Not all gays have dicks.

The implications of this position are...unsettling. I guess we should make sure that anyone who wants to have children get genetically screened to ensure that they don't have any risk of premature death, which would cause quite a burden on their offspring, nor should they pass on these unwelcome traits. Oh, and if daddy is kinda ugly or a little fat, he shouldn't be allowed to breed, either, because the kids at school might make fun of him or his child, who is also now more likely to be ugly and/or fat herself in addition to be subject to barbs directed daddy's way. Oh, or if mommy is black and daddy is white, we wouldn't want to subject junior to any white supremacists he might meet in school. That wouldn't be fair to him. We wouldn't want to burden children with these things. As a society, we should outlaw these behaviors to protect the children. Don't you think of the children?

Hey I was just playing devil's advocate and introducing an argument that wasn't religious based.

I'm all for the state getting out of all marriage completely, but as long as they are involved, I'm all for people getting tax breaks. This is why I am all for gay marriage. Go go tax breaks!

dude, i hate christianity and everything, but lets be honest, america LOVES it. there is such a large difference between this stuff (and inter racial marriages @ NeBlis) and something that is flat out condemned by the most famous and influential book ever written.

Fat kids have it pretty ****ing rough. Where do you draw the line between parents who aren't subjecting their kids to undue bullying and parents who do, and why are gay parent's that much more likely to subject a kid to bullying than fat parents? I mean, ****, at least gay parents aren't any more likely to make their kid gay him or herself and thus subject to even more bullying, but fat parents, which might be derided by bullies, are more likely to have fat kids, who then get a double dose.

Bullies will be bullies. They'll find any available reason to pick on anyone.

lol youre still comparing obesity to homosexuality. did you read my post that you quoted, or just hit quote and then continue typing from where you left off before that?

Homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness for a very long time by the psychiatry associations. The associations only dropped it because the gay activists hit them where they hurt the most; aka screaming them down at conventions and when they gave speeches, and terrorist tactics of the like, until they succumbed, as nobody wanted to pay for a speaker who attracted raving petitioners and required security and police. All they had to do was drop the designation, and the harrassment would end, and they were told so by the activist leaders many times. So they dropped it, not because they were convinced by the science, but because they are, at heart, shuffling, bumbling academics not fit for a war, and who wanted to go back to quiet halls and dull aferparties.

And is anybody surprised that California's citizenry rejected the entitlement? As you can see evident here, the same tactics are utilized by the activists. Harrassment. Name-calling. General upset. Commotion. Until you actually have a logical, rational side of things, you will only win some battles, and lose others, because the public is not going to be convinced by rabid obscenities or threats of harrassment. You will actually have to wage the war of ideas with ideas. It is the only way.

And about the genetics, I seem to remember studies done that showed that in identical twins, one might be homosexual, and over 65%% of the time, the other was not, which strongly suggests that environmental factors, moreso than genetics, would spur a disposition. If two of them share 100% of the same genes, and one is revulsed by women, but the other is married with four children, than clearly, gays are not born gay. This is a behavioral issue. One that psychologists should be tackling, but that will never happen...see above.

Yeah, good thing the traditionalists fighting the good fight don't hang outside churches holding signs saying "God hates fa.gs". Jesus, how deluded are you?





For someone claiming to be basing their position on logic and rationality while everyone else is getting emotional, you seem to be doing a lot worse in the "citing actual facts" category and instead are projecting your own ideas and beliefs onto basically the entire academic community of psychologists, and using that as an "argument". Bravo!

The story of how the American Psychiatric Association decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness.

From NPR, good stuff.

If it were true that twins could be born and one is gay and the other is straight 65% of the time that is an argument for genetics and not environment.

Identical twins happen naturally about 1 in 250 and fraternal twins is about 1 in 60. So ~80% of twins (too lazy to calc actual percent) have different DNA. However twins will receive largely identical upbringings, same parents, same schools, probably even same friends, so you can discount environmental factors to the diversion of sexual preference.

Yes I did. Can you provide a citation that supports your assertion that fat kids get picked on more than kids with two dads? You asserted it like it was a given, and it's not at all. I don't care how many Christians there are. Some of those Christians actually learned how to love their neighbors and all that jazz, which would incline them towards being welcoming and cordial to homosexuals, even if they didn't approve of the homosexuality.

I would continue to speculate that fat kids have it worse. Not every kid might know that Sally's daddy, who divorced her mom in 6th grade, is now ****ing men. But every one knows Billy is fat. They see that every day.

This is pretty hilarious. Allow me to fix your post:

If we take your loosely remembered study as a given and the identical twin of a gay person is 65% likely to be straight, well, they likely came from identical environments, too. So, in a population that's only 2-10% gay, that suggests genetics. If we have an identical twin who's gay, we then know his twin is 3.5-17.5 times as likely to be gay as a random member of the population.

Doggg,

In the photos below, could you clarify for me which of the following signs are doing the name-calling, commotion-causing, harassing, and threatening? Thanks.

The "You're Making Ellen Sad" one, obv.

LDO

This is a contradiction. Parenting is very much a large part of the cultural institution of marriage, you can't claim to be 100% in support of gay marriage and be against them being parents. This is actually a really bizarre quirk, that you affirm this kind of being totally 100% cool and supportive and then suddenly do a huge about face with respect to the parenting part.


It is kind of like creationists who are like "ya I am totally 100% cool with evolution but only INTRASPECIES evolution cause interspecies evolution is totally impossible"

One sec you are using the history of psychiatry as your appeal to authority? Really? You know the history contains a huge number of things considered totally barbaric and wrong by todays standards right? But ya I suppose we should go back to the time where we just lock up, throw away the key and electroshock people every other day if they are at all not normal. Perhaps we could go even further back and start advocating for eugenics! As for your analysis of why the field changed its views, I highly doubt it is because of your claims of being threatened by the gay lobby but I am not an expert on this little detail so I would suggest if you wish to maintain this position that you present some links - ideally peer reviewed sources - detailing the influences on the change.

As for the second paragraph, have you not heard of nature vs nurture? Just becomes something arises because of nurture and not nature does not mean it is "behavioral". Traits that are learned through childhood as a result of nature are no less changeable in many cases than those from nature. That said, if the number is 65% since gays make up less than 35% of the population this actually demonstrates a POSITIVE correlation for genetics or the nature side of it. Almost definitely the result is a combination of nature and nurture and one can debate the extend of these two factors but it is fairly irrelevant. That something is a nurtured trait makes it no less legitimate.

Electroshock therapy would still be considered valid science if it weren't for all the threats and people shouting it down at conventions.

um.. where?

yeah this doesnt change the fact that christianity as a whole is a terrible thing for the gay rights movement. not sure how its relevant. you saw all those pictures that YOU posted right?

speculate all you want, it doesnt make the comparison of a kid with gay parents to a fat kid with fat parents any more apt.

Why isn't it apt? You said "but think of the Christians!" and I did, and I didn't reach the same conclusions you did. Thus, in order for me to understand your thought process here, you'd better actually post it.

um please stop shouting down dogggs comments on this forum wookie :shouting:

Electroshock is still valid science, just not for homosexuals. I know that it is used to treat depression.

LOL no one is shouting him down we are just asking questions and pointing out flaws in his thinking. Its no ones fault but his that his thoughts and positions are so utterly flawed and illogical, but we are here to help.

lol leveled

I'm not a biblical student by any means.... but doesn't this passage kinda say that anal sex between a man and woman is not only OK, but also expected?...

Do you believe those pictures he posted accurately represent Christianity as a whole?