Gay Agenda?

[quote]zephead4747 wrote:
Like, you know when on the second week of freshmen year a gay junior I didn’t know asked me out. That was pretty wierd.[/quote]

How is that any weirder than a straight guy asking out a girl who he later finds out is a lesbian? How is he supposed to know if she’s interested unless he asks?

I would support having the government involved with civil unions, and leave marriage entirely to the churches.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
forlife wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Notice you don’t hear about the “gay gene” in the news anymore.

Actually, there has been a lot of recent research showing strong evidence for a genetic component to sexual orientation.

More agenda pushing…There has also been plenty of social research done showing strong eveidence that it is more nuture than nature.

But…you don’t want to talk about that because you have an agenda.

Does it matter? Whether it is nurture or nature, a gay guy can’t be “converted” back to a straight one. Therefore, how they became gay in the first place is mostly irrelevant.[/quote]

This is not true. The gay agenda is praying for the discovery of the gay gene so guys like forlife can run straight to the courthouse and start applying for all the same shit as women, handicapped and/or minorities can. This is their agenda.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Some are more prone to choose the gay lifestyle than others due to their childhood and how they were taught to relate to the same. But there is absolutely no genetic trigger that causes it.

People will gravitate to where they find love and acceptance, or spend their lives confused and miserable. Period.

Until there is undeniable proof that there is a “gay gene”, it will remain a lifestyle choice and nothing more. There should be no consideration given for the choices a small minority of the population make.

[quote]The predisposition for mutations could be heritable. Regardless, it is still a genetic factor irrespective of heritability.
[/quote]

“Could be”. While I agree, the amount of the predisposition is still unknown.

How does the mother perpetuate her genetic code through offspring who prefer the same gender?

So why are gays so fond of bringing up the genetic component, when the strength of its contribution is unknown?

Is it proven that they “can’t change”, especially when psychological and environmental factors are likely to contribute to homosexuality? Don’t gay men often have a number of female partners before they settle on “homosexuality” as an orientation? You must not have read through the comments on the link:

[quote] I checked the General Social Survey. The GSS doesn’t allow you to identify as hetero/homosexual so this method may be uncertain; I classified people who had sex exclusively with men or women in the last year as gay or straight, and sex with both as bisexual. Then I looked how at many lifetime partners they report:

MHomo-men - 36.59
MHomo-women - 3.31
MBisx-men - 19.30
MBisx-women - 18.83
MHetro-men - .52
MHetro-women - 16.62
FHomo-men - 2.23
FHomo-women - 8.51
FBisex-men - 8.55
FBisex-women - 3.35
FHetro-men - 5.79
FHetro-women - .24

Observations:

  • Gay men have more than twice as many lifetime sexual partners as straight men.

Gay men still have 3x as many female partners as the modal (or 40% of) straight man. (This may be of evolutionary significance - do gay men have higher reproductive potential than even monogamous Christian men?)[/quote]

answer:

[quote]You can select for homo/hetero on the GSS. I believe that question kicked in around 1986.

As for gay men having sex with women, obviously it happens. They produce a lot fewer children though. I’ve read it is about an 80% fitness hit. Maybe someone knows the study.[/quote]

If they “can’t change,” how do they end up having sex with so many women?

[quote]forlife wrote:
Life, liberty, and property are all supported and fostered “by legal force”. Without laws, these fundamental rights would be abused far more than they are now.[/quote]

No, defense of ones rights is not force – and we do not need any others to defend them for us. They are our own to defend and we must take responsibility for it on our own. That one is not willing to or cannot is beside the point.

[quote]
The California Supreme Court ruled that all California couples have a “basic civil right” to marry “without regard to their sexual orientation.”

Semantics aside, the point is that gay couples are entitled to the same rights/privileges/benefits/whatever you want to call them as straight couples.[/quote]

No one is entitled to anything. One must work and earn everything one has. That is law. I don’t care what some hippy judges in California say. They are wrong and so are all the hippy thinking people who put them there.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Iron Dwarf wrote:
It’s interesting how the cons want to stamp out gays… unless of course we’re talking about lesbians.

I’ve noticed that too. Sometimes straight guys feel justified in discriminating against gay men because seeing two men kissing makes them feel “icky”, but they get turned on by two women going at it.[/quote]

On a side note, straight females have noticed this effect and exploit it to the nth degree under the guise of “exploring their sexuality”.

[quote]tedro wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/homophobia

I see a trend.

Makavali pulled the exact same stunt on the exact same topic once before.[/quote]

Mak just likes stirring the shit. Or something like that…

[quote]At my school most of the gay guys seem to enjoy nothing more then putting straight guys in uncomfortable situations.

Like, you know when on the second week of freshmen year a gay junior I didn’t know asked me out. That was pretty wierd.

around here the ratio of lesbians who act like normal people is much high then that of gay guys. I can think of only one guy out of several that It wouldn’t bother me being around him. That said, I really haven’t met any gay people outside my city, so the various scehens might be different.[/quote]

I’ve noticed the same thing, leading me to believe the psychological component of homosexuality is high.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Some are more prone to choose the gay lifestyle than others due to their childhood and how they were taught to relate to the same. But there is absolutely no genetic trigger that causes it.
[/quote]

How do you know this? How does someone choose to be gay? They just wake up and say, You know a I like the idea of being treated like dirt by loony busybodies I think maybe I am going to take part in some sweaty man-on-man action? What exactly defines homosexuality as a “lifestyle”? Is it different than a heterosexual lifestyle?

[quote]tedro wrote:
http://www.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/homophobia

I see a trend.

Makavali pulled the exact same stunt on the exact same topic once before.[/quote]

Shh, don’t tell.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
“Could be”. While I agree, the amount of the predisposition is still unknown. [/quote]

Agreed. We don’t know how strong the genetic factor is in homosexuality, only that it plays a significant role (as in the significantly higher likelihood of both identical twins being gay vs. fraternal twins vs. siblings).

She could perpetuate the genetic code through straight offspring. Maybe it is a latent code, or maybe it is a code which is “activated” in some way through hormonal, environmental, or other factors.

Because we know that genetics play a significant role. I don’t think anyone is arguing that genetics determine sexuality 100%, but the research clearly shows that it is a significant factor.

After hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies, the medical and mental health organizations have unanimously concluded that sexual orientation isn’t chosen and can’t change. In a joint statement, they concluded:

[quote]The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, [b]have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’

…health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm.[/b]"[/quote]

The American Academy of Pediatrics in its policy statement on Homosexuality and Adolescence states:

American Psychological Association:

[quote]Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?

No, human beings cannot choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed.

Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?

No. Even though most homosexuals live successful, happy lives, some homosexual or bisexual people may seek to change their sexual orientation through therapy, sometimes pressured by the influence of family members or religious groups to try and do so. The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable. [/quote]

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”

American Psychiatric Association’s 1997 Fact Sheet on Homosexual and Bisexual Issues:

National Association of Social Workers:

I have personal experience on that point, since I was married to a woman. I always knew that I was attracted to guys, but I married because my church leaders told me that it was God’s will and that everything would work out.

Unlike some of my gay friends, I was able to perform sexually with a woman, but I never was able to develop a truly intimate connection with my wife.

It felt “wrong” being with her, and despite two decades of trying to change my orientation I couldn’t. Our intimacy was nowhere close to what I now experience with my partner.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
This is not true. The gay agenda is praying for the discovery of the gay gene so guys like forlife can run straight to the courthouse and start applying for all the same shit as women, handicapped and/or minorities can. This is their agenda.

Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Some are more prone to choose the gay lifestyle than others due to their childhood and how they were taught to relate to the same. But there is absolutely no genetic trigger that causes it.

People will gravitate to where they find love and acceptance, or spend their lives confused and miserable. Period.

Until there is undeniable proof that there is a “gay gene”, it will remain a lifestyle choice and nothing more. There should be no consideration given for the choices a small minority of the population make.[/quote]

That’s what I wanted to hear. Thank you.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.[/quote]

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, defense of ones rights is not force – and we do not need any others to defend them for us. They are our own to defend and we must take responsibility for it on our own. That one is not willing to or cannot is beside the point.[/quote]

So if someone assaults you on the street and demands your wallet, it is solely your responsibility to defend yourself? The policeman around the corner shouldn’t help protect you, and the courts shouldn’t hold the criminal accountable for his actions?

What about the hippy judges in Massachusetts, or the hippy voters, legislators, and judges in several other countries around the world?

You’re entitled to your opinion, but others have an equally valid perspective.

[quote]She could perpetuate the genetic code through straight offspring. Maybe it is a latent code, or maybe it is a code which is “activated” in some way through hormonal, environmental, or other factors.
[/quote]

Like I said, it’s a zero-sum game. If she has more kids b/c of this gene, but some don’t reproduce, she’s no more “fit” from an evolutionary standpoint that those without the gene.

[quote]The most important fact about ‘reparative therapy,’ also sometimes known as ‘conversion’ therapy, is that it is based on an understanding of homosexuality that has been rejected by all the major health and mental health professions. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Counseling Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Association of Social Workers, together representing more than 477,000 health and mental health professionals, have all taken the position that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a ‘cure.’

…health and mental health professional organizations do not support efforts to change young people’s sexual orientation through ‘reparative therapy’ and have raised serious concerns about its potential to do harm." [/quote]

So what is this, groupthink from the scientific community? They decide homosexuality wasn’t a mental illness b/c of older studies that showed that homosexuals were no more prone to OTHER mental illnesses than heterosexuals, not that homosexuality itself was or was not a mental illness. Recent studies are a different matter, as I found searching PubMed for a minute:

So they’re more prone to suicidality and mental health problems, but aren’t more prone to “mental illness” than heterosexuals, therefore “homosexuality” should be excluded from the DSM? Try to follow that logic.

Here’s another one:

[quote]
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of a link between increasing degrees of same-sex attraction and self-harm in both men and women, with the possibility of some difference between the sexes that needs to be explored further.[/quote]

So they’re more prone to self-harm, but just as mentally healthy as heterosexuals?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
She could perpetuate the genetic code through straight offspring. Maybe it is a latent code, or maybe it is a code which is “activated” in some way through hormonal, environmental, or other factors.

Like I said, it’s a zero-sum game. If she has more kids b/c of this gene, but some don’t reproduce, she’s no more “fit” from an evolutionary standpoint that those without the gene.
[/quote]

That is rubbish because if a homosexual has no children on his own, he might take care of nieces and nephews. That advantage might be small, but big enough to let homosexuality be part of our genetic pool.

Incidentally, the more male children a woman has, the more likely she is to have male homosexual offspring.

The theory is that previous male offspring might make her “allergic” to the testosterone rush during her pregnancy that male-fies the brain.

If it really was a zero sum game and nature does not care, homosexuality is as natural as everything else nature allows to exist.

When did I say I was against gay marriage?

Anyway, no you wouldn’t have all the benefits the government gives a straight couple. But then again why do they give any benefits? As I said I don’t think it is any of the government’s business.

The stupidest argument on this subject was over the term civil unions. All the power of marriage, but just a different word. The conservatives were stupid enough to think that a fucking word really mattered. And then the other side was stupid enough to also think that a single word mattered. A fight over semantics.

As I said before, my only argument against it is the idea of forcing people to support it. If a person sees it as a sin, they see something like giving benefits as supporting it, and for them, supporting a sin. I am not sure we should be forcing people to go against their religious beliefs.

And for the record, if I did own a company, (maybe in the future,) and I offered benefits, I would give those benefits to gay couples.

[quote]forlife wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
No, defense of ones rights is not force – and we do not need any others to defend them for us. They are our own to defend and we must take responsibility for it on our own. That one is not willing to or cannot is beside the point.

So if someone assaults you on the street and demands your wallet, it is solely your responsibility to defend yourself? The policeman around the corner shouldn’t help protect you, and the courts shouldn’t hold the criminal accountable for his actions?[/quote]
Yes. The police man “around the corner” cannot help me at this point. He can merely put up police tape and seal off the area after I kill this particular thug.

[quote]
You’re entitled to your opinion, but others have an equally valid perspective.[/quote]

No. There is no equal validity to opinions when they are in favor of using force to institute law. By definition you take away from others to get your privileges and that is immoral. I don’t care that you contract with a same sex partner but I do care if you force it upon me – not that I would not respect your contract. I can only speak for myself.

Free people have the right to discriminate – that is the essence of freedom. All decisions are essentially based on some sort of discrimination. I choose coke over pepsi; I choose tacos over burritos. Choice necessitates discrimination.

[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Promote Sexual Health and Responsible Sexual Behavior (2001) asserts that homosexuality is not “a reversible lifestyle choice.”
[/quote]

Show where I once used the word reversible. I don’t pretend to know if it is or not. I am sure there are some who would choose heterosexuality if they could find the same love and acceptance from a member of the opposite sex. I am also pretty sure there are those who totally enjoy their gayness, and could never conceive of being with a woman.

Nonetheless, one chooses to be gay because of his nurturing, or lack thereof. Until there is overwhelming genetic proof, it can’t be anything but choice.

People will find love and acceptance where ever they can find it.

Short of genetic proof - the SG, and all the social workers in the world are just as wrong as you are.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
You’ve shown me what it means to be a conservative beyond the idiots that make up the christian coalition, and allowed me to come to terms with being much less liberal than my peers. So… thanks.)

TB’s heroes are all in military uniform. That is not a conservative trait – just so you don’t confuse yourself into thinking it is.

Also don’t trap yourself into the idea that change is bad – hence conservatism. The real essence of liberalism is that change is necessary for survival and that people need to be free in order to choose how it should be brought about for themselves.[/quote]

That is true.

We want to conserve what allows us to change.

It is the difference between passing on the torch vs praying to the ashes.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Like I said, it’s a zero-sum game. If she has more kids b/c of this gene, but some don’t reproduce, she’s no more “fit” from an evolutionary standpoint that those without the gene.[/quote]

She’s more “fit” from an evolutionary perspective because she carries the “gay gene” (for lack of a better term). That’s the whole point. Nature perpetuates the gene by increasing her fertility, since obviously it can’t generally perpetuate the gene through the gay child.

It is the consensus of the scientific community based on decades of research on the issue.

Whether or not gays suffer consequences from existing in a discriminatory culture is a different question. Research has shown that gays attempting to change their orientation through therapy have double the risk of suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and drug/alcohol abuse.

You need to differentiate cause from effect.