Gay Rights - Your Thoughts

[iKAZ3D]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Yup.

NOPE!

If I had the choice to be seen by you or a monkey with medical training, I'd pick a rock.





Edited:  Excessive font size removed.   jbeany, Moderator

[Hemodoc]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Yup.

NOPE!

If I had the choice to be seen by you or a monkey with medical training, I'd pick a rock.

Actually, I was a very popular and sought after doctor. In any case, perhaps you should read the thread title stating in no personal attacks. Off to the moderator again. If you wish to discuss topics, no problem my friend. I am not interested in your personal views of me or my philosophy of life. Keep to the issues. I am not the issue.

[iKAZ3D]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Yup.

NOPE!

If I had the choice to be seen by you or a monkey with medical training, I'd pick a rock.

Actually, I was a very popular and sought after doctor. In any case, perhaps you should read the thread title stating in no personal attacks. Off to the moderator again. If you wish to discuss topics, no problem my friend. I am not interested in your personal views of me or my philosophy of life. Keep to the issues. I am not the issue.

Again, not a personal attack, simply a statement about your thick headedness. I can choose not to be seen by a certain doctor, can I not?

You go to the moderators quite a bit, do you not?

You do understand you're a grown man tattle tailing on a sixteen year old boy, correct?

[jbeany]

iKAZ3D, we already discussed this privately.  If you can't figure out that your last post is over the line, then you need to get off the political boards.  Leeway is not the same as a free-for-all. 


For all of you - NONE of the moderators are in a good mood, having just lost one of our members.  We'd all be more than happy to lock ALL of these down and let you go squabble somewhere else.  Cease, desist, and get over the fact that you can't change someone's mind by posting in an online forum.

jbeany, Moderator

[MooseMom]

 I'm sorry, being gay IS a choice. It's not a DIRECT choice, but you are not born gay.

Tell me your experiences or opinions on the matter!

How do you know this?  Are you a neuroscientist?  There are many people who would really like to have your insight!

Did you make a conscious choice to be heterosexual (assuming that you ARE)?  If so, what influenced your choice?  How old were you when you made this choice?  Or, have you perhaps not made a choice yet?  Are you close to making a choice?

How about your friends and acquaintances who are homosexual?  What have they told you about the process of choosing their sexual orientation?  Are they happy with their choice?  Are their friends and family happy with their choice?

And why are you sorry?

[willowtreewren]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Not at all. NeoDarwinisim came into vogue  about 50 years ago in response to the lack of evidence for Phyletic gradualism. That is current fact. I will take it one step further, not only do serious evolutionary biologist teach that classic Darwinism is dead, but many today contend that NeoDarwinism is dead as well. So, no, I have not misrepresented any scientific evidence.

If you don't trust me or my sources, go read Stephen J. Gould who has one of the leading NeoDarwinistic theory  called Punctuated Equilibrium. Here is a quote of what he said at one point about classic Darwin evolutionary theory. The reason for Gould's treatise, the lack of evidence that Darwin said they would find if his theory was correct. In other words, the fossil record does not support Phyletic Gradualism, instead it shows stasis of species and no intermediate species that is predicted by Darwin's theory.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

To quote Gould in his summation: "Speciation is a rare and difficult event that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium."

In any case, go back and talk to your professor of evolution about all of the NeoDarwinistic theories and why the paleontology evidence found in the fossil record has lead modern evolutionists to almost uniformly abandon Phyletic gradualism.  Once again, don't take my word for it, study it for yourself, but I have indeed summarized very briefly current graduate levels philosophy of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Here is a Yahoo answer to your question if you don't wish to forage through all of the evolutionary jargon in science articles.


The fossil record provide little evidence for phyletic gradualism.    < Prev  Next > 
Posted By:   
ssethiadi@...
Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:04 am  |
Options



Stephen Jay Gould admitted that the fossil record do not provide evidence
for phyletic gradualism.

See below. That was in 1981. Is there any progress in 2012?

Regards. Stanley.

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record
provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual
transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded
sequence of intermediary forms".

(Gould, S.J. ; luria ; SE and Singer ; S. in " A view of Life", 1981 p.
641).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/27682

This is still a red herring. And I read Gould's book.

You are trying to equate the "evolution" of evolutionary theory as proof that the validity of the overarching principles are false.

RED HERRING!

[iKAZ3D]

 I'm sorry, being gay IS a choice. It's not a DIRECT choice, but you are not born gay.

Tell me your experiences or opinions on the matter!

How do you know this?  Are you a neuroscientist?  There are many people who would really like to have your insight!

Did you make a conscious choice to be heterosexual (assuming that you ARE)?  If so, what influenced your choice?  How old were you when you made this choice?  Or, have you perhaps not made a choice yet?  Are you close to making a choice?

How about your friends and acquaintances who are homosexual?  What have they told you about the process of choosing their sexual orientation?  Are they happy with their choice?  Are their friends and family happy with their choice?

And why are you sorry?

Babies don't choose to suck peepee or lick down there. It's not a direct choice. You don't just wake up one day and "be gay", but over time you conciously become more and more attracted to the same sex...From my friend Bree, who is gay.

[MooseMom]

Could you please explain what you mean by "direct choice"?  I've never heard that term. 

And, could you explain your baby analogy?

Thanks.

[Bill Peckham]

Babies don't choose to suck peepee or lick down there. It's not a direct choice. You don't just wake up one day and "be gay", but over time you conciously become more and more attracted to the same sex...From my friend Bree, who is gay.

I think as a teenager it makes sense that you'd think romantic attraction begins and ends with the mechanics of sex but as an adult you will realize that who you want to grow old with, who you want to share a life with, is far far more than how you interact physically. However, that insight doesn't always happen as evidenced by the focus on the mechanics of sex by adult opponents of same sex marriage.


I think as you age you'll also come to see the inadequacy of understanding the world based on an n=1. Bree's experience is not universal and even her own views are unlikely to last into adulthood.

[Hemodoc]

Actually, Darwinism is dead at the graduate level exactly as I detailed above. Go learn about Neodarwinism and why NO ONE at the graduate level teaches Darwinism any longer, or let me state, shouldn't teach it since the fossil record disproves Darwins theory of Phyletic Gradualism. In any case, up to you. If you don't wish to learn what is taught at the graduate level so be it. But that is definitely putting your head in the sand and not seeking the truth my friend.

 

I'm surprised you couldn't hear my snort all the way in California. Once again you are trying to distort the science. I just returned from dinner with an award winning evolutionary biologist, who would take serious issue with your misrepresentation of the importance of evolution by reframing the terms. Shame on you. You are either deliberately trying to mislead (some would call that lying), or truly befuddled.

Either way, neither stance really relates to the issue of gay marriage at hand. 

Another question: If the Christian god is so against homosexuality, why did he create so many species that engage in it? Just seems kind of sloppy of such a powerful god.

Not at all. NeoDarwinisim came into vogue  about 50 years ago in response to the lack of evidence for Phyletic gradualism. That is current fact. I will take it one step further, not only do serious evolutionary biologist teach that classic Darwinism is dead, but many today contend that NeoDarwinism is dead as well. So, no, I have not misrepresented any scientific evidence.

If you don't trust me or my sources, go read Stephen J. Gould who has one of the leading NeoDarwinistic theory  called Punctuated Equilibrium. Here is a quote of what he said at one point about classic Darwin evolutionary theory. The reason for Gould's treatise, the lack of evidence that Darwin said they would find if his theory was correct. In other words, the fossil record does not support Phyletic Gradualism, instead it shows stasis of species and no intermediate species that is predicted by Darwin's theory.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/classictexts/eldredge.pdf

To quote Gould in his summation: "Speciation is a rare and difficult event that punctuates a system in homeostatic equilibrium."

In any case, go back and talk to your professor of evolution about all of the NeoDarwinistic theories and why the paleontology evidence found in the fossil record has lead modern evolutionists to almost uniformly abandon Phyletic gradualism.  Once again, don't take my word for it, study it for yourself, but I have indeed summarized very briefly current graduate levels philosophy of Darwin's theory of evolution.

Here is a Yahoo answer to your question if you don't wish to forage through all of the evolutionary jargon in science articles.


The fossil record provide little evidence for phyletic gradualism.    < Prev  Next > 
Posted By:   
ssethiadi@...
Tue Feb 14, 2012 4:04 am  |
Options



Stephen Jay Gould admitted that the fossil record do not provide evidence
for phyletic gradualism.

See below. That was in 1981. Is there any progress in 2012?

Regards. Stanley.

"The main problem with such phyletic gradualism is that the fossil record
provides so little evidence for it. Very rarely can we trace the gradual
transformation of one entire species into another through a finely graded
sequence of intermediary forms".

(Gould, S.J. ; luria ; SE and Singer ; S. in " A view of Life", 1981 p.
641).

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/27682

This is still a red herring. And I read Gould's book.

You are trying to equate the "evolution" of evolutionary theory as proof that the validity of the overarching principles are false.

RED HERRING!

Not at all. Darwin stated that IF his theory was true, then subsequent generations would find innumerable intermediate forms in a "tree of life."

Since you have read Gould's book, not sure which one, he wrote quite a few, then you understand that the origin of Punctuated Equilibrium was in part to explain the lack of transitional fossils in the fossil "record." No red herring at all, plain and simple facts.

It is interesting the Darwin already knew that there was a lack of fossils lending evidence to his theory at the time he published his landmark book:

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the imperfection of the geological record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.

Science is still looking for Charlie's transitional forms but sadly, they don't exist. Thus one of the reasons for "NeoDarwinism" coming on the scene in a grand unification set of theories such as Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium.  That is simply the cold, hard facts, Darwin still lacks the evidence he predicted his theory would produce in the fossil record. Just the way it is.

[cookie2008]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

[Rerun]

Political Debates - Thick Skin Required for Entry     

[iKAZ3D]

Could you please explain what you mean by "direct choice"?  I've never heard that term. 

And, could you explain your baby analogy?

Thanks.

Of course. Direct meaning "Today, I think I'll be gay."

One of the most common things I hear about "being gay" is that it is genetic. However, I truly am against that statement because genetics define what you are, not exactly who you are. Who you are is defined by your nervous system, cells, and things, which the genes CODE. The genes are responsible for creating the cells that than create YOU, but not directly at fault.

Or at least that's how I feel. I could be wrong. We all could be wrong. The essential question of life is what is life, is it not?

Life = Not Life

Not Life = Life

Life is a paradigm that we can't explain, so we should stop trying to and get along.

[iKAZ3D]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

[iKAZ3D]

Babies don't choose to suck peepee or lick down there. It's not a direct choice. You don't just wake up one day and "be gay", but over time you conciously become more and more attracted to the same sex...From my friend Bree, who is gay.

I think as a teenager it makes sense that you'd think romantic attraction begins and ends with the mechanics of sex but as an adult you will realize that who you want to grow old with, who you want to share a life with, is far far more than how you interact physically. However, that insight doesn't always happen as evidenced by the focus on the mechanics of sex by adult opponents of same sex marriage.


I think as you age you'll also come to see the inadequacy of understanding the world based on an n=1. Bree's experience is not universal and even her own views are unlikely to last into adulthood.

I do understand, to a non-experience degree, that notion.




So, if being gay was genetic.

Would being straight be genetic?
(Some gays insist that straight isn't a gene, but gay is...I don't understand that logic, but those are the radicals.)
What about being Bisexual?

[Hemodoc]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

Hmmm, in other words, you are rude because of me???

Well, shucks, I don't accept that responsibility, I will let you be responsible for your own actions and your own comments and you alone my friend.

In any case, don't move to anywhere in the Bible belt or outside of the urban areas because folks like me that understand the concept of a love of God and our country are in much greater numbers than folks that don't understand that.

But in any case, I would highly recommend getting a different attitude about your rude comments, they ain't my fault at all my friend. I have treated you with respect and will continue to do so, but if you don't want to, so be it, I do have thick skin as Rerun noted already and that is a sign of your character not mine.

[iKAZ3D]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

Hmmm, in other words, you are rude because of me???

Well, shucks, I don't accept that responsibility, I will let you be responsible for your own actions and your own comments and you alone my friend.

In any case, don't move to anywhere in the Bible belt or outside of the urban areas because folks like me that understand the concept of a love of God and our country are in much greater numbers than folks that don't understand that.

But in any case, I would highly recommend getting a different attitude about your rude comments, they ain't my fault at all my friend. I have treated you with respect and will continue to do so, but if you don't want to, so be it, I do have thick skin as Rerun noted already and that is a sign of your character not mine.

*Says he has a concept of love and God*

*Says gays are bad and against the word of God*

[Hemodoc]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

Hmmm, in other words, you are rude because of me???

Well, shucks, I don't accept that responsibility, I will let you be responsible for your own actions and your own comments and you alone my friend.

In any case, don't move to anywhere in the Bible belt or outside of the urban areas because folks like me that understand the concept of a love of God and our country are in much greater numbers than folks that don't understand that.

But in any case, I would highly recommend getting a different attitude about your rude comments, they ain't my fault at all my friend. I have treated you with respect and will continue to do so, but if you don't want to, so be it, I do have thick skin as Rerun noted already and that is a sign of your character not mine.

*Says he has a concept of love and God*

*Says gays are bad and against the word of God*

Actually, I don't remember hiring you as my spokesperson. I can readily speak for myself thank you.

Once again, you have not spoken correctly. It matters little at all what I say or think, only what the Bible and God speaks. What God says is that all men are sinners in need of a Saviour and that He will save all and forgive all sins for those that call upon the name of Jesus in faith believing. We all have a multitude of sins to answer for, each and every one of us.  So we all must stand before God and give account of everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad.

If you are going to try and reflect what God states, get it right my friend.

[MooseMom]

So, if being gay was genetic.

Would being straight be genetic?
(Some gays insist that straight isn't a gene, but gay is...I don't understand that logic, but those are the radicals.)
What about being Bisexual?

iKAZ3D, I am not sure you will understand the following analogy, but I'm going to give it a try.

I have a son who is just a few years older than you, and he is autistic.  High functioning, but autistic nonetheless.  Now, autism is a spectrum disorder, meaning that there are all kinds of ways that autism can express itself.  No one knows what causes autism, but it is recognizable and definable.  It is also forever.

It has often occurred to me in the past that the determination and expression of one's sexual orientation and/or preferences might follow the same course.

Before anyone jumps all over my hat, I recognize that in most, but not all, cases, autism is a disability whereas homosexuality is not.

Don't allow your thinking to be waylaid by the term "genetic".

There are probably many factors working in concert that add up to autism, and I reckon the same may very well be true about one's sexual orientation whether it be hetero or homosexual.

[KarenInWA]

I don't think it's in a baby's realm of thinking to have a desire to lick or suck a peepee, as has been so eloquently stated earlier in this forum. I don't even see how that is a valid argument.

Babies are more concerned with food, sleep, being held and safe.

Personally, I think this whole thread is beyond stupid. While there may be some gay people who "chose" to be gay (per their own statements) I do not believe that is the truth for all. It just is what it is. Get over it.

This thread was started to incite anger and arguments, IMHO

KarenInWA

[Hober Mallow]

So, if being gay was genetic.

Would being straight be genetic?
(Some gays insist that straight isn't a gene, but gay is...I don't understand that logic, but those are the radicals.)
What about being Bisexual?

Sexuality is deeply ingrained in ancient parts of the brain. To believe being either gay or straight is a conscious choice one must believe that the conscious part of the brain, the neocortex, is the seat of sex.

Hint:  it isn't.

There's some interesting research going on with the hypothalamus:

According to D. F. Swaab, writing in a July 2008 paper, "Neurobiological research related to sexual orientation in humans is only just gathering momentum, but the evidence already shows that humans have a vast array of brain differences, not only in relation to gender, but also in relation to sexual orientation."[19]

Swaab first reported on the relationship between sexual orientation in males and the hypothalamus's "clock", the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). In 1990, Swaab and Hofman[20] reported that the suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men was significantly larger than in heterosexual men. Then in 1995, Swaab et al.[21] linked brain development to sexual orientation by treating male rats both pre- and postnatally with ATD, an aromatase blocker in the brain. This produced an enlarged SCN and bisexual behavior in the adult male rats. In 1991, LeVay showed that part of the sexually dimorphic nucleus (SDN) known as the 3rd interstitial nucleus of the anterior hypothalamus (INAH 3), is nearly twice as large in heterosexual men than in homosexual men and heterosexual women, in terms of volume.

In 2004 and 2006, two studies by Berglund, Lindström, and Savic[22][23] used Positron Emission Tomography (PET) to observe how the hypothalamus responds to smelling common odors, the scent of testosterone found in male sweat, and the scent of estrogen found in female urine. These studies showed that the hypothalamus of heterosexual men and homosexual women both respond to estrogen. Also, the hypothalamus of homosexual men and heterosexual women both respond to testosterone. The hypothalamus of all four groups did not respond to the common odors, which produced a normal olfactory response in the brain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus#Human_sexual_orientation_and_the_hypothalamus

[iKAZ3D]

So, if being gay was genetic.

Would being straight be genetic?
(Some gays insist that straight isn't a gene, but gay is...I don't understand that logic, but those are the radicals.)
What about being Bisexual?

iKAZ3D, I am not sure you will understand the following analogy, but I'm going to give it a try.

I have a son who is just a few years older than you, and he is autistic.  High functioning, but autistic nonetheless.  Now, autism is a spectrum disorder, meaning that there are all kinds of ways that autism can express itself.  No one knows what causes autism, but it is recognizable and definable.  It is also forever.

It has often occurred to me in the past that the determination and expression of one's sexual orientation and/or preferences might follow the same course.

Before anyone jumps all over my hat, I recognize that in most, but not all, cases, autism is a disability whereas homosexuality is not.

Don't allow your thinking to be waylaid by the term "genetic".

There are probably many factors working in concert that add up to autism, and I reckon the same may very well be true about one's sexual orientation whether it be hetero or homosexual.

That makes sense. I didn't think of it that way. Are you thinking maybe just the way things...happen?

[iKAZ3D]

I don't think it's in a baby's realm of thinking to have a desire to lick or suck a peepee, as has been so eloquently stated earlier in this forum. I don't even see how that is a valid argument.

Babies are more concerned with food, sleep, being held and safe.

Personally, I think this whole thread is beyond stupid. While there may be some gay people who "chose" to be gay (per their own statements) I do not believe that is the truth for all. It just is what it is. Get over it.

This thread was started to incite anger and arguments, IMHO

KarenInWA

No, it was created to get honest opinions from the members...hence being in the Political debates section. 

[iKAZ3D]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

Hmmm, in other words, you are rude because of me???

Well, shucks, I don't accept that responsibility, I will let you be responsible for your own actions and your own comments and you alone my friend.

In any case, don't move to anywhere in the Bible belt or outside of the urban areas because folks like me that understand the concept of a love of God and our country are in much greater numbers than folks that don't understand that.

But in any case, I would highly recommend getting a different attitude about your rude comments, they ain't my fault at all my friend. I have treated you with respect and will continue to do so, but if you don't want to, so be it, I do have thick skin as Rerun noted already and that is a sign of your character not mine.

*Says he has a concept of love and God*

*Says gays are bad and against the word of God*

Actually, I don't remember hiring you as my spokesperson. I can readily speak for myself thank you.

Once again, you have not spoken correctly. It matters little at all what I say or think, only what the Bible and God speaks. What God says is that all men are sinners in need of a Saviour and that He will save all and forgive all sins for those that call upon the name of Jesus in faith believing. We all have a multitude of sins to answer for, each and every one of us.  So we all must stand before God and give account of everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad.

If you are going to try and reflect what God states, get it right my friend.

Ok, Hemodoc, that's wonderful. You do that. I, however, will not. And you and all your other Christian fellows can't force me or inquire me to. If I want to become Christian (which I don't), then I'll do so myself.

How about you go to Church and I'll learn my Science. Ok? We'll agree to disagree. Neither of us needs to end up getting banned.

[Hemodoc]

I cant believe what I have been reading, who cares if your straight or gay what does someones sexual orientation have to do with Ihatedialysis, what people do with their lives is their business, and I think your comments are rude iKAZ3D.

They're only rude because Hemodoc is influencing me. Religious pressers like him are the bane of my existence, and I don'g take them lightly. I apologize if you think I'm rude, I try not to be. I find overbearing gays and religious folks rather rude when they do their thing, so it's a double edged sword. When does the offender become the offended and vice versa. I feel as if sometimes people justify the offense that religious/gay folk may impede on me, but if I slip a slight insult, it will never be justified.

When does it switch sides, or end period?

Hmmm, in other words, you are rude because of me???

Well, shucks, I don't accept that responsibility, I will let you be responsible for your own actions and your own comments and you alone my friend.

In any case, don't move to anywhere in the Bible belt or outside of the urban areas because folks like me that understand the concept of a love of God and our country are in much greater numbers than folks that don't understand that.

But in any case, I would highly recommend getting a different attitude about your rude comments, they ain't my fault at all my friend. I have treated you with respect and will continue to do so, but if you don't want to, so be it, I do have thick skin as Rerun noted already and that is a sign of your character not mine.

*Says he has a concept of love and God*

*Says gays are bad and against the word of God*

Actually, I don't remember hiring you as my spokesperson. I can readily speak for myself thank you.

Once again, you have not spoken correctly. It matters little at all what I say or think, only what the Bible and God speaks. What God says is that all men are sinners in need of a Saviour and that He will save all and forgive all sins for those that call upon the name of Jesus in faith believing. We all have a multitude of sins to answer for, each and every one of us.  So we all must stand before God and give account of everything we have done in our bodies, whether good or bad.

If you are going to try and reflect what God states, get it right my friend.

Ok, Hemodoc, that's wonderful. You do that. I, however, will not. And you and all your other Christian fellows can't force me or inquire me to. If I want to become Christian (which I don't), then I'll do so myself.

How about you go to Church and I'll learn my Science. Ok? We'll agree to disagree. Neither of us needs to end up getting banned.

Too funny, who is forcing you about anything my friend. That is not the way Christianity works.

In any case, take care.