combination of nurture and nature? Yeah, back to that now. Here's my view on it. Sure there are lots of people who exclusively like men, and who exclusively like women. But I also think that there are lots of people who just have a preference for one or the other. Society says "well, Jack, you gotta choose, will it be Ennis or Lureen?" The person goes with the one they prefer, and suppresses whatever attraction they have for the other sex. And of course, this is where you get some of your more naturally homophobic people. Studies show that homophobics have a higher rate of arousal when shown homosexual acts than those who are more secure. They compensate for not being allowed to express their homosexual urges healthily by going in the opposite direction and being anti-gay. Of course, then you have people who grow up in societies that are just homophobic, blah blah blah, big picture, blah, and if you're still reading this, I commend you. I've been going on for quite a while.

And for the record, I think the Caliber's ugly, and Dodge's commercials annoy me. :AH-HA_wink:

[funkypunnk]

To summarize:

A. Gays reproduce.

B. Gays are the product of heterosexual sex.

C. It is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that homosexuality is gentic.

D. Homosexuality being genetic does not mean the human race will end.

E. People can contribute to the good of society without reproducing.

F. Regarless of the cause of homosexuality, there is no reason to deny the legal protections of marriage to homosexual couples.

G. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not cause more people to be gay.

H. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not harm anyone.

I. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will reduce the potential for "high risk behavior"

J. As we've already learned, seperate but equal isn't equal.

K. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not increase health insurance:

      a. As if insurance companies needed an excuse to raise rates.

      b. It would have happened already since most large companies offer partner benefits.

L. Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not lead to beastiality. 

M. Agreeing to disagree is not a solution.

First, the current "crop" of gays would not die off genetically together, but instead it is a constant creation/extinction process with each individual gay person severing his genetic bloodline upon death.

Your points:

A.-Gays physically cannot reproduce with a combined genetic offspring. One of the two gays can.....WITH the help of surrogate and egg donor. Since men don't have eggs and can't bear children I find it alarming that you claim gays can reproduce. Funny how you say I am continually wrong after claiming such an obvious inconsistency yourself.

B.-Yes, gays are the product of hetero sex, and without hetero sex themselves or scientific intervention, neither of which would be natural to a gay person, that product would die. Extinction of your bloodline is still assured.

C.-Yes, it is possible that being gay is genetic, and of course, again, the genes would die upon the gay person's death as natural procreation cannot happen between gays. This then says that even allowing for passive/recessive genetics, the gay gene would eventually be culled from the gene pool and gays would cease to be created. Since this has not been the case, the most likely viable alternative is of course that it is not indeed genetic and is instead a choice.

D.-The human race will continue as hetero couples procreate. BUT, if it is genetic the gay sub-set of humans would most certainly die off as gays cannot physically reproduce without the help of science or sacrificing their belief to inseminate a member of the opposite sex, thus creating an offspring who is only at best a step-child of one member of the original gay couple. By Natural Design, humans are meant to survive only through hetero coupling as two men or two women are incapable of reproduction. That is without compromise,and only through the bastardization of reproduction have we achieved a level of science tht allows us to change that. Even with that science, it still takes a female egg donor. Only one sperm can fertilize that egg leaving one of the two fathers "out of the mix". THEN the egg must be implanted into a female to incubate and birth the child. Again, impossible without the involvement of aman AND woman!

E.-ABSOLUTELY, but those contributions are short lived in the big picture of life history which spans not hundreds of years but millions. Societies will come and go, but species tend to last a lot longer. No one remembers the name of any cavemen who helped their society, but through archeology we know how they evolved and thrived as a race!

F.-ABSOLUTELY, just don't call it marriage! Enjoy all of the legal protections and perks, I don't dispute that. Come up with a new name if you want.

G.-Correct

H.-It can confuse the inquisitive minds of our youth as they seek out role models in their teachers, athletes, and public figures who are openly gay and seek to increase tolerance but either accidentally or with intention become a bit overzealous in their enthusiasm for their cause.

I.-Yes, I agree, just don't call it marriage.

J.-As we've already learned, seperate but equal isn't equal. NOTHING IN THIS LIFE IS EQUAL. I did not get an equal shake since my family was poor. This may startle some: Through IQ tracking, which has been proven to be accurate as by the time a person reaches adulthood environmental factors are negated, Asians have the highest average IQ. Then whites. Then hispanics. Then Blacks. Blacks are on average two inches taller than whites. They possess more athleticism. Their muscle fiber is slightly different. This is not racism, it is merely an example of the fact that we are all different with individual strengths and weaknesses. Right now, I have a strong chance of dying of heart disease or diabetes someday. Asians tend to have less of a chance of those same death causes. That is life, but it surely isn't equal.

K.-Who cares? They'll get our money no matter what.

L.-Allowing homosexual couples to marry will not lead to beastiality.

M.-As all the evidence points to the fact that to the best of my knowledge we need a sperm and an egg to reproduce, and I haven't yet met a man who is born with an ovary full of eggs, Gays are ensured of the death of their genetic bloodline. You cannot continue in any way other than a memory in someone's mind unless you have something other than natural reproduction to produce offspring. Since you won't agree to that, and that is fact, we have to agree to disagree. You will never convince me different nor will you conceed my arguments, therefore we are at an impasse.

[tmp]

Males have a naturally instinctive desire to hump any female they see.

Straight Males have that instinct. Gay Males have the instinct to hump each other.

a.-Your wiring is screwed up or

No, you are writing that our wiring is screwed up. Our wiring is just fine, thanks.

As a hetero, I know that if it is genetic, the problem will not continue past your existence, so why should I be concerned.

The "problem"? Your words show you up. We are not a "problem", well, perhaps only to people like you. On that note, my laundry and breakfast is done, so I'm out of here.

Edited April 9, 2006 by tmp

[Enzora]

This may startle some: Through IQ tracking, which has been proven to be accurate as by the time a person reaches adulthood environmental factors are negated, Asians have the highest average IQ. Then whites. Then hispanics. Then Blacks. Blacks are on average two inches taller than whites. They possess more athleticism. Their muscle fiber is slightly different. This is not racism, it is merely an example of the fact that we are all different with individual strengths and weaknesses. Right now, I have a strong chance of dying of heart disease or diabetes someday. Asians tend to have less of a chance of those same death causes. That is life, but it surely isn't equal.

You're right. It does startle me. As a student of sociology, I've seen plenty of studies where beliefs such as that have been debunked, so I have to know where the f@#k you got information like that.

[funkypunnk]

You're right.  It does startle me.  As a student of sociology, I've seen plenty of studies where beliefs such as that have been debunked, so I have to know where the f@#k you got information like that.

This information comes from credible sources but for some reason has never been advertised. I suspect it is due to the volatile nature of the findings. IQ, which is different than knowledge, is influenced in the early stages by developmental and environmental factors, yet by adulthood (meaning true mental maturity) these factors are negated and a level playing field for comparative reasons exists. As far as the height difference, do a little research. As far as the muscle fiber, do a little research. You'll find it. I will forward my sources to you via PM if that is necessary, but that wasn't the purpose of these statements. I cannot pull a truck or swim across the english channel or lift 600Lbs. We are not all created equeal but instead are a hodgepodge of individuals with unique strengths and weaknesses. I have an IQ that is rarer than some, yet physically I am merely average at best. That is the way it goes. My brother-in-law has a very rare IQ yet he is a very depressed person who physically couldn't box his way out of a bag and has the common sense of a mosquito.

As far as the IQ stats, it is straight percentages from research. Measured IQs extrapolated out against population.

[Enzora]

Wow. Just wow.

I've also heard of studies that show discrepancies between races in average scores, but there's one thing that the studies I've seen have that it appears the ones you're talking about do not. The ones I've seen account for confounding variables.

Confounding variable: a particular type of extraneous variable which for some reason has been left uncontrolled.

The confounding variable in this situation? Those environmental factors that you say are somehow magically negated when people reach adulthood, namely education levels, of both the person in question and their parents. Intelligence Quotient tests are standardized tests, and ARE affected by education levels.

When you break each race down into education levels, race doesn't matter in standardized tests. People whose parents went to college and who had a good education themselves will score higher on average on IQ tests than people with lesser education backgrounds. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out how educational opportunities have been different among the races. Asian Americans have an advantage because certain restrictions were made so that more of the immigrants who came to America already had higher education. Whites have an advantage because they've been running the show, and so on.

[Croc]

Hi, i saw this when I was looking at the GM segment preview online. You should all read it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/...in1385230.shtml

[funkypunnk]

Wow.  Just wow.  

I've also heard of studies that show discrepancies between races in average scores, but there's one thing that the studies I've seen have that it appears the ones you're talking about do not.  The ones I've seen account for confounding variables. 

Confounding variable:  a particular type of extraneous variable which for some reason has been left uncontrolled.

The confounding variable in this situation?  Those environmental factors that you say are somehow magically negated when people reach adulthood, namely education levels, of both the person in question and their parents.  Intelligence Quotient tests are standardized tests, and ARE affected by education levels. 

When you break each race down into education levels, race doesn't matter in standardized tests.  People whose parents went to college and who had a good education themselves will score higher on average on IQ tests than people with lesser education backgrounds.  And it doesn't take a genius to figure out how educational opportunities have been different among the races.  Asian Americans have an advantage because certain restrictions were made so that more of the immigrants who came to America already had higher education.  Whites have an advantage because they've been running the show, and so on.

I think you are confusing IQ tests with standardized knowledge tests. IQ tests typically look for things like pattern recognition and comparative deduction. They analyze the "way" you think and not what you think. They reward systemic processes that are inherent in thought, not knowledge levels based on learning.

Funny how you fall back onto the same old liberal stereotypes about whites having an advantage. These statements tend to originate with the academia of this country, the same academia under which whose direct influence you currently reside. I, on the other hand, have been free from the influence of such liberal minded disinformation peddlers for over 12 years now. I'll bet money that 12 years from now you will think very differently than you currently do. You sound exactly like somebody currently in college, and I would expect no less. Just remember that I don't simply read something and regurgitate it, I store it away in memory until there is contradictory or complimentary information and then through a long vetting process reach an overall concensus on the matter. This takes many years, more years in fact than you have even been in secondary education.

Edited April 9, 2006 by funkypunnk

[Croc]

What are you talking about? Do to socioeconomic factors from the past several generations whites DO have an advantage in many ways. Whites tend to be wealthier than blacks or hispanics, whites tend to be in more private schools, and whites still graduate high school and go onto college at greater rates. So how in the hell can you sit there and say whites do not have certain advantages? You are one ignorant man...

Oh, and it would be awesome if you would address my article since it goes against all the crap you've been spewing for the last 4 pages.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Croc

[Paolino]

Hi, i saw this when I was looking at the GM segment preview online.  You should all read it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/...in1385230.shtml

OMG... this was the article/video I was talking about before!!

[Paolino]

First, the current "crop" of gays would not die off genetically together, but instead it is a constant creation/extinction process with each individual gay person severing his genetic bloodline upon death.

Your points:

A.-Gays physically cannot reproduce with a combined genetic offspring. One of the two gays can.....WITH the help of surrogate and egg donor. Since men don't have eggs and can't bear children I find it alarming that you claim gays can reproduce. Funny how you say I am continually wrong after claiming such an obvious inconsistency yourself.

Well, how about a homosexual male and a homosexual female? That'd be two gays, reproducing. The woman has eggs. Man has sperm. You do the math.

[funkypunnk]

What are you talking about?  Do to socioeconomic factors from the past several generations whites DO have an advantage in many ways.  Whites tend to be wealthier than blacks or hispanics, whites tend to be in more private schools, and whites still graduate high school and go onto college at greater rates.  So how in the hell can you sit there and say whites do not have certain advantages?  You are one ignorant man...

Oh, and it would be awesome if you would address my article since it goes against all the crap you've been spewing for the last 4 pages.

IQ is different fom knowledge.

As far as your article, it actually shows that gayness is most likely not genetic. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a choice in my opinion. All your article shows is that gender ID may be influenced by chemical or hormonal levels, but yet even these theories were somewhat questioned as it only happens to right-handed homosexuals and not to left-handed homosexuals or lesbians. That creates an awful lot of doubt within the scientific community. As far as whether being a third son or fourth son somehow may affect whether you become gay, interesting but it could also imply that when a young man is put into a family of men, he must act out or seperate himself from the rest to get the attention he wants or needs. The boy in the article who is wearing nail polish to school may simply be doing it because he is now getting alot of attention from everyone including his mom, teachers, peers, counselors, etc. What was very interesting about the article is that it didn't mention the two sets of twins' fathers anywhere! Are there any active male role models in these boys' lives?? Why wouldn't the father have something to say about one of his twin sons wearing nail polish to school? It mentioned that there were dads, but that was it. No details, opinions, feelings, background, or anything else.

Edited April 9, 2006 by funkypunnk

[funkypunnk]

Well, how about a homosexual male and a homosexual female?  That'd be two gays, reproducing.  The woman has eggs.  Man has sperm.  You do the math.

EXCEPT that they would not reproduce with each other as that would nolonger make them GAY!!!!!!!! If a gay man and a gay woman have sex, they have just sacrificed their beliefs for the sake of reproduction. By definition, they would now be bi-sexual!!!!!! I would get sick if I had sex with a man, as it is against my wants, needs, desires, and beliefs. Therefore, I would not do it for any reason by choice. If I was raped, I would do anything and everything to prevent and or stop it including kill the attacker. How could you as a gay person be willing to perform an act that is so contradictory to your beliefs? In other words, it would be unnatural to you as you are attracted to members of the same sex.

Additionally, the girlfriend of the lesbian and the boyfriend of the homosexual have been completely excluded from the creation of this child. Therefore, the gay man who doesn't act gay and the gay woman who doesn't act gay just created a child in spite of their love for their respective gay partners who they used to act gay with. Sounds like a great beginning for a soap opera, but not a happy familial relationship. Finally, the child only contains genetic material from half of each couple and therefore is not truly a child of either but instead a child of a man and a woman who had heterosexual relations. I don't see your point.

Edited April 9, 2006 by funkypunnk

[Croc]

IQ is different fom knowledge.

As far as your article, it actually shows that gayness is most likely not genetic. That is what I have been saying all along. It is a choice in my opinion. All your article shows is that gender ID may be influenced by chemical or hormonal levels, but yet even these theories were somewhat questioned as it only happens to right-handed homosexuals and not to left-handed homosexuals or lesbians. That creates an awful lot of doubt within the scientific community. As far as whether being a third son or fourth son somehow may affect whether you become gay, interesting but it could also imply that when a young man is put into a family of men, he must act out or seperate himself from the rest to get the attention he wants or needs. The boy in the article who is wearing nail polish to school may simply be doing it because he is now getting alot of attention from everyone including his mom, teachers, peers, counselors, etc. What was very interesting about the article is that it didn't mention the two sets of twins' fathers anywhere! Are there any active male role models in these boys' lives?? Why wouldn't the father have something to say about one of his twin sons wearing nail polish to school? It mentioned that there were dads, but that was it. No details, opinions, feelings, background, or anything else.

Ummm...the article most clearly stated there is BOTH a strong genetic link as well as a hormonal link. We already had evidence of the hormonal link as many gay males have index fingers as long as their ring fingers...like women do. Most heterosexual males have index fingers shorter than ring fingers due to a shock of testosterone early on in life.

You want to hark back to the male involvement argument? Well let's see for a minute...since those two are identical twins living in the same household...they are most very likely being raised the same way. Same parental involvement.

If you want to bring up the lack of male role models turning them gay...hmmm so every boy in a Catholic orphanage who was raised by an order of nuns turned out gay, right? Or at least a large percentage? No, I don't think you can prove that one bit.

You are really reaching here...

[Croc]

As for the IQ...if you have ever had your IQ tested you will undoubtably know that IQ tests measure your knowledge. A standard IQ test, (which stands for Intelligence Quotient, by the way) measures a person's INTELLIGENCE as quantified by a wide variety of knowledge- and skill-based questions divided by (hence the Quotient) age. IQ measures knowledge against age. Therefore IQ is INDEED influenced by the types of education (and therefore knowledge) one has been exposed to.

Maybe you should make sure you have the facts before you argue obviously bogus arguments. I'm not being challenged here.

[funkypunnk]

Ummm...the article most clearly stated there is BOTH a strong genetic link as well as a hormonal link.  We already had evidence of the hormonal link as many gay males have index fingers as long as their ring fingers...like women do.  Most heterosexual males have index fingers shorter than ring fingers due to a shock of testosterone early on in life.

You want to hark back to the male involvement argument? Well let's see for a minute...since those two are identical twins living in the same household...they are most very likely being raised the same way.  Same parental involvement.

If you want to bring up the lack of male role models turning them gay...hmmm so every boy in a Catholic orphanage who was raised by an order of nuns turned out gay, right?  Or at least a large percentage?  No, I don't think you can prove that one bit.

You are really reaching here...

Parents never favor one child over another??????? Where did you grow up????

Catholic orphanage..........the priest tends to fulfill the father role. Strong male role model with exception to some of the current scandals.

As far as IQ, I have never taken an IQ test that was based on knowledge. They have been based on pattern recognition, spatial relationships, deductive reasoning, comparative deduction, etc. As a young child it is whether the brain can make the connection between 3 dimensional shape and a 2 dimensional hole, like patterns, colors, etc. As an adult it is a much more complex version with the same basic principles. Since when do white males have an advantage when it comes to this:

That is the typical IQ test question, has nothing to do with knowledge. There are genius level IQ who have never completed 5th grade.

[Paolino]

EXCEPT that they would not reproduce with each other as that would nolonger make them GAY!!!!!!!! If a gay man and a gay woman have sex, they have just sacrificed their beliefs for the sake of reproduction. By definition, they would now be bi-sexual!!!!!! I would get sick if I had sex with a man, as it is against my wants, needs, desires, and beliefs. Therefore, I would not do it for any reason by choice. If I was raped, I would do anything and everything to prevent and or stop it including kill the attacker. How could you as a gay person be willing to perform an act that is so contradictory to your beliefs? In other words, it would be unnatural to you as you are attracted to members of the same sex.

Additionally, the girlfriend of the lesbian and the boyfriend of the homosexual have been completely excluded from the creation of this child. Therefore, the gay man who doesn't act gay and the gay woman who doesn't act gay just created a child in spite of their love for their respective gay partners who they used to act gay with. Sounds like a great beginning for a soap opera, but not a happy familial relationship. Finally, the child only contains genetic material from half of each couple and therefore is not truly a child of either but instead a child of a man and a woman who had heterosexual relations. I don't see your point.

Are you serious? You're seriously saying these things. BEING GAY IS NOT A BELIEF! You can choose your beliefs. I can choose to believe in God. I can choose not to. I can not choose to be straight.

And having sex with a woman doesn't make me bisexual. It means I had sex with a woman, NOTHING more. I didn't say I had to like it. Let me tell you... if you were raped by a man, and you couldn't stop him... does that make you bisexual? Does that mean at that point, you will start sleeping with men as well as women?

I had a student last year who had two lesbian mothers. One of the mothers was the biological mother--the child conceived by a donation from a heterosexual friend. This child was loved so much by her mothers. This child was struggling like crazy in Italian--when I started my leave replacement, the first thing I had to do was calculate averages, and his was a 54. I spoke with his parents and we sat down to see what we could do to bring up his average. Now, from what I understand, he had no luck in foreign languages in the 2.5 years he was in middle school. By time the next marking period came around, his average shot up to an 84. What happened? His parents (both mothers), sat down with him every single night and helped him review and study. His parents encouraged him to participate more in class. I gave him extra help once/week. The mothers used every ounce of free time they had to help him.

He loves his mothers. He loves his biological father. They mothers took him on vacations, let him have sleep overs, etc., do everything he wanted (within reason of course). The kid felt very loved, and was in a safe, secure, caring environment.

Sounds like a damn good family to me.

As for the child only containing genetic material of one partner, of course... you can't have both. But what is wrong with having a piece of yourself in your child as long as your partner is okay with that? The child is truly a child of one partner. And provided your partner cares about the child, loves them, and treats them well, I see no reason for that to not be considered a beautiful family.

[Croc]

...and all of those things you just mentioned are skills acquired through the learning process.

By the way, there tend not to be priests at convents...those are just nuns.

Where did I grow up? In a healthy, loving household. Why do you ask? My parents never favored anyone. My aunts and uncles never played favorites, my friends' parents never played favorites from what I can tell and what they've told me...I think the better question is what the hell kinda place did YOU grow up?

[Croc]

Sounds like a damn good family to me.

As for the child only containing genetic material of one partner, of course... you can't have both.  But what is wrong with having a piece of yourself in your child as long as your partner is okay with that?  The child is truly a child of one partner.  And provided your partner cares about the child, loves them, and treats them well, I see no reason for that to not be considered a beautiful family.

I think just about every loving step-parent would agree with you as well.

[regfootball]

I've got nothing against bi chicks, as long as they are in the room with me.

[regfootball]

BTW, what thread is this?

I just drove by the Dodge dealer and they some funky cool looking hatchbacks on their lot.

[Flybrian]

BTW, what thread is this?

I just drove by the Dodge dealer and they some funky cool looking hatchbacks on their lot.

Omnis are cool, aren't they?

Calibers really don't look so bad on the outside at least. Haven't been up close and personal with one yet.

[AM6_Cutlass]

If you can't laugh at yourself, you shouldn't laugh at anyone.

Too true. Sometimes I think people are just looking for a "fight"

Funny thing though, I read the headline to this post last week, but just saw the ad last night (I don't watch much tv). My first thought when I saw the fairy was "this must be the "offensive" ad". Honestly, if it wasn't for reading thie headline for this topic, I never would have thought anything of it. I was with my g/f, my sister and her b/f and I mentioned this thread. They were all confused about what the big deal was. When we saw it run again, they could see where the offense could come from, but at a stretch. Anyway, I hope they don't change it like the Concorde commercial from a few years ago.