Facts vs Myths about Homosexuality

Evolution declared homosexuality normal by having a bunch of people be homosexual.

I do not think you understand evolution as well as you think you do.

 

You also think Obama's economic plan is working too, don't you? I withdraw that. I just couldn't resist.

Yes, it DOES seem to be working. And also, the country seems to be going to hell in a number of ways, doesn't it? But it's NOT.

The reason the country seems to be going to hell is that people are not living up to the high ideals of morality which we all know darn well should be living up to.

We're even afraid to use certain WORDS for fear of offending others, when using them might be exactly what needs to be heard. We let idiots try to tell us we can't have a cross in a military cemetery. We let idiots tell us that a woman has a right to kill a sentient being which she invited into her "house(body)" because she couldn't keep her panties on, and then since the sentient being has no way to live, the woman has a right to kill it.

We're afraid to say straight out that the reason liberals are so intolerably screwed up in their thinking, and we all know it, is because they are so fearful of losing the immoral things they think and do that they try to deny the existence of the most obvious thing in the universe - God.

(disclaimer: the definition of God given by 99% of the churches IS too screwy to believe, but there is a right definition)

 

We have a blue ribbon winner here!!!!!! Congratulations........



You have brilliantly and concisely used the fewest sentences I could ever imagine possible, to offer such a dense concentration of pseudo scientific drivel.

Let me make this simple and easy.

1. I can guarantee you that not one single gay person could possibly care if you think what happens behind their closed bedroom doors is "normal"

2. Impending intent to procreate is not a prerequisite under any state marriage laws in the US.

3. "Evolution" doesn't "make" anything. Evolution is observable change in species over time, and natural selection has not selected gay homo sapiens for extinction. So I suggest you just try and forget they exist, and butt out of their business.

4. Sexual orientation, and sexual behavior, are not the same thing.

5. Homosexuality is not about sexual behavior, it may seem like that to you, but it's about sexual o-r-i-e-n-t-a-t-i-o-n.

 

Since this thread is about myths vs. facts, let's try some facts, shall we?


normal -adj. :the usual, average, or typical state, degree, form, etc
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal?s=t

LGBT Americans Make Up 4 Percent of Population
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/willia...on-gay-bisexual-transgender/story?id=13320565

Four percent. And that's the whole Gay BLT lumped together as one group. 4% is not usual, average, or typical. Hence, not normal, by the definition of the word.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Yes. They just don't get it, do they?

GOOD SHOT, SMARTMOUTH.

 

Ignoring your smarmy failure to be a smarta**, I will say that I'd love to refute your points, but your understanding is such that it would take too much time. Actually, I think I already have refuted them. But since you are of the ilk who won't see what they're lookin' at unless they want to, THAT'S what would make it too time-consuming to answer you.

 

Another notch in the belt of right.

 

And by your definition of normal, evolution declared 3-legged sheep to be normal because it had a bunch of them exist?

So what the heck does the word 'normal' MEAN to you?
Anything that happens is normal, right?

A very useful definition.

 

You are NOT now, nor have you ever been, a liberal.

Absolutely not.

 

So ... you don't really know what it means, is what I'm taking from that.

 

Only since 2003, and that took a lot of work. And there are still laws discriminating against homosexuals. The disingenuity is yours.

 

But you're not afraid to say any of those things. You just said them.

 

Which then begs the question why the conservatives are so incensed by, and preoccupied with, such a vanishingly small minority who constitute absolutely no threat to them. Why is that?

 

Way to stereotype and finger-wag while accusing others of stereotyping and finger-wagging. *poof* There goes that liberal logic.

 

I think there are more gay people than three-legged sheep (granted I haven't counted either). I know that's not really the point, I'm just sayin'.

"Dull," is actually the first thing that comes to mind. Also, "useless." I guess that's not really fair to normal people, though.

But Einstein? Not normal. Marilyn Monroe? Not normal. Michael Jordan? Not normal. Mother Theresa? Not normal. The founding fathers? Not normal.

Pretty much every single person that merits being listed in a history book was abnormal in some way, shape or form. Normality is, by definition, not very important.

Normal, maybe not. Natural, yes. Nothing can happen outside of nature.

But it's a pointless debate. Whether or not something is "normal" doesn't matter.

 

You call 'em like you see 'em. If I see an idiotic bigot I'm going to call him/her an idiotic bigot. What would you call them-enlightened and inclusive?

 

That is the one question that the cons can NEVER give you an answer for. It is obvious why the worry about it, but when it is pointed out to them, they get pissy and don't like to hear the truth.

 

I think this is actually a valid thread topic. Because it's true that a lot of facts do get ignored so that people don't have to rethink their position. For instance....


Myth - People are born gay.

Fact - Science has not conclusively proven what causes homosexuality.


How many pro-gay people are willing to admit this? And how many will ignore it? You see, it's not just the people who oppose homosexuality who are guilty of ignoring facts and perpetuating myths. It's both sides.

 

My bad, Gaymom... didn't mean to ignore your question. I've had gay & lesbian friends around all my life... including a gay stepbrother and a lesbian aunt. I also went thru a 'phase' when my social circle @ work consisted of a lesbian in a 20 yr committed relationship, 2 straight women and a (*)(*)(*)-hag. (I was one of the straight women). We were all very good friends and had some great (nonsexual) times together. We partied at both JRs & Sue Ellens (g&l bars) and I got to know the (*)(*)(*)-hag's fav gay man who was a wonderful drama-queen who kept us all in stitches with stories of his romances and heartbreaks. He was a real charmer. She adored him and used to tell us she thought she was actually a gay man in a woman's body. Now that's weird.

Life goes on and I've lost touch with most of those folks, but that experience gave me some pretty strong opinions about how things are in the world of gays. Since you asked, I don't mind sharing them with you.

Lesbians are much more emotionally stable than gay men. Most gay women don't have that burning desire to wave a rainbow flag... but are content to live 'normal' 'quiet' lives with s/o's, dogs & kids. I remember when my lesbian friend 'came out' to us. We'd all gone out to lunch 5-6 times before one day she said, "I hope it doesn't affect our friendship, but I want to tell y'all I'm gay." We all looked at each other like we'd be shot. Bless her heart, she's 4'10", man's haircut, wears khaki's and a polo shirt tucked in w/belt and the same sensible shoes EVERY DAY and we're not supposed to suspect she's gay? It was a priceless moment we laughed about for a long time... but not in front of her. If she wanted to think we thought she was straight, that was fine. She's a wonderful person and we still exchg Christmas cards. (Her 100 yr old mom passed away last year and left her a few mil... so things are very good in my lesbian friend's world, thank you. )

On the other hand, I've observed that gay men are extremely promiscuous and it's very easy to understand why. Men generally have to WORK at getting sex from a woman... getting sex from a gay man is as easy as wearing a bandana in your back pocket. Statistics (and my observation) show that a high % of gay men in committed relationships continue to have sex with other men. It's like a kid in a candy store... with an unlimited supply of candy.

The downside of that lifestyle is AIDS. My handsome and talented gay stepbrother died of AIDS on April 22, 2012 at the age of 53. All his friends are either dead or in the final stages. There wasn't a single ex at his funeral.

That's reality for me. I have no problem with lesbians. If there was a pill I could take to make me hate hairy-legged men, I'd have taken it a long time ago and saved myself a lot of grief. I love my lesbian friend like a sister. We took an overnight trip together and shared a hotel room on my b'day one year. I didn't want it to be tense, but admit it was more like sharing a room with someone's husband than my g/f and I was a little 'scared'. LOL, not really, just AWARE. (nothing happened!) LOL

But gay men scare me because they're so terribly blaise about HIV and AIDS. I find it maddening everybody is so concerned about gay marriage and nobody gives a (*)(*)(*)(*) about all the gay men who are dying too young. The partying lifestyle that spelled death for my stepbrother hasn't changed that much since he was 20. If you don't believe that, go to a popular gay bar any night of the week. I'd rather society put more emphasis on AIDS PREVENTION and less on walking down the aisle with Marky.
That's what I think about gays in REAL LIFE.

Now here on the 'net, none of that matters 'cuz I'm a conservative Christian and we all know all conservative Christians hate gays.

 

No, 'enlightened and inclusive' is what *******s call each other... we wouldn't wanna butt into that circle jerk.

 

Do you identify yourself as being married?

Then you are identifying yourself by your sexuality.

 

What makes you think something causes it?​

 

No, I identify myself as divorced, which could be interpreted as you've been screwed.

So you're half right.

 

You may be right about those who are convinced sexual orientation is genetic.

I for one acknowlege the fact that they haven't found a "gay gene". But the most reputable study done to date was done at Stanford in the 90's. It found that sexual orientation is most likely determined by physiological, environmental, and genetic factors.

Where some gay rights advocates fall short, IMO, is where they try to simplify a complex matter by saying something like "we're born gay, and it's entirely genetic"

The question we should be asking it whether or not being gay is simply a choice. If it was a choice...and gay people could just as easilly be fulfilled emotionally and sexually by a straight partner...I wouldn be against gay marriage.

But the Stanford study found physiological differences between gay and straight men that had to do with the hypothalumus, if I spelled that right.

It also found environmental similarities in how gays were raised.

But most importantly...it found genetic regularities, and it also determined that sexual orientation is formed at a very young age, and nothing the study found supported the idea that being gay is a choice.

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/95/950310Arc5328.html

So.....if sexual orientation is not a choice, and being gay is something people can't "help"...not like they need "help"...but...it doesn't matter if it's genetic or not.

The APA does not categorize homosexuality as a psycho sexual disorder like pedophelia or beastiality, because being gay is neither harmfull, nor involving sexual attractions to non sexual things, like ducks and children, like beastiality and pedophelia does.

I invite you to give the study a look...it's very unbiased.

 

Not having conclusive proof of the cause is not the same thing as disproving that it's inborn. Will you admit that?

Not going to 'admit' to what I consider a dishonest representation of the facts.

Obviously I'm not ignoring you (yet).

I don't really disagree with you on that point.

Fact: The evidence produced by the research thus far does not conclusively prove what causes some people to have a same-sex orientation

Fact: Science has not discovered a "gay gene"

Fact: Research does however implicate genetics as potentially playing some role.

Fact: There is more to genetics than simple dominant/recessive inheritance.

Fact: Research also implicates exposure to certain hormones and the developing fetus' reaction to them in the womb as potentially playing a role.

Fact: Research has found similarities between the brains of same-sex oriented men and opposite-sex oriented women not shared by opposite-sex oriented men.

Fact: None of the aforementioned research is conclusive. They are only potential puzzle pieces. We don't have the whole picture

Fact: Many professional health organizations have concluded that there is no credible evidence that orientation is the product of conscious decision making or "choice", and that therapeutic attempts to change orientation are not only unsuccessful, but may actually do harm.

The failure to prove one theory does not confirm another. Not finding a specific cause for orientation does not render it a choice and changeable.

Fact: People experience attraction before they engage in sexual behavior.

I wonder how many anti-gay people will admit that they carry with them an attraction to one sex or the other, whether or not they're engaging in sexual behavior, and will further admit to the role of this attraction in shaping their identity?

If one identifies as heterosexual, it seems disingenuous to pretend that homosexuality is only behavioral, not driven in most cases by attraction, and not an equivalent identity (or more properly, an equivalent and significant contributor to one's sense of identity)