Some interesting reading here on sexual orientation:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer)
The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.
The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine. He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.
Their conclusions were as follows:
- The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are "born that way" – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a 'man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a man's body' – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
- Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
Some interesting reading here on sexual orientation:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer)
The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.
The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine. He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.
Their conclusions were as follows:
- The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are "born that way" – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a 'man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a man's body' – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
- Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
thenewalantis is not a scientific journal, nor is it well known. Check out the co-author of the article, as he's a proper Cnut. Neither of the authors are leaders in their fields.
Cop yourself on ffs ;D
We do not understand the brain. So the idea that some scientist can scientifically prove what goes on in people's heads is nonsense.
Quote from: seafoid on December 14, 2016, 08:39:05 PM
We do not understand the brain. So the idea that some scientist can scientifically prove what goes on in people's heads is nonsense.
Doesn't stop people talking/writing about it, that goes for a lot of subjects, wiki it and you're an expert nowadays or if a you like a view from an expert you'll disregard others views on it...
In saying that the above (in my view) is bullshit
He's saying that there's no proof that people are born that way but does he provide any proof that people are NOT born that way? If he could, that might lend some weight to his argument but I doubt he's able to do so
I'm not sure I'd describe the new atlantis as a "well known" scientific journal
The kind of article and findings one would suspect from a conservative think tank, right?
Quote from: Puckoon on December 14, 2016, 09:26:56 PM
The kind of article and findings one would suspect from a conservative think tank, right?
Ethics and Public Policy Center.
QuoteFounded in 1976, the group describes itself as "dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy."
Conservative propaganda website publishes conservative propaganda. Details at eleven.
I think there is weight on both sides.. I know a couple of gay lads and they would both have had weak or absent fathers, strong mothers or grew up in a house full of women...could be nonsense and have nothing to do with it or could be environmental influence? I remember watching an episode of some show where a female contestant was openly gay and said it was because she was abused by men in her life and chooses to be with women...
Do you think sexuality is a choice? can be fluid with adolescents or adults?
I have two lesbian cousins, one on my father's side and the other on my mother's side. Both from very stable families, heterosexual brothers and sisters, GAA-loving "traditional" Irish families.
No environmental influence that their brothers or sisters weren't also exposed to.
Definite nature, not nurture.
Quote
The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.
Ice,
both the first and second sentences in your post are demonstrably factually incorrect.
However the nature vs nurture larger scale debate is definitely still in flux, though it does look increasingly like nature.
HB
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 11:51:47 PM
I think there is weight on both sides.. I know a couple of gay lads and they would both have had weak or absent fathers, strong mothers or grew up in a house full of women...could be nonsense and have nothing to do with it or could be environmental influence? I remember watching an episode of some show where a female contestant was openly gay and said it was because she was abused by men in her life and chooses to be with women...
Do you think sexuality is a choice? can be fluid with adolescents or adults?
What is it to you?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 11:51:47 PM
I think there is weight on both sides.. I know a couple of gay lads and they would both have had weak or absent fathers, strong mothers or grew up in a house full of women...could be nonsense and have nothing to do with it or could be environmental influence? I remember watching an episode of some show where a female contestant was openly gay and said it was because she was abused by men in her life and chooses to be with women...
Do you think sexuality is a choice? can be fluid with adolescents or adults?
I grew up in a house full of women. So what? It doesn't seem to have affect my innate tendency to be attracted to women and repulsed, sexually, by men.
The woman who chose to be with women - is she a lesbian or someone who is bi and doesn't trust men?
Ultimately though, again... so what?
Let's say there is an environmental aspect to it, at least in some cases, what does that mean?
That we can once again outlaw homosexuality? That it will once again be okay for families to ostracize and disapprove of homsexual siblings and children?
I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. I'm sure you're the same. Why do so many people seemed determined to deny the same reality for homosexuals?
I put it down to people getting mad notions
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
Some interesting reading here on sexual orientation:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer)
The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.
The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine. He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.
Their conclusions were as follows:
- The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are "born that way" – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a 'man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a man's body' – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
- Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
Bollocks or should I say Bollix.
Hard one to call.
I would love to see his stats proving there is more to the mental health issues than discrimination as well as how he measures it .
Quote from: seafoid on December 14, 2016, 08:39:05 PM
We do not understand the brain. So the idea that some scientist can scientifically prove what goes on in people's heads is nonsense.
Cop yourself on OmaghJoe is an expert!
Nature, nurture or...........the Russians?
to answer Eamonn - I'm genuinely interested. So What? So what on any topic on the board? Why can't I ask about this one.
I have a cousin who recently came out and it's definitely something I struggle with given my beliefs and my care for him. I've read a lot online that it is mostly nurture. But you would immediately discredit any source as propaganda. Neither will change my mind on him the person but I'm genuinely interested in understanding orientation, fluidity, gender - its being pushed on all of us from every direction so I'd like to understand what it is i'm supposed to accept.
Every culture has gay people. Some more advanced cultures even have space and acceptance for Trans people. Christianity is quite backward in this regard. I bet the dude who wrote the pseudo scientific article is evangelical.
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
Quote from: The Iceman on December 15, 2016, 01:25:31 PM
its being pushed on all of us from every direction so I'd like to understand what it is i'm supposed to accept.
What exactly is being pushed on you? How?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 15, 2016, 01:25:31 PM
to answer Eamonn - I'm genuinely interested. So What? So what on any topic on the board? Why can't I ask about this one.
I have a cousin who recently came out and it's definitely something I struggle with given my beliefs and my care for him. I've read a lot online that it is mostly nurture. But you would immediately discredit any source as propaganda. Neither will change my mind on him the person but I'm genuinely interested in understanding orientation, fluidity, gender - its being pushed on all of us from every direction so I'd like to understand what it is i'm supposed to accept.
All you're supposed to accept is your cousin. We''d a cousin (albeit he was adopted into our family as a baby), but he was one of the big clan never the less. He spectacularly came out in his college years and it took a while for some of the older, more traditional members of the family to accept his lifestyle.
He took his first proper boyfriend up north for my wedding and everything was going great til the boyfriend suggested the pair of them hit the dance floor. My uncle just leaned over and said "I'm not sure the family is quite ready to see that"! Now, that was 11 years ago and we've all seen much more on his Facebook profile since, but acceptance of those you love shouldn't be that hard.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 15, 2016, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 15, 2016, 01:25:31 PM
to answer Eamonn - I'm genuinely interested. So What? So what on any topic on the board? Why can't I ask about this one.
I have a cousin who recently came out and it's definitely something I struggle with given my beliefs and my care for him. I've read a lot online that it is mostly nurture. But you would immediately discredit any source as propaganda. Neither will change my mind on him the person but I'm genuinely interested in understanding orientation, fluidity, gender - its being pushed on all of us from every direction so I'd like to understand what it is i'm supposed to accept.
All you're supposed to accept is your cousin. We''d a cousin (albeit he was adopted into our family as a baby), but he was one of the big clan never the less. He spectacularly came out in his college years and it took a while for some of the older, more traditional members of the family to accept his lifestyle.
He took his first proper boyfriend up north for my wedding and everything was going great til the boyfriend suggested the pair of them hit the dance floor. My uncle just leaned over and said "I'm not sure the family is quite ready to see that"! Now, that was 11 years ago and we've all seen much more on his Facebook profile since, but acceptance of those you love shouldn't be that hard.
Shouldn't be indeed. But you have some holy joes who would disown their own flesh and blood for being Gay rather than support them.
acceptance for the people and not the lifestyle is too different things...we've talked about this many times before..
because you love someone should you accept whatever they do?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 15, 2016, 03:03:51 PM
acceptance for the people and not the lifestyle is too different things...we've talked about this many times before..
because you love someone should you accept whatever they do?
Does it impact YOU in any way whatsoever? Does it affect YOUR faith?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 15, 2016, 03:03:51 PM
acceptance for the people and not the lifestyle is too different things...we've talked about this many times before..
because you love someone should you accept whatever they do?
I can't speak for you but I've too much going on in my own life and I'd like to get laid more often myself to be fretting about what anyone else is doing, so yes I accept and care not!
Furthermore, you're not accepting the life style for yourself. You're to accept that this person you love has that lifestyle. So I'd challenge you to make some lists
What do I gain by not accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I lose by not accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I gain by accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I lose by accepting my cousins gay life?
I'd be curious as to what you think you lose in both accepting or not accepting.
Quote from: Puckoon on December 15, 2016, 03:18:00 PM
Furthermore, you're not accepting the life style for yourself. You're to accept that this person you love has that lifestyle. So I'd challenge you to make some lists
What do I gain by not accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I lose by not accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I gain by accepting my cousins gay life?
What do I lose by accepting my cousins gay life?
I'd be curious as to what you think you lose in both accepting or not accepting.
I do accept thats the life he chooses - but I don't need to accept it as right. The same way I wouldn't accept my Dad's lifestyle choice as right if he told me he was born a womanizer and it's who he is and he needs to have multiple women in his life besides my mother.
I'm still not sold on the nature argument but I appreciate your comments.
Pat Carey had to hide who he was for years. So many older people did.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
Some interesting reading here on sexual orientation:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/authors/lawrence-mayer)
The Journal is a well-known journal of science, technology and ethics based in Washington D.C. This article analysed the scientific evidence of LGBT issues published to date in scientific journals.
The report was authored by two eminent scholars. Dr. Lawrence Mayer, a professor of psychiatry and statistics and biostatistics at Arizona State University, stated in the preface to the study that he has testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings strongly supporting equality and opposing discrimination for the LGBT Community. However, Dr. Mayer stated he supports every sentence in this report without reservation since it is about science and medicine. He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001. These scientists reviewed hundreds of peer reviewed studies on sexual orientation and gender identity from the biological, psychological and social sciences.
Their conclusions were as follows:
- The belief that sexual orientation is an innate, biologically fixed human property – that people are "born that way" – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- The belief that gender identity is an innate, fixed human property independent of biological sex – so that a person might be a 'man trapped in a woman's body' or 'a woman trapped in a man's body' – is not supported by scientific evidence.
- Only a minority of children who express gender-atypical thoughts or behaviour will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood. There is no evidence that all such children should be encouraged to become transgender, much less subjected to hormone treatments or surgery.
- Non-heterosexual and transgender people have higher rates of mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide), as well as behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence), than the general population. Discrimination alone does not account for the entire disparity.
The belief that there is a God is not supported by scientific evidence
The belief that the earth is 5,500 years old is not supported by scientific evidence.
This stands out though:
'He also stated he was alarmed to learn during his review of over 500 scientific articles that the LGBT community bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole.'This is the intellectual equivalent of
'the beatings will continue until morale improves'. The innuendo here is that there is something wrong with these people and thus LGBT behaviour is probably just another symptom.
Of course they suffer a disproportionate rate of problems, they are persistently abused by religion and (fake) science.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 14, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
The other author is Dr. Paul McHugh, one of the leading psychiatrists in the world. He was psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore from 1975 to 2001.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/06/16/the_wall_street_journal_displays_shocking_ignorance_about_lgbtq_issues.html
McHugh, an eightysomething self-described "orthodox" Catholic, who shut down Johns Hopkins' pioneering Gender Identity Clinic in the 1970s after a single study suggested that some trans people continued to suffer from adjustment challenges after surgery, has a storied history of using his credentialed respectability to peddle the worst, most discredited, myths about gay and transgender people. He has called homosexuality an "erroneous desire," filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in opposition to marriage equality, casts transgender women as "caricatures" of real women, and has argued that the Catholic Church's sex abuse scandal is the result not of covering up pedophiles but of insufficiently rooting out gay people. In short, he is a dinosaur from an era when psychiatrists relied on narrow, clinical assessments to assert broad generalizations about a whole class of people based on studying the small number who came to them because they already had mental health problems.http://www.virtueonline.org/charleston-sc-dr-paul-mchugh-there-no-gay-gene
It really is amazing ... I mean, 50 years ago [homosexual behavior] was a crime, and now we're talking about [same-sex marriage]. Anyone who wants to stick with the tradition is accused of being a biblical literalist or a homophobic racist, because, in part, of the more fundamental change in our society towards permissiveness, that is, easy divorce, cohabitation and concubinage, abortion, pornography ... and euthanasia. The issue of the homosexual is not separate ... it's all part and parcel of the pandemonium that the permissive movement has brought. We have just licensed all kinds of behavior."
Not a big fan of this song of Gaga's - prefer Poker Face myself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bESGLojNYSo
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Is intolerance of intolerance wrong?
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Maybe if he hadn't started off the thread by peddling a crackpot theory from a bunch of right wing nuts as some sort of neutral science, he might have some credit in the bank.
As for accepting his cousin's homosexually, I don't think anyone has told him he has to accept it. They've merely questioned on what grounds he wouldn't. It's a discussion board, if you don't like people disagreeing with you every now and again, f**k off somewhere else.
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Say it wasn't sexuality. Say it was religion. Someone Iceman knew wanted to be identified as Protestant. And Iceman couldn't accept it. What business is it of Iceman's ?
Quote from: seafoid on December 15, 2016, 08:24:34 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Say it wasn't sexuality. Say it was religion. Someone Iceman knew wanted to be identified as Protestant. And Iceman couldn't accept it. What business is it of Iceman's ?
Indeed. How does Iceman get to accept or reject whatever he is proposing to accept or reject? What does it mean if he doesn't accept? What happens?
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
What a f**king pathetic post. I can just imagine you giggling to yourself as you typed this juvenile, purile shite.
Quote from: J70 on December 15, 2016, 08:22:16 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Is intolerance of intolerance wrong?
Is intolerance of wrongness intolerance?
Quote from: gallsman on December 15, 2016, 08:22:26 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Maybe if he hadn't started off the thread by peddling a crackpot theory from a bunch of right wing nuts as some sort of neutral science, he might have some credit in the bank.
As for accepting his cousin's homosexually, I don't think anyone has told him he has to accept it. They've merely questioned on what grounds he wouldn't. It's a discussion board, if you don't like people disagreeing with you every now and again, f**k off somewhere else.
I copied and pasted the summary gman i t wasn't my summary of the article but I thought it a fair summary. It's all interesting reading and worth looking at. I'm sorry if it itsn't your go to source...
Quote from: Hardy on December 15, 2016, 08:29:13 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 15, 2016, 08:24:34 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Say it wasn't sexuality. Say it was religion. Someone Iceman knew wanted to be identified as Protestant. And Iceman couldn't accept it. What business is it of Iceman's ?
Indeed. How does Iceman get to accept or reject whatever he is proposing to accept or reject? What does it mean if he doesn't accept? What happens?
Paul Singer is a Scrooge McDuck financier in New York. Very religious. And he was vehemently opposed to homosexuality. Then his son revealed he was gay. Damascene conversion.
I don't mind anyone else doing whatever flicks their switch, but I find it appalling that the HSE pays big money for people to have sex change operations (as well as travel costs post-op therapy costs) while people with life-threatening and life-ruining illnesses are sitting on eternal waiting lists.
Quote from: Hardy on December 15, 2016, 08:29:13 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 15, 2016, 08:24:34 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Say it wasn't sexuality. Say it was religion. Someone Iceman knew wanted to be identified as Protestant. And Iceman couldn't accept it. What business is it of Iceman's ?
Indeed. How does Iceman get to accept or reject whatever he is proposing to accept or reject? What does it mean if he doesn't accept? What happens?
You know neither Iceman or his cousin. What is it to you what one thinks of the other? This is all rhetorical and a discussion born to go in circles.
Quote from: michaelg on December 15, 2016, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
What a f**king pathetic post. I can just imagine you giggling to yourself as you typed this juvenile, purile shite.
What is factually incorrect about said post. If you are a tranny care to answer?
I'm still not sold on the nature argument but I appreciate your comments.
[/quote]
My sister has 3 boys and I love them all equally, one happens to be gay. Nurture or nature? - in my opinion it is nature. All three raised in a traditional family (father and mother) and all played sports growing up and did all extracurricular activities in school that they all attended. Never did I see any nurturing that was different between the three of them. At an early age (3-5yo) I did notice the one nephew was just a little different in his persona and thought nothing of it but by age of 12-13 you knew he was different than his two brothers. His older brother and younger brother both have gone on to play college level sports here in the US. and are not gay/homosexuals. I can only believe that all things being equal that the one who is gay, is gay by birth and not choice or environment.
From the article the author states that homosexuals have higher rates of mental health problems.
I wonder why?
Could it be: that they are picked on and bullied by their classmates growing up- they don't understand why they are different from their siblings, parents, families and peers - they are condemned from political parties and religious organizations. If I felt everyone was against me I am sure it would affect my Psyche also.
I look at religions against homosexuality and can conclude that the reason they are against it comes down to one thing - procreation. Without procreation of the flock, the flock diminishes and the religious organization loses funding/authority over the flock.
Quote from: seafoid on December 15, 2016, 08:52:01 PM
Quote from: Hardy on December 15, 2016, 08:29:13 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 15, 2016, 08:24:34 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 15, 2016, 07:43:42 PM
There's some f**king shite wrote in this thread.
If Iceman is expected to accept his cousins lifestyle why can some of the posters not accept that Iceman doesn't accept his cousins lifestlyle.
As Yeats said with his Tongue firmly in his cheek " I can tolerate anything except intolerance."
Say it wasn't sexuality. Say it was religion. Someone Iceman knew wanted to be identified as Protestant. And Iceman couldn't accept it. What business is it of Iceman's ?
Indeed. How does Iceman get to accept or reject whatever he is proposing to accept or reject? What does it mean if he doesn't accept? What happens?
Paul Singer is a Scrooge McDuck financier in New York. Very religious. And he was vehemently opposed to homosexuality. Then his son revealed he was gay. Damascene conversion.
See Senator Rob Portman of Ohio for an identical about-face.
Or Nancy Reagan on stem cell research following her husband's Parkinson's.
It's amazing how putting a familiar human face on a hardline political problem can make people see that their bullshit position affects... actual people.
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 10:20:33 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 15, 2016, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
What a f**king pathetic post. I can just imagine you giggling to yourself as you typed this juvenile, purile shite.
What is factually incorrect about said post. If you are a tranny care to answer?
On reflection, your initial post was not worthy of a response (Perhaps why I was the only poster stupid enough to respond). Take care.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 16, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
I work with some 'not born that way' and have done so for years. At the start it was a bit of an eye-opener but I got slowly used to it over the years. I still don't appreciate some of the in-your-face attitude, but then I don't appreciate that from straight people either.
Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2016, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 16, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
I work with some 'not born that way' and have done so for years. At the start it was a bit of an eye-opener but I got slowly used to it over the years. I still don't appreciate some of the in-your-face attitude, but then I don't appreciate that from straight people either.
I'd be the same, I've no bother with gay people it's just that a lot of them are obnoxious wankers.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 16, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
The point is that it takes a loved one being affected to make those people see the human cost of what they're advocating. It's easier to be for or against something when you've no personal stake in the outcome of what you are advocating. Could be homosexuality. It could be a belief that wolves should be reintroduced to the hills of Donegal, sheep farmers be damned.
No one can force you to accept your cousin's sexuality and same-sex relationship, but we can advocate that your discomfort not be the cause of him being driven back into the closet. If it's a choice between you squirming in your seat or averting your eyes for a wee bit or him being allowed to live a full life, true to himself, there should be only one winner.
Quote from: michaelg on December 16, 2016, 05:26:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 10:20:33 PM
Quote from: michaelg on December 15, 2016, 08:31:26 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
What a f**king pathetic post. I can just imagine you giggling to yourself as you typed this juvenile, purile shite.
What is factually incorrect about said post. If you are a tranny care to answer?
On reflection, your initial post was not worthy of a response (Perhaps why I was the only poster stupid enough to respond). Take care.
If anyone is not born that way it is someone who has operations to become a gay man with breasts and then other gay men have sexual relations with them and call them women, like that makes them somehow hetrosexual.
Quote from: trileacman on December 16, 2016, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: muppet on December 16, 2016, 06:44:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 16, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
I work with some 'not born that way' and have done so for years. At the start it was a bit of an eye-opener but I got slowly used to it over the years. I still don't appreciate some of the in-your-face attitude, but then I don't appreciate that from straight people either.
I'd be the same, I've no bother with gay people it's just that a lot of them are obnoxious w**kers.
100 percent agree.
Must be a very recent Irish thing.
I've never found gay people to be more or less obnoxious than society in general, either in the US or Ireland.
How awful for you.
Quote from: J70 on December 16, 2016, 07:03:41 PM
Must be a very recent Irish thing.
I've never found gay people to be more or less obnoxious than society in general, either in the US or Ireland.
How awful for you.
Maybe you can't see the wood for the trees.
Quote from: No wides on December 16, 2016, 07:16:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 16, 2016, 07:03:41 PM
Must be a very recent Irish thing.
I've never found gay people to be more or less obnoxious than society in general, either in the US or Ireland.
How awful for you.
Maybe you can't see the wood for the trees.
No, I think that more likely applies to your own selection bias through the more obnoxious of the gay people you encounter being the ones you notice.
What a daft thread in 2016.
Ironic that a poster called "No Wides" keeps writing posts that are so far wide of the mark that they'd go out for a sideline ball.
Although I guess that technically means he still has no wides.
But plenty of wide berths, I bet.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 16, 2016, 05:12:46 PM
But surely any parent would look for ways to justify anything there child did or was to make it right in their minds?
The high profile case of the college kid who raped an unconscious girl... his Father tried to justify it because he couldn't believe his son was anything but normal and perfect.
i'm not comparing homosexuality to rape but I am using a high profile example to prove what many parents do, think and say in defense of their children. Neither makes it right....
I still care for my cousin - that will never stop. Do I want to see him slow dancing with his boyfriend at the next family wedding or courting him? Nope. And nothing anyone says will ever change that. Do I have to acknowledge and accept his lifestyle choice? Nope. I will tolerate that it is who he is and love him still the same but I won't applaud it.
Appreciate everyone's input (minus the insults).
Yes you are.
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair fucks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
What depressing, backwards thinking. And the losers last year wondered why there was such a celebration over the Yes vote. It's directly related to the sentiments expressed in this thread.
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair f**ks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
Would you feel the same if your daughter told you she was gay?
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair f**ks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
Don't project your own prejudice onto the rest of us.
Quote from: michaelg on December 17, 2016, 12:30:23 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair f**ks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
Would you feel the same if your daughter told you she was gay?
Interesting your mindset that you ask such a question.
Quote from: J70 on December 17, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair f**ks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
Don't project your own prejudice onto the rest of us.
That's my boy just on cue with the homophobic card. As predictable as ever.
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 02:04:27 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 17, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 08:03:36 AM
All the liberals with cousin's who are gay. If your son came home with the boyfriend you may accept it but you would never look at him or treat him the same way again. Fair f**ks iceman for standing up to the hypocrites.
Don't project your own prejudice onto the rest of us.
That's my boy just on cue with the homophobic card. As predictable as ever.
So let me get this straight:
YOU accuse us, without any evidence whatsoever, of being hypocrites and secret homophobes who would not "look at... or treat" a son who came out as gay "the same way again".
I tell you to stop projecting your own personal prejudice onto the rest of us, and I'm playing the homophobic card?
Well go on then. Tell us on what you're basing your accusations of us changing our attitudes towards our purported gay son.
It's gas the way some people try to frame things
Person A: makes homophobic / racist remark - this is known as "calling it as it is"
Person B: tells person A that his remark was homophobic / racist - this is known as "playing the ____ card" or "PC bullshit"
What's this US. Is J70 speaking for the whole GAABOARD was there an election or is his arrogance as such he has simply assumed the mantel.
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 17, 2016, 05:21:02 PM
It's gas the way some people try to frame things
Person A: makes homophobic / racist remark - this is known as "calling it as it is"
Person B: tells person A that his remark was homophobic / racist - this is known as "playing the ____ card" or "PC bullshit"
You want to quote any homophobic remarks?
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 05:50:54 PM
What's this US. Is J70 speaking for the whole GAABOARD was there an election or is his arrogance as such he has simply assumed the mantel.
"All the liberals..."
I don't claim to speak for anyone else, but I am one of the liberals against whom you are making accusations. Hence the "us".
Now... are you going answer my question from the previous post or are you just going to try to deflect and change the subject with irrelevant bluster?
I standby my post I doubt you could prove me wrong unless of course your son brought the boyfriend home and your relationship towards him never changed one bit. But then again you would say anything on an internet forum to sound extremely liberal.
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 06:36:44 PM
I standby my post I doubt you could prove me wrong unless of course your son brought the boyfriend home and your relationship towards him never changed one bit. But then again you would say anything on an internet forum to sound extremely liberal.
Congratulations:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPzE_q5fhQY/U1kElT6c6cI/AAAAAAAAIk4/04OVhDoN498/s1600/Logical+Fallacy+11+-+Burden+Of+Proof.png)
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 06:36:44 PM
I standby my post I doubt you could prove me wrong unless of course your son brought the boyfriend home and your relationship towards him never changed one bit. But then again you would say anything on an internet forum to sound extremely liberal.
Stand by what? An unsupported claim about how people you do not know would react to something?
I asked a simple question.
"Tell us on what you're basing your accusations of us changing our attitudes towards our purported gay son."
Either you are projecting what your own reaction would be onto others, or you are making a deduction/prediction based on something else. If its something else, then explain what it is.
Muppet dealt with the bolded bit, so I'll leave that particular piece of logical genius alone.
I am basing it on inherit human traits, no hetrosexual couple will bring their up with so much exposure and acceptance of homosexuality throughout normal life that they will be all embracing when Johnny brings Mark home. It is human nature to say anything else you, muppet and the liberals are burying your head in the sand. Note i dont believe you wouldnt accept Mark but your relationship with Johnny i bet would change.
Quote from: muppet on December 17, 2016, 07:24:56 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 17, 2016, 06:36:44 PM
I standby my post I doubt you could prove me wrong unless of course your son brought the boyfriend home and your relationship towards him never changed one bit. But then again you would say anything on an internet forum to sound extremely liberal.
Congratulations:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IPzE_q5fhQY/U1kElT6c6cI/AAAAAAAAIk4/04OVhDoN498/s1600/Logical+Fallacy+11+-+Burden+Of+Proof.png)
Genius you should have a GCSE still waiting on the homophobic remarks.
I also wonder would your relationship with Johnny change if he went away and came back as Jenny. Probably not as you probably covered transgender during his upbringing to such an extent it is normal.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
I am basing it on inherit human traits, no hetrosexual couple will bring their up with so much exposure and acceptance of homosexuality throughout normal life that they will be all embracing when Johnny brings Mark home. It is human nature to say anything else you, muppet and the liberals are burying your head in the sand. Note i dont believe you wouldnt accept Mark but your relationship with Johnny i bet would change.
Just because you say it is built into us ("human nature") and inevitable that we would be not be "all embracing" doesn't make it so. (Again, one can't help but feel that you are projecting.)
And what do you know of what anyone here teaches their children about homosexuality? Its the 21st century. Being homosexual is not a big deal anymore, at least in the western world. Its not a pathology or something to be ashamed of or afraid of. Children have to be brought up to accept that it is perfectly ok for people to be different, and should it turn out that they themselves are homosexual, that telling their parents is not one of the issues they have to worry about. Yes, there are bigots and morons out there who won't accept it, but your children can get a hard time for any number of perceived differences. I'd be far more fearful as a parent if my child were black, given the prejudices they still have to face. But that wouldn't mean I would love them or accept them less.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 08:59:50 AM
I also wonder would your relationship with Johnny change if he went away and came back as Jenny. Probably not as you probably covered transgender during his upbringing to such an extent it is normal.
Yes, I will be covering it as normal during their upbringing. Should I not? Is the bolded bit a sneer?
Hollow words on an internet forum are just that. I assume you have kids what age are you introducing the concept of transgender and exploring with your kids whether they have they been born into the wrong physical body?
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
Hollow words on an internet forum are just that. I assume you have kids what age are you introducing the concept of transgender and exploring with your kids whether they have they been born into the wrong physical body?
Again with the projection. Just because you can't fathom thinking differently than you do, it means other people can't either and so, in your opinion, are full of shit if they say otherwise.
If and when the subject comes up (and it has and will - its now out there in society), we will deal with it as just the way some people are and no big deal. You know, like one does when kids come to you with ANY question. You deal with it, age appropriately, and see if its enough to satisfy them for the time being. My five year old has asked about a close family friend who is in a gay marriage. We simply said that some people love and get married to same sex people. He didn't need any further explanation, so we didn't expand on the subject. At some point he'll probably wonder a bit more about it and other sexuality issues. When he does, we'll discuss it again.
How about yourself? What would you do if your kid asked about homosexuality or transgender people, or, heaven forbid, came to you with concerns about their own personal tendencies? We've already established, through your own words, that your relationship with your son or daughter would change. Given that you brought it up, HOW would it change?
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
If my son came home in a mini skirt and had breasts I eould conclude the kickabout in the field had gone for a Burton.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
You're either not very bright or you are trolling.
I've already said I've discussed the topic when it came up.
The fact that I have sex with their mother in the next room is also normal. Do I need to go into the details of THAT with my young kids to not be a bullshitter?
Try again.
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
You're either not very bright or you are trolling.
I've already said I've discussed the topic when it came up.
The fact that I have sex with their mother in the next room is also normal. Do I need to go into the details of THAT with my young kids to not be a bullshitter?
Try again.
Oh dear resorting to insults and more bullshit. Like any responsible parent you teach your kids about the birds and the bees as it is normal human trait for boys to be attracted to girls and vice versa. You say homosexuality and transgender are normal human traits so why deny your kids this information unless you are bullshitting as you clearly are. Maybe you should have a wee sleep kid you are making a mockery of your own views.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
You're either not very bright or you are trolling.
I've already said I've discussed the topic when it came up.
The fact that I have sex with their mother in the next room is also normal. Do I need to go into the details of THAT with my young kids to not be a bullshitter?
Try again.
Oh dear resorting to insults and more bullshit. Like any responsible parent you teach your kids about the birds and the bees as it is normal human trait for boys to be attracted to girls and vice versa. You say homosexuality and transgender are normal human traits so why deny your kids this information unless you are bullshitting as you clearly are. Maybe you should have a wee sleep kid you are making a mockery of your own views.
Let me spell it out, step by step.
1. My kids are very young. As a result, they are not advanced enough to understand very much about relationships.
2. My son has asked about a family friend who is gay and has a husband. We gave him a simple explanation that some people are in same sex relationships and that is ok. He was happy with that. We left it at that. He has, at this point, as much information on same sex relationships as he does on straight ones. Transgender issues have simply not come up. Neither have a multitude of other, perfectly normal aspects of life which he will some day learn about.
3. As my kids grow older and get more curious, we will discuss these issues in more depth, making sure that we pass on our views that homsexuality, transgenderism and so on is perfectly normal, acceptable behaviour. Similar to the way we will provide age-appropriate information on straight sexual issues.
So tell us where I'm failing. How is the above bullshit? How am I making a mockery of my views? You're so adamant, should be easy to demonstrate.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 03:19:06 PM
Hollow words on an internet forum are just that. I assume you have kids what age are you introducing the concept of transgender and exploring with your kids whether they have they been born into the wrong physical body?
I say agaln what age are you introducing the concept that transgender and homosexuality is normal rather than dealing with it, if and when ut arises. Afterall it is a normal human trait.
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
You're either not very bright or you are trolling.
I've already said I've discussed the topic when it came up.
The fact that I have sex with their mother in the next room is also normal. Do I need to go into the details of THAT with my young kids to not be a bullshitter?
Try again.
Oh dear resorting to insults and more bullshit. Like any responsible parent you teach your kids about the birds and the bees as it is normal human trait for boys to be attracted to girls and vice versa. You say homosexuality and transgender are normal human traits so why deny your kids this information unless you are bullshitting as you clearly are. Maybe you should have a wee sleep kid you are making a mockery of your own views.
Let me spell it out, step by step.
1. My kids are very young. As a result, they are not advanced enough to understand very much about relationships.
2. My son has asked about a family friend who is gay and has a husband. We gave him a simple explanation that some people are in same sex relationships and that is ok. He was happy with that. We left it at that. He has, at this point, as much information on same sex relationships as he does on straight ones. Transgender issues have simply not come up. Neither have a multitude of other, perfectly normal aspects of life which he will some day learn about.
3. As my kids grow older and get more curious, we will discuss these issues in more depth, making sure that we pass on our views that homsexuality, transgenderism and so on is perfectly normal, acceptable behaviour. Similar to the way we will provide age-appropriate information on straight sexual issues.
So tell us where I'm failing. How is the above bullshit? How am I making a mockery of my views? You're so adamant, should be easy to demonstrate.
And yes your are full of bullshit i know you know it. The folk reading this know it.
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
Just like the civil rights movement it's easy to see who is going to be on the wrong side of history on this. Humans' inability to learn from the past is incredible.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:39:30 PM
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
I assumed nothing just pointing out bullshit. Firstly it was normal then if it came up now he has a timetable. One concludes he is making it up to sound liberal.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:06:41 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:42:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:27:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:21:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 04:09:22 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 04:02:22 PM
What is with the if and when surely if transgender and homosexuality is normal in your eyes, it is your duty as a responsible parent to bring it up as you would the birds and the bees, or are you bullshitting?
Why don't I, off the cuff, discuss terrorism and advanced physics with my five- and two-year old kids as well while we're at it? ;D
How about telling how you would/are/have approached homosexuality and transgenderism with YOUR kids?
So you are bullshitting. You said transgender and homosexuality is normal and you arent going teach your kids this as part of their upbringing. Doesnt feel to me you think it is that normal.
You're either not very bright or you are trolling.
I've already said I've discussed the topic when it came up.
The fact that I have sex with their mother in the next room is also normal. Do I need to go into the details of THAT with my young kids to not be a bullshitter?
Try again.
Oh dear resorting to insults and more bullshit. Like any responsible parent you teach your kids about the birds and the bees as it is normal human trait for boys to be attracted to girls and vice versa. You say homosexuality and transgender are normal human traits so why deny your kids this information unless you are bullshitting as you clearly are. Maybe you should have a wee sleep kid you are making a mockery of your own views.
Let me spell it out, step by step.
1. My kids are very young. As a result, they are not advanced enough to understand very much about relationships.
2. My son has asked about a family friend who is gay and has a husband. We gave him a simple explanation that some people are in same sex relationships and that is ok. He was happy with that. We left it at that. He has, at this point, as much information on same sex relationships as he does on straight ones. Transgender issues have simply not come up. Neither have a multitude of other, perfectly normal aspects of life which he will some day learn about.
3. As my kids grow older and get more curious, we will discuss these issues in more depth, making sure that we pass on our views that homsexuality, transgenderism and so on is perfectly normal, acceptable behaviour. Similar to the way we will provide age-appropriate information on straight sexual issues.
So tell us where I'm failing. How is the above bullshit? How am I making a mockery of my views? You're so adamant, should be easy to demonstrate.
And yes your are full of bullshit i know you know it. The folk reading this know it.
Well that showed me! ;D
But yeah, I think you've been shown up enough as a WUM/idiot (only you know the truth). People can make up their own minds.
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 06:53:39 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:39:30 PM
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
I assumed nothing just pointing out bullshit. Firstly it was normal then if it came up now he has a timetable. One concludes he is making it up to sound liberal.
Now you're just sounding stupid.
Where is the disconnect between what one considers normal and teaching young kids according to their curiosity and ability to understand.
And why the f**k would anyone make shit up to sound liberal?? ;D
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 06:53:39 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:39:30 PM
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
I assumed nothing just pointing out bullshit. Firstly it was normal then if it came up now he has a timetable. One concludes he is making it up to sound liberal.
Now you're just sounding stupid.
Where is the disconnect between what one considers normal and teaching young kids according to their curiosity and ability to understand.
And why the f**k would anyone make shit up to sound liberal?? ;D
No idea as far I can make out, it seems to be someone full of shit.
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
I am basing it on inherit human traits, no hetrosexual couple will bring their up with so much exposure and acceptance of homosexuality throughout normal life that they will be all embracing when Johnny brings Mark home. It is human nature to say anything else you, muppet and the liberals are burying your head in the sand. Note i dont believe you wouldnt accept Mark but your relationship with Johnny i bet would change.
Just because you say it is built into us ("human nature") and inevitable that we would be not be "all embracing" doesn't make it so. (Again, one can't help but feel that you are projecting.)
And what do you know of what anyone here teaches their children about homosexuality? Its the 21st century. Being homosexual is not a big deal anymore, at least in the western world. Its not a pathology or something to be ashamed of or afraid of. Children have to be brought up to accept that it is perfectly ok for people to be different, and should it turn out that they themselves are homosexual, that telling their parents is not one of the issues they have to worry about. Yes, there are bigots and morons out there who won't accept it, but your children can get a hard time for any number of perceived differences. I'd be far more fearful as a parent if my child were black, given the prejudices they still have to face. But that wouldn't mean I would love them or accept them less.
Your wife might have a few questions to answer...
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 06:53:39 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:39:30 PM
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
I assumed nothing just pointing out bullshit. Firstly it was normal then if it came up now he has a timetable. One concludes he is making it up to sound liberal.
Now you're just sounding stupid.
Where is the disconnect between what one considers normal and teaching young kids according to their curiosity and ability to understand.
And why the f**k would anyone make shit up to sound liberal?? ;D
No idea as far I can make out, it seems to be someone full of shit.
Speaking of bullshitters... you ignore (again) the question about where the disconnect apparently exists between something being normal and waiting to teach children about such issues until they're ready.
Quote from: ziggysego on December 19, 2016, 01:25:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 18, 2016, 12:50:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 08:37:04 AM
I am basing it on inherit human traits, no hetrosexual couple will bring their up with so much exposure and acceptance of homosexuality throughout normal life that they will be all embracing when Johnny brings Mark home. It is human nature to say anything else you, muppet and the liberals are burying your head in the sand. Note i dont believe you wouldnt accept Mark but your relationship with Johnny i bet would change.
Just because you say it is built into us ("human nature") and inevitable that we would be not be "all embracing" doesn't make it so. (Again, one can't help but feel that you are projecting.)
And what do you know of what anyone here teaches their children about homosexuality? Its the 21st century. Being homosexual is not a big deal anymore, at least in the western world. Its not a pathology or something to be ashamed of or afraid of. Children have to be brought up to accept that it is perfectly ok for people to be different, and should it turn out that they themselves are homosexual, that telling their parents is not one of the issues they have to worry about. Yes, there are bigots and morons out there who won't accept it, but your children can get a hard time for any number of perceived differences. I'd be far more fearful as a parent if my child were black, given the prejudices they still have to face. But that wouldn't mean I would love them or accept them less.
Your wife might have a few questions to answer...
;D
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 01:00:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:04:52 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 06:53:39 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:39:30 PM
Just correcting your assumption that folks reading this agreed with your viewpoint.
I assumed nothing just pointing out bullshit. Firstly it was normal then if it came up now he has a timetable. One concludes he is making it up to sound liberal.
Now you're just sounding stupid.
Where is the disconnect between what one considers normal and teaching young kids according to their curiosity and ability to understand.
And why the f**k would anyone make shit up to sound liberal?? ;D
No idea as far I can make out, it seems to be someone full of shit.
Speaking of bullshitters... you ignore (again) the question about where the disconnect apparently exists between something being normal and waiting to teach children about such issues until they're ready.
Again quote away kid. You keep saying it is normal i keep asking when you will teach your kids. You said if and when, doesnt sound that normal. I conclude you are a bullshiter who thinks it is chic to be all things liberal behind your keyboard.
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
You've spent the past few pages calling me a bullshitter because I consider homosexuality and transgenderism normal, but, apart from a brief discussion of same sex marriage with my five year old, haven't explained it to my young kids yet, choosing to defer until they were curious and then explain in a way they were able to understand at that age.
I have no f**king clue at what exact age we'll address it. As with anything, if they ask, we will give them age appropriate information, with the key being that homosexuality or transgenderism is ok. I've said this again and again, in multiple different ways.
If they haven't asked by the time the birds and the bees stuff becomes a necessity, I guess we'll go into it then. Its not controversial. I would be shocked if it has not come up before then, given that gays and transgenders and all the rest are no longer stuck in the closet and we live in NYC.
Now, for the love of christ, either tell me what is wrong with that approach or shut the f**k up!!!
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
You've spent the past few pages calling me a bullshitter because I consider homosexuality and transgenderism normal, but, apart from a brief discussion of same sex marriage with my five year old, haven't explained it to my young kids yet, choosing to defer until they were curious and then explain in a way they were able to understand at that age.
I have no f**king clue at what exact age we'll address it. As with anything, if they ask, we will give them age appropriate information, with the key being that homosexuality or transgenderism is ok. I've said this again and again, in multiple different ways.
If they haven't asked by the time the birds and the bees stuff becomes a necessity, I guess we'll go into it then. Its not controversial. I would be shocked if it has not come up before then, given that gays and transgenders and all the rest are no longer stuck in the closet and we live in NYC.
Now, for the love of christ, either tell me what is wrong with that approach or shut the f**k up!!!
You are yet again bullshitting. Will you have wee books of Johnny becoming Jenny and shagging Mickey who isnt a homosexual as Jenny now has breasts and can now stand up in a womans loo and take a piss. Take a redner kid. Ill light a candle for you kids over the holidays.
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
The quotes were are they or i suggest you shut the f**k up.😀
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:12:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 03:59:08 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
You've spent the past few pages calling me a bullshitter because I consider homosexuality and transgenderism normal, but, apart from a brief discussion of same sex marriage with my five year old, haven't explained it to my young kids yet, choosing to defer until they were curious and then explain in a way they were able to understand at that age.
I have no f**king clue at what exact age we'll address it. As with anything, if they ask, we will give them age appropriate information, with the key being that homosexuality or transgenderism is ok. I've said this again and again, in multiple different ways.
If they haven't asked by the time the birds and the bees stuff becomes a necessity, I guess we'll go into it then. Its not controversial. I would be shocked if it has not come up before then, given that gays and transgenders and all the rest are no longer stuck in the closet and we live in NYC.
Now, for the love of christ, either tell me what is wrong with that approach or shut the f**k up!!!
You are yet again bullshitting. Will you have wee books of Johnny becoming Jenny and shagging Mickey who isnt a homosexual as Jenny now has breasts and can now stand up in a womans loo and take a piss. Take a redner kid. Ill light a candle for you kids over the holidays.
You're back to the projecting again. If YOU can't imagine something being dealt with in a mature fashion, then it can't happen.
Suit yourself.
You have covered yourself in glory in this thread, fair fucks even I didn't think you were such a bullshitter. ;)
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
The quotes were are they or i suggest you shut the f**k up.😀
It does not appear you did.
Doesn't cast the rest of your points in a better light though.
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
The quotes were are they or i suggest you shut the f**k up.😀
It does not appear you did.
Doesn't cast the rest of your points in a better light though.
Correcto - just you bullshitting - I'll accept your apology.
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
You have covered yourself in glory in this thread, fair f**ks even I didn't think you were such a bullshitter. ;)
I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said.
I don't expect enlightenment and open-mindedness and reason to meet me at every turn in real life, so why should this board be any different?
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 04:46:19 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:43:29 PM
You have covered yourself in glory in this thread, fair f**ks even I didn't think you were such a bullshitter. ;)
I'm pretty comfortable with what I've said.
I don't expect enlightenment and open-mindedness and reason to meet me at every turn in real life, so why should this board be any different?
You'll have a tear in my eye next, have one of the GCSE's I give to muppet a few pages back.
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:44:52 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 04:43:48 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 01:50:38 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 19, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 19, 2016, 12:31:03 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 18, 2016, 05:15:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 18, 2016, 05:11:32 PM
For the record I have similar views to j70 and those views to me are normal. No wides your views are not normal to me and I find them very close minded.
Thats my christmas ruined. The thread us not born this way trangenders post operation arent. God help all your kids no wonder the world is fecked.
Says the person who apparently thinks it is proper and normal to hit very young kids with all the complexities of life, stuff that is way beyond their level of interest or understanding.
As for transgenders, are they ok in your eyes, pre-op?
That line on it's own sums you up. You are the one who says it was normal, I was asking what age are you going to bring it up with your kids that it is normal, you are a complete bullshitter, and have shown yourself to be that throughout your posts here.
It IS normal. That doesn't mean that a five year old has to understand it or that I as a parent have to discuss it with them before they are ready.
Which I've already said a number of times. It is not a difficult concept to grasp.
So, again, either you're too thick to get that simple concept, or you're on the wind-up. So which is it?
You really are playing a blinder here and you again resort to insults. Post where i said a five year old needs to know the normal behaviour of homosexuality or transgenders. Post the quote please.
The quotes were are they or i suggest you shut the f**k up.😀
It does not appear you did.
Doesn't cast the rest of your points in a better light though.
Correcto - just you bullshitting - I'll accept your apology.
Don't care if you do.
I've no problem admitting mistakes. Honest debate is a good thing. Too bad we don't get it from certain quarters.
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
You always want to play the pedophile card, in this case under the cover of 'all sexual attractions'.
Homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia.
How do you define "normal"? Is it "normal" to be left-handed? Can we compare left-handedness to the color of people's skin? If it's so "normal" to be left handed then how come so many people used to be repulsed by it? Or would we be going down a "dangerous" path to entertain the idea that handedness is a natural rather than learned behavior?
See how stupid that kind of debate sounds?
Do you ever listen to yourself, Ice? The way you're talking about gays is the same as how people used to talk about left-handed people. Wise up.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
By my reckoning, it is you and another couple of Neanderthals who are "repulsed by it". From the responses on this thread, you are in the minority.
In addition, given your views expressed on here, your child's response that you mentioned is likely to be learned behaviour.
QuoteIf it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
What exactly are you repulsed about? You must spend an awful lot of time thinking about what two Gay people do in the bedroom to be so repulsed by it.
I'd also love to know what exactly being normal means.
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Quote from: michaelg on December 20, 2016, 07:30:17 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
By my reckoning, it is you and another couple of Neanderthals who are "repulsed by it". From the responses on this thread, you are in the minority.
In addition, given your views expressed on here, your child's response that you mentioned is likely to be learned behaviour.
Trump and brexit was in the minority as well, folk don't always call it as they see it.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
Where did I mention colour? I hope your kids are straight given your outlook.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 20, 2016, 12:09:39 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
Where did I mention colour? I hope your kids are straight given your outlook.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 20, 2016, 12:09:39 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
Where did I mention colour? I hope your kids are straight given your outlook.
What's his email got to do with it, do you want him to use gmail!
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
Of course not, assuming you're including tendencies such as paedophilia.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
How about gay people who are repulsed by heterosexual sex?
I'm repulsed myself by the thought of homosexual sexual activity (at least male! ;)). Doesn't mean that my discomfort is a valid reason to drive those people back into the closet and criminalize their lifestyles.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
What damage?
And given that you believe the above, what do YOU think society should be doing with respect to homosexuality?
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.
As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.
As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?
A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.
As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?
A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.
As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.
You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.
If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?
Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.
Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 19, 2016, 04:50:59 PM
Just reading the crap on here it raises the question as to whether any of those arguing have a gay child. If they had, they would perhaps not be so quick to use terms such as "lifestyle choice". It is insulting in the extreme and denigrates gay people and their families. It is attitudes like this in wider society that causes high rates of depression in the gay community as people struggle to come to terms with their sexuality. Feeling that they are disappointing parents and that they aren't accepted as "normal".
Should any and all sexual attractions be ok and encouraged in case the person feeling them would get depressed for not being accepted? Is anything not normal today? Is everything ok?
QuoteOf course not, assuming you're including tendencies such as paedophilia.
Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair. Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
I haven't talked to my kids all that much about homosexuality. My eldest boy is only 8. We lived in Seattle until recently and he seen a few gay couples walking about and his normal (and don't call it otherwise please) is "thats' crazy".
If it was all normal why are so many people on here openly "repulsed" by it?
How about gay people who are repulsed by heterosexual sex?
QuoteI'm repulsed myself by the thought of homosexual sexual activity (at least male! ;)). Doesn't mean that my discomfort is a valid reason to drive those people back into the closet and criminalize their lifestyles.
You see this is where you take your own ideas and project them on to me. I did not mention criminalizing homosexuality or driving it back in to the closet. But I don't have to teach my kids that it is normal. Right now there is really no escape from the indoctrination. It's being forcibly taught in schools against the wishes of parents (at least in america). It's in every TV show you turn on. My kids are being bombarded with homosexuality - can you not see that? If homosexuals are such a minority in today's world why is there at least one in every tv show? what about gingers? there are more gingers in the world than homosexuals but they don't get that much tv time... (I jest)
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
No wides comments are a bit extreme but I agree he has a point. I don't know who would look the same at their kids. Like no change at all? Nothing? Just life as normal with Johnny and Mark over for Christmas dinner kissing under the mistletoe? I don't believe it would be status quo....
Quote
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
I struggle to believe you I'm sorry.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 03:20:43 AM
and can we stop comparing the colour of someone's skin to their sexual attractions. To do so would mean that because all colours of skin are normal then surely all sexual attractions are normal. We go down a very very dangerous path comparing the two..... this isn't the civil rights movement of today - you're romanticizing it all for a cause to champion and missing the damage it's doing.
QuoteWhat damage?
There are lots of threads out there. Even websites. Go to the American center for disease control and look at the amount of HIV and AIDs related to gay sex. Look at rectal cancers related to gay sex. Look at std's related to gay sex. Read about the average number of partners a gay man has. Lots of this is swept under the rug and this is just physical harm.
If you want to read both sides of the argument there is a book called "making gay okay". If you're willing to try and seek balance at least read it.
QuoteAnd given that you believe the above, what do YOU think society should be doing with respect to homosexuality?
I think we all know lots of gay people. There's the normally behaved lads and then there's the over the top flaming lads who are more feminine than any woman I've ever met. The in your face type.
I feel like that's what we get - in your face - not the people themselves - but this movement, this agenda is being thrust at us from all angles (to many sexual undertones in this haha). Can we watch a tv show without there being a gay couple. Can my kids go to school and not be taught it in sex education as one of many alternatives? I'd just like some innocence back in life. I feel like this whole movement this whole agenda has opened up an anything goes regards to sex and as people we're just going down the gutter...
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.
As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?
A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.
As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.
You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.
If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?
Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.
Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?
You really are as stupid as you come across.
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
For Iceman (sorry lad, the quotes are all messed up, so I'll respond point by point)
Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair. Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?
What other sexual attractions are you talking about? I don't think "normality" is the issue when it comes to homsexuality and paedophilia. Children, consent, maturity etc, are the issue. You know this!
You see this is where you take your own ideas and project them on to me. I did not mention criminalizing homosexuality or driving it back in to the closet. But I don't have to teach my kids that it is normal. Right now there is really no escape from the indoctrination. It's being forcibly taught in schools against the wishes of parents (at least in america). It's in every TV show you turn on. My kids are being bombarded with homosexuality - can you not see that? If homosexuals are such a minority in today's world why is there at least one in every tv show? what about gingers? there are more gingers in the world than homosexuals but they don't get that much tv time... (I jest)
Sorry, I wasn't attempting to project or put words in your mouth - after all I did ask at the end what you would have society do.
As for gays and gingers - have gingers been the subject of repression? There didn't used to be many racial and ethnic minorities on tv (some would argue they're still not fully represented). Entertainment mirrors society. It was not a coincidence that Captain Kirk kissed Uhura in Star Trek in the late 60s but it had to be cut from the broadcast in the southern states. As society grows more accepting of homosexuality (or trangenderism - look at the Amazon series, which is pretty decent), tv and movies will reflect that.
On the schools though - what would you HAVE them teach? You say you don't want them driven back in the closet or their lifestyle criminalized, but that some parents don't want their kids to learn about it. So what should be done?
I struggle to believe you I'm sorry.
That's based on your experiences, not mine.
Projection! ;)
There are lots of threads out there. Even websites. Go to the American center for disease control and look at the amount of HIV and AIDs related to gay sex. Look at rectal cancers related to gay sex. Look at std's related to gay sex. Read about the average number of partners a gay man has. Lots of this is swept under the rug and this is just physical harm.
If you want to read both sides of the argument there is a book called "making gay okay". If you're willing to try and seek balance at least read it.
And what about lesbianism? What are the figures for them? Given that females are usually much less promiscuous than men and thus I would imagine lesbians have lower incidence of STDs than the general population, does that make THEM ok?
I can imagine, given the male psyche and drive, that many gay men avail of casual sex opportunities, but that doesn't make homosexuality or homosexual behaviour wrong. It means that some of them need to cop the f**k on, same as straight people did after the free love 60s.
I think we all know lots of gay people. There's the normally behaved lads and then there's the over the top flaming lads who are more feminine than any woman I've ever met. The in your face type.
I feel like that's what we get - in your face - not the people themselves - but this movement, this agenda is being thrust at us from all angles (to many sexual undertones in this haha). Can we watch a tv show without there being a gay couple. Can my kids go to school and not be taught it in sex education as one of many alternatives? I'd just like some innocence back in life. I feel like this whole movement this whole agenda has opened up an anything goes regards to sex and as people we're just going down the gutter...
I think you're looking for a problem where none exists.
Some men are very effeminate and I guess some of them become quite militant about it due to the history of suppression and persecution. I've no issue with it. If they want to unapologetically announce their arrival as equal citizens, more power to them.
On the kids though, is it not the point that school is supposed to prepare them for life? Would you not rather your kids be equipped with the knowledge they'll need? What happens if one of them does turn out to be gay, but was denied the knowledge that it is not the end of the world, that they will in fact be able to live a fully formed and happy life?
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:16:43 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:47:12 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:33:04 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:24:38 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:18:20 PM
If depends on what you define "change" as. You'd obviously have to adjust to your son or daughter not being straight, but beyond that what difference should it make to your relationship to them? They're still your kid. Nothing about them has changed except what their expressed sexuality is. Instead of them shacking up with a member of the opposite sex, they shack up with a member of the same sex. Everything else is status quo.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I mean I can see why it would be a big deal if you thought homosexuality was this terrible sin or crime against nature, or not "normal". But, increasing numbers of people don't think that way.
The certainty that things would change in any meaningful way is just projection on the part of you and No Wides.
Your son having an operation to get breasts and becoming a "woman", that is normal! Keep taking the redner kid.
My response to Iceman was to his point about Johnny and Mark kissing under the mistletoe. If you have an issue with THAT, then address it.
As for transgenderism, you appear fixated on the operation/hormone treatment part. Are pre-op trans people ok in your eyes?
A man in a dress let him at it, you keep saying transgenderism is normal, and that as a result nothing would change between your son and you if he came home with breasts and a minis skirt - hence I called you out as a bullshitter as it would change, it would change everything, so keep bullshitting you are great at it.
As I stated in a previous post to Iceman about homosexuality, there is NO reason it would have to change everything, unless your view of your son or daughter's sexuality was framed upon avoidance of horrible, sinful behaviour.
You seem a little confused though when it comes to this.
If its ok for him to wear a dress and (presumably) live life as a woman (and vice versa for your daughter), why the hell does it become a catastrophe only when he or she decides to go the whole hog and transition, physically, whether through hormonal treatment or surgery or both?
Its the same person, same mind, same feelings. All that's changing is that they're altering the physical body to reflect their mind and feelings and personality.
Would you prefer your son or daughter to stay confined within a body they weren't comfortable with just to make you happy or continue to have your approval? They'd be ok as long as your son just stuck to wearing a wig, make-up and a dress?
You really are as stupid as you come across.
It shouldn't be too difficult to answer the question then, should it?
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 20, 2016, 02:00:46 PM
Taking paedophilia out of it because Eamonn says it isn't fair. Why can't other sexual attractions be normal and ok? The argument used here is that we have to normalize it to save lives because people are denying who they are. Why is same sex attraction any more normal than another sexual attraction?
Iceman, this argument is quite evil. I know it is propagated by the Vatican, but that doesn't make it any less evil.
Abusing children is completely different to the private actions of consenting adults, the key being consent and being old enough to know what's what. Heterosexual rape is along the same lines as your argument, but no one is arguing for its legitimacy are they?
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
The point has been well made throughout this thread, you are making it up as you go along to be some chic liberal, you have proved you have nothing but bullshit, as I said earlier I'll light a candle for your kids over the holiday period - God help them!
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
The point has been well made throughout this thread, you are making it up as you go along to be some chic liberal, you have proved you have nothing but bullshit, as I said earlier I'll light a candle for your kids over the holiday period - God help them!
Yes, several people have shown your "point" about "normality" to be bullshit.
You, on the other hand, have NOT backed up that it isn't bullshit.
This is your opportunity to do so. Shouldn't be hard if it is so obvious.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
The point has been well made throughout this thread, you are making it up as you go along to be some chic liberal, you have proved you have nothing but bullshit, as I said earlier I'll light a candle for your kids over the holiday period - God help them!
I think it's you who needs the candle mate.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 20, 2016, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
The point has been well made throughout this thread, you are making it up as you go along to be some chic liberal, you have proved you have nothing but bullshit, as I said earlier I'll light a candle for your kids over the holiday period - God help them!
I think it's you who needs the candle mate.
Seeing he's so obsessed, he'd probably dildo the ass of himself with it.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/UTT6QbG4EPOIE/giphy.gif)
Bombarded with homosexuality? Christ almighty, you appear to think there's some sort of gay conspiracy that is in some way out to "get" your kids. Daft.
f**k sake Billy, since 1998, we've been getting bombarded with Fenians everywhere. Them b**tards have started wearing GAA taps down round Queens and Jordanstown. I heard Jackie Fullerton was actually at a match this one time. They're even talking about letting some of them appear on the telly ffs! Fenians f**king everywhere, my kids can't get go to school without seeing a Fenian!
Quote from: thebigfella on December 20, 2016, 03:16:25 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 20, 2016, 02:56:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:33:58 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:23:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:39:21 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:30:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:25:46 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 01:06:59 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
If it was so normal the human population would have ceased a long time ago.
Why, because the 90% of the population that is straight wouldn't be enough to keep things going?
By your standard Down Syndrome is not "normal". Rarity doesn't make something unnatural or something to be marginalized.
That's as low as you have went and you have went low, why don't you stick to the debate and not bring in people with learning disabilities.
Are you missing the point deliberately?
I think you are, sad you have to bring in people with learning disabilities to back up your chic liberal views.
So I'm going to have to spell it out slowly, again, for you.
1. You're attacking homosexuality as not "normal" on the basis that it would have led to the extinction of humans if it wasn't.
2. I raised the obvious point that 90-odd% of humans are straight, so how exactly could homosexuality cause human extinction (you ignored this question).
3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality. I could have used other examples, the point would be the same.
4. And the point, already stated, is that rarity of a trait i.e. it not being "normal", is NOT a reason for suppression or marginalization. But, again, you ignore the actual point (wonder why?).
To summarize: It wasn't a comment at all on Down Syndrome. It was a comment on your, once again, flawed logic.
So why use it, you made the choice to use people with learning disabilities to backup some logic you have about homosexuality. It is disgusting, but you don't care as you need to be seen to be liberal as for another set of traits in relation to people with learning disabilities, unreal!
All right, I'm disgusting! ;D
Now address the point!
The point has been well made throughout this thread, you are making it up as you go along to be some chic liberal, you have proved you have nothing but bullshit, as I said earlier I'll light a candle for your kids over the holiday period - God help them!
I think it's you who needs the candle mate.
Seeing he's so obsessed, he'd probably dildo the ass of himself with it.
Going for world domination and hating children wtf can you bring to this? Unless gays polish your car better.
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
So why did you bring up people with learning disabilities?
Gay cousins aside be interesting to know who arguring here is gay or has a gay immediate family member - no pun intended. Expect silence. Even hetros who like sausage or pie on the side. Cop yourselves on the lot of you.
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:28:22 PM
As for gays and gingers - have gingers been the subject of repression? There didn't used to be many racial and ethnic minorities on tv (some would argue they're still not fully represented). Entertainment mirrors society. It was not a coincidence that Captain Kirk kissed Uhura in Star Trek in the late 60s but it had to be cut from the broadcast in the southern states. As society grows more accepting of homosexuality (or trangenderism - look at the Amazon series, which is pretty decent), tv and movies will reflect that.
Just need to correct you.
Society is being forced to accept these as normal otherwise risk being labelled by the PC crowd.
TV/social media pushes the agenda. Celebrities endorse it.
question is, given the choice would people want to engage with differing groups.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:21:30 PM
Going for world domination and hating children wtf can you bring to this? Unless gays polish your car better.
Your obsessed with how they polish each other's knobs. This voyeurism could be your gateway drug to you taking the next step physically.
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PMNow I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case.
As Neil Fox said on BrassEye about paedos having more DNA in common with crabs then humans, "that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it's scientific fact."
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
Quote from: thebigfella on December 20, 2016, 11:37:41 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:21:30 PM
Going for world domination and hating children wtf can you bring to this? Unless gays polish your car better.
Your obsessed with how they polish each other's knobs. This voyeurism could be your gateway drug to you taking the next step physically.
Oh dear were you on the prawns and white wine spritzers last night. Few quotes to back that up - no. I thought not. If i were you id stick to the afternoon aperitif and get James to take you home in the limo.
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Here's a thought, maybe it just reflects the actual make up of society. Where I work I will encounter at least three gay people on a daily basis, and not always the same people and I work in a place with a good cross-section of society. The homophobic tone of some contributors on here actually says more about them than it does about gay people. So called Christians lighting candles whilst preaching a hatred their God would disown.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
So why did you bring up people with learning disabilities?
Its like talking to a wall with you. You say something five times, and it still doesn't permeate whatever barrier exists between your eyes and your brain.
Look up the word "analogy". Then go read Reply #138 on this thread. Its all there in black and white.
Quote from: foxcommander on December 20, 2016, 10:56:29 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:28:22 PM
As for gays and gingers - have gingers been the subject of repression? There didn't used to be many racial and ethnic minorities on tv (some would argue they're still not fully represented). Entertainment mirrors society. It was not a coincidence that Captain Kirk kissed Uhura in Star Trek in the late 60s but it had to be cut from the broadcast in the southern states. As society grows more accepting of homosexuality (or trangenderism - look at the Amazon series, which is pretty decent), tv and movies will reflect that.
Just need to correct you.
Society is being forced to accept these as normal otherwise risk being labelled by the PC crowd.
TV/social media pushes the agenda. Celebrities endorse it.
question is, given the choice would people want to engage with differing groups.
Oh no, celebrities endorse it!
Come one! Who, in reality, really gives a bollocks what some celebrity endorses? If you agree with the celebrity, you'll think "that's nice, he/she is a smart or decent person". If you don't, you'll think "what the f**k do they know?".
And social media pushes every kind of ideology there is. It is, after all, a reflection of society. Did you not see any of the shite spreading around during the recent US election? Whether on facebook or twitter or any of the other media.
TV/entertainment is, primarily, all about making money. If society wasn't moving towards acceptance of gays and minorities and so on, they wouldn't feature those groups. They basically like jumping on bandwagons and are generally gutless when it comes to sticking their necks out.
As for engagement with different groups, well people will certainly be a lot more reluctant if what is taught is hate and fear. On the other hand, if they're taught that these groups are just regular people, and they actually meet and engage with some of them and see that, yes, they ARE just people with the same everyday issues and personalities as the rest of us, well then they might just see them as people first and not some freakshow to be feared or avoided.
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 21, 2016, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Here's a thought, maybe it just reflects the actual make up of society. Where I work I will encounter at least three gay people on a daily basis, and not always the same people and I work in a place with a good cross-section of society. The homophobic tone of some contributors on here actually says more about them than it does about gay people. So called Christians lighting candles whilst preaching a hatred their God would disown.
I'd imagine there's a higher proportion of gay people on TV than elsewhere. Without trying to be patronising, I suspect the performing arts would have a higher than usual ratio, and that would translate into people on TV. The camp guys on TV do my head in, but sure I suppose what harm are they doing really.
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 21, 2016, 02:24:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 21, 2016, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Here's a thought, maybe it just reflects the actual make up of society. Where I work I will encounter at least three gay people on a daily basis, and not always the same people and I work in a place with a good cross-section of society. The homophobic tone of some contributors on here actually says more about them than it does about gay people. So called Christians lighting candles whilst preaching a hatred their God would disown.
I'd imagine there's a higher proportion of gay people on TV than elsewhere. Without trying to be patronising, I suspect the performing arts would have a higher than usual ratio, and that would translate into people on TV. The camp guys on TV do my head in, but sure I suppose what harm are they doing really.
I don't blame them.
There has long been a slant on marketing to portray men as inferior to women. Think of ads over the last 20 years where the couple always has a smart women and a dopey c*nt as the husband.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 21, 2016, 04:19:02 AM
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Ok, I'm watching some of it. I also read a summary of it to get the jist:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind)
Is it really a surprise that some gay people are and have been conflicted about their homosexuality given the marginalization and condemnation of homosexuality by society in general and religious communities in particular? Especially for those who were brought up religiously? Christ, of all churches, the Catholic one lays on the guilt fairly thick. Even a casual w**k is forbidden!
Is there an equivalent documentary about people who led straight lives but were secretly gay and the personal conflict and torture THEY went through?
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 21, 2016, 04:19:02 AM
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Ok, I'm watching some of it. I also read a summary of it to get the jist:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind)
Is it really a surprise that some gay people are and have been conflicted about their homosexuality given the marginalization and condemnation of homosexuality by society in general and religious communities in particular? Especially for those who were brought up religiously? Christ, of all churches, the Catholic one lays on the guilt fairly thick. Even a casual w**k is forbidden!
Is there an equivalent documentary about people who led straight lives but were secretly gay and the personal conflict and torture THEY went through?
Most left-handers adapt and are able to do many things right-handed. Is this a secret admission that they are wrong?
Quote from: muppet on December 21, 2016, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 21, 2016, 04:19:02 AM
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Ok, I'm watching some of it. I also read a summary of it to get the jist:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind)
Is it really a surprise that some gay people are and have been conflicted about their homosexuality given the marginalization and condemnation of homosexuality by society in general and religious communities in particular? Especially for those who were brought up religiously? Christ, of all churches, the Catholic one lays on the guilt fairly thick. Even a casual w**k is forbidden!
Is there an equivalent documentary about people who led straight lives but were secretly gay and the personal conflict and torture THEY went through?
Most left-handers adapt and are able to do many things right-handed. Is this a secret admission that they are wrong?
My aunt grew up in 50s Mayo and was forced by the nuns into writing right handed.
Interestingly, my auld fella grew up in Donegal around the same time but was allowed to keep his left-handedness, although he left school in his early teens.
Breakdown in the communication network from the hierarchy there somewhere!
Quote from: muppet on December 21, 2016, 02:27:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 21, 2016, 02:24:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 21, 2016, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Here's a thought, maybe it just reflects the actual make up of society. Where I work I will encounter at least three gay people on a daily basis, and not always the same people and I work in a place with a good cross-section of society. The homophobic tone of some contributors on here actually says more about them than it does about gay people. So called Christians lighting candles whilst preaching a hatred their God would disown.
I'd imagine there's a higher proportion of gay people on TV than elsewhere. Without trying to be patronising, I suspect the performing arts would have a higher than usual ratio, and that would translate into people on TV. The camp guys on TV do my head in, but sure I suppose what harm are they doing really.
I don't blame them.
There has long been a slant on marketing to portray men as inferior to women. Think of ads over the last 20 years where the couple always has a smart women and a dopey c*nt as the husband.
What's that got to do with camp guys? Also I'm not sure about the dopey husband thing. Ads for household stuff normally featured dopey husbands, because the women tend to buy those products more. That's just demographics. Same as those betting ads featuring gorgeous young wans are appealing to young lads.
Quote from: muppet on December 21, 2016, 02:31:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 21, 2016, 04:19:02 AM
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Ok, I'm watching some of it. I also read a summary of it to get the jist:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind)
Is it really a surprise that some gay people are and have been conflicted about their homosexuality given the marginalization and condemnation of homosexuality by society in general and religious communities in particular? Especially for those who were brought up religiously? Christ, of all churches, the Catholic one lays on the guilt fairly thick. Even a casual w**k is forbidden!
Is there an equivalent documentary about people who led straight lives but were secretly gay and the personal conflict and torture THEY went through?
Most left-handers adapt and are able to do many things right-handed. Is this a secret admission that they are wrong?
If you're left handed but use your right hand for a casual w**k does that cancel out the sin of having the w**k?
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 21, 2016, 02:50:50 PM
Quote from: muppet on December 21, 2016, 02:27:06 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on December 21, 2016, 02:24:50 PM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 21, 2016, 08:43:49 AM
Quote from: HiMucker on December 20, 2016, 11:32:50 PM
Just to add a modicum of balance. Although I think nowides is talking absolute dung, we did have a conversation down the pub ( I know... :D) that there was a disproportionate number of gays on tv shows. Now I have no facts and figures to back this up, but i would be amazed if this was not the case. An argument about the pros or cons of this is another diacussion, one that I dont really give a monkies about.
Here's a thought, maybe it just reflects the actual make up of society. Where I work I will encounter at least three gay people on a daily basis, and not always the same people and I work in a place with a good cross-section of society. The homophobic tone of some contributors on here actually says more about them than it does about gay people. So called Christians lighting candles whilst preaching a hatred their God would disown.
I'd imagine there's a higher proportion of gay people on TV than elsewhere. Without trying to be patronising, I suspect the performing arts would have a higher than usual ratio, and that would translate into people on TV. The camp guys on TV do my head in, but sure I suppose what harm are they doing really.
I don't blame them.
There has long been a slant on marketing to portray men as inferior to women. Think of ads over the last 20 years where the couple always has a smart women and a dopey c*nt as the husband.
What's that got to do with camp guys? Also I'm not sure about the dopey husband thing. Ads for household stuff normally featured dopey husbands, because the women tend to buy those products more. That's just demographics. Same as those betting ads featuring gorgeous young wans are appealing to young lads.
This is a real thing. Not just dopey husbands either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwTtJZ6Db4&index=1&list=PLE8EBCB20AC614D6D&t=4s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fwTtJZ6Db4&index=1&list=PLE8EBCB20AC614D6D&t=4s)
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
So why did you bring up people with learning disabilities?
Its like talking to a wall with you. You say something five times, and it still doesn't permeate whatever barrier exists between your eyes and your brain.
Look up the word "analogy". Then go read Reply #138 on this thread. Its all there in black and white.
You insinuated people with learning disabilities can't have children, or maybe you used that analogy as you think they shouldn't, you then compared these people with learning disabilities somehow to homosexuals and transgenders, you are a nasty piece of work.
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
So why did you bring up people with learning disabilities?
Its like talking to a wall with you. You say something five times, and it still doesn't permeate whatever barrier exists between your eyes and your brain.
Look up the word "analogy". Then go read Reply #138 on this thread. Its all there in black and white.
You insinuated people with learning disabilities can't have children, or maybe you used that analogy as you think they shouldn't, you then compared these people with learning disabilities somehow to homosexuals and transgenders, you are a nasty piece of work.
What's happening here is that you cannot address the point I was making, so you are trying to distract and change the subject by casting unwarranted aspersions.
A cowardly, sordid, way to debate.
Once again, I said "could affect" their ability to procreate, which is a fact.
But its also kind of beside the point I was making. Whether or not they can or cannot procreate, the main issue is that Down Syndrome is a naturally occurring condition that affects a small minority of people i.e. they're not "normal", to use YOUR words. We nurture these people, as we should (and things have improved mightily in this respect, as I can personally attest to from it affecting different generations of my own family). We don't demonize or sideline or ostracize them. The same way as the more enlightened among us do not demonize or sideline or ostracize gay people, who, just like Down Syndrome sufferers, were born that way.
Finally, it is quite telling that you would call me a nasty piece of work for comparing Down Syndrome people with gays or transgenders in the manner in which I did (i.e. people who were born with and live with different traits from the majority of the population i.e. "normal" people). Cast a little light on what your real opinion is of gay and transgender people.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Just helping you out with a factual statement. Hard to find one here as the thread is littered with a J70 bullshit.
J70, I admire your patience.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...Theres a big difference
fixed it for you Eamon sweetie
Quote from: muppet on December 21, 2016, 05:50:19 PM
J70, I admire your patience.
I'm home minding my sick daughter today - have a wee bit of time on my hands! :)
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 04:50:55 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 04:38:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 01:07:49 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:23:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:36:17 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:32:30 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 20, 2016, 02:30:09 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
I didn't say they couldn't.
You implied it.
"3. I brought up Down Syndrome, another set of traits that naturally affects a minority of people and which could affect someone's ability to procreate, just like homosexuality."
"Could affect" doesn't mean "can't".
So why did you bring up people with learning disabilities?
Its like talking to a wall with you. You say something five times, and it still doesn't permeate whatever barrier exists between your eyes and your brain.
Look up the word "analogy". Then go read Reply #138 on this thread. Its all there in black and white.
You insinuated people with learning disabilities can't have children, or maybe you used that analogy as you think they shouldn't, you then compared these people with learning disabilities somehow to homosexuals and transgenders, you are a nasty piece of work.
What's happening here is that you cannot address the point I was making, so you are trying to distract and change the subject by casting unwarranted aspersions.
A cowardly, sordid, way to debate.
Once again, I said "could affect" their ability to procreate, which is a fact.
But its also kind of beside the point I was making. Whether or not they can or cannot procreate, the main issue is that Down Syndrome is a naturally occurring condition that affects a small minority of people i.e. they're not "normal", to use YOUR words. We nurture these people, as we should (and things have improved mightily in this respect, as I can personally attest to from it affecting different generations of my own family). We don't demonize or sideline or ostracize them. The same way as the more enlightened among us do not demonize or sideline or ostracize gay people, who, just like Down Syndrome sufferers, were born that way.
Finally, it is quite telling that you would call me a nasty piece of work for comparing Down Syndrome people with gays or transgenders in the manner in which I did (i.e. people who were born with and live with different traits from the majority of the population i.e. "normal" people). Cast a little light on what your real opinion is of gay and transgender people.
You love the bullshit people born with learning disabilities have a disability are you saying homosexuals are born with a disability as you seem to class the two groups the same?
Try again! ;D
"Normal".
Remember that word? The word that sparked this entire (seemingly) futile exchange and which has come up again and again despite your attempts to go off on irrelevant tangents?
The point is they're both born with traits which leave them among a small minority of people i.e. NOT normal, at least in the sense you and others were using it.
How many more times do we need to go over this? :D
Without reading back through the thread is it now considered bigoted or ignorant to not necessarily believe that gay people were born gay, even if you don't discriminate and are totally indifferent to the sexuality of others?
Quote from: Asal Mor on December 21, 2016, 08:15:46 PM
Without reading back through the thread is it now considered bigoted or ignorant to not necessarily believe that gay people were born gay, even if you don't discriminate and are totally indifferent to the sexuality of others?
Does the nature v nurture issue really matter?
And unless you are inclined to see homosexuality as a terrible sin/perversion, would it even matter if people chose to be gay (there's no evidence for this, but I'm just asking why it would matter anyway?)
Quote from: No wides on December 15, 2016, 02:13:57 PM
Regarding trans would there by that many that way inclined if the op wasn't available, nor the gaffer tape to hold it under the arse!
Explain the normality of that. It is all man made.
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:34:42 PM
Gay cousins aside be interesting to know who arguring here is gay or has a gay immediate family member - no pun intended. Expect silence. Even hetros who like sausage or pie on the side. Cop yourselves on the lot of you.
I notice this went unanswered if it is so normal surely this board is full of gays - Bigfella?
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
Or he's at his xmas party piss-up! ;D
Quote from: Syferus on December 21, 2016, 10:02:17 PM
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
I think he's probably gay. Stew and Iceman too. Secret, repressed gays the lot of them.
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 09:15:24 PM
Quote from: Asal Mor on December 21, 2016, 08:15:46 PM
Without reading back through the thread is it now considered bigoted or ignorant to not necessarily believe that gay people were born gay, even if you don't discriminate and are totally indifferent to the sexuality of others?
Does the nature v nurture issue really matter?
And unless you are inclined to see homosexuality as a terrible sin/perversion, would it even matter if people chose to be gay (there's no evidence for this, but I'm just asking why it would matter anyway?)
I don't think it matters at all.
Quote from: foxcommander on December 21, 2016, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...Theres a big difference
fixed it for you Eamon sweetie
The difference being... what exactly?
Homosexuality was seen as a sin in Christian culture but other cultures were far more tolerant.
You could say that Christianity is not natural.
Quote from: seafoid on December 22, 2016, 08:18:41 AM
Homosexuality was seen as a sin in Christian culture but other cultures were far more tolerant.
You could say that Christianity is not natural.
I'd agree.
Trans people have been recognised in Indian culture for centuries..There will always be people who don't fit into the hetero model. So many lives were destroyed because of Christian prejudice. Christianity is basically patriarchy. And it has a messed up attitude to sex.
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:47:55 AM
Quote from: Syferus on December 21, 2016, 10:02:17 PM
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
I think he's probably gay. Stew and Iceman too. Secret, repressed gays the lot of them.
Oh dear homosexual people being mocked by individuals like you on a discussion board, you really aren't as liberal as you make out, if it is so normal why make a statement which for all intentional purposes makes out that being gay is some how wrong. I guess the true colours always come out.
Quote from: No wides on December 22, 2016, 09:04:59 AM
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:47:55 AM
Quote from: Syferus on December 21, 2016, 10:02:17 PM
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
I think he's probably gay. Stew and Iceman too. Secret, repressed gays the lot of them.
Oh dear homosexual people being mocked by individuals like you on a discussion board, you really aren't as liberal as you make out, if it is so normal why make a statement which for all intentional purposes makes out that being gay is some how wrong. I guess the true colours always come out.
He's very clearly mocking YOU, not gay people.
Unless you ARE one the homosexual people you say he's mocking.
In which case he's not mocking you for being gay, but for being a repressed gay who is denying reality and overcompensating by adopting a virulently anti-gay internet persona.
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 11:56:46 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 22, 2016, 09:04:59 AM
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:47:55 AM
Quote from: Syferus on December 21, 2016, 10:02:17 PM
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
I think he's probably gay. Stew and Iceman too. Secret, repressed gays the lot of them.
Oh dear homosexual people being mocked by individuals like you on a discussion board, you really aren't as liberal as you make out, if it is so normal why make a statement which for all intentional purposes makes out that being gay is some how wrong. I guess the true colours always come out.
He's very clearly mocking YOU, not gay people.
Unless you ARE one the homosexual people you say he's mocking.
In which case he's not mocking you for being gay, but for being a repressed gay who is denying reality and overcompensating by adopting a virulently anti-gay internet persona.
If I was gay why would that be an issue - you keep saying it is normal, you and gallsman are hypocrites - I notice all the posts you ignore - speaks volumes, hows the transgender facts of life book coming along?
Quote from: No wides on December 22, 2016, 12:09:13 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 11:56:46 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 22, 2016, 09:04:59 AM
Quote from: gallsman on December 22, 2016, 12:47:55 AM
Quote from: Syferus on December 21, 2016, 10:02:17 PM
I'm thinking it's about an 85% chance this guy is a sick WUP.
I think he's probably gay. Stew and Iceman too. Secret, repressed gays the lot of them.
Oh dear homosexual people being mocked by individuals like you on a discussion board, you really aren't as liberal as you make out, if it is so normal why make a statement which for all intentional purposes makes out that being gay is some how wrong. I guess the true colours always come out.
He's very clearly mocking YOU, not gay people.
Unless you ARE one the homosexual people you say he's mocking.
In which case he's not mocking you for being gay, but for being a repressed gay who is denying reality and overcompensating by adopting a virulently anti-gay internet persona.
If I was gay why would that be an issue - you keep saying it is normal, you and gallsman are hypocrites - I notice all the posts you ignore - speaks volumes, hows the transgender facts of life book coming along?
Why would WHAT be an issue?
You denying reality and overcompensating?
Or something else?
How am I a hypocrite?
And what posts have I ignored?
Quote from: J70 on December 21, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 21, 2016, 04:19:02 AM
https://vimeo.com/101135437 (https://vimeo.com/101135437)
It's an hour long. I'm asking some of you interesting in really looking at both sides to watch. It's interviews of many homosexual (both male and female) talking about their experiences before, during and after they lived out their lives in same sex relationships.
Ok, I'm watching some of it. I also read a summary of it to get the jist:http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind (http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/bounty-everlasting-hills-leaving-gay-life-behind)
Is it really a surprise that some gay people are and have been conflicted about their homosexuality given the marginalization and condemnation of homosexuality by society in general and religious communities in particular? Especially for those who were brought up religiously? Christ, of all churches, the Catholic one lays on the guilt fairly thick. Even a casual w**k is forbidden!
Is there an equivalent documentary about people who led straight lives but were secretly gay and the personal conflict and torture THEY went through?
I think theres a few very fair comments in the documentary. The male model had it all - riches, fame, success and 1000s of men in his bed. It wasn't just because of the 60s or the 70s it was because of something else. I've heard from girls who have gay friends that they'll meet random men leaving their friend's house and ask who was that and the response will be #13 this month. The promiscuity is out of control. Why? Is it just because men are hornier? Come on lads? The man in the video said he was always trying to complete something, find something, fill something (pardon the pun). All 3 of the people interviewed talk very openly and brokenly about their experiences. I thought it provided some real insight.
there is also a comment I'll draw your attention to. When the woman talks about being at a big lesbian free love party in the woods in San Fran somewhere and identical twins were 'loving on each other' and she was shocked and asked her partner at the time "isn't that wrong"? to which her partner replied " if we judge them then others can judge us"....
This is one of my concerns that we are headed towards an anything goes type society...because who are we to deny anyone's happiness...
Thanks J70 for trying to watch some of it. I would encourage you to read the book "making gay ok".
But Iceman, those concerns can also be thrown at plenty of straight people. Lots of straight men sleep around excessively, even compulsively, and are afraid to commit to a single woman. I've known and know a few women with the same issue. And I know gay men who are married and have been faithful to their husbands for years. Like I said in an earlier post, it may well be the case that some gay men need to cop themselves on and not take advantage of the male libido squared issue. And I'm sure, as with straight people, its not just about getting laid and they're, as you say, filling a gap. Perhaps now that society is in fact allowing them to come out of the shadows and live, openly and respectfully, as ordinary couples and families, those gaps will be filled and the destructive behaviour will decrease.
I've no argument with you on the twins thing, but that's hardly an argument against homosexuality. Permissiveness gone crazy perhaps, as you suggest. But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because society grows more accepting of homosexuality and transgenderism and the rest, doesn't mean there is no end point to what should be tolerated or that siblings all over the place are going to start fighting through their natural, sexual repulsion towards each other.
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 02:10:50 PM
But Iceman, those concerns can also be thrown at plenty of straight people. Lots of straight men sleep around excessively, even compulsively, and are afraid to commit to a single woman. I've known and know a few women with the same issue. And I know gay men who are married and have been faithful to their husbands for years. Like I said in an earlier post, it may well be the case that some gay men need to cop themselves on and not take advantage of the male libido squared issue. And I'm sure, as with straight people, its not just about getting laid and they're, as you say, filling a gap. Perhaps now that society is in fact allowing them to come out of the shadows and live, openly and respectfully, as ordinary couples and families, those gaps will be filled and the destructive behaviour will decrease.
I've no argument with you on the twins thing, but that's hardly an argument against homosexuality. Permissiveness gone crazy perhaps, as you suggest. But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because society grows more accepting of homosexuality and transgenderism and the rest, doesn't mean there is no end point to what should be tolerated or that siblings all over the place are going to start fighting through their natural, sexual repulsion towards each other.
But don't you think that the gay men faithful to their partners are the exception? And the straight man who has 100s of lovers is the exception? There are lots of stats out there on the number of sexual partners a normal/typical gay man has versus a straight man.
When or who will draw a line on whats accepted? transgenderism, what's next? I've seen mothers and son's arguing to be married - there are court cases here on it, siblings...I just don't know where it is all going but if it doesn't slow down or stop I do know it isn't a place I want to raise kids...
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 02:16:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 02:10:50 PM
But Iceman, those concerns can also be thrown at plenty of straight people. Lots of straight men sleep around excessively, even compulsively, and are afraid to commit to a single woman. I've known and know a few women with the same issue. And I know gay men who are married and have been faithful to their husbands for years. Like I said in an earlier post, it may well be the case that some gay men need to cop themselves on and not take advantage of the male libido squared issue. And I'm sure, as with straight people, its not just about getting laid and they're, as you say, filling a gap. Perhaps now that society is in fact allowing them to come out of the shadows and live, openly and respectfully, as ordinary couples and families, those gaps will be filled and the destructive behaviour will decrease.
I've no argument with you on the twins thing, but that's hardly an argument against homosexuality. Permissiveness gone crazy perhaps, as you suggest. But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because society grows more accepting of homosexuality and transgenderism and the rest, doesn't mean there is no end point to what should be tolerated or that siblings all over the place are going to start fighting through their natural, sexual repulsion towards each other.
But don't you think that the gay men faithful to their partners are the exception? And the straight man who has 100s of lovers is the exception? There are lots of stats out there on the number of sexual partners a normal/typical gay man has versus a straight man.
When or who will draw a line on whats accepted? transgenderism, what's next? I've seen mothers and son's arguing to be married - there are court cases here on it, siblings...I just don't know where it is all going but if it doesn't slow down or stop I do know it isn't a place I want to raise kids...
Iceman, are you serious?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 02:16:45 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 02:10:50 PM
But Iceman, those concerns can also be thrown at plenty of straight people. Lots of straight men sleep around excessively, even compulsively, and are afraid to commit to a single woman. I've known and know a few women with the same issue. And I know gay men who are married and have been faithful to their husbands for years. Like I said in an earlier post, it may well be the case that some gay men need to cop themselves on and not take advantage of the male libido squared issue. And I'm sure, as with straight people, its not just about getting laid and they're, as you say, filling a gap. Perhaps now that society is in fact allowing them to come out of the shadows and live, openly and respectfully, as ordinary couples and families, those gaps will be filled and the destructive behaviour will decrease.
I've no argument with you on the twins thing, but that's hardly an argument against homosexuality. Permissiveness gone crazy perhaps, as you suggest. But we shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because society grows more accepting of homosexuality and transgenderism and the rest, doesn't mean there is no end point to what should be tolerated or that siblings all over the place are going to start fighting through their natural, sexual repulsion towards each other.
But don't you think that the gay men faithful to their partners are the exception? And the straight man who has 100s of lovers is the exception? There are lots of stats out there on the number of sexual partners a normal/typical gay man has versus a straight man.
You may be right (I don't know - what ARE the stats?), but surely, if so, a lot of this is down to opportunity and male sexual drive and the historic prohibition on living as a homosexual couple?
But, assuming, for the sake of argument, that gay men are much more inclined towards promiscuity, in desire as well as opportunity, what are the implications of that?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 02:16:45 PM
When or who will draw a line on whats accepted? transgenderism, what's next? I've seen mothers and son's arguing to be married - there are court cases here on it, siblings...I just don't know where it is all going but if it doesn't slow down or stop I do know it isn't a place I want to raise kids...
As with anything, culture evolves. Look at the historic inbreeding in the European royal families. Speaking of evolving, look at Charles Darwin - he married his first cousin. That's unheard of now, 150-odd years later.
I guess it comes down to what extent society feels they should regulate individual behaviour. If two sisters want to chew the faces off each other in the woods, is that anyone's business except their own and the morning-after awkwardness/embarrassment they might feel? If a brother and sister want to have sex, then surely society's concerns about inbreeding in a resultant baby come into play?
It is a difficult question.
Quote from: muppet on December 22, 2016, 02:33:08 PM
But don't you think that the gay men faithful to their partners are the exception?
Iceman, are you serious?
[/quote]
I simply can't wait to read the evidence on this.
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
HIV fear mongering again?! What is this? The 80s?!
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Here is a stat for you, 100% of men like to exaggerate their sexual prowess. Take it or leave that one ::)
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 08:14:57 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 21, 2016, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...Theres a big difference
fixed it for you Eamon sweetie
The difference being... what exactly?
If you haven't figured out how reproduction works at this point eamon I suggest you watch some footage of the actual process.
Maybe this rom-com would be ideal to get started - get your hair rollers in, housecoat and slippers on and curl up with a big bag of doritos. It's got Hugh Grant in it so you'll probably find him quite dreamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Months
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Most of that research is very old, and either predates or is coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I'm not saying that the figures have or haven't changed, but surely there must be research that's not 30-40 years old? On HIV, clearly education and awareness is something that needs to be addressed, particularly when the risk of catching HIV from a gay man is so much higher than from a straight person and minorities are experiencing higher rates of infection.
But assuming all this is correct, what is it you would have done?
Are gay men your main concern, given the facts regarding promiscuity and HIV?
What exactly is the problem? Is it the homosexuality itself, or the outcome of homosexuality? If its only the outcome, what about lesbians? Would your attitude change is, 20 years from now, in the aftermath of gay marriage legalization and the mainstreaming of gay lifestyles, gay people were trending towards average levels of promiscuity, HIV, divorce etc?
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Most of that research is very old, and either predates or is coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I'm not saying that the figures have or haven't changed, but surely there must be research that's not 30-40 years old? On HIV, clearly education and awareness is something that needs to be addressed, particularly when the risk of catching HIV from a gay man is so much higher than from a straight person and minorities are experiencing higher rates of infection.
But assuming all this is correct, what is it you would have done?
Are gay men your main concern, given the facts regarding promiscuity and HIV?
What exactly is the problem? Is it the homosexuality itself, or the outcome of homosexuality? If its only the outcome, what about lesbians? Would your attitude change is, 20 years from now, in the aftermath of gay marriage legalization and the mainstreaming of gay lifestyles, gay people were trending towards average levels of promiscuity, HIV, divorce etc?
J70 you and some others asked for evidence that the monogamous gay relationship was the exception - I provided some (albeit dated) stats to back up my statements. I don't think any of us need explanations about the dangers involved here just from a physical perspective... HIV is a killer. There is no cure yet and we're not even talking about it? I said before it's like not being allowed to mention cigarettes in the debate about lung cancer...
I don't know what I would do J70, I don't have answers. I'm not happy where we are going as a society and my discomfort is causing me to ask questions, pull back on the reins a bit and really think about whats important. This thread all stemmed from the nature versus nurture question and I think the "nurture" part once a homosexual (man especially) is active is especially dangerous.
I'm not demonizing my cousin or anyone - but I'm calling in to question the behaviour, the promiscuity, the blatant disregard for health perhaps and how nobody talks about any of it even though it's part and parcel of the lifestyle it would seem.
The scenario where your son and his boyfriend show up for Christmas dinner and invite their friend bob. Few drinks later and your son is getting comfy with bob on the sofa but isn't he with Mark? "Ah but thats all ok because they're men, horny men, can't help themselves dear never worry..." I think we explain things away all too easily and are being asked to accept "everything" about homosexuality and continue to champion it as civil rights...
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 04:22:39 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Most of that research is very old, and either predates or is coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I'm not saying that the figures have or haven't changed, but surely there must be research that's not 30-40 years old? On HIV, clearly education and awareness is something that needs to be addressed, particularly when the risk of catching HIV from a gay man is so much higher than from a straight person and minorities are experiencing higher rates of infection.
But assuming all this is correct, what is it you would have done?
Are gay men your main concern, given the facts regarding promiscuity and HIV?
What exactly is the problem? Is it the homosexuality itself, or the outcome of homosexuality? If its only the outcome, what about lesbians? Would your attitude change is, 20 years from now, in the aftermath of gay marriage legalization and the mainstreaming of gay lifestyles, gay people were trending towards average levels of promiscuity, HIV, divorce etc?
J70 you and some others asked for evidence that the monogamous gay relationship was the exception - I provided some (albeit dated) stats to back up my statements. I don't think any of us need explanations about the dangers involved here just from a physical perspective... HIV is a killer. There is no cure yet and we're not even talking about it? I said before it's like not being allowed to mention cigarettes in the debate about lung cancer...
I don't know what I would do J70, I don't have answers. I'm not happy where we are going as a society and my discomfort is causing me to ask questions, pull back on the reins a bit and really think about whats important. This thread all stemmed from the nature versus nurture question and I think the "nurture" part once a homosexual (man especially) is active is especially dangerous.
I'm not demonizing my cousin or anyone - but I'm calling in to question the behaviour, the promiscuity, the blatant disregard for health perhaps and how nobody talks about any of it even though it's part and parcel of the lifestyle it would seem.
The scenario where your son and his boyfriend show up for Christmas dinner and invite their friend bob. Few drinks later and your son is getting comfy with bob on the sofa but isn't he with Mark? "Ah but thats all ok because they're men, horny men, can't help themselves dear never worry..." I think we explain things away all too easily and are being asked to accept "everything" about homosexuality and continue to champion it as civil rights...
Is this another thinly veiled attempt to associate / link homosexuality with paedophilia? Otherwise, please explain what you mean in this point.
Homosexuality is like paedophila?
Homosexuality is like lung cancer?
A Google search for that data bring a book by this author:
Matt Slick
President and Founder of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry. Matt earned his Bachelors in Social Science from Concordia University, Irvine, CA in 1988.
He earned his Masters of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary, in Escondido, CA, in 1991. He now resides in the Boise, Idaho area with his family. He is ordained. Matt started CARM in October of 1995 to respond to the many false teachings of the cults on the Internet.
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Quote from: thebigfella on December 22, 2016, 03:45:08 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Here is a stat for you, 100% of men like to exaggerate their sexual prowess. Take it or leave that one ::)
That stat include your business empire.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Too late for what?
Quote from: muppet on December 22, 2016, 06:51:43 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Too late for what?
I think he means that for you liberals the end to a decent moral society can't come soon enough.
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Gay people will never be more than a small minority.
Should you not be more concerned about divorce and the collapse of marriage ?
Quote from: seafoid on December 22, 2016, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Gay people will never be more than a small minority.
Should you not be more concerned about divorce and the collapse of marriage ?
You'd have to wonder what brings an otherwise intelligent, reasonable poster to write such truly terrible things about a minority group.
Quote from: muppet on December 22, 2016, 07:25:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 22, 2016, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Gay people will never be more than a small minority.
Should you not be more concerned about divorce and the collapse of marriage ?
You'd have to wonder what brings an otherwise intelligent, reasonable poster to write such truly terrible things about a minority group.
Religion can be an awful influence. Here is another example :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstrual_taboo
Quote from: muppet on December 22, 2016, 07:25:53 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 22, 2016, 07:22:05 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 06:48:26 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:46:44 PM
But the outcome part, in terms of disease and so on can be addressed, the same way as it is in straight people, and educated and responsible gay men DO mind themselves. Facts are facts, and if the risk of disease is higher among homosexual males, I've personally got no problem with sex education addressing that. It can be done without being judgmental or condemnatory. I wouldn't see any point in tiptoeing around an issue for PC reasons or whatever. If, as you say, there is a blatant disregard for health that isn't talked about (not saying I agree with this), then maybe that's partly down to it being used as a stick to beat the gay rights movement with in the first place. But, as I said, such overcompensation helps no one.
As to your last part, I absolutely would see it as a civil rights issue. That problems might exist which need to be addressed doesn't change that.
I challenge though that we're not even addressing the problems and will continue to turn a blind eye to everything that goes on until its too late. More and more will be accepted, society will slip further and further down the slope.....
Appreciate your comments and willingness to have a civil discussion on it all!
Gay people will never be more than a small minority.
Should you not be more concerned about divorce and the collapse of marriage ?
You'd have to wonder what brings an otherwise intelligent, reasonable poster to write such truly terrible things about a minority group.
Brainwashed by religion.
if you read the thread it has excluded any religious arguments. we're simply and openly discussing the physical implications, the outcomes, the problems and the rest...its the first time I think i've been able to have a normal conversation on the topic with someone without it resorting to handbags.. J70 is a very reasonable poster!
Quote from: foxcommander on December 22, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
If you haven't figured out how reproduction works at this point eamon I suggest you watch some footage of the actual process.
Maybe this rom-com would be ideal to get started - get your hair rollers in, housecoat and slippers on and curl up with a big bag of doritos. It's got Hugh Grant in it so you'll probably find him quite dreamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Months
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out so plainly but it looks like you really are as thick as you're showing yourself to be. I would love to know what you think is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple and a gay couple. Why is it okay for the former to have children by assisted means but not the latter?
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 08:01:30 PM
if you read the thread it has excluded any religious arguments. we're simply and openly discussing the physical implications, the outcomes, the problems and the rest...its the first time I think i've been able to have a normal conversation on the topic with someone without it resorting to handbags.. J70 is a very reasonable poster!
He is a very patient poster.
But it is clear his thinking is a million miles from yours.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 08:09:56 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 22, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
If you haven't figured out how reproduction works at this point eamon I suggest you watch some footage of the actual process.
Maybe this rom-com would be ideal to get started - get your hair rollers in, housecoat and slippers on and curl up with a big bag of doritos. It's got Hugh Grant in it so you'll probably find him quite dreamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Months
I didn't think I'd have to spell it out so plainly but it looks like you really are as thick as you're showing yourself to be. I would love to know what you think is the difference between an infertile heterosexual couple and a gay couple. Why is it okay for the former to have children by assisted means but not the latter?
Two men can't have assisted means Elton John bought a few. Then used that fact to keep out of the papers he was lubbing himself up with similarly minded individuals to protect them.
Quote from: foxcommander on December 22, 2016, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 08:14:57 AM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 21, 2016, 05:53:05 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...Theres a big difference
fixed it for you Eamon sweetie
The difference being... what exactly?
If you haven't figured out how reproduction works at this point eamon I suggest you watch some footage of the actual process.
Maybe this rom-com would be ideal to get started - get your hair rollers in, housecoat and slippers on and curl up with a big bag of doritos. It's got Hugh Grant in it so you'll probably find him quite dreamy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nine_Months
Eamon - point out to me where assisted means was mentioned in the above. You stated same sex couples could have kids just like a couple with learning disabilities. Laws of biology not apply anymore?
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again. And I'm going to explain it nice and slowly because it's clear that you're a bit of a simpleton.
People with disabilities can have children.
Infertile couples can have children.
Gay couples can have children.
Why is it less acceptable for gay couples to have children than for any of the other categories? And for that matter, why should it be less acceptable for a gay couple to have children than for a hate-filled, conservative, Fox-news-watching, Breitbart-reading, reality-averse maniac like you to have children?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again. And I'm going to explain it nice and slowly because it's clear that you're a bit of a simpleton.
People with disabilities can have children.
Infertile couples can have children.
Gay couples can have children.
Why is it less acceptable for gay couples to have children than for any of the other categories? And for that matter, why should it be less acceptable for a gay couple to have children than for a hate-filled, conservative, Fox-news-watching, Breitbart-reading, reality-averse maniac like you to have children?
Eamon - I hate to have to break it down for you but 2 men can't create a baby together no matter how hard they try. I take it that you didn't do science at school.
And you call
me a simpleton!! ;D
Merry Christmas
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again.
Yet you persist.
Quote from: michaelg on December 22, 2016, 04:50:45 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 04:22:39 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 22, 2016, 04:06:25 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on December 22, 2016, 03:33:04 PM
here's some stats - take them or leave them:
Promiscuity
28% of homosexual men had more than 1000 partners: "Bell and Weinberg reported evidence of widespread sexual compulsion among homosexual men. 83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. Bell and Weinberg p 308." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
79% of homosexual men say over half of sex partners are strangers: "The survey showed 79% of the respondents saying that over half of their sexual partners were strangers. Seventy percent said that over half of their sexual partners were people with whom they had sex only once. Bell and Weinberg pp.308-309." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
Modal range for homosexual sex partners 101-500: "In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354." (exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php)
1978 study, 78% of gay men ad more than 100 partners, 28% more than 1000: "A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250-499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners. By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984." (catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html)
There is an extremely low rate of sexual fidelity among homosexual men as compared to married heterosexuals. Among married females 85% reported sexual fidelity. Among married men, 75.5% reported sexual fidelity. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02)
also take a look at the center for disease control as to why we should be worried. The gay man in the video I posted called HIV the gay cancer nobody talks about:
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ (https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/)
you can do more reading on it all yourselves - I'm simply passing on some of my fears and concerns for society if we keep going down the path we are going down.,,,
Most of that research is very old, and either predates or is coincidental with the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. I'm not saying that the figures have or haven't changed, but surely there must be research that's not 30-40 years old? On HIV, clearly education and awareness is something that needs to be addressed, particularly when the risk of catching HIV from a gay man is so much higher than from a straight person and minorities are experiencing higher rates of infection.
But assuming all this is correct, what is it you would have done?
Are gay men your main concern, given the facts regarding promiscuity and HIV?
What exactly is the problem? Is it the homosexuality itself, or the outcome of homosexuality? If its only the outcome, what about lesbians? Would your attitude change is, 20 years from now, in the aftermath of gay marriage legalization and the mainstreaming of gay lifestyles, gay people were trending towards average levels of promiscuity, HIV, divorce etc?
J70 you and some others asked for evidence that the monogamous gay relationship was the exception - I provided some (albeit dated) stats to back up my statements. I don't think any of us need explanations about the dangers involved here just from a physical perspective... HIV is a killer. There is no cure yet and we're not even talking about it? I said before it's like not being allowed to mention cigarettes in the debate about lung cancer...
I don't know what I would do J70, I don't have answers. I'm not happy where we are going as a society and my discomfort is causing me to ask questions, pull back on the reins a bit and really think about whats important. This thread all stemmed from the nature versus nurture question and I think the "nurture" part once a homosexual (man especially) is active is especially dangerous.
I'm not demonizing my cousin or anyone - but I'm calling in to question the behaviour, the promiscuity, the blatant disregard for health perhaps and how nobody talks about any of it even though it's part and parcel of the lifestyle it would seem.
The scenario where your son and his boyfriend show up for Christmas dinner and invite their friend bob. Few drinks later and your son is getting comfy with bob on the sofa but isn't he with Mark? "Ah but thats all ok because they're men, horny men, can't help themselves dear never worry..." I think we explain things away all too easily and are being asked to accept "everything" about homosexuality and continue to champion it as civil rights...
Is this another thinly veiled attempt to associate / link homosexuality with paedophilia? Otherwise, please explain what you mean in this point.
Why have you not responded to this post?
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
I have read with sadness on this thread as some posters vent their own form of vile and discriminatory views on gay people. To compare gay people to paedophiles is more than just wrong. Being gay is not something the majority of gay people would choose to be, which is why many are in the closet and end up with mental health issues, it is not something the majority of parents would nurture and indeed some never accept that their children are gay exacerbating mental health issues. Just look at the furore when someone well known comes out. Nor can you correlate being gay with the promiscuity displayed by some gay men in the 70's and 80's which undoubtedly helped to spread HIV and aids. Christ it is hard enough for two gay men to live together in these more enlightened days than it was then which undoubtedly influenced the attitudes. But don't forget that aids had its origins in the rampant heterosexual promiscuity of some men on the African continent. I'd like to see stats more recent than those quoted on here. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice it is a natural inclination as as heterosexuality. I personally don't like the idea of kissing another man but two men who wish to do so does not threaten me in any way. There aren't any more gay people now compared to the past, thankfully we are becoming more tolerant and accepting...well some are.
Interesting thread this although sad to read some people's views on the topic.
I have a few homosexual friends. Most are in committed relationships. One lad but he isnt out all the time riding others.
Is it a lifestyle choice? I dont know why someone would choose to live a life that leads to their being ostracized by many, including family. That leads to discrimination and the clear possibility of being physically assaulted
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 23, 2016, 08:53:18 AM
I have read with sadness on this thread as some posters vent their own form of vile and discriminatory views on gay people. To compare gay people to paedophiles is more than just wrong. Being gay is not something the majority of gay people would choose to be, which is why many are in the closet and end up with mental health issues, it is not something the majority of parents would nurture and indeed some never accept that their children are gay exacerbating mental health issues. Just look at the furore when someone well known comes out. Nor can you correlate being gay with the promiscuity displayed by some gay men in the 70's and 80's which undoubtedly helped to spread HIV and aids. Christ it is hard enough for two gay men to live together in these more enlightened days than it was then which undoubtedly influenced the attitudes. But don't forget that aids had its origins in the rampant heterosexual promiscuity of some men on the African continent. I'd like to see stats more recent than those quoted on here. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice it is a natural inclination as as heterosexuality. I personally don't like the idea of kissing another man but two men who wish to do so does not threaten me in any way. There aren't any more gay people now compared to the past, thankfully we are becoming more tolerant and accepting...well some are.
Excellent post.
Quote from: michaelg on December 23, 2016, 10:42:57 AM
Quote from: Applesisapples on December 23, 2016, 08:53:18 AM
I have read with sadness on this thread as some posters vent their own form of vile and discriminatory views on gay people. To compare gay people to paedophiles is more than just wrong. Being gay is not something the majority of gay people would choose to be, which is why many are in the closet and end up with mental health issues, it is not something the majority of parents would nurture and indeed some never accept that their children are gay exacerbating mental health issues. Just look at the furore when someone well known comes out. Nor can you correlate being gay with the promiscuity displayed by some gay men in the 70's and 80's which undoubtedly helped to spread HIV and aids. Christ it is hard enough for two gay men to live together in these more enlightened days than it was then which undoubtedly influenced the attitudes. But don't forget that aids had its origins in the rampant heterosexual promiscuity of some men on the African continent. I'd like to see stats more recent than those quoted on here. Being gay is not a lifestyle choice it is a natural inclination as as heterosexuality. I personally don't like the idea of kissing another man but two men who wish to do so does not threaten me in any way. There aren't any more gay people now compared to the past, thankfully we are becoming more tolerant and accepting...well some are.
Excellent post.
Absolutely.
Some vile sh1te being spouted by some but I suppose that's becoming par for the course as the World gets nastier in the last few years.
Nollaig Shona dhīobh go lėir. :)
Quote from: Puckoon on December 22, 2016, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again.
Yet you persist.
In this case trying to explain procreation to Eamon is like talking to a brick wall.
Quote from: foxcommander on December 23, 2016, 01:41:38 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 22, 2016, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again.
Yet you persist.
In this case trying to explain procreation to Eamon is like talking to a brick wall.
Do you know a heterosexual couple who can't create a child? And if you do did they adopt or in process of adopting?
You are ignoring the point Eamonnca1 has brought up by being a knob
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2016, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 23, 2016, 01:41:38 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 22, 2016, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again.
Yet you persist.
In this case trying to explain procreation to Eamon is like talking to a brick wall.
Do you know a heterosexual couple who can't create a child? And if you do did they adopt or in process of adopting?
You are ignoring the point Eamonnca1 has brought up by being a knob
If you read back that wasn't the initial argument. 2 men cannot make a child. A hetrosexual couple with learning disabilities can.
It's incredible you all have to jump to his defence when he's clearly wrong.
Quote from: foxcommander on December 23, 2016, 06:41:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2016, 06:31:02 PM
Quote from: foxcommander on December 23, 2016, 01:41:38 PM
Quote from: Puckoon on December 22, 2016, 11:14:04 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 22, 2016, 10:22:34 PM
Jesus H Christ this is like talking to a brick wall.
Let's try this again.
Yet you persist.
In this case trying to explain procreation to Eamon is like talking to a brick wall.
Do you know a heterosexual couple who can't create a child? And if you do did they adopt or in process of adopting?
You are ignoring the point Eamonnca1 has brought up by being a knob
If you read back that wasn't the initial argument. 2 men cannot make a child. A hetrosexual couple with learning disabilities can.
It's incredible you all have to jump to his defence when he's clearly wrong.
I have read the thread, thanks, no defence, but can clearly see how you see things
off course they can't make a child but they can bring a child up in a loving steady relationship, if you thought for a second that anyone actually thought 2 men can make a child between them then you are daft! No?
The courts are full of dysfunctional "normal" relationships.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
Point well made, let us know when you make it though yourself.
Quote from: muppet on December 24, 2016, 03:43:35 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
Point well made, let us know when you make it though yourself.
Such an apt name you give yourself.
@No Wides, you sad weirdo - just get it over with and change your user name to "No Quares" and then write out "I fuckin' hate quares!" 20 times in 20 separate posts, because your contribution hasn't and won't amount to anything more.
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
One of the most disgusting things about these threads is how people subject to life's misfortunes, for whom their situation is a disaster, are callously used as justification for others to create dysfunctional situations.
It is Christmas, can you not give a break for once.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 24, 2016, 04:15:54 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
One of the most disgusting things about these threads is how people subject to life's misfortunes, for whom their situation is a disaster, are callously used as justification for others to create dysfunctional situations.
It is Christmas, can you not give a break for once.
Yes it was terrible but how would it be if the likes of no wides opinion went unchecked and became the norm. if two men cannot raise a child why can 1.
you can stick your faux discust.
happy Xmas!!!
Great issue of National Geographic on Gender just came out. Jan 2017
For f**k sake...I've just read this thread and it's pretty shameful! I really hope no young fella/girl who might be struggling with their sexuality reads this. The opinions and ignorance espoused by a couple of posters are nothing short of dangerous. Honestly, sometimes people need to shut the f**k up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Quote from: Far East on December 26, 2016, 01:24:34 AM
For f**k sake...I've just read this thread and it's pretty shameful! I really hope no young fella/girl who might be struggling with their sexuality reads this. The opinions and ignorance espoused by a couple of posters are nothing short of dangerous. Honestly, sometimes people need to shut the f**k up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Another liberal who will be raising their children in the facts of life of hetrosexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism as each is as normal as the next. Or do i smell J70 bullshit.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Another way of looking at it, if a gay man has his own child from a previous relationship it be ok to bring him up in a gay relationship? Lesbians would find themselves in this position a lot I'd say
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
You doubted two gay men could help a girl through puberty and all that comes with it. The guy is saying his wife's cousin as a single father will be doing exactly that. And you fail to see the correlation? Really?
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:53:30 AM
Quote from: Far East on December 26, 2016, 01:24:34 AM
For f**k sake...I've just read this thread and it's pretty shameful! I really hope no young fella/girl who might be struggling with their sexuality reads this. The opinions and ignorance espoused by a couple of posters are nothing short of dangerous. Honestly, sometimes people need to shut the f**k up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Another liberal who will be raising their children in the facts of life of hetrosexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism as each is as normal as the next. Or do i smell J70 bullshit.
Awww...does somebody need a wee hug?
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 26, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
You doubted two gay men could help a girl through puberty and all that comes with it. The guy is saying his wife's cousin as a single father will be doing exactly that. And you fail to see the correlation? Really?
A hetrosexual male calling on the support and advice of female family members and a wide family support will be will looked after with female advice and guidance. If you think this will be available with two gay men you are deluded.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 26, 2016, 09:43:02 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Another way of looking at it, if a gay man has his own child from a previous relationship it be ok to bring him up in a gay relationship? Lesbians would find themselves in this position a lot I'd say
Unless the mother is dead or a crack addict can't see the gay man getting custody here.
Quote from: Far East on December 26, 2016, 10:33:27 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:53:30 AM
Quote from: Far East on December 26, 2016, 01:24:34 AM
For f**k sake...I've just read this thread and it's pretty shameful! I really hope no young fella/girl who might be struggling with their sexuality reads this. The opinions and ignorance espoused by a couple of posters are nothing short of dangerous. Honestly, sometimes people need to shut the f**k up and keep their opinions to themselves.
Another liberal who will be raising their children in the facts of life of hetrosexuality, homosexuality and transgenderism as each is as normal as the next. Or do i smell J70 bullshit.
Awww...does somebody need a wee hug?
Pathetic.
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 09:53:07 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 10:34:42 PM
Gay cousins aside be interesting to know who arguring here is gay or has a gay immediate family member - no pun intended. Expect silence. Even hetros who like sausage or pie on the side. Cop yourselves on the lot of you.
I notice this went unanswered if it is so normal surely this board is full of gays - Bigfella?
Anyone?
These damn liberals just don't understand people like you nowides and how you have it all sussed. Hypocrites and idiots the lot of them ::)
You haven't any family members I assume? Have you seen the struggle people have with coming out? Ever? Does it have to be you or a family member or do friends count? What if for example you had a wife or girlfriend who had a family member? Would you hide what you spout here? Would you not? If you wouldn't it'd be uncomfortable or if you would that would be slightly hypocritical no?
What age are you? You're like a redneck 16 or so year old who hasn't been let out much.
That's right your arch enemy bigfella - he must be gay. See my previous point about you being 16 or so. I haven't heard that slagging since school days.
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 26, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
You doubted two gay men could help a girl through puberty and all that comes with it. The guy is saying his wife's cousin as a single father will be doing exactly that. And you fail to see the correlation? Really?
A hetrosexual male calling on the support and advice of female family members and a wide family support will be will looked after with female advice and guidance. If you think this will be available with two gay men you are deluded.
Why would that support not be available to a gay couple? can they not have mothers, aunts & sisters too never mind friends. it's very clear who the deluded one here is.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
These damn liberals just don't understand people like you nowides and how you have it all sussed. Hypocrites and idiots the lot of them ::)
You haven't any family members I assume? Have you seen the struggle people have with coming out? Ever? Does it have to be you or a family member or do friends count? What if for example you had a wife or girlfriend who had a family member? Would you hide what you spout here? Would you not? If you wouldn't it'd be uncomfortable or if you would that would be slightly hypocritical no?
What age are you? You're like a redneck 16 or so year old who hasn't been let out much.
That's right your arch enemy bigfella - he must be gay. See my previous point about you being 16 or so. I haven't heard that slagging since school days.
I love this wee club it was bigfella and muppet who alluded that i was gay in a derogatory fashion as if being gay was somehow wrong. I never said being gay was wrong just asked in the face of liberal shite was it and trangenderism normal. But dont let facts cloud your posts.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 26, 2016, 01:36:35 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 26, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
You doubted two gay men could help a girl through puberty and all that comes with it. The guy is saying his wife's cousin as a single father will be doing exactly that. And you fail to see the correlation? Really?
A hetrosexual male calling on the support and advice of female family members and a wide family support will be will looked after with female advice and guidance. If you think this will be available with two gay men you are deluded.
Why would that support not be available to a gay couple? can they not have mothers, aunts & sisters too never mind friends. it's very clear who the deluded one here is.
And a gay male couple so arragont in their abilty as potential parents that they would adopt. You expext them to ask advice of anyone. There are probably no gay people posting here they are probably posting with like minded individuals on other boards hence the normaility for any adopted child will be their lifestyle choices. To that end gay men should not adopt children.
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
These damn liberals just don't understand people like you nowides and how you have it all sussed. Hypocrites and idiots the lot of them ::)
You haven't any family members I assume? Have you seen the struggle people have with coming out? Ever? Does it have to be you or a family member or do friends count? What if for example you had a wife or girlfriend who had a family member? Would you hide what you spout here? Would you not? If you wouldn't it'd be uncomfortable or if you would that would be slightly hypocritical no?
What age are you? You're like a redneck 16 or so year old who hasn't been let out much.
That's right your arch enemy bigfella - he must be gay. See my previous point about you being 16 or so. I haven't heard that slagging since school days.
I love this wee club it was bigfella and muppet who alluded that i was gay in a derogatory fashion as if being gay was somehow wrong. I never said being gay was wrong just asked in the face of liberal shite was it and trangenderism normal. But dont let facts cloud your posts.
Where did i say in this post about you being gay? Facts? Ah the clueless liberals ignore the facts ???
Sure keep you posting your shite and those poor clueless liberals will see the errors of their ways.
So where was their anything about a gay couple being arrogant in adopting? Are you just pulling shite out of thin air? They wouldn't ask advice... On what basis are you going on here?
That's right - gay people only talk to gay people and would never ask advice from anyone ::) can you tell me the cross section of gay people that is representative of? I mean real people and not the hypothetical ones in your head.
so at the end of all the crap you have made up you have formed a strong opinion. The world is in good hands with people like you about. Really it is.
Hard to debate with people who can't read ill let you work out your own mistakes.
Why don't the homosexuals on here put their point across. It would appear there are none or even under an alias they won't say they are gay yet we are saying it is normal.
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 11:56:57 AM
Quote from: tonto1888 on December 26, 2016, 09:44:25 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 08:56:57 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 24, 2016, 01:39:00 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 24, 2016, 12:28:34 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on December 23, 2016, 11:55:44 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on December 23, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 23, 2016, 11:33:42 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 23, 2016, 01:03:39 AM
Two men can adopt, Fox. What's your point?
Society shouldnt allow them to.
Why?
Because only a man and a women can be bad parents.
Fair point well made, apologies two gay men could supply all the emotional support a young girl could need going through puberty.
my wife's cousin has a 5 year old and his wife has passed away. is it wrong that he raise his child now?
Cant see the correlation between two gay men adopting a child and a widowed father raising his child. Maybe you could eloborate?
You doubted two gay men could help a girl through puberty and all that comes with it. The guy is saying his wife's cousin as a single father will be doing exactly that. And you fail to see the correlation? Really?
A hetrosexual male calling on the support and advice of female family members and a wide family support will be will looked after with female advice and guidance. If you think this will be available with two gay men you are deluded.
You really are lost up your own arse aren't you? A real credit to your parents
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 06:24:38 PM
Hard to debate with people who can't read ill let you work out your own mistakes.
You are the superior one here so you point them out.
I would be very surprised if the views you put across here are actually real. if they are then I feel sorry for you - or moreso your family but as i say I doubt they really are your views.
Sure it is hard to debate alright.
If you're not gay you're not allowed an opinion on the topic. Or in fact I am kind of lost here.
It's not ok to be gay? It's not ok to adopt? What is your point exactly?
Read back you will say not doubt - but there is so much bile it is hard to dissect exactly what your argument is.
Quote from: No wides on December 26, 2016, 02:38:09 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 26, 2016, 12:21:01 PM
These damn liberals just don't understand people like you nowides and how you have it all sussed. Hypocrites and idiots the lot of them ::)
You haven't any family members I assume? Have you seen the struggle people have with coming out? Ever? Does it have to be you or a family member or do friends count? What if for example you had a wife or girlfriend who had a family member? Would you hide what you spout here? Would you not? If you wouldn't it'd be uncomfortable or if you would that would be slightly hypocritical no?
What age are you? You're like a redneck 16 or so year old who hasn't been let out much.
That's right your arch enemy bigfella - he must be gay. See my previous point about you being 16 or so. I haven't heard that slagging since school days.
I love this wee club it was bigfella and muppet who alluded that i was gay in a derogatory fashion as if being gay was somehow wrong. I never said being gay was wrong just asked in the face of liberal shite was it and trangenderism normal. But dont let facts cloud your posts.
Put up the post where I said that.
Maybe it was gallsman all you chic liberals are the sane to me
Quote from: No wides on December 27, 2016, 08:02:52 PM
Maybe it was gallsman all you chic liberals are the sane to me
Indeed sanity is probably the biggest difference between us and you. :D
Just uncovered this yesterday when looking for the boxing thread, anyway I had a read and thought it interesting initially until it completely degenerated, but id like to add my 2ps worth...
I'm pretty sure that there is no single cause of sexual orientation.... there is four basic ways it could be instigated and I think that it has an element of all four... tho prob not all four for all people
First one is genetics, that its in the DNA. A lot of studies have failed to find any link, however some people appear to show traits of being gay from an early edge and any attempts to show a link between it and sexuality are pretty weak especially from id twins. Tho in saying that some genetics may be more suspecitable to it given the right conditions. But to add another counter to that there is also the theory of evolution how could a gay gene really have developed and gone thru millions (billions?) of generations of heterosexuals.
Next one is environmental causes. The evidence of this one appear to be quite strong as the vast majority of gay people say that it is not a conscious choice and when the genetic link appears weak this would point to environmental. BTW Environmental causes does not necessarily mean "not born that way" as the womb is also part of the environment. I don't think for example anyone would say their fingerprints are a choice but they are not genetic, they are formed in the womb by the environment of the womb. Identical twins have different fingerprints but the same DNA. There is such a wide cause of effects that your environment can cause to your hormones at any point in your life from conception onwards that I think that this the most likely strongest cause.
Next is psychological causes, which could also be considered environmental i suppose but lets say they are non biological for arguments sake. I'm not really sure about this one either way, its a difficult one to gauge but I think it may contributory to some degree.
Last and IMO least is the "choice". And even tho some people do say their sexuality is a choice the vast majority don't and the clincher for me is from a hetro perspective..."how could anyone who is straight engage in gay sex in the first place AND choose to do it again." There has got to be something inherently different about someone who does that.
Anyway with all that said what all this has to do with anyone's right to be gay or rights as a gay person is IMO irrelevant, that is a societal question.
Quote from: omaghjoe on January 15, 2017, 07:31:00 AM
Just uncovered this yesterday when looking for the boxing thread, anyway I had a read and thought it interesting initially until it completely degenerated, but id like to add my 2ps worth...
I'm pretty sure that there is no single cause of sexual orientation.... there is four basic ways it could be instigated and I think that it has an element of all four... tho prob not all four for all people
First one is genetics, that its in the DNA. A lot of studies have failed to find any link, however some people appear to show traits of being gay from an early edge and any attempts to show a link between it and sexuality are pretty weak especially from id twins. Tho in saying that some genetics may be more suspecitable to it given the right conditions. But to add another counter to that there is also the theory of evolution how could a gay gene really have developed and gone thru millions (billions?) of generations of heterosexuals.
Next one is environmental causes. The evidence of this one appear to be quite strong as the vast majority of gay people say that it is not a conscious choice and when the genetic link appears weak this would point to environmental. BTW Environmental causes does not necessarily mean "not born that way" as the womb is also part of the environment. I don't think for example anyone would say their fingerprints are a choice but they are not genetic, they are formed in the womb by the environment of the womb. Identical twins have different fingerprints but the same DNA. There is such a wide cause of effects that your environment can cause to your hormones at any point in your life from conception onwards that I think that this the most likely strongest cause.
Next is psychological causes, which could also be considered environmental i suppose but lets say they are non biological for arguments sake. I'm not really sure about this one either way, its a difficult one to gauge but I think it may contributory to some degree.
Last and IMO least is the "choice". And even tho some people do say their sexuality is a choice the vast majority don't and the clincher for me is from a hetro perspective..."how could anyone who is straight engage in gay sex in the first place AND choose to do it again." There has got to be something inherently different about someone who does that.
Anyway with all that said what all this has to do with anyone's right to be gay or rights as a gay person is IMO irrelevant, that is a societal question.
Long winded subjective nonsense.
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Just helping you out with a factual statement. Hard to find one here as the thread is littered with a J70 bullshit.
What about different sex couples who need help with IVF treatment?
I've only just discovered this thread, and now feel guilty about creating the homophobe thread which was half in jest, but half because of some camp-as-you-like performances of gays on television.
Quote from: ziggysego on January 16, 2017, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Just helping you out with a factual statement. Hard to find one here as the thread is littered with a J70 bullshit.
What about different sex couples who need help with IVF treatment?
What about them?
Quote from: No wides on January 16, 2017, 12:17:48 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on January 16, 2017, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Just helping you out with a factual statement. Hard to find one here as the thread is littered with a J70 bullshit.
What about different sex couples who need help with IVF treatment?
What about them?
Should they be allowed to have children if they can't do it naturally by themselves?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 16, 2017, 04:00:34 PM
Quote from: No wides on January 16, 2017, 12:17:48 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on January 16, 2017, 11:54:51 AM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 05:34:24 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 21, 2016, 04:47:58 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 21, 2016, 07:52:16 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on December 20, 2016, 11:32:24 PM
Quote from: No wides on December 20, 2016, 02:28:54 PM
For the record people with learning disabilities can have children - but don't let facts get in the way of your bullshit.
So can same-sex couples.
Not by themselves
And...?
Just helping you out with a factual statement. Hard to find one here as the thread is littered with a J70 bullshit.
What about different sex couples who need help with IVF treatment?
What about them?
Should they be allowed to have children if they can't do it naturally by themselves?
You really are so full of shite, medical intervention to assist
a man and woman to conceive is not comparable to giving two gay men a baby, you note the difference, two gay men cant conceive and shouldnt be allowed to adopt for the human rights of the child. You will be saying next that all medical assistance should be withdrawn, if you can't heal naturally don't heal at all. But you don't care you have shown your disdain for kids, you ever going say whether the folks you visited over christmas you told them their kids were spoilt little b**tards for playing?