Reply By: little-whipPosted: Saturday, September 16, 2006 Yanno what, folks, I was hoping to see an actual discussion of the bill here, along with some legitimate reasons as to why it's not a good idea. There are many. Instead, its turned into a moronic gay-bashing fest, complete with biblical references, the notion that gays are mentally ill, and descriptions of where penii were meant to fit and gross-outs over the possibility of 'plowing up into a man.' Grow the fuck up, all of you. And you wonder why I don't participate much here anymore?

Instead of a discourse on how immature we all are, you could have choosen to start a rational discourse yourself.

I guess I've become a liberal myself (on this topic anyway). While I don't necessarily agree with gay marriage and I guess I don't see homosexuality as being "right," why shouldn't gay people be able to live their lives as we do without all of THIS?

We have all these theories about what "causes" gayness. Does it matter where it comes from? Does it matter if a gay person's chemicals are "imbalanced"? I don't think it does, because it's irrelevant. If you want to bring God into this equation...God made gay people, too. He may not have made them gay, but he created a gay person as much as He created a straight person. And I believe that God doesn't make mistakes.

AB606 requires school districts to have discrimination and harassment policies and WILL PUNISH ANY STUDENT NOT CONFORMING.

Homosexuals are a protected class of people. If you can't discriminate against me based on my gender, my religion, my race, etc., why should you be allowed to discriminate against me or harass me because I'm gay? I personally would support this measure wholeheartedly. Doesn't this relate to a zero tolerance policy? What it comes down to is basically "Don't be an asshole". Or...in elementary terms, "Be respectful".

The other two measures to me seem a bit over the top. I don't feel I should have to say "Hello Mr. Smith. I'm so glad to see that you're heterosexual today" to a coworker, or "Good morning, Sue who is gay. How was your weekend?" Who cares?

Furthermore, in regards to the rewriting of texts and such to include gay leaders...what difference does it make if a person is gay or not? What if there were no major gay leaders out there to be included? Would we have to make one up so that the text would be inclusive of all? History should be written like it is, not skewed to focus on things that aren't really important.

Now...if you wanted to include something about the gay rights movement, etc., and the struggles all sorts of people, including racial minorities, have had to go through to be considered equal in this country, I believe THAT would be something noteworthy to include in a HIGH SCHOOL level text. These things of a sexual nature don't have a place in an elementary classroom--that should be taken care of in the home.

I have always said that gay people are chemically imbalanced which results in them being gay.... also resulting in the higher suicidal rate, eg. Depression is understood to be a chemical imbalance in a large amount of cases if not all, fix the chemical imbalance - you generally fix the problem. Can this be done with gay people, has it been investigated?

I don't know that there's one "road to homosexuality". It might be a chemical thing, it might be related to a particularly troublesome (or good, I guess) with someone of the same sex, or it might be a choice for some people.

I think being homosexual has it's repercussions, but I don't think it should be treated as an illness. It's not being treated that way any longer in the mental health field, and I don't think the rest of us should either.

think being homosexual has it's repercussions, but I don't think it should be treated as an illness. It's not being treated that way any longer in the mental health field, and I don't think the rest of us should either.

What I am saying is - have they even investigated the possibility

What if it is chemical imbalance?

What if the chemical imbalance could be put in balance again with a little itty bitty tablet?

It would of course be a choice to seek medical help to have the imbalance sorted out.

I have since done an internet search on the subject and have posted it on Science and technology here on the forum titled "Gay - chemical imbalance?". Take a look and read through the various links and draw your own conclusions

What if being heterosexual is a "chemical imbalance"? What if they could make you gay with a "little itty bitty tablet"?

And if that doesn't work, maybe some kind of gene or radiation therapy. Or cosmic rays. Maybe prayer.

And I assume, as long as the homos are taking their pills or praying away the gay, you'd all be fine with them adopting and raising kids in that "normal" environment.

If the contributors to this thread are examples of the product of this supposed ideal child rearing environment, then we're in trouble. Of course, it is unlikely that all these people come from that ideal family.

After all. Most families have maybe a grandparent. How should we legislate grandparents living with families. Two adult dudes in the same house, contributing to the upbringing of a child (and one insists on being called "Sir"!)? Sounds like a sin to me.

Or what if you grew up in a fmaily where one parent had a child from another marraige. Or even from out of wedlock. Somebody tell me how we'll word the law that bans this obviously less than perfect situation - stepchildren and stepsiblings only lead to trouble. It's in the Book.

Well it has been fun. Let me know next time you make up a news story just to get huffed up about it.

What if being heterosexual is a "chemical imbalance"? What if they could make you gay with a "little itty bitty tablet"? And if that doesn't work, maybe some kind of gene or radiation therapy. Or cosmic rays. Maybe prayer. And I assume, as long as the homos are taking their pills or praying away the gay, you'd all be fine with them adopting and raising kids in that "normal" environment.

In response to the poisonous puke you have poured over us, I respond in like manner:-

You obviously have not read the whole thread. Read it again before you start ranting and raving at people, making accusations and casting aspersions.

Don't go putting words in my mouth either - "maybe some kind of gene or radiation therapy. Or cosmic rays" you do not have that right! Choke on them pukehead!

And I assume, as long as the homos are taking their pills or praying away the gay, you'd all be fine with them adopting and raising kids in that "normal" environment.

Hetrosexual relationships are normal as nature intended, so yes hypothetically speaking if it turned out that gayness was cured by a tablet I would support kids being brought up in a normal hetro relationship. I do not agree with gays raising kids.

After all. Most families have maybe a grandparent. How should we legislate grandparents living with families. Two adult dudes in the same house, contributing to the upbringing of a child (and one insists on being called "Sir"!)? Sounds like a sin to me.

This little paragraph about grandparents is just ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the subject.

My... what an eclectic collection of prejudice and stupidity we have here.

Let's begin with the facts, shall we? Whatever the origins of homosexuality (or, for that matter, heterosexuality), be that in genetics, social conditioning, or the operations of the faggot fairy, the truth is that some definite per centage of the American population is homosexual.

What is the defining condition of being American? Citizenship. Whatever else American homosexuals are, they are citizens in virtue of being American. All citizens have rights - whether any of you rabid idiots like it or not. Homosexuality (or heterosexuality) is neither a positive condition for the possession of those rights, nor a negative condition prescribing the denial of those rights. Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a complete irrelevance to the question of whether one possesses the rights of citizenship or not.

For any real American, that ought to settle the issue of how homosexuals are to be treated. They are to be treated as citizens because they are citizens. Anything else is a matter of personal preference, prejudice and inclination.

As to where homosexuality comes from, how it's formed, or whether it's natural or not... I don't give a damn. I had my first homosexual relationship when I was 13. I have had others since. Equally, I have had several heterosexual relationships. I found each type of relationship thoroughly satisfactory in its own way.

Neither type of relationship had a deterministic effect on my nature as a civil human being and as a citizen of the nation that I lived in at that time. Why would it? They are completely separate questions; one having to do with my integrity as a member of a civil body, the other having to do with my integrity as a sexual being.

The fact that you people are incapable of seeing the difference, or respecting the separate nature of the questions involved, is only further proof to me that, in regard to sex, Americans as a whole are a deeply disturbed people.

And one more thing. If any of you Fothermuckers tries to feed me a pill to change my sexual preferences to suit your particular prejudices - I'll kick your Fothermuckin' asses. Believe it.

And while I'm thinking about it...

America is both a Republic and a Democracy. As a Republic it grants to its citizens rights, and exacts from them obligations. As a Democracy it gives to each citizen a voice in the affairs of the body politic - and that voice is a right completely independent of any condition of person other than citizenship.

You may not like what your Democracy does, and you have the right as as citizens of a Republic and a Democracy to make that dislike known. What you have absolutely no right to do is in any way advocate, or even appear to advocate, the curtailment of the right of other citizens to make their voice known.

Nor have you any right even to complain when the legitimate democratic voice of those with whom you disagree prevails over yours - and certainly you have no right, as jennifer1 does, even to infer that a medical condition (supposing that homosexuality could be reduced to a medical condition) should be rectified by treatment - when that supposed medical condition has no impact upon the ability of a citizen to function as a citizen.

Or is it your argument, jennifer1, that homosexuals are not capable of functioning as citizens, and ought therefore to be medicated to the point where they can so function?

What none of you appear to realize is that your 'debate', insofar as it is a debate and not the equivalent of schoolyard sniggering, concerns the validity or otherwise of a particular type of 'being-in-the-world'.

You arrogate to yourselves on the basis of a supposed 'naturalness' or 'un-naturalness' of certain types of sexual conduct the right to decide who shall or shall not participate in the civic body. The only condition for participation in a democratic civic body is citizenship, not sexual orientation. If a particular fragment of the civic body comes to dominate the civic process in relation to a particular issue... well, asholes, that's democracy for you.

Are you for democracy, or not? Are you for the rights of citizens, or not?

Are you American, or not?

My question is has anyone looked into the possiblitiy of chemical imbalances, quite simply because gayness seems to be on the increase in very big numbers, there has to be scientific reasons for this - not just sexual preference.

Its become quite the fad for teen-aged girls.

If they are of age, it might be a fine oppertunity for some young (or older) men to get a wish that many males have; to do it with a couple of lezzies

The fact that they are mostly younger girls participating in a sexual "fad", shows that they may easily be swayed into a threesome for some lucky guy. After all, most of this for young girls is indeed a fad, and they do have a regular adolesent affinity for guys.

I think what the civic body wants to do in the schools actually helps promote this enticing fad.

I'm also certain that these lucky guys are hoping these girls participate in this fad for maybe a couple of years past the age of consent.

Sometime I just love our civic body and our government. They made it easy for many guys dreams to come true.

How wonderful......NOT!!!

Seriously, is that going to happen? Because you can say goodbye to quick text messaging now.

  Fantastic! Very funny.  

28.4 percent of a 30,000 group study of homosexuals have tried to commit suicide against 8.2 percent of a group of 30,000 heterosexuals. With figures like this how can homosexuality be considered healthy or normal?

The problem with this rhetorical question is that you're drawing a conclusion from an unrelated premise. Its a false assumption to make that gays are topping themselves because they're gay. They're topping themselves because of a lack of societal acceptance due to their homosexuality which is a very different thing altogether.

In other words and to an extent - we're killing them.

I think it would also be instructive to look at the demographic data in terms of age of suicide attempt as well. You'll no doubt see a massive spike around puberty for homosexuals, right around the time they should either be "coming out" or denying themselves.

Either way the conclusion you've drawn is far too simplistic and does nothing to support your bias argument.

For all of you who think that anal sex is unnatural, it may be time to remember that a man's g-spot exists a few inches inside his anus. Next time you have sex, give a little thought to a little back-door stimulation - it may well improve your/your man's enjoyment a great deal.

Oh, and remember that God/Mother Nature designed men in that manner, which suggests that anal stimulation of some kind was intended in either 'the Great Plan' or evolution.

Strange, eh, that God loves gays too?

Citizen)cactoblastaSeptember 17, 2006 08:31:14

The male and female bodies human (not only human, the animal kingdom too) were created in pairs by nature for procreation, they obviously fit together for very good reasons. Gayness goes against the natural order of what nature intended.

Anal stimulation is not gayness. It is a sexual tool. Gayness is much more than just sex, it is a choice and a lifestyle that is growing in numbers rapidly.

As stated previously I do not object to gays, I infact get along with them very well and have a number of gay friends, I am commonly referred to as a fag hag!!

HRH

And one more thing. If any of you Fothermuckers tries to feed me a pill to change my sexual preferences to suit your particular prejudices - I'll kick your Fothermuckin' asses. Believe it.

Hetrosexual relationships are normal as nature intended, so yes hypothetically speaking if it turned out that gayness was cured by a tablet I would support kids being brought up in a normal hetro relationship. I do not agree with gays raising kids.

First off I don't f%^% mothers HRH! If it did turn out "hypothetically" speaking that gayness could be cured by a tablet - it would be choice to take it - no-one is going to shove it down your throat. To do otherwise wouold not be democratic!

Or is it your argument, jennifer1, that homosexuals are not capable of functioning as citizens, and ought therefore to be medicated to the point where they can so function?

Have I inferred that anywhere in my responses here YRH? You too are are making assumptions into my questions or reasons behind my questions. I suggest you educate yourself to my reasoning by reading my internet search for the answers on the following "Gay- chemically imbalanced?" which can be found under the science and technology channel in the forums

Gays are quite able to function within society, I have not argued that fact, I have said I do not agree with them raising kids as couples, I believe the environment would not be conducive to the child going the way nature intended sexually speaking.

I do not put down and have not put down sexual experimentation or swinging across the "zones" , group sex or the like, I am not a prude and I have in my time participated.

What you have absolutely no right to do is in any way advocate, or even appear to advocate, the curtailment of the right of other citizens to make their voice known.

Granted, but what gives them the right to shove their lifestyles down the throats of the straights and try to change and rewrite history books and dictate how you should acknowledge others in common decent behaviour?

The other side of democracy is - the straights have the right to object and complain about these intended changes, it affects them too. That is the nature of democracy - both sides are allowed to raise their objections - your argument is suggesting they the straights should shut up and accept it!

Which is what this thread is about - allowing both sides to commnent. There maybe some sniggering and jokes flying around, that is because no- one has actually started up a debate on the subject at hand.

Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a complete irrelevance to the question of whether one possesses the rights of citizenship or not.

If I am correct no-one has suggested otherwise.

So YRH get off your indignant royal butt and stop ranting!

Tone it down and you would have a good debate on the go. Instead you try to frighten everyone off "like a bull thundering its way into a china shop!"

"My... what an eclectic collection of prejudice and stupidity we have here." in your opinion maybe! Stop insulting those around you.

Have a debate that lots of people could get involved with. Everyone has a view, everyone has the right to express that view, expressing ones view does not make them prejudiced! Insulting those that oppose the views is as you might say schoolyard behaviour.

As to where homosexuality comes from, how it's formed, or whether it's natural or not... I don't give a damn.

You do not have to give a damn, but some of us would like to know.

Asking questions does not make them prejudiced!

Always a pleasure YRH

I have done so much cutting and pasting on this lot, I hope it makes readable sense!   

They're topping themselves because of a lack of societal acceptance due to their homosexuality which is a very different thing altogether.

I disagree with this scoffy,

Gayness has a wide acceptance generally speaking and they live peacably in and around everywhere.

Social acceptance is not really an issue anymore, the gay communities are huge these days and it is quite acceptable to "out yourself". Rarely do people even bat an eye when someone "outs" themselves.

Rarely do people even bat an eye when someone "outs" themselves.

Maybe from a large societal standpoint and in certain parts of the world it seems easy, but more often than not in the familial relationships, it's almost impossible.

I know (well, knew) a young man who was gay, but because of the climate of our society here in Utah didn't feel he could ever be accepted. Consequently, he eventually committed suicide. Now, am I putting the blame of that death squarely on society's shoulders? No. But, the intolerance for homosexual lifestyles in this part of the country certainly helped in his spiral down to suicide.

I have a very good friend who is gay, a guy I used to work with at the Garden Center. I have no problems with the way he lives his life, and, along with Simon, believe that his should be given the rights of citizenship that he deserves for being a citizen.

Come on Cactoblasta--- a man has a G-spot in his anus? Let me tell you that the anus is, by itself, an incredibly sensitive organ with lots of muscles and nerves surrounding it, owing to its particular needs and you know what those are. I had a prostate massage once and all it did was want to make me pee. God certainly created the anus but not for recreational use.

Hope this blog gets some answers even though it it seems to wander into uncharted territory. Scoring macho points though!

Come on Cactoblasta--- a man has a G-spot in his anus? Let me tell you that the anus is, by itself, an incredibly sensitive organ with lots of muscles and nerves surrounding it, owing to its particular needs and you know what those are. I had a prostate massage once and all it did was want to make me pee. God certainly created the anus but not for recreational use.

Hope this blog gets some answers even though it it seems to wander into uncharted territory. Scoring macho points though!

(Citizen)WyoMooSeptember 16, 2006 14:03:38

Very well said WyoMoo. You said what I would have basically said.

I don't know that there's one "road to homosexuality". It might be a chemical thing, it might be related to a particularly troublesome (or good, I guess) with someone of the same sex, or it might be a choice for some people. I think being homosexual has it's repercussions, but I don't think it should be treated as an illness. It's not being treated that way any longer in the mental health field, and I don't think the rest of us should either.

And very well said here too. Even more eloquently than I would have put it.



I don't like the wording in the proposed bills, worded the way they are makes you wonder what these people are thinking. However to me it seems what they are trying to do is to protect people who are homosexual from people who don't like that they are. In short to stop the harrassment and physical abuse of said people. In this they are correct in proposing these bills.

I don't think it's fair to say that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, why not? Are they sitting the kids down and saying "here watch us have sex." Because from what I've read so far, most of the responses are geared towards their physical activities in the bedroom. We have to get beyond that point. And it's because we don't, there will always be a reason to have laws that protect people of this persuasion.

Gayness is much more than just sex, it is a choice and a lifestyle that is growing in numbers rapidly.

This is what everyone should remember. It is a lifestyle that we who are heterosexual will never fully understand, but it is their choice. They are as much a part of our country as we are. They should be allowed to live free as is the American way.

I don't like the idea of anything being shoved at me to accept, and I think they're only trying to get out of that box that they've been locked in for so many years; just in the same way heterosexuals in general is shoving what we deemed as acceptable being shoved at them.

These are my opinions.

I took my information from a local newspaper article.

If I thought the information was wrong or misleading ask yourself would I then put the actual bill numbers in the article?

I should have fact checked, my bad for not doing so.

For those of you that jumped to the conclusion I was just gay bashing or intentionally misleading the reader. . go fuck yourself.

For those of you that do not like my stance on how I FEEL ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL SEX, go fuck yourself again.

I se that the usual suspects take great delight in pointing out how wrong I am about this article. I expect that from some. I was deeply humiliated by some friends jumping on that bandwagon and as usual blame myself for making poor choices in who I call friend. This is a mistake I will not make again, I should know better, but I keep hoping that I am wrong about most people being the scum of the earth.

I will leave this article up for a few more hours then close it. Have fun trashing me some more , here and on that stalking creep david's article.

Before you close it Elie, let me say that you shouldn't feel bad in writing it. You've made a lot of people think and bring their opinions to the forefront.

It's a pretty heated topic and was bound to bring out discussions that would be disagreeable to some.

(Citizen)foreverserenitySeptember 17, 2006 13:17:19

Before you close it Elie, let me say that you shouldn't feel bad in writing it. You've made a lot of people think and bring their opinions to the forefront. It's a pretty heated topic and was bound to bring out discussions that would be disagreeable to some.

the only thing I feel bad about donna is that I assumed the reporter had his facts right, I should have delved deeper and did some fact checking of my own before writing this.

Also to think that some people here would think I was deliberatly lieing or twisting things to intentionally mislead.

The good thing about all this is once again I see that my needy self is once again making bad choices about who I think is a friend.

Maybe from a large societal standpoint and in certain parts of the world it seems easy, but more often than not in the familial relationships, it's almost impossible.

Yes San you are right, it is hard for family, I agree with what you say as well, I was and have been speaking in very broad and general terms all the way through.

I have a very good friend who is gay, a guy I used to work with at the Garden Center. I have no problems with the way he lives his life, and, along with Simon, believe that his should be given the rights of citizenship that he deserves for being a citizen.

I too have some very lovely friends who are gay, they are wonderful people and terrific friends. I too believe they should be allowed to get on with life and live their lives how they want. I just do not agree with them raising kids. My opinion. How that would affect their citizen rights I would not know.

I am in no way advocating - dehumanising or de-citizenizing them.

What I am saying is they have investigated the link of depression to gay people. They have investigated the genetics of gay people, have they investigated a possible chemical imbalance in gay people?

(Citizen)little-whipSeptember 17, 2006 14:35:14

You gonna call me a Jew Hater now or later, bro?

never would I say that and to intimate I might is a low blow.

further more I do not mind being wrong and have it pointed out. What does bother me is the obvious joy you got from it, the many repetitions of "plowing into a man" comes to mind.

I don't think this needs to be legislated. I have no problem with homosexuals but I don't want to watch. I think everyone's sex lives should be a private thing.

I do think that both homosexuality and heterosexuality can be normal for whoever is living that way. I really don't know that it's a choice. I never chose to like men, I just always have. There was never a day that I had to pick and from some of the gay people I've talked to it's the same way with them. They didn't pick it's just how they are.

As for what's deviant sexual practices, everyone has their own opinion on that. Some things that are completely normal and enjoyable to me might seem freaky to other people. I don't care but I don't advertise to the world what I enjoy and what I don't.