Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 28  Next

You've just proved it. The best social program is to have a bunch of Taco Bell jobs? Think about it. It may not be possible at this moment but it's certainly the right direction to work for.... and no, I'm not talking about the Feds paying for the houses or the food.

   

How do you know? Are you gay? .

   

In their chosen lifestyle YES.

   

Genetics are fairly simple, lily. Gay men are not going to give birth to gay men.

Try 8 or 9 seconds on that one.

   

I'm not Chinese, and I know that runs in families.

   

Recessive genes? In denial, breeding? Gettin' it on with the Girls with the turkey baster next door?

I have two partners. Both tend more toward same sex but it's not all that cut and dry; there are more choices than two. I'm actually not all that worked up about this issue. If you can't discriminate against gays in Canada then you probably can't discriminate against Bible thumpers. I'd just as soon have a level playing field. I would never allow my children into a place that was talking about religion unless it was comparative.

   

Well, Jaime, I know, and suspect that you know, that the research points in both directions, and is pretty much of a confusing mess. The best guess, right now, seems to do with hormones during the prenatal period. There is also some research, not funded by gay or anti-gay groups for once, which shows that the brains of gay men tended to respond to chemicals suspected of having sex pheromone-like traits differently than did the brains of heterosexual men -- in fact, the gay man's brain responded very much like a heterosexual woman's did.
(http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/ ... times.html)

In short, I don't think that one can say that evidence points to it being a matter of choice. Uncertain and murky, sure... there's really nothing on the subject which can be called conclusive right now. But I do have a bit of very subjective evidence, based on a miniscule sampling, which I yet find somewhat persuasive.

I am heterosexual, and that's all there is to it. There is no guy in the world who turns me on in the slightest, and if I were faced with the choice between sex with guys and a life of celibacy, I would pick celibacy in a heartbeat. I may be an oversexed degenerate, but I am a straight one, and nothing's ever going to change that.

How about the rest of you? With gay marriage being legal and all, do you find yourself tempted? My suspicion is that 90% of you find that a laughable idea, because you're like me -- it just isn't in your nature.

So, what do you folks say? Any readers out there who have considered changing sexual orientation because of shifts in societal attitudes? Or do you feel exactly the same now as ever?

   

Stop right there, Buckeroo.


This is what I started with:



I brought up "choice"-like points to contrast with SireJoe's kneejerk 'it's genetic' argument.


I'm not going to start an argument with you trying to put me into a position I do not intend to support.


As to your horomone/pheremone argument, I'm sure you realize that our horomones may be affected by our emotional reactions.

Making it horomores doesn't make it all natural.



Nor does it have to be either natural or choice. There are other possibilities, such as child development issues, et c.

   

Maybe just different strokes for different folks.

   

OK, no problem. I did notice your initial statement on the subject, as well as the mention of the "choice" theory.

Doesn't look like I'm getting a lot of responses from people who considered changing sexual orientation based on what was fashionable, does it? Can't say that I'm surprised.

   

True.

   

You see? You missed it. The Nazi comment was clever as it tied into what I had said earlier. You should think more and type less, people will think better of you. At the very least, they'll respect you more.

   

The biggest issue for me is not that they're gay, but that two illegitimate sources of authority have been allowed to dictate school curriculum. They are neither elected nor appointed but rather their authority comes from their sexual orientation. That is bullshit. No organization should be allowed to push it's niche perspective on a system that is supposed to represent the majority. This goes for creationists (come on people) and gays and anyone else who believes they can hoist their minority view on the majority. The minority must be respected, true, but the majority must rule. So until homosexuality in the population stands at 50.1%, it should not be taught in schools as it is outside the "norm" of the majority. The same should be true for things like "Black History Month" and the like, achievement should be honoured in its own right, not because they happen to have a certain skin colour. All any of this is doing is fragmenting society more. You do not learn tolerance by being taught in a school, you learn by interacting with those around you. Anyone ever wonder why homosexuality was such a taboo thing? Anyone ever wonder why they were discriminated against? Everything we do stems from primal instinct, so what would create such a revulsion of gay activities? Some might say it is because they are different, but you have no way of externally telling whether someone is gay or not so why the hostility throughout history to those who are gay? I'm not really making a point, I'm just wondering what you all have to say about that because I have no idea. In theory, it's good to have gay people because it increases the number of potential mates in a population. Every heterosexual male should be praying for every man he meets to be a flaming homo because that'll leave him with more chicks to score with Yet the opposite is true. When an openly gay person is encountered, many respond with emotions ranging from disgust to rage. Curious how a condition that would increase the chances of mating (for you, the hetero) create such a response. If anything, we should be encouraging it! But not for the ladies...unless they're really hot...and don't mind me joining them...

   

Yes, aren't you clever. Go give yourself a pat on the back. Obviously you are an intellectual giant.

   

Yes, I think we've figured that out.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8 ... 28  Next