Nature vs. Nurture

[FzyBunnySliprs]

Traditional. One loving, biological father. One loving, biological mother. No abuse, no neglect, no divorce. Stability. No molesting uncle. Am I so weird that I think that's the normal, ideal environment in which to raise children?!?!

 

This is a thing of the past Indy. Divorce is more of the "Norm" these days. What you are speaking of is, as you metioned, an "Ideal". And an ideal that our society doesn't embrace much any more. Sadly even the biological families that do stay together often aren't happy. So if two people who happen to be gay want to get married, and raise children, what's the problem? They've got just as good a shot at doing it well as any other family out there.

[{GD}Independent]

This is a thing of the past Indy. Divorce is more of the "Norm" these days. What you are speaking of is, as you metioned, an "Ideal". And an ideal that our society doesn't embrace much any more. Sadly even the biological families that do stay together often aren't happy. So if two people who happen to be gay want to get married, and raise children, what's the problem? They've got just as good a shot at doing it well as any other family out there.

 

Which brings us right back to RXS's question. Why not let two people who happen to be brother and sister get married and raise children?

[Caip]

Which brings us right back to RXS's question. Why not let two people who happen to be brother and sister get married and raise children?

 

You just do not get it do you? We are NOT talking about incest or pedophilia. I answered your question in a previous post but just in case you missed it or just WANT to miss it, here goes:

 

What is ethically right or wrong is decided through discourse. The outcome of such a discourse is usually accepted by a huge part of the population of a country, several countries or "the whole world". Through discourse it has been decided that incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and all other kinds of sexual behavior are ethically wrong. When a sufficient amount of people challenge the status quo a new discourse is needed to determine whether to adjust ethical standards.

 

 

 

And caip, theres no one to blame, get over it. lets say i wasnt raised around gay ppl, then one day, i have a gay roomate, how will i react? I would be a little uncomfortable, but nice anyways. but guesss what??? Not everyone has to be like me, every1 is different and unique, so that means u cant make ppl feel the same way as u do. So stop it.

 

I certainly do not want to make anyone feel the way I want to, that is a ridiculous statement. But if someone harasses gay people then this person is to blame for doing so. Wouldn't you blame someone for harassing blacks? This is not about your "everyone is unique and different" this is about tolerance and basic human decency, but you obviously don't get my point (oh and before you throw that back in my face: I do get your point, but I think you miss the bigger picture)

 

[Kitty!]

Agree on that part, but thats the price that u pay for being gay, or for being famous (no privacy) or being a killer (be hated by society). Yes they should treat gay ppl decently, but its just how it is. Im not saying gay ppl are like criminals, but i hope u get my point. Waaay back women were not allowed to work, vote, etc. Look now, we are treated equally and now we can do basically anything. It will happen with gay people. Thing is, this world will be impossible to live in for our generation. 1st we accept gay marriages, adoption and all that, what will be next? Teaching about gay ppl at school? Teaching our kids that being gay its ok when of course its not? And i say its not, because its just not natural.

[Caip]

its just not natural.

 

Prove it and no, opinions or moral values do not count as proof. Your claim is that homosexuality is not "natural", with that statement you enter the realm of science. Now the burden of proof is undeniably on your side. Gay people claim they were born gay and even if that wasn't true homosexuality still is a part of human nature. Since you claim that homosexuality is unnatural you now have to give us scientific proof that it isn't.

[Belladonna]

Claiming to be born gay isn't scientific proof either that they were born that way. You can't even prove 'scientifically' that homosexuality exists, so how could someone prove it is unnatural? Everything about discussing this topic centers on opinions. They cannot be ignored.

[Kitty!]

Why it has to be scientifically proved??? Cant u see it? isnt ur self person enough proof? U are a guy, im a girl. Bunny said about my earlier post, that what i just said its anatomically correct, still, our bodies are naturally fit to do such acts. Natural proof is enough for me. Guys have sex with Girls cause its just how it IS. Gay ppl wanna have sex with each other, then let them be. Still is not natural. Natural as in, u know, not the way anatomically was meant to be.

[[FF5]Knix]

Caip Wrote-

 

What is ethically right or wrong is decided through discourse. The outcome of such a discourse is usually accepted by a huge part of the population of a country, several countries or "the whole world". Through discourse it has been decided that incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and all other kinds of sexual behavior are ethically wrong. When a sufficient amount of people challenge the status quo a new discourse is needed to determine whether to adjust ethical standards.

 

I agree. However the gay rights community never want to agree to having a vote in this country on the rights we are speaking about being extended to the homosexual community. Their fear and response has been...and I paraphrase...

 

"The majority of people being ignorant is no validation to their opinion, and decisions of this magnitude (to us) should not be voted on accordingly. Equal rights should never be brought up to a vote."

 

So while I agree with your position that when a a agreed upon sufficient amount of the citizens in a country wish for an rule/law to be amended, then discourse should be had. Discourse is constantly on going in the various levels of our legal system as we speak, however no federal vote has been had on these issues, only state votes.

 

 

To Goo-

 

I am not speaking on Eugenics, in regards to forcing people not to have chldren who have any sort of condition whether benign or severe.

What I am suggesting is looking into a cause for a specific condition i.e. sexual preference, and if determined to be biological offer (not force) offer those people planning on having children means to assure heterosexuality. I have relatives who have been pregnant in their 2nd trimester only to find that the fetus would be badly deformed. The decision that they had to make was theirs, not societies. I propose at keeping those choices in place, however doing all possible to screen for potential conditions such as this at a much earlier stage. I feel based on my prior point that homosexuality would fall into a category of conditions where many people would want such options available to them. I'm not suggesting Gattica like conditions at all.

 

You mention straight couples who are steril. Are there not procedures avaialable to them (IVF for example) to reverse their condition?

 

To All-

 

Again I am not suggesting that homosexuality is a blight on our society which requires attention above conditions such as Cancer, AIDS, Poverty, etc. What I am suggesting is that it does require our attention, for the reasons I mentioned. Not number 1 on the list, not number 100, but on the list itself.

 

Homosexuality (both gay and Lesbianism if we need to specify), and transgenderism are the only 2 atypical sexual behaviors that we are supposed to except as natural and benign? Is there any other atypical sexual practice that has this level of social movement for the purpose of gaining its social exceptance? If you allow these two into play, where do we draw the line?

You speak of consent.

Is polygamy usually not consentual?

Is incest always based on force and not consent?

In this country a person above 17 having sex with someone 17 or younger is statatory rape. For those of you reading this who may be 16 or 17 and live in the US say that you can't have sex with an 18 year old. They would be 'ra.ping' you. Do all of you feel that you are not capable to consent to intercourse at 16 or 17?

 

Who is gay? Our brothers, sisters, children, aunts, uncles, friends, etc,etc. Seeing them struggle with their condition, and how some individuals in our society ignorantly treat them with distane and even verbal/physical violence. I can understand rushing in to champion their cause. We love them no matter what. This however in itself does not validate their lifestyle.

[{GD}Independent]

Caip Wrote-

 

QUOTE

What is ethically right or wrong is decided through discourse. The outcome of such a discourse is usually accepted by a huge part of the population of a country, several countries or "the whole world". Through discourse it has been decided that incest, pedophilia, necrophilia and all other kinds of sexual behavior are ethically wrong. When a sufficient amount of people challenge the status quo a new discourse is needed to determine whether to adjust ethical standards.

 

 

Knix Wrote-

 

QUOTE

I agree. However the gay rights community never want to agree to having a vote in this country on the rights we are speaking about being extended to the homosexual community. Their fear and response has been...and I paraphrase...

 

 

Indy Writes-

 

Excellent point, Knix! Let's see how the "huge part of the population of a country" feels about the topic of gay marriage, shall we? I know no one likes to click links, but please click this one, and just at least read the title and first couple of sentences, please: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

Edited August 7, 2007 by {SFI}Independent

[Triggerhappy]

Excellent point, Knix! Let's see how the "huge part of the population of a country" feels about the topic of gay marriage, shall we? I know no one likes to click links, but please click this one, and just at least read the title and first couple of sentences, please: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6383353/

BTW nice job with the sending of the link, it shows you're losing the argument since you can't seem to come up with anything real to say on your own.

 

Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah.

 

Why am I NOT suprised? Not only are these the most unevolved states in the US, but Arkansas is TOP of the list. Why don't you just shoot yourself in the foot and hand me the gun...oh wait, I guess you kinda did.

 

More than 20 million Americans voted on the measures, which triumphed overall by a 2-to-1 ratio. In the four Southern states, the amendments received at least three-quarters of the votes, including 86 percent in Mississippi; the closest outcome besides Oregon was in Michigan, where the ban got 59 percent.

 

The four southern states; aren't these the same retarded states who thought we should keep blacks as slaves? Look how that turned out. It's been proven they obviously aren't the best judge of characters, so really you're just proving my point for me once again.

 

"The closest outcome besides Oregon was Michigan, where the ban got 59%"

 

See, some states actually have some people fighting for it.

[Triggerhappy]

This however in itself does not validate their lifestyle.

Well nothing that the other side thus far has said really justifies reasons that gays are invalid.

What it really comes down to as far as the main difference from gays and straights is what they do in the sack, and to be honest I really don't give two rats about what happens there. While I agree that yes "flammers" are annoying and over-the-top most of the time, not all homosexuals act that way.

 

There's a lot of people with "lifestyles" I don't approve of, but nobody is rushing put up laws and regulations to stop them. (and no I'm not talking about molesters and rapists either) Again, Bella quoted my posts in this topic correctly "Everything about discussing this topic centers on opinions. They cannot be ignored."

Edited August 7, 2007 by Triggerhappy

[RXS]

BTW nice job with the sending of the link, it shows you're losing the argument since you can't seem to come up with anything real to say on your own.

Why am I NOT suprised? Not only are these the most unevolved states in the US, but Arkansas is TOP of the list. Why don't you just shoot yourself in the foot and hand me the gun...oh wait, I guess you kinda did.

The four southern states; aren't these the same retarded states who thought we should keep blacks as slaves? Look how that turned out. It's been proven they obviously aren't the best judge of characters, so really you're just proving my point for me once again.

 

"The closest outcome besides Oregon was Michigan, where the ban got 59%"

 

See, some states actually have some people fighting for it.

I've had enough....I can't stand how you continually contradict yourself and debate your position with about as much finesse as a drunken sailor. Think before you start blathering on and on.

 

Love your stereotypical and ridiculously absurd comment - "unevolved states" (btw - "unevolved" is not a word - surprised someone from an "unevolved" state needed to explain that to you).....for the record, I'm from Montana and I currently live in Oregon (Oregon is a state that blatantly uses state resources and political means to propagate "secular progressive" and gay lifestyles)......both states voted it down....not once, but twice. I'm heading to Montana for a little vacation so I'm putting on my cowboy boots, chaps and strapping my six shooter to my side so I can ride my horse down main street on my way to the OK Coral. We are going to rustle up some grub before we drive our lil' dawgies 'cross the range. After that, we may look for a little entertainment by rounding us up some queers for a good 'ol fashioned gay bash.

 

Talk about "unevolved".......you are the poster child

 

Edited August 8, 2007 by RXS

[[FF5]Knix]

Well nothing that the other side thus far has said really justifies reasons that gays are invalid.

What it really comes down to as far as the main difference from gays and straights is what they do in the sack, and to be honest I really don't give two rats about what happens there. While I agree that yes "flammers" are annoying and over-the-top most of the time, not all homosexuals act that way.

 

There's a lot of people with "lifestyles" I don't approve of, but nobody is rushing put up laws and regulations to stop them. (and no I'm not talking about molesters and rapists either) Again, Bella quoted my posts in this topic correctly "Everything about discussing this topic centers on opinions. They cannot be ignored."

 

Trig, I just wrote two long explanations for my views and ideas, yet you come back with this?

Everything you've recently posted, I've already covered. Go back and read them, or as apparently is the case, read them for the first time.

I don't care if you if you don't agree with my views, in fact I welcome it. But don't come back with stuff like this, after I try to put all thats in my head on the subject into written words so that I may touch on what other people are feeling but can't put down.

 

Like I've said in past posts to you, you make yourself look like a hayseed when people are trying to come at a serious topic with serious discussions, and you put on the gomer pile routine. Seriously I say this with no maliciousness intended....read more, ask questions, do some research on your own before jumping into a conversation such as this. I'm not suggesting that you are not capable of making good points, I saying that you are being lazy and choosing not too.

[FzyBunnySliprs]

I'm heading to Montana for a little vacation so I'm putting on my cowboy boots, chaps and strapping my six shooter to my side so I can ride my horse down main street on my way to the OK Coral.

 

RXS, do you wear anything under those chaps? Ah, who cares, lol. Send photos anyway. This I gotta see!

[RXS]

RXS, do you wear anything under those chaps? Ah, who cares, lol. Send photos anyway. This I gotta see!

I prefer going comando....less chafing

 

 

Pics have been classified....top secret....eyes only

Edited August 8, 2007 by RXS

[Triggerhappy]

I've had enough....I can't stand how you continually contradict yourself and debate your position with about as much finesse as a drunken sailor. Think before you start blathering on and on.

 

The only way I've "contradicted" myself was by stating that I am not gay, but I am for gay rights. I do this because it pisses me off when people argue anti-homosexuality so much even though there are many factors that are arguable.

 

(btw - "unevolved" is not a word - surprised someone from an "unevolved" state needed to explain that to you)

 

Yet, you seem to know exactly what I meant and therefore not completely unreasonable for me to use it considering I was only half awake when I posted it and I forgot to proofread my work.

 

.....for the record, I'm from Montana and I currently live in Oregon (Oregon is a state that blatantly uses state resources and political means to propagate "secular progressive" and gay lifestyles)

 

Cool. I was actually complimenting those states (if you read my post) for actually having some brains in the population.

 

"The closest outcome besides Oregon was Michigan, where the ban got 59%"

 

See, some states actually have some people fighting for it.

 

So see, I wasn't talking bad about Oregon and Montana, in fact; quite the opposite.

 

Talk about "unevolved".......you are the poster child

No actually, there are worse. If I'm the poster child for "unevolved," then you must be the poster child of white heterosexual bigots who can't come up with better arguments for your cause. Your arguments and feelings have been very one sided.

 

Trig, I just wrote two long explanations for my views and ideas, yet you come back with this?

Yes. All I did was disagree with your points. Don't act like I said "well you're wrong because you're stupid." In fact, I have agreed with many of your points.

 

Like I've said in past posts to you, you make yourself look like a hayseed when people are trying to come at a serious topic with serious discussions, and you put on the gomer pile routine.

 

Are you kidding me? What did I say here that makes you say this? Was it the bit about the homosexuals in the sack or the comment about the *flamers? You think I was trying to be funny? I know this is a serious topic, as I'm treating it as such but some of your guy's reasons for your dislikes or viewpoints are sometimes a little hilarious to me. So sorry you find what I said makes you think "I look like a hayseed."

 

I'd like to point out that I have read all of your posts, and explicitly line after line argued why I agreed or disagreed with a point and why so. Did you know that, or did you not read my posts.

 

I gave you specific questions for you yourself to answer, yet, have any of them been replied? No, and I suspect it's because you either don't have an answer or you just DIDN'T READ MY POST!!! While I'm taking the liberty of assuming your reading THIS post, let me post AGAIN one fine example of what I'm talking about so you're not confused.

 

 

Ahhh nothing like typing on this subject with Friday night work brain, however I've tried to respond a few times this week, yet had to delete my post everytime due to something coming up.

 

So I gave this question "What is so wrong about homosexuality?" or "What is the risk that worries you?" some thought, and here is what I have come up with.

 

The world as society as we know is is built of laws. Not the laws that are passed by judges, or by clans in a video game, or laws of a family, but natural laws that require obiding by them for life to continue.

 

The topic of this post was Nature vs. Nurture, and there is a reason for this.

 

If it is found that homosexuality, transgenderism, pedophelia, necrophelia, etc is caused by say effects of certain innoculations in infants, stress to the mother during certain periods of gestation, number of males born to a mother (all btw theories studied and in certain tests providing evidence of linking to greater rates of homosexual occurance), then maybe there would be means to offset, or lessen the percentages of anormal sexual practices.

 

But KNIX, why do we need to do all this? Who cares for the reason of why you are straight and so and so is gay? You give so and so the same rights as you, to marry, work, fight, adopt, bestow, etc and you will see no harm will come of it!

 

Yes, possible, but here is my concern.

 

Getting back to the laws of nature, procreation in itself is a major pillor. In our society the ideal (IDEAL not neccesity, but IDEAL) is for a man and women to find each other attractice, date, get engaged, marry, copulate (with each other) and have a child/children. Why? Who made up this unwritten rule of "optimal existance"? While I'm sure this has been done since homo-sapians first existed, I also feel that we got to this point as nature requires this in that it offers the best opportunity for we as humans to sustain our existance.

 

So all physical/mental/behavioral conditions that work against this idea... homosexuality, rape, pedophelia, sado masichism, beastiality, sexual addiction, chemical addiction, genetic defects, etc, etc, etc, should be resolved to be rectified, as these conditions and thousands of more that I can add to nothing to benefit the continuation of life on this planet .

 

KNIX! You evil F--k, you sound like a Nazi! You not only group homosexuals with rapist and child molesters, but also suggest that they be "rectified", you mean kill them right?! Steralize them right? Should we start goose stepping as well?

 

No, thats not what I meant. What I wrote were conditoins in society some appartently benign (like homosexuality), and some abhorant (rape, pedophelia, et) each working against the ideal put in place by nature to sustain and prolong life.

 

So getting back to homosexuality, if causatoin can be determined through science and eventualy preventative measures put in place to nullify its future occurance (currently suggest at 10% of the world's population), why would this be a bad thing?

 

I ask what would we be losing by generation over gernation eliminating homosexuality in our society? We life on this planet be less interesting? Does homosexuality in certain ways inhance the life experience?

 

Now do the other incredibly more horrible examples of conditions which threaten society which I listed above, not also require research to rectify? Of course, more so then what I'm suggesting with homosexuality by far. The reason why I speak on this topic, is that as shown by posts in this topic so far, many people feel there is nothing wrong with it's practice. That is not a sexual condition that requires fixing. That is doesn't even warrant LOOKING INTO IT"S CAUSE.

 

But KNIX!!! 50 years ago, Jim Crow laws, and segregation where common place in the south, and not 15 years ago common place in South Africa! Until the early part of the 20th centurty women were not allowed to even vote in the US! Don't you think that in 20 years we will look back and say "What were we thinking?" in terms of the way homosexuals are treated by our society?

 

Bias against a person in limiting a persons opportunity for sucess in life, whether by forcing them into ghettos, physical oppression, lack of rights in voting where the reason for doing so is based on bias, narciscism, or other reasons which are of no risk to society is not acceptable. However again in this topic of homosexuality we are not dealing with differences obvious in their origin or threat to societal continuation. People are known to be born black, asian, European, Albino, Latino, Curley Haired, Green eyed, Left handed, big nosed, club footed, lactose intollerant, allergic to cat dander, female, etc, etc. None of these can be proven or even suggested logically to have any negative effects on society or our ideal or our existance. Just the opposite, they augment the life experience. Homosexuality however has both NOT proven in its orgination, but now also (as required of me by Goo), now been given as a possible threat to society in the future.

 

Just because there are many many wonderfull, good hearted people in this world that happen to practice homosexuality, that heterosexuals should be looked down upon or labled as bigots for suggesting there at least be research and yes even treatement of this condition. Thereby offering opportunity for all people to be hetersexual, and to assure future wonderfull people that they will be.

 

P.S. No way in heck i'm spell checking this

 

I totally agree with you about the laws of nature bit, and I think there's no denying that it is very truthful.

 

I do think, however, your claim that homosexuality "threatens" our existence is beyond paranoia. Firstly, have you stopped to consider the fact that not only is there plenty of offspring being born every day in this world, but there is in fact TOO MANY!!! While the christians believe we "should be fruitful and multiply", we (the world over) have become an extremely overpopulated world with many children. Just because a select few of our VERY LARGE population of people have the "homosexuality syndrom," doesn't mean that we need to overreact and think that our MASSIVE population is anywhere near being threatened. No, there are far worse things like NUCLEAR BOMBS just off the top of my head that threaten us, not gays.

 

I would even go as far as to say that sometimes I think it's not such a bad thing to have some gay people around to NOT contribute to the already over populated world. It's not like homosexuality is a plague or virus that will spread and multiply to any and everyone. There will always be straight people who have "natural urges," and that's not going to change, nor has it or will it. You act like homosexuality is a new thing, but it's not. It's a "problem" that has spanned across time as far as we know, and yet....here we all are, still here and reproducing as usual.

 

QUOTE

So getting back to homosexuality, if causatoin can be determined through science and eventualy preventative measures put in place to nullify its future occurance (currently suggest at 10% of the world's population), why would this be a bad thing? /QUOTE

 

 

I know this answer is getting old...but seriously, wouldn't it make more sense to worry about eliminating rapist and molesters etc. before we mention gays as long as we're talking hypothetical here?

 

QUOTE

I ask what would we be losing by generation over gernation eliminating homosexuality in our society? We life on this planet be less interesting? Does homosexuality in certain ways inhance the life experience? /QUOTE

 

 

Well, if we eliminated it we certainly wouldn't have it as a topic to argue about! 24.gif Can't we just get rid of "evil" and just leave "good" too, wouldn't that make life more interesting as well? whistle.gif

 

QUOTE

now been given as a possible threat to society in the future. /QUOTE

 

 

Like I said above, you're overreacting. Unless gay people start mass murdering heterosexuals, I think the world can sleep safe.

 

QUOTE

Thereby offering opportunity for all people to be hetersexual, and to assure future wonderfull people that they will be. /QUOTE

 

Well, as I'm sure you already know, most gay people have no desire to just "turn" straight like a flip of a switch, and the only other way of them changing their minds is by force whether genetically altering DNA (which is extremely wrong to do too), or forcing them to while being gay. If that's what you're suggesting, then good luck because I doubt most people will go for that.

 

Oh, and again I have to ask since it seems to be avoided.....what about lesbians? I assume we're talking about female gayness as well, but so far I've gathered that the main complaint FROM THE GUYS is male homosexuality. So are you really against homosexuality FOR REAL, or just grossed out by the guys doing it? I know how this works, but I'm really interested in hearing your answer. Would you be willing to never ever again (if you have before) watch and/or be attracted to lesbians or lesbian sex for the rest of your life to prove your point? Think about it, and don't lie!!!

 

You need to seriously check yourself before you start throwing "hayseed" around so loosely.

[RXS]

No you don't contradict yourself at all....call the states "unevolved" and then give them a veiled compliment....nope, no contradiciton there.

 

 

Listen hayseed, you think you are arguing point by point, but you are not. Just because you have an opinion, or a random thought about the subject that causes the synapses between your ears to fire, doesn't mean that it is a supporting argument. You'd do well to take a little of Knix's advice.

Edited August 8, 2007 by RXS

[Triggerhappy]

No you don't contradict yourself at all....call the states "unevolved" and then give them a veiled compliment....nope, no contradiciton there.

 

Firstly, I never complimented the other states except the two I mentioned because the loss was a landslide. When you mentioned the results of Montana and Oregon however, the closeness made me realize that all though their majority is not for homosexuals, there is obviously enough people who live there that can put up a fight in the voting. That was my reason for complimenting them, not contradicting myself.

 

Listen hayseed, you think you are arguing point by point, but you are not.

Oh really? I'm not? Well guess what bigot, I just did twice this post now.

Just because you have an opinion, or a random thought about the subject that causes the synapses between your ears to fire, doesn't mean that it is a supporting argument.

Yeah, why don't you tell that to Indy since he's doing such a great job of supporting his "opinions" without real "supporting arguments." Random thought? LMAO! Well, I think you're really losing it because everything I have posted has been VERY relevant to the topic at hand and used at some point to help explain my beliefs or why I think yours has flaws in it. If that's somehow random, then please explain to the jury why. I'm waiting with great anticipation.

[RXS]

I rest my case.

 

If you disagree with anyone on the other side of the fence, you are quickly labeled a bigot....for many here, a free, honest exchange of ideas is not welcome. Call me whatever you want hayseed, but by it's very definition, you make yourself out to be the biggest bigot here.

 

 

big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

[Triggerhappy]

If you disagree with anyone on the other side of the fence, you are quickly labeled a bigot

No, when people making crazy accusations because of their beliefs without giving a thought of alternate reasons/possibilities that could debunk their accusations is when you are "quickly labeled a bigot."

 

Call me whatever you want hayseed, but by it's very definition, you make yourself out to be the biggest bigot here.

 

And yet, I have sided with KNIX on multiple points and even myself feel that homosexuality is not "right" (which I've stated more than once now) or what should be "normal." Yeah, I'm definitely a bigot.

 

big·ot (bĭg'ət) Pronunciation Key

n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

 

I know what bigot means, Bigot! You were even kind enough to underscore the part that describes you perfectly Big. Hey, they didn't have your name next to the definition when you looked it up, did they?

[RXS]

I don't necessarily buy the times are a changin' argument you presented as justification for gay being OK. Not all change is good.

The problem I see is that morales and values, almost always, spiral downward to the lowest common denominator in the name of progress. Where does it stop? In the not too distant future, could our values degrade to such a point where we are discussing acceptance of something as vile as pedophilia? IMO, society is quickly moving to a point where everything is accepeted (and if you take issue with it we have a special, denegrating label for you), there is no right or wrong and if it feels good to you then it's ok. Some might argue that acceptance of all things is raising the bar, when in reallity I often see it as lowering the bar.

 

I can tell you that from the numerous debates the NOLF community has had on this exact same subject, my position has softened in some areas and that I have gained a greater understanding of the issues presented by those on the other side of the fence. I have empathy for some of those who struggle with being gay; however, I can tell you with absolute resolution that I loathe those who try to force me to moraly accept their gay lifestyle and call me a bigot if I don't.

 

 

I challenge you to present a quote from this thread for where I have spoken as a bigot. In fact, you'll see from my quote above, that I have expressed feelings to the contrary....that I have tried to understand the position from the other side of the fence and that I have empathy for those who are gay.

Edited August 8, 2007 by RXS

[Triggerhappy]

I can tell you with absolute resolution that I loathe those who try to force me to moraly accept their gay lifestyle and call me a bigot if I don't.

See, this is what I'm talking about. This has bigot written all over it. You feel that someone is forcing you to accept their gay lifestyle. Nobody said you had to accept them, just tolerate them. There's a big difference. If you tolerate them, then you're not a bigot. As far as I can tell you haven't said those words yet, so my stance remains the same.

[RXS]

See, this is what I'm talking about. This has bigot written all over it. You feel that someone is forcing you to accept their gay lifestyle. Nobody said you had to accept them, just tolerate them. There's a big difference. If you tolerate them, then you're not a bigot. As far as I can tell you haven't said those words yet, so my stance remains the same.

You're an idiot....and I'm an even bigger idiot for responding to your asinine excuse of where I made a comment that has "bigot written all over it".

 

I have a set of morals by which I live. You cannot force me to change my morals - I change them when/how I see fit.....not where you see fit, not where the homosexual community sees fit, not where the media sees fit, not where Hollywood sees fit and not even where my 5th grade teacher sees fit. I do it where I see fit and the operative word is force. I may tolerate homosexuality, but I may not accept it as being moral....i.e. I tolerate coworkers who commit adultery, but I do not accept their actions as being morally sound.

 

Now, once again, I challenge you to present a quote from this thread where I have spoken as a bigot.

 

[{GD}Independent]

I have a set of morals by which I live. You cannot force me to change my morals - I change them when/how I see fit.....not where you see fit, not where the homosexual community sees fit, not where the media sees fit, not where Hollywood sees fit and not even where my 5th grade teacher sees fit. I do it where I see fit and the operative word is force. I may tolerate homosexuality, but I may not accept it as being moral....i.e. I tolerate coworkers who commit adultery, but I do not accept their actions as being morally sound.

 

Here here! Well said sir!

[[FF5]Knix]

See, this is what I'm talking about. This has bigot written all over it. You feel that someone is forcing you to accept their gay lifestyle. Nobody said you had to accept them, just tolerate them. There's a big difference. If you tolerate them, then you're not a bigot. As far as I can tell you haven't said those words yet, so my stance remains the same.

 

 

WTF? This is like talking with with my 6 year old.

 

Knix=

 

"Son you need to understand the theory of supply and demand. Something as seemingly meaningless as a baseball card from 1912 is actually worth $250,000, only because there are only 5 remaining in the world."

 

 

Knix' Son=

 

"Well I would use my super powers to make like thousands of baseball card clones, and sell them for a gababillion dollars, which should get me enough money to by that Power Ranger megazord."

 

Trig, I'll set up an e-mail account for my son, have him contact you, my gift to you.