PDA

View Full Version : The Uniting American Families Act



Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 10:57 AM
I promise to respect everyone’s opinion. I promise to not get emotional or personal. I promise to laugh at everyone’s jokes.

Good gawd, I just realize that takes all of the fun out of it. Okay, I promise to get really emotional and angry and take everything as personal and heap disdain at everyone's jokes. Better?

With that being said, I have a few tasteless alien probe jokes, but I'm waiting to get really upset by what you think first.

So, what do you think? Do you really want gay Americans to be inviting their foreign life partners over to be your neighbors? To share in this global “village”. To sit next to you in church?

This is a Washington Post editorial from two days ago. The comments are worth reading in my opinion. But, we can probably do better than that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/15/AR2009031501669.html


Separation Anxiety
Gay couples should be allowed to stay together in the United States.

THE UNITING American Families Act would allow gay and lesbian Americans and permanent residents to sponsor their foreign-born partners for legal residency in the United States. The bill, introduced last month in the Senate by Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and in the House by Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), would add "permanent partner" and "permanent partnership" after the words "spouse" and "marriage" in relevant sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act. If passed, it would right a gross unfairness.

Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment." The couple must be financially interdependent and not married to or in a permanent partnership with anyone else. And the partners can't be related. The benefit comes with the same immigration restrictions and enforcement standards that apply to heterosexual couples. Fraudulent permanent partnerships face the same penalties as fake marriages: up to five years in prison and up to a $250,000 fine.

"Under current law, committed same-sex foreign partners of American citizens are unable to use the family immigration system, which accounts for a majority of the green cards and immigrant visas granted annually by the United States," Mr. Leahy said upon introducing the bill. "The promotion of family unity has long been part of federal immigration policy, and we should honor that principle by providing all Americans the opportunity to be with their loved ones." According to the most recent census, he added, about 35,000 binational, same-sex couples are living in the United States. The new legislation would ensure that the family connections valued under immigration law are extended to gays and lesbians.

The strain of the status quo on gay and lesbian binational couples should not be discounted. Because their relationships are not legally recognized by the United States, some couples have resorted to illegal marriages where the foreign nationals marry Americans to get green cards that allow them to stay in the country permanently. In other cases, Americans have exiled themselves to be with their partners. Sixteen countries, including Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom, allow residents to sponsor same-sex permanent partners for legal immigration. American gays and lesbians should not have to choose between their country and their partners.

OUDoc
3/17/2009, 11:01 AM
It makes no difference to me, however, I doubt that will be the general consensus here.

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 11:11 AM
It makes no difference to me, however, I doubt that will be the general consensus here.

Oh man, you hit the key push bottom, I mean button. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE!??!!!

While we are talking about equity: socialized medicine now! It is a travesty that drug companies charge US people mutliple times more than that charged to developed countries because our insurance pays for it and our insurance pays for it because we pay them to. Doctors are just drug dealers.

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 11:23 AM
Man, that came across as way too harsh. But, OUDoc the whole I don't have an opinion is the toughest of the conclusions. We live in a bright new world of a global community and there is not escaping it if you have a TV.

This is way, way outside my original point. But, I really think Americans should start asking the major pharmeceutical companies why their prices differ so much between the US and outside the US. Talk about patriotism and charity at home. IT is a very good question that is NOT being asked.

As far as the US doctors being drug suppliers. These are miracle drugs.

OUDoc
3/17/2009, 11:26 AM
"It makes no difference to me" does not equal "no opinion".
My opinion is that it won't make any difference to me.

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 11:39 AM
"It makes no difference to me" does not equal "no opinion".
My opinion is that it won't make any difference to me.

That's cool. There is something about the nazis coming for my neighbor thing, but that surely doesn't apply.

I do not want ever to appear overly harsh again, so I'm trying to have fun and support the non importance view. And that view is like it just really doesn't matter to me, which is honest and that's that.

47straight
3/17/2009, 11:48 AM
Man, that came across as way too harsh. But, OUDoc the whole I don't have an opinion is the toughest of the conclusions. We live in a bright new world of a global community and there is not escaping it if you have a TV.

This is way, way outside my original point. But, I really think Americans should start asking the major pharmeceutical companies why their prices differ so much between the US and outside the US. Talk about patriotism and charity at home. IT is a very good question that is NOT being asked.

As far as the US doctors being drug suppliers. These are miracle drugs.

There are several good reasons why prices differ between the US and other places for drugs. And this is common with any good that is priced mostly on the intellectual property represented in the good, and not the cost of production.

Software, pharmaceutical drugs, heck, even songs on iTunes are priced by the national market.

In addition, sometimes it costs less in other countries because they don't respsect the right of the companies to make back their profit as much as the US. The drugs may cost more here, but guess what? Most of the drugs get developed here (or for this market) because there is enough of a carrot to justify the R&D into making those new drugs.

So, you've got a fancy new drug that you spent millions and millions developing for the US. You charge a ton in the US to recoup those R&D bucks, and to fund research into other drugs. Then you see Developing Country X over here, and they can use the drug too. But they can't afford it at $50 a prescription. It costs you, in sheer costs-of-goods, a buck to make it. Why not then sell the prescription for $2 in Developing Country X, which is what the market will bear in that country? You still make money, the sick people in that country get the drug... it seems to me like everyone wins.


Sorry to threadjack, but you pretty much opened it up as such. :D

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 11:58 AM
There are several good reasons why prices differ between the US and other places for drugs. And this is common with any good that is priced mostly on the intellectual property represented in the good, and not the cost of production.

Software, pharmaceutical drugs, heck, even songs on iTunes are priced by the national market.

In addition, sometimes it costs less in other countries because they don't respsect the right of the companies to make back their profit as much as the US. The drugs may cost more here, but guess what? Most of the drugs get developed here (or for this market) because there is enough of a carrot to justify the R&D into making those new drugs.

So, you've got a fancy new drug that you spent millions and millions developing for the US. You charge a ton in the US to recoup those R&D bucks, and to fund research into other drugs. Then you see Developing Country X over here, and they can use the drug too. But they can't afford it at $50 a prescription. It costs you, in sheer costs-of-goods, a buck to make it. Why not then sell the prescription for $2 in Developing Country X, which is what the market will bear in that country? You still make money, the sick people in that country get the drug... it seems to me like everyone wins.


Sorry to threadjack, but you pretty much opened it up as such. :D

Oh yeah I did. I was just starting to think I was the worst troll in the history of the internet. Please now tell me that Chna can't afford these expensive new drugs for its people. That is besides the fact that they have so many high-powered politicians working for them in Washington.

If we could bring this topic back to gay Americans allowed to move back to their land of birth with their life partners, I'd get in a much less bitchy troll mood and we have all determined that I'm not very good at that.

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 07:52 PM
I probably derailed this one myself.

Okay, I can think of a few good reasons why gays should be allowed to bring their life partners over to the US.

Gays aren’t likely to reproduce.

Gays could adopt a few kids and give them a good home.

Gay people tend to be a little more affluent, that is if they aren’t adopting kids.

Gays tend to be more educated and tend to have more professional qualifications.

Gays have more fashion sense.

Gays turn urban blight areas fashionable again and raise property values.

The pink dollar is still a dollar.

What gay people do in the privacy of their own home isn’t anything that straight men wouldn’t want their wives or girlfriends to do.

SoonerStormchaser
3/17/2009, 08:24 PM
Since I'm against gay marriage in the first place (but not civil unions or shared benefits if the employer allows it)...I'm not in favor of this latest item.

OUHOMER
3/17/2009, 08:47 PM
Since I'm against gay marriage in the first place (but not civil unions or shared benefits if the employer allows it)...I'm not in favor of this latest item.

I didnt see gay marriage any where in the bill?

Under the proposal, a "permanent partnership" is defined as a "committed, intimate relationship" with another adult "in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment."

such as civil unions..

I dont have a problem with it all.

Rogue
3/17/2009, 09:16 PM
Well, I'm actually for the proposal and for gay-marriage.
Unlike Doc, I think it does affect me. I have friends and neighbors who are oppressed by this modern discrimination that is sanctioned and popular. I see it as a fairness issue that is out-of-balance toward the "unfair" side right now and I don't think it's right. So I feel an obligation to right a perceived wrong. Or, if faced with overwhelming rational evidence, reconsider my position.

Yes I want gay and lesbian folks shopping at my supermarket, working in my shop, and living next door. As long as they're not *******s. Same as the way I want straight folks, folks who dress funny, and folks that listen to music I don't understand doing those same things.

Frankly Chuck, all of the rationalizations in your last post about gays being more affluent, less likely to reproduce, be more affluent, etc is off the mark for me. Pointing out those things only obfuscates the issue of fairness by attempting to show the benefits of having well-dressed gays who drive nice cars in the neighborhood. The real issue, IMO, is that there are gays like you who can't come home unless you leave your life partner behind. Or gays like my lesbian friends who live down the street that are in a healthier long term relationship than most couples I know but they both have to pay for health insurance as single women because they're honest. The current systems in place encourage gays to be dishonest if they want to enjoy the same benefits as us heteros. It ain't right I tell ya.

To understatedly refer to Doc's suggestion, I doubt this will be the concensus on here either.

JohnnyMack
3/17/2009, 09:32 PM
What Rogue said.

Chuck Bao
3/17/2009, 09:50 PM
Well, I'm actually for the proposal and for gay-marriage.
Unlike Doc, I think it does affect me. I have friends and neighbors who are oppressed by this modern discrimination that is sanctioned and popular. I see it as a fairness issue that is out-of-balance toward the "unfair" side right now and I don't think it's right. So I feel an obligation to right a perceived wrong. Or, if faced with overwhelming rational evidence, reconsider my position.

Yes I want gay and lesbian folks shopping at my supermarket, working in my shop, and living next door. As long as they're not *******s. Same as the way I want straight folks, folks who dress funny, and folks that listen to music I don't understand doing those same things.

Frankly Chuck, all of the rationalizations in your last post about gays being more affluent, less likely to reproduce, be more affluent, etc is off the mark for me. Pointing out those things only obfuscates the issue of fairness by attempting to show the benefits of having well-dressed gays who drive nice cars in the neighborhood. The real issue, IMO, is that there are gays like you who can't come home unless you leave your life partner behind. Or gays like my lesbian friends who live down the street that are in a healthier long term relationship than most couples I know but they both have to pay for health insurance as single women because they're honest. The current systems in place encourage gays to be dishonest if they want to enjoy the same benefits as us heteros. It ain't right I tell ya.

To understatedly refer to Doc's suggestion, I doubt this will be the concensus on here either.

I stand corrected. I'm a lousy troll and I'm not doing that again. Thanks.

SanJoaquinSooner
3/18/2009, 12:46 AM
Suppose Jacque from France is a great guy and Jill wants to marry him and bring him to the U.S. via marriage-based petition. The law generally permits it.

But if it were Jill's brother, Jack, who wants to bring Jacque via marriage-based petition the law presently does not permit it. That discriminates based on gender. The only relevant difference between Jack and Jill is gender.

I support the bill.

soonerboomer93
3/18/2009, 01:03 AM
makes no difference to me as in

"if the gays want to get married, go right ahead"

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:03 AM
I think people should be free here.

Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is not a lib/con issue...it's an American issue and on all levels everyone should be equal.

Period.

When it comes to religion or non government related entities, fine...But the law should always come back to the basic tenents of equality. Be it race, gender, birth status, sexuality, etc.

In this country we are all equal and all have the same rights.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:05 AM
Just imagine if your parents were 2 men, or 2 women. Just saying for the future. Talk all you want about everybody should have the same rights, but if you had 2 of the same sex parents, your life would be screwed up. just saying.

That's the main reason I'm against gay marriage or partners or whatever, give somebody something, and more is to come.

I'm just supporting children.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:08 AM
I dunno...If I had 2 dads I can't see me thinking any less of the poon!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:12 AM
lol, but who knows... i just feel a child needs a male and female... so that's why i don't think America should start changing things now....

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:15 AM
I had a professor a while back who was "straight" and his wife was from the Tailand, and she still has not been granted residency.

Is this making it automatic for same sex marriage immigrants to get residency?

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:19 AM
OK...So seriously...I doubt Chuck and Nope are gonna have a miracle anal pregnancy...

So they'd have to adopt and with society acting like it does they'd have to adopt one of the "unwanted" kids that the white suburban straight couples don't want.

Would that kid be better off living in an orphanage with minimum wage nurse aids caring for and abusing him or in the presence of a couple of loving parents..one of which I have seen repeatedly respect our straight lifestyle...raising him and treating him as a valued person who is free to live and be themself? Free to prosper and learn? Free to truly make a difference in the world? Free to choose his own lifestyle based on his upbringing? 99% of the gay people out there today were raised by straight people. I'm not gonna get into the genetic side of things since that's always a downward spiral, but I also believe in free will. That kid...given a chance...will choose his path and that path will follow the map printed on his heart.

You don't wanna suck dong so you won't...some kid raised by a gay couple if he feels the same way will also not do any sucking. We all make our own coices and shoose our path.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:20 AM
Why'd you edit that last post while I was replying? The dialogue was gonna be truly interesting!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:23 AM
which one? if i did it was for spelling.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:25 AM
I just don't think its fair for a kid to be raised by two men who suck each others dongs. Imagine the hatred the child would receive from people, people are mean.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:26 AM
heh..k...seemed to get way shorter, but maybe my brain was combining 2 posts! Posse drunk here!

Either way...I just don't want the majority to turn gay and tell me I can't be married to my wife or tell me I can't bang women....seems simple to me.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:28 AM
lol, i agree. I just don't know very many people who can look someone in the eyes an honestly say they would be okay with being raised by 2 gay males/females.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:30 AM
I just don't think its fair for a kid to be raised by two men who suck each others dongs. Imagine the hatred the child would receive from people, people are mean.

Maybe they are, but maybe a little open-minded attitude from those of us who are currently adults that know the world is a varied and interesting place would set an example to the kids that meanness is just that...meanness.

I just flat don't want anyone in my bedroom.

Someone might judge me for having the wife tied to the headboard, having the wife wearing a strapon, the nidget in the corner, which hole I pick that night, the centerfild over the headboard, the toe sucking, the butt licking, the wie swapping, or even my choice to go missionary that night.

QUIT PEEKING IN MY DAMNED WINDOW!!!!!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:33 AM
HAHAHHAA YOU ARE HAMMERED !!!!! ME 2

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:33 AM
I just don't think its fair for a kid to be raised by two men who suck each others dongs. Imagine the hatred the child would receive from people, people are mean.

:rolleyes:

"Kids are mean." That's a wonderful basis for public policy.

By that same token, I guess we shouldn't allow people with big ears to have kids-I had big ears when I was a kid and got teased a lot for it.

Parents should also have to take a fashion sense test, because kids who dress funny get teased a lot.

Nobody belonging to any religion other than Protestant Christianity should have kids either, because sometimes those kids get teased.

Goodness gracious.

Edit:

I apologize for the condescending tone of this post, but my point is the same. People have been enacting messed-up laws about who can have children with whom for years using this same logic. It was wrong when it was applied to protestants/non-protestants, it was wrong when it was blacks/whites, and it's wrong now.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:36 AM
Exactly...

But don't let the ones with moobies breed...there's too many moobies already! lmao

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:37 AM
Exactly...

But don't let the ones with moobies breed...there's too many moobies already! lmao

Crap! I'm out then.

Oh, well. I wasn't having much secks anyhow.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:37 AM
Nobody belonging to any religion other than Protestant Christianity should have kids either, because sometimes those kids get teased.


Hell, let's do away with all kids cause the protestants get teased too!

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:38 AM
Crap! I'm out then.

Oh, well. I wasn't having much secks anyhow.


You must be married! ;)

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:38 AM
Hell, let's do away with all kids cause the protestants get teased too!

Good point. Show me a kid who never got teased over some stupid ****, and I'll show you Dean.

Mainly 'cause he got teased because of smart stuff.

Chuck Bao
3/18/2009, 01:39 AM
lol, i agree. I just don't know very many people who can look someone in the eyes an honestly say they would be okay with being raised by 2 gay males/females.

I really don't know if you are an adult and married and have children. I would hope that you teach your children to respect other people.

My second point is that my experience (and no I don't have children) is that the sex life of the parents regardless of straight, carpet munchers or two dudes going boink, boink in the night, is that it is all ewwwwww, as it should be. Looking someone in the eyes and saying I have two loving parents isn't the problem.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:39 AM
You must be married! ;)

Nope. I just live in Anchorage and it's not my turn.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:40 AM
:rolleyes:

"Kids are mean." That's a wonderful basis for public policy.

By that same token, I guess we shouldn't allow people with big ears to have kids-I had big ears when I was a kid and got teased a lot for it.

Parents should also have to take a fashion sense test, because kids who dress funny get teased a lot.

Nobody belonging to any religion other than Protestant Christianity should have kids either, because sometimes those kids get teased.

Goodness gracious.


So you would be Okay with having 2 gay men as parents???? be honest now.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:41 AM
How long is the line? In Vegas yer always next!

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:43 AM
So you would be Okay with having 2 gay men as parents???? be honest now.

You're not asking me, but honestly...with a dad that was divorced like 4 times and a mom that was divorced twice I've had more of each than I can count so really....REALLY...I'd be as ok as now and still loving the poosy!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:43 AM
I really don't care what anyone says because they are lying if they say they would be fine with having 2 dads.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:43 AM
So you would be Okay with having 2 gay men as parents???? be honest now.

Presupposing that I could imagine having any parents as amazing as the ones I have, 100% unequivocally yes.

My best friend in high school had (well, still has) an openly gay mother. Nobody gave him any grief about it that I can recall. Even if they had, it would have been the ones giving him grief that would be in the wrong-not his mom.

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:44 AM
I'd just pull funny jokes like putting icy hot in condoms and crap like that!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:45 AM
Presupposing that I could imagine having any parents as amazing as the ones I have, 100% unequivocally yes.

My best friend in high school had (well, still has) an openly gay mother. Nobody gave him any grief about it that I can recall. Even if they had, it would have been the ones giving him grief that would be in the wrong-not his mom.

The "making fun" was just the example off the top of my head. I really don't see how anyone could argue that it would be healthy for a kid to be raised with gay parents. I'm not talking about *** whole dads or moms who leave their children, or crack parents. The example I'm talking about is gay parents only. Not that you said that , just incase somebody yells out another example.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:46 AM
The "making fun" was just the example off the top of my head. I really don't see how anyone could argue that it would be healthy for a kid to be raised with gay parents.

Good for you. When you complete your psychiatric residency, I'll give two ****s about what you think about the subject. The peer-reviewed studies overwhelmingly show that kids raised by homosexual parents are well-adjusted.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:47 AM
would you agree?

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:48 AM
Either way, I have never been bothered by dad an "Uncle" Jack. I just made sure to sniff their breath before the nighty-night kiss!

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:50 AM
I'm not trying to tell anyone how to live their love life, but it's not fair to children.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:51 AM
would you agree?

With peer-reviewed psychiatric studies? I don't have any particular reason to disagree with them. I have no formal psychiatric training, nor (I suspect) do you.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:52 AM
How long is the line? In Vegas yer always next!

Last I checked I was about 25,000 back.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:54 AM
i's be drunk

Crucifax Autumn
3/18/2009, 01:56 AM
Me too...Gonna crash soon. Prolly crawl my way to bed via the hideout and then pop back in the morning to watch the fireworks!

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:56 AM
Fair enough. I won't even give you a "posting while drunk" card. :D

Hope you had a good St. Patrick's Day.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 01:57 AM
Nope. I just live in Anchorage and it's not my turn.

For the record, CB, this wasn't a coded message to your SO or anything.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 01:59 AM
haha i'm just against gay's having rights to children. That's it, nothing more. A lot will agree with me, a lot will disagree. At least we get to talk about this stuff, that is whats great about being American. !!!

OU_Sooners75
3/18/2009, 05:12 AM
lol, but who knows... i just feel a child needs a male and female... so that's why i don't think America should start changing things now....


What makes you think that 2 same-sex parents cannot do the same quality job as 2 heterosexual parents?

Hypocrit much?

My mother is friends with two gay men (we will call them ray and chris)that have been together for 25 years. They both were once married to women. They got divorced...and then got together.

One of them gained full custody of their children, even with the courts knowing of his sexual orientation.

Make a long story short, Ray and Chris were able to raise both of Ray's children just fine. And the kicker is....neither of them are gay!

However, they are very well educated and well off!


So please, stop acting like a gay couple will be corruptive and force their sexual orientation upon their children...just does not happen.

You do not make gay & you do not teach gay...you are either gay or you are not.

OU_Sooners75
3/18/2009, 05:18 AM
haha i'm just against gay's having rights to children. That's it, nothing more. A lot will agree with me, a lot will disagree. At least we get to talk about this stuff, that is whats great about being American. !!!


Okay...I can see your close mindedness...

Couple #1: Caring Loving, family oriented. They are gay...they are able to give their children the best education, the best medical, the best insurance. They are able to provide for their children, like you and I are able too.

Couple #2: Heterosexual couple. Proven to have neglected their children. Serve some time, take some classes. They bounce from job to job and the children live off of table scraps. Their parents may love them, but they are also considered an inconvience for their parents. They have no insurance. They struggle with education. They have county/state given medical.

Couple #2 happen a lot more often than couple #1. Yet it is okay and approved by you moreso than a gay couple as in #1 given the chance?

Please. You need to really stop with the homophobia you have and try educating yourself on the issue instead of being bullheaded about it.

Jerk
3/18/2009, 05:28 AM
Hmm...

No welfare and financially independent - check
No mass production of lazy children - check
"legal residency" doesn't mean 'right to vote' - check

Sure, why not. It doesn't affect me.

Rogue
3/18/2009, 05:35 AM
I'm really surprised this issue isn't falling on the usual lib/con lines.
Pleasantly surprised.

Jerk
3/18/2009, 05:38 AM
I'm really surprised this issue isn't falling on the usual lib/con lines.
Pleasantly surprised.

Give em welfare and instant citizenship and you'll probably see a re-alignment.

Chuck Bao
3/18/2009, 06:42 AM
Nope, I kid you not, has a life ambition of raising a deer farm. My part of the family farm is pretty wild between Madill and Ardmore and I wasn't supposed to get that part of it because my older brother is the hunter. but it worked out that way. We have wild deer and pigs. I think someone mentioned that wild pigs being a problem now and I guess they are. Nope would just go hog wild shooting up things and eating them and I'm just not sure that is where I want to be. Now if he'd start a Thai restaurant, I could go along with that. But customers would have to get used to the fact that there is no beef on the menu. Nope doesn't eat beef and my family largely raises cattle and we don't raise cattle just because we love them. This whole thing would turn really bad and quickly, so I'm not returning home anytime soon. I still want the option.

SicEmBaylor
3/18/2009, 07:27 AM
I was going to say that I'd never heard of a gay farmer before, but then I remembered that I live like an hour and a half NW of a city full of them.

How does Nope feel about College Station? ;)

47straight
3/18/2009, 07:36 AM
Okay...I can see your close mindedness...

Couple #1: Caring Loving, family oriented. They are gay...they are able to give their children the best education, the best medical, the best insurance. They are able to provide for their children, like you and I are able too.

Couple #2: Heterosexual couple. Proven to have neglected their children. Serve some time, take some classes. They bounce from job to job and the children live off of table scraps. Their parents may love them, but they are also considered an inconvience for their parents. They have no insurance. They struggle with education. They have county/state given medical.

Couple #2 happen a lot more often than couple #1. Yet it is okay and approved by you moreso than a gay couple as in #1 given the chance?

Please. You need to really stop with the homophobia you have and try educating yourself on the issue instead of being bullheaded about it.



I wondered how long it would take for the false dichotomies to come out.

47straight
3/18/2009, 07:42 AM
Nope, I kid you not, has a life ambition of raising a deer farm. My part of the family farm is pretty wild between Madill and Ardmore and I wasn't supposed to get that part of it because my older brother is the hunter. but it worked out that way. We have wild deer and pigs. I think someone mentioned that wild pigs being a problem now and I guess they are. Nope would just go hog wild shooting up things and eating them and I'm just not sure that is where I want to be. Now if he'd start a Thai restaurant, I could go along with that. But customers would have to get used to the fact that there is no beef on the menu. Nope doesn't eat beef and my family largely raises cattle and we don't raise cattle just because we love them. This whole thing would turn really bad and quickly, so I'm not returning home anytime soon. I still want the option.


Best o' luck. I'd stop at such a Thai place on the road to Norman. I've already got 3 or so Ardmore places in the rotation.

SanJoaquinSooner
3/18/2009, 07:54 AM
I had a professor a while back who was "straight" and his wife was from the Tailand, and she still has not been granted residency.

Is this making it automatic for same sex marriage immigrants to get residency?

The reasons she may not be granted residency:

1. they did things in the wrong order e.g., got married and then filed petition. She can still get residency but it may take a lot longer and she may have to wait outside U.S.

2. She has a felony on her record.

Generally it's eventually automatic but the dysfunctional bureaucracy of USCIS is significant.

Okla-homey
3/18/2009, 08:37 AM
The proposal is easily subject to abuse.

Bear with me. Let's say, purely hypothetically, an AMCIT travels to Thailand looking for a person who would be suitably sexually compliant in exchange for permanent residency status under this proposed bill.

They return to the US. What happens to the non-citizen if things go sour?
At least if the couple were married, the non-citizen has certain legal rights. Under the proposed scheme, I don't see any protections for the non-citizen.

It's not too difficult to envision scenarios in which a wealthy person could travel to certain locales, and find folks who would agree to the relationship in order to get to the US. We already see this sort of thing in the mail-order bride industry. Again however, at least mail-order brides get half the guy's stuff if it doesn't work out and I don't believe she is forced to return to her homeland following the divorce. Under this proposal, a companion who comes here would be pretty well locked into the relationship with no legal rights in the event he or she were being abused by the citizen.

Further, who or what government entity would regulate it? Who decides if there is sufficient "commitment" within the relationship to warrant application under the policy? I think it would necessarily be pretty darn subjective and thus subject to allegations of arbitrariness on the part of any approval authority -- and arbitrariness is the death knell for an administrative agency.

And please know, I'm down with homosexual civil marriage. As long as churches/temples/mosques are not required to solemnize or otherwise recognize them.

SicEmBaylor
3/18/2009, 09:23 AM
For what it's worth, I oppose the bill but my opposition has nothing to do the homosexual aspect. I just oppose immigrants of any sort.

Chuck Bao
3/18/2009, 09:48 AM
See, Homey, if you're afraid that someone is going to be abused and the system abused, you'd probably be right in worrying about it.

But, we really can't forbid Americans from marrying non-Americans. That's unAmerican.

The other thing is that I was joking about Nope not fitting in. And, I'm sure that'd be true to some degree and I have no idea if he'd ever be happy in the US. It is a pity that we don't get that chance to try or for him to even meet my family. On this point, hetro bi-national couples have the same problem.

A US embassy official has told me that a Thai will disappear as soon as they clear immigration in Los Angeles or San Francisco. That is what they think.

I'm pretty sure that Nope is not going to venture very far off if we ever get the chance to visit the US because he doesn't speak a word of English, the US is a really scary place compared to Thailand and I really think he likes me after six years of living together. Besides, the whole hunting the wild pigs thing would be too much for him to resist.

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 11:03 AM
Talk all you want about this and about Johnny's rights blah blah. None of you would want to be raised by 2 gay people.

Frozen Sooner
3/18/2009, 11:36 AM
Talk all you want about this and about Johnny's rights blah blah. None of you would want to be raised by 2 gay people.

You keep saying this as if your unproven and unprovable assertion somehow makes a point. You're also calling both CA and me liars.

JohnnyMack
3/18/2009, 11:44 AM
Talk all you want about this and about Johnny's rights blah blah. None of you would want to be raised by 2 gay people.

America! **** Yeah!

SCOUT
3/18/2009, 11:53 AM
Okay, I can think of a few good reasons why gays should be allowed to bring their life partners over to the US.
Gays aren’t likely to reproduce.
Gays could adopt a few kids and give them a good home.
Gay people tend to be a little more affluent, that is if they aren’t adopting kids.
Gays tend to be more educated and tend to have more professional qualifications.
Gays have more fashion sense.
Gays turn urban blight areas fashionable again and raise property values.




A US embassy official has told me that a Thai will disappear as soon as they clear immigration in Los Angeles or San Francisco. That is what they think.

Positive generalizations are OK, but things you don't agree with are a no-no. Got it.

But seriously, I think rights of citizens should be uniform. I am opposed to gay marriage but support civil unions. Homey bring up some interesting concerns about how it would work but things of that nature seem relatively easy to address.

StoopTroup
3/18/2009, 12:14 PM
If we could just outlaw spouses in the workplace and make it so we had domestic slaves back in our homes again...things would be much better.

Rogue
3/18/2009, 07:02 PM
JLew....your opinion is just that. It may change over time or not, but to keep saying that anyone that doesn't share your opinion must somehow be lying or lacking in self-awareness seems to be either a colossal failure of creativity on your part or closed-mindedness. Reasonable people can disagree. 2 humans can, actually, believe different and even opposite things. One may eventually be proved correct and the other wrong, although this type of thing is less common than the disagreements themselves.

Chuck, if there's not a a law against having a Thai restaurant in Oklahoma without beef on the menu...well there should be. I draw the line right there.

Homey, the current system can be exploited by folks willing to marry a foreigner in order to get them citizenship now. If they're heteros. There's no check to see how secure the relationship is or is not. I understand the part about protecting the spouse.

StoopTroup, I'm all for banning spouses at the workplace.

Okla-homey
3/18/2009, 07:44 PM
Homey, the current system can be exploited by folks willing to marry a foreigner in order to get them citizenship now. If they're heteros. There's no check to see how secure the relationship is or is not. I understand the part about protecting the spouse.



Especially in a world with an ever increasing human trafficking for sexual exploitation problem. I'm quite sure there are lots of 18 year-old young men in various craphole countries who would agree to play catcher for a ticket to the US. If, OTOH, Chester the Molester had to marry Jugdish to bring his young loins back to the Fruited Plain, Jugdish would have some damn rights.

NYC Poke
3/18/2009, 07:48 PM
I was going to say that I'd never heard of a gay farmer before, but then I remembered that I live like an hour and a half NW of a city full of them.

How does Nope feel about College Station? ;)


There used to be an annual party in Tulsa called the Black and White Ball. I don't know if it still happens or not. It was basically a big party, big enough so that it was thrown at one of the exhibition buildings at the fairgrounds, that was organized and attended mainly by gay people. More years ago than I care to admit (I'm the same age as Mike Gundy), I was dating a girl who had a lot of gay friends, including one who worked in a print shop who had received an invitation and had no qualms about forging some for us.

It was $25 to get in, all you could drink, and the Village People were performing (back before they became a staple of basketball halftimes). It sounded like a good party to me so we decided to go. With my girlfriend. And our roommate, who was also female. You jokesters.

What surprised me was the number of people in western wear there. I'm not talking Urban Cowboy-types. I'm talking creased wranglers with Skoal rings, starched western shirts, and straw hats. They were not in costume, this was what they wore when they went to something "fancy." I've also heard there's even a gay rodeo circuit in Texas.

So they're out there, they probably just choose to blend in when they're back home. And there are a lot of them. And they have an Agenda. :eek:

JLEW1818
3/18/2009, 10:24 PM
well just don't say u support something unless you would be okay with it going on in your life. all i'm saying.

SicEmBaylor
3/19/2009, 02:14 AM
There used to be an annual party in Tulsa called the Black and White Ball. I don't know if it still happens or not. It was basically a big party, big enough so that it was thrown at one of the exhibition buildings at the fairgrounds, that was organized and attended mainly by gay people. More years ago than I care to admit (I'm the same age as Mike Gundy), I was dating a girl who had a lot of gay friends, including one who worked in a print shop who had received an invitation and had no qualms about forging some for us.

It was $25 to get in, all you could drink, and the Village People were performing (back before they became a staple of basketball halftimes). It sounded like a good party to me so we decided to go. With my girlfriend. And our roommate, who was also female. You jokesters.

What surprised me was the number of people in western wear there. I'm not talking Urban Cowboy-types. I'm talking creased wranglers with Skoal rings, starched western shirts, and straw hats. They were not in costume, this was what they wore when they went to something "fancy." I've also heard there's even a gay rodeo circuit in Texas.

So they're out there, they probably just choose to blend in when they're back home. And there are a lot of them. And they have an Agenda. :eek:

See folks, listen to this guy. He clearly knows the way of the Aggie. ;)

Rogue
3/19/2009, 05:12 AM
well just don't say u support something unless you would be okay with it going on in your life. all i'm saying.

Fair enough.

OU_Sooners75
3/22/2009, 08:39 PM
well just don't say u support something unless you would be okay with it going on in your life. all i'm saying.


Don't call those of us that disagree with you ignorant then. :D

StoopTroup
3/22/2009, 08:55 PM
I support 75 on this one. :D

royalfan5
3/22/2009, 09:03 PM
There used to be an annual party in Tulsa called the Black and White Ball. I don't know if it still happens or not. It was basically a big party, big enough so that it was thrown at one of the exhibition buildings at the fairgrounds, that was organized and attended mainly by gay people. More years ago than I care to admit (I'm the same age as Mike Gundy), I was dating a girl who had a lot of gay friends, including one who worked in a print shop who had received an invitation and had no qualms about forging some for us.

It was $25 to get in, all you could drink, and the Village People were performing (back before they became a staple of basketball halftimes). It sounded like a good party to me so we decided to go. With my girlfriend. And our roommate, who was also female. You jokesters.

What surprised me was the number of people in western wear there. I'm not talking Urban Cowboy-types. I'm talking creased wranglers with Skoal rings, starched western shirts, and straw hats. They were not in costume, this was what they wore when they went to something "fancy." I've also heard there's even a gay rodeo circuit in Texas.

So they're out there, they probably just choose to blend in when they're back home. And there are a lot of them. And they have an Agenda. :eek:

There is a Gay rodeo circuit that operates in Nebraska and Kansas. It's been around for quite sometime.

OU_Sooners75
3/23/2009, 12:12 AM
There is a Gay rodeo circuit that operates in Nebraska and Kansas. It's been around for quite sometime.


:eek:

You know this how?

royalfan5
3/23/2009, 06:42 AM
:eek:

You know this how?
I dated a girl from a town that had one of the major stops on the tour. Also, it was in the newspaper.

Okla-homey
3/23/2009, 06:43 AM
You do not make gay & you do not teach gay...you are either gay or you are not.

I disagree. It is undeniable many incarcerated folks choose to be homosexual while incarcerated and revert to heterosexuality on release. If, as you suggest, they were inherently homosexual, or even bi-sexual, they wouldn't do that would they?

Chuck Bao
3/23/2009, 02:20 PM
I disagree. It is undeniable many incarcerated folks choose to be homosexual while incarcerated and revert to heterosexuality on release. If, as you suggest, they were inherently homosexual, or even bi-sexual, they wouldn't do that would they?

No, I don't think anyone inherently gay and who chose to be engage in homosexual sex while incarcerated would suddently switch teams and become a hetrosexual on release.

Really? You bring up prison sex?

I think I get the point you are trying to make. But, doesn't it prove 75's point that gays aren't made by the environment? And by similar logic, straights can't be made either?

Chuck Bao
3/23/2009, 02:41 PM
By the way, the Great Plains Rodeo in OKC will be held May 22-24.

This linky has pics from last year's rodeo.

http://ogra.net/photos.htm

Okla-homey
3/23/2009, 03:44 PM
But, doesn't it prove 75's point that gays aren't made by the environment?

Just the opposite actually. Call it prison sex or whatever. The simple fact is, a certain percentage of those in cloistered single gender groups will engage in homosexuality they otherwise wouldn't. Therefore, I believe that proves the point that environment does affect some folks choice of sexual orientation.

I also happen to beleive people can and do successfully choose to become heterosexual even after years of homosexuality. I'll grant you, some folks are more mentally disposed towards homosexuality than others, but as to the folks on the bubble, they can come out of homosexuality.

JohnnyMack
3/23/2009, 03:52 PM
Jesus wouldn't allow gayness. Gayness is a product of not being around Jesus.

SicEmBaylor
3/23/2009, 04:01 PM
The gayness is a genetic thing, BUT the actual homosexual act is voluntary. You can be innately attracted to a dude, but it's still your personal choice to act on that attraction.

Chuck Bao
3/23/2009, 04:39 PM
Just the opposite actually. Call it prison sex or whatever. The simple fact is, a certain percentage of those in cloistered single gender groups will engage in homosexuality they otherwise wouldn't. Therefore, I believe that proves the point that environment does affect some folks choice of sexual orientation.

I also happen to beleive people can and do successfully choose to become heterosexual even after years of homosexuality. I'll grant you, some folks are more mentally disposed towards homosexuality than others, but as to the folks on the bubble, they can come out of homosexuality.

You can't seriously be arguing this. The key point is not pent up need for sex in an environment of single gender groups. Of course, environment plays a role in those severe situations.

I hope we are talking about people with options in their choice of partners. Besides, I think you are the one that mentioned after release. And no, "folks on the bubble" or bisexuals who appear to go straight (for all we know) isn't really proving the point about gays.

Yes, everyone can come out of homosexuality, just like everyone can come out of heterosexuality and everyone can come out of being sexual at all. That doesn't change who they are.

C&CDean
3/23/2009, 05:21 PM
The obligatory "this thread is hopelessly gay."

I'd take ol' Nope hog hunting if he ever came out this way - just so long as you got us some vittles all cooked up when we come back to the house. I just don't care who does the bitch work and who does the man chores.

And Chuck, I have to disagree with your last statement above. If you "come out of homosexuality," it most assuredly changes who you are - the same as if you go into it. It doesn't change your birthday or name, but it damn sure changes "who you are." You could be known as "the artist who was formerly gay." If I went gay, I'd be "the artist who was formerly a homophobic redneck." Well except that I ain't a homophobe. I just think that ****'s wrong. But that's a different topic for a different day...

Chuck Bao
3/23/2009, 06:15 PM
The obligatory "this thread is hopelessly gay."

I'd take ol' Nope hog hunting if he ever came out this way - just so long as you got us some vittles all cooked up when we come back to the house. I just don't care who does the bitch work and who does the man chores.

And Chuck, I have to disagree with your last statement above. If you "come out of homosexuality," it most assuredly changes who you are - the same as if you go into it. It doesn't change your birthday or name, but it damn sure changes "who you are." You could be known as "the artist who was formerly gay." If I went gay, I'd be "the artist who was formerly a homophobic redneck." Well except that I ain't a homophobe. I just think that ****'s wrong. But that's a different topic for a different day...

That is our point of disagreement every ****ing time.

You say: “you can change and then you won’t bother me a bit.”

I say: “I’m not changing who I am one bit and I don’t care if it bothers you to think that ****’s wrong”.

Now let’s break that down. You are not saying that my relationship of six years is wrong. You are actually inviting Nope to go hunting with you (despite you obviously dissing me with staying home and cooking). I assume that you would support Nope’s application to visit the US and our life together. Hurray for that “I’m not homophobic except for the ***-****ing and ****-****ing and ******-****ing and ******** *******.

You are saying that the sex act between two same gender couples is just wrong, not the loving relationship. Help me out here. If the shoe were on the other foot and if I were to tell you that you shouldn’t have sex with your wife because it offends me, would it matter to you?

And by the way, this thread IS probably hopelessly gay. I was trying to change that hopeless part. Guess I failed.

Okla-homey
3/23/2009, 06:59 PM
Chuck,

I've said, and I still say "live and let live." I even believe in and support the notion of civil marriage for committed homosexuals.

What I DO have a problem with is the fervent and extensive propagandizing by the homosexual community over the last twenty-five years or so that insists folks like me who are completely willing to tolerate homosexuality and homosexuals, but refuse to accept homosexuality as healthy or morally eqivalent to a committed hetero relationship, are somehow bigoted, unenlightened neanderthals.

I know this steams you, and I'm trying to make this point again while treading as lightly as I can out of great respect for you, but the "I was born this way so it must be okay" is a non-starter to me.

In my line of work, I encounter all manner of folks who are unable or unwilling to control their passions. If their passion involves illegality, their passion is no excuse under the law. Nor should it be. See, IMHO, the fact that humans are at least nominally capable of controlling their baser instincts, is what makes us special as a species.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 07:05 PM
See, IMHO, the fact that humans are at least nominally capable of controlling their baser instincts, is what makes us special as a species.

What makes Chuck's desire to stick his wang in Nope any baser than your desire to stick your wang in your wife, though?

I mean, I get your point, and to an extent agree with you. Gay sex is kind of icky to me as well, and I'm sure I'd rather wang your wife than Nope (notwithstanding I'd prefer not to get kicked in the nuts by your wife then shot by you.) However, your implication here is that love between two people of the same sex is inferior to love between two people of opposite sex. I just can't think of a logical reason for that.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 07:12 PM
And before my above post starts a spiral into "Why not have sex with a small child/peacock/komodo dragon..."

Can we agree on a definition of "consensual sex" built upon the foundation of K law? I think we're all OK with stating definitively that non-consensual sex is wrong.

Okla-homey
3/23/2009, 07:37 PM
What makes Chuck's desire to stick his wang in Nope any baser than your desire to stick your wang in your wife, though?

I mean, I get your point, and to an extent agree with you. Gay sex is kind of icky to me as well, and I'm sure I'd rather wang your wife than Nope (notwithstanding I'd prefer not to get kicked in the nuts by your wife then shot by you.) However, your implication here is that love between two people of the same sex is inferior to love between two people of opposite sex. I just can't think of a logical reason for that.

Logic? Hmmm, because the parts fit together better? Because heterosexuality doesn't necessarily bring with it public ridicule and scorn, albiet mostly unspoken nowadays, because its not "PC" to belittle or otherwise criticize. Except indirectly when people derisively call something "gay."

Here's the bottomline; and this may sound ludicrous, but I strongly suspect all parents, no matter how enlightened, would, if somehow given a choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality for their offspring, would choose the latter. That is a fact that simply shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 07:50 PM
Logic? Hmmm, because the parts fit together better?

Whose parts and which parts? Not all heterosexual sex is vaginal, not all homosexual sex is anal.


Because heterosexuality doesn't necessarily bring with it public ridicule and scorn, albiet mostly unspoken nowadays, because its not "PC" to belittle or otherwise criticize. Except indirectly when people derisively call something "gay."

You're begging the question, counselor. Homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality because people think homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality? C'mon.


Here's the bottomline; and this may sound ludicrous, but I strongly suspect all parents, no matter how enlightened, would, if somehow given a choice between homosexuality and heterosexuality for their offspring, would choose the latter. That is a fact that simply shouldn't be lightly dismissed.

Again, begging the question.

JohnnyMack
3/23/2009, 10:15 PM
Who gives a flying **** what two adults do? It's none of your ****ing business.

The people who rail the hardest against equality for homosexuals are the ones whose cultural infrastructure would be the most impacted by it. I get that homosexuality tears at some of the teachings of some so called Christian philosophers/preachers that terrorize this nation of ours, but I firmly believe that the real Jesus would be sorely disappointed at the intolerance buttressed up by his name.

theresonly1OU
3/23/2009, 10:52 PM
Whose parts and which parts? Not all heterosexual sex is vaginal, not all homosexual sex is anal.



You're begging the question, counselor. Homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality because people think homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality? C'mon.



Again, begging the question.

If I may, I would say the answer to your question depends on how you view the totality of the situation.

IOW, something christians and scientists alike can agree on is that the human male and female genitalia's main function is for reproduction. Take a look around nature; all mammalian species depend on male/female intercourse to produce offspring; in fact, most species in the entire animal kingdom are based almost solely on their desire to reproduce.

Knowing this, I would say from an entirely scientific point of view that it is a given that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, for the simple fact that straight sex = children, and children = species preservation, which, like all animals, humans strive for above all else.

This is why myself and many others believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior. And until there is scientific proof that homosexuality provides any advantage to species preservation, I would be hard pressed to believe any argument advocating homosexuality as anything other than a choice.

One that happens to be inferior to heterosexuality, according to nature.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 11:08 PM
If I may, I would say the answer to your question depends on how you view the totality of the situation.

IOW, something christians and scientists alike can agree on is that the human male and female genitalia's main function is for reproduction. Take a look around nature; all mammalian species depend on male/female intercourse to produce offspring; in fact, most species in the entire animal kingdom are based almost solely on their desire to reproduce.

Knowing this, I would say from an entirely scientific point of view that it is a given that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, for the simple fact that straight sex = children, and children = species preservation, which, like all animals, humans strive for above all else.

This is why myself and many others believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior. And until there is scientific proof that homosexuality provides any advantage to species preservation, I would be hard pressed to believe any argument advocating homosexuality as anything other than a choice.

One that happens to be inferior to heterosexuality, according to nature.

You'll note that above I specified in an individual circumstance, not an aggregate. Obviously reproduction of the species is something that needs to occur.

However, claiming that homosexuality must be learned behavior based on it not producing offspring...how do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

As for scientific proof that homosexuality is pro-survival:

There's some decent evidence that at-birth homosexuality is caused by the formation of anti-testosterone antibodies in the uterus after a woman gives birth to the first male. I can think of any number of reasons why such a trait would be pro-survival for the group.

By the way, would you like some numbers on what percentage of male/female copulations produce offspring?

Thanks for providing a cordial answer, though. You took a good stab at answering the question of why heterosexuality is necessary. I don't think you did such a great job of proving that it's superior, but I see where you're going with it.

theresonly1OU
3/23/2009, 11:33 PM
You'll note that above I specified in an individual circumstance, not an aggregate. Obviously reproduction of the species is something that needs to occur.

However, claiming that homosexuality must be learned behavior based on it not producing offspring...how do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

As for scientific proof that homosexuality is pro-survival:

There's some decent evidence that at-birth homosexuality is caused by the formation of anti-testosterone antibodies in the uterus after a woman gives birth to the first male. I can think of any number of reasons why such a trait would be pro-survival for the group.

Without sounding too callous to the pro-gay posters here, I would have to describe homosexuality in the animal kingdom as somewhat of an anomaly. There has been scientific research that links homosexuality in penguins to their inability to find a suitable female mate, for instance.

Now, to get away from the scientific aspect of the conversation, I would say that, while I see no problem with what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, I do take issue with the idea that those who choose to engage in homosexuality demand that they be recognized as equal to a heterosexual couple when it comes to the marriage issue. Without getting too much into theology and dogmatic arguments, the simple fact of the matter is that the base definition of the institution of marriage (and all its subsequent benefits), were originally intended by the founders of our country to apply only to the union of a man and woman.

Now, I happen to be an originalist; say what you will, but I tend to agree with the original definition of marriage, and the majority of Americans tend to as well. I see no reason to force change on this issue if the people, through vote, have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it as is.

KC//CRIMSON
3/23/2009, 11:38 PM
However, claiming that homosexuality must be learned behavior based on it not producing offspring...how do you explain homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

You beat me to it. Over 1500 species of animals engage in homosexual behavior.

In fact, I believe it was last week there was a story on MSN about one species that is doing it so much it's affecting the overall population. I wanna say it was a turtle species, but don't quote me on that.

Anyway, I firmly believe homosexuality is not learned. Nature vs. Nurture and Nature wins every time, IMO.

theresonly1OU
3/23/2009, 11:43 PM
Thanks for providing a cordial answer, though. You took a good stab at answering the question of why heterosexuality is necessary. I don't think you did such a great job of proving that it's superior, but I see where you're going with it.

See, I guess here's where we disagree. My belief in heterosexuality's superiority is BECAUSE of its necessity; homosexuality OTOH is not needed for a species to survive.

But good comments from you as well; it's nice to hear well reasoned responses that don't include the words "homophobe" or "redneck" in them.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 11:44 PM
Now, I happen to be an originalist; say what you will, but I tend to agree with the original definition of marriage, and the majority of Americans tend to as well. I see no reason to force change on this issue if the people, through vote, have spoken overwhelmingly in favor of keeping it as is.

Based on what little interaction we've had, I'm going to give you WAY more credit than to think you actually believe what the Founders thought about marriage, what the roles of a married couple were, and who could get married to whom.

And I know for a fact that the vast majority of Americans don't believe the same things the Founders did about marriage.

This isn't a knock on the Founders. While flawed, they were still great men. Times and mores change.

Frozen Sooner
3/23/2009, 11:51 PM
See, I guess here's where we disagree. My belief in heterosexuality's superiority is BECAUSE of its necessity; homosexuality OTOH is not needed for a species to survive.

But good comments from you as well; it's nice to hear well reasoned responses that don't include the words "homophobe" or "redneck" in them.

Homosexuality isn't needed for survival, no, but it can certainly be argued that individual homosexuality is pro-group survival.

I don't really like calling people homophobic just because it's a term that has different connotations to different people. By some definitions I'm homophobic.

yermom
3/23/2009, 11:54 PM
the founders didn't seem to care much about blacks or women either. or white dudes that didn't own land...

just because the majority agrees on something, doesn't mean it's right. that's not how our country works anyway, ask Al Gore about that one ;)

Mongo
3/24/2009, 12:00 AM
Who gives a flying **** what two adults do? It's none of your ****ing business.

The people who rail the hardest against equality for homosexuals are the ones whose cultural infrastructure would be the most impacted by it. I get that homosexuality tears at some of the teachings of some so called Christian philosophers/preachers that terrorize this nation of ours, but I firmly believe that the real Jesus would be sorely disappointed at the intolerance buttressed up by his name.

I bet you give great helmet
http://fashionsensei.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/5152837-tml-thumb.jpg

SicEmBaylor
3/24/2009, 12:09 AM
I think everyone is missing the focal point in the debate on this legislation. We're NEVER going to agree on the gay/straight issue, but surely we can all agree that it's a bad idea to let immigrants into the country...even if they are spooning an American.

Frozen Sooner
3/24/2009, 12:12 AM
I think everyone is missing the focal point in the debate on this legislation. We're NEVER going to agree on the gay/straight issue, but surely we can all agree that it's a bad idea to let immigrants into the country...even if they are spooning an American.

See, SicEm's a ready-made refutation of the evolutionary superiority of heterosexuality. He's heterosexual, but those genes aren't ever getting past this generation.

;)

Just kidding, SicEm.

I almost posted something in the thread earlier about opposing this legislation more on racism than homophobia, then decided it'd probably be taken the wrong way.

SicEmBaylor
3/24/2009, 12:14 AM
See, SicEm's a ready-made refutation of the evolutionary superiority of heterosexuality. He's heterosexual, but those genes aren't ever getting past this generation.

;)

Just kidding, SicEm.

I almost posted something in the thread earlier about opposing this legislation more on racism than homophobia, then decided it'd probably be taken the wrong way.

Thankfully, for both of us, I lack that little voice in my head that says, "Uh...you probably shouldn't post that."

Frozen Sooner
3/24/2009, 12:18 AM
Man, I'm having a really hard time with immigrants lately. Consider that any immigrant I meet at work is going to be legal-they can't get accounts without at least a foreign ID number, which you can't get unless INS knows about you.

For whatever reason, I'm finding dealing with people who aren't from around here more and more difficult. I'm trying, though.

def_lazer_fc
3/24/2009, 12:46 AM
lol, but who knows... i just feel a child needs a male and female... so that's why i don't think America should start changing things now....

would you rather they be in foster care than a loving home?

Crucifax Autumn
3/24/2009, 01:59 AM
Do stem cell research on 'em!

:P

theresonly1OU
3/24/2009, 06:47 AM
Thankfully, for both of us, I lack that little voice in my head that says, "Uh...you probably shouldn't post that."

Yeah, I made the mistake of posting waaaay too late in the day (for me anyway), hence my originalist comment. Not to say that I disagree with the premise I was going for, it was just horribly reasoned all around.

theresonly1OU
3/24/2009, 06:52 AM
Man, I'm having a really hard time with immigrants lately. Consider that any immigrant I meet at work is going to be legal-they can't get accounts without at least a foreign ID number, which you can't get unless INS knows about you.

For whatever reason, I'm finding dealing with people who aren't from around here more and more difficult. I'm trying, though.

I know what you mean; due to my line of work I tend to only see people at their worst, so its pretty hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for the few legitimate stories of families being split up due to the immigration laws when, for every one of them, you have 10 who are running drugs into our country, or committing crimes of one type or another.

But as you say, I am trying; it's just a little harder for me than most, I guess.

Okla-homey
3/24/2009, 07:01 AM
Nature vs. Nurture and Nature wins every time, IMO.

When this position is advanced, I tend to hear "The Rain in Spain" in my head because it reminds me of a wildly popular 1960's musical that had "Nature v. Nurture" as its central premise.;)

but seriously, if genetic predisposition to certain deviant human behaviors makes those behaviors inescapable or unavoidable, is it somehow unenlightened to put certain folks away, despite their inability to control themselves?

Chuck Bao
3/24/2009, 08:52 AM
If I may, I would say the answer to your question depends on how you view the totality of the situation.

IOW, something christians and scientists alike can agree on is that the human male and female genitalia's main function is for reproduction. Take a look around nature; all mammalian species depend on male/female intercourse to produce offspring; in fact, most species in the entire animal kingdom are based almost solely on their desire to reproduce.

Knowing this, I would say from an entirely scientific point of view that it is a given that heterosexuality is superior to homosexuality, for the simple fact that straight sex = children, and children = species preservation, which, like all animals, humans strive for above all else.

This is why myself and many others believe that homosexuality is a learned behavior. And until there is scientific proof that homosexuality provides any advantage to species preservation, I would be hard pressed to believe any argument advocating homosexuality as anything other than a choice.

One that happens to be inferior to heterosexuality, according to nature.

Froze already answered this much better than I ever could. I still can’t let it go.

By that definition, scientists should also agree that heterosexual sex outside of the purpose of reproduction is “inferior” to heterosexual sex for the purpose of reproduction.

Does this mean that heterosexual couples should stop having sex after the woman passes menopause? Of course not! Does this mean that heterosexual couples should refrain from sex once the female partner is pregnant? No!

Animals in the wild go through a mating season. Surely once a year is enough for humans as well. Ha! You lead the way with your nature studies and your own sexual relationship with your girlfriend or wife.

Intimate contact between a loving couple is an expression of love and fairly essential for a sense of well-being and happiness. Most humans are hardwired for sex and that, in my opinion, is a very good thing even if some of us are hardwired slightly different.

And this proves that you and the very small minority of people who say that homosexuality is a learned behavior and a matter of choice do not know what you are talking about.

Chuck Bao
3/24/2009, 09:22 AM
I know what you mean; due to my line of work I tend to only see people at their worst, so its pretty hard for me to have a lot of sympathy for the few legitimate stories of families being split up due to the immigration laws when, for every one of them, you have 10 who are running drugs into our country, or committing crimes of one type or another.

But as you say, I am trying; it's just a little harder for me than most, I guess.

Did you actually say that for every one immigrant, 10 are running drugs or committing crimes?

Okay, I get it. For every one legal immigrant, 10 are illegal and therefore committed a crime. The running drugs part is just thrown in there to add some flavour.

Hard as it is for you to have sympathy, I am still going to assure you that Nope does not do drugs and is not a drug runner. And, if we go to the US, we will be legal and will be committing no crimes.

JohnnyMack
3/24/2009, 09:36 AM
I bet you give great helmet
http://fashionsensei.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/5152837-tml-thumb.jpg

God I'm turned on right now.

Howzit
3/24/2009, 09:41 AM
Who gives a flying **** what two adults do? It's none of your ****ing business.

The people who rail the hardest against equality for homosexuals are the ones whose cultural infrastructure would be the most impacted by it. I get that homosexuality tears at some of the teachings of some so called Christian philosophers/preachers that terrorize this nation of ours, but I firmly believe that the real Jesus would be sorely disappointed at the intolerance buttressed up by his name.

*snicker*

'buttressed.'

Chuck Bao
3/24/2009, 09:42 AM
When this position is advanced, I tend to hear "The Rain in Spain" in my head because it reminds me of a wildly popular 1960's musical that had "Nature v. Nurture" as its central premise.;)

but seriously, if genetic predisposition to certain deviant human behaviors makes those behaviors inescapable or unavoidable, is it somehow unenlightened to put certain folks away, despite their inability to control themselves?

This thread is seriously déjŕ vu all over again and I should have learned my lesson in not starting it or doing a better job at the funny and light hearted troll I had in mind.

Like clockwork, Homey likens homosexuality to deviant behavior and our inability to control ourselves. Definitely yes, Homey, it would be unenlightened to put the queers away with the criminals and insane. As an historian, I’m sure you remember that Hitler did just that.

Howzit
3/24/2009, 09:48 AM
What SF.com needs is a Homosexual folder.

Crucifax Autumn
3/24/2009, 09:50 AM
Why would you want to fold a homosexual?

Howzit
3/24/2009, 09:51 AM
See...it's a play on the political folder concept...which obviously has noooo value.

Lott's Bandana
3/24/2009, 09:55 AM
Who gives a flying **** what two adults do? It's none of your ****ing business.

The people who rail the hardest against equality for homosexuals are the ones whose cultural infrastructure would be the most impacted by it. I get that homosexuality tears at some of the teachings of some so called Christian philosophers/preachers that terrorize this nation of ours, but I firmly believe that the real Jesus would be sorely disappointed at the intolerance buttressed up by his name.


Ouch...that one made me get up out of my seat.

This post wins the double-entendry of the week award.

Rogue
3/24/2009, 08:17 PM
I was hoping for the while "I'm not bothered by gays as long as they don't ACT gay" idea to get more traction.

I'm still glad to see this thread not turning into the meltdown I thought of when I first read it.

Okla-homey
3/24/2009, 08:58 PM
Like clockwork, Homey likens homosexuality to deviant behavior and our inability to control ourselves. Definitely yes, Homey, it would be unenlightened to put the queers away with the criminals and insane. As an historian, I’m sure you remember that Hitler did just that.

Oh lighten-up Chuck. You started the danged thread. It doesn't advance the dialogue for you to get all defensive. No one's talking about putting the queers in prison, Least of all me. Believe me, I'm not the type of Okie you have anything to worry about. I said "live and let live" and I meant it. That is the very definition of "tolerance."

All I object to is this notion, advanced by your side, that we are unreasonable bigots and "intolerant" if we don't accept homosexuality as completely morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

A great number of folks have sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality, just like illicit heterosexuality, including adulterous relationships and pre-marital sex, is abhorrent. It's no more just for you to insist they change their beliefs than it is for them to insist you change.

Just be happy most of us in the west who hold such sincerely held religious beliefs are Christian. The folks with sincerely held religious who subscribe to fundamentalist Islam aren't disposed to let openly homosexual folks live, let alone tolerate them.

As to insanity, the APA took homosexuality off their official list of mental disorders in 1973 after intense lobbying by the homosexual community. Prior to that, they appled pathological models. Its true, you can look it up. The thing is, I don't think homosexuals are crazy or dangerous, just unfortunately afflicted with a very problematic (for them) predisposition.

Chuck Bao
3/24/2009, 09:44 PM
Oh lighten-up Chuck. You started the danged thread. It doesn't advance the dialogue for you to get all defensive. No one's talking about putting the queers in prison, Least of all me. Believe me, I'm not the type of Okie you have anything to worry about. I said "live and let live" and I meant it. That is the very definition of "tolerance."

All I object to is this notion, advanced by your side, that we are unreasonable bigots and "intolerant" if we don't accept homosexuality as completely morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

A great number of folks have sincerely held religious beliefs that homosexuality, just like illicit heterosexuality, including adulterous relationships and pre-marital sex, is abhorrent. It's no more just for you to insist they change their beliefs than it is for them to insist you change.

Just be happy most of us in the west who hold such sincerely held religious beliefs are Christian. The folks with sincerely held religious who subscribe to fundamentalist Islam aren't disposed to let openly homosexual folks live, let alone tolerate them.

As to insanity, the APA took homosexuality off their official list of mental disorders in 1973 after intense lobbying by the homosexual community. Prior to that, they appled pathological models. Its true, you can look it up. The thing is, I don't think homosexuals are crazy or dangerous, just unfortunately afflicted with a very problematic (for them) predisposition.

Well that's all fine and good for you to tell me to lighten up on one hand and on the other to tell me that I'm afflicted with a very problematic predisposition.

I do appreciate the predisposition part, though.

I'm very aware of history and the problems that many gay people have had to endure. It is shameful in my opinion.

You are right that gay people still face tremendous persecution in muslim countries and that is why I refuse to visit muslim countries. What? Throw them down from the mountain tops as unacceptable human beings? That is some religion!

Christians are not advocating throwing the gays down from the mountain tops, but with the double standards and arbitrary reading of the holy scripture, it gets almost as if "throw your own feelings of self worth down the mountain top", we will love what remains.

That's just it. You know why gay people need to be in your face gay (Oh hello Rogue!) is because there are a lot of people confused and denied their due rights and their whole perspective of self worth should not be tied up in guilt when they have not done anything wrong.

Homey, your previous post called gay sex as deviant and then went on to question whether it is unethical to put certain folks away for their uncontrollable tendencies. The implication was clear or maybe you want to rethink your words?

I really don't think lightening up is needed here. My biggest blunder is pointing out that we have all had this discussion so many times before and nobody has ever changed anyone's mind. So, that's the bright side of the lightening up.

Just kidding!

Crucifax Autumn
3/24/2009, 10:00 PM
Why does that dead milkmen song "Stuart" come to mind once again?

JohnnyMack
3/24/2009, 10:09 PM
Christians are not advocating throwing the gays down from the mountain tops, but with the double standards and arbitrary reading of the holy scripture, it gets almost as if "throw your own feelings of self worth down the mountain top", we will love what remains.

Chuck, the important thing to remember is that these self-righteous, judgmental proselityzers (and I refer to all religions when I say this) only want you in their flock if you fit a certain mold. They would be glad to love you......provided you stop that gay sinning you're doing. Stop it. Now.

Crucifax Autumn
3/24/2009, 10:15 PM
So what you're saying is he just needs to find a gay, hard drinkin' religion that advocates eating Thai food, being waited on by a fruit serving maid (seriously now...pun TOTALLY unintended!) and explaining which version of Buddha has the belly and which has the boobies?

soonerscuba
3/24/2009, 10:38 PM
I think everyone is missing the focal point in the debate on this legislation. We're NEVER going to agree on the gay/straight issue, but surely we can all agree that it's a bad idea to let immigrants into the country...even if they are spooning an American.What would you think of expanding the H1-B visa program to permanent resident alien or citizenship? While I understand the arguments that there could possibly be Americans to fill the work, I think the net impact of expanding cultural influence to places that are otherwise against our interests is a net gain. In my opinion the advantages to immigration lie at two ends of the spectrum, providing cheap manual labor and specialty labor with cultural influence, harsh but true.

I do feel sorry for you and your ilk Chuck, but I think that you are stuck in a waiting game, those of us who have friends and collegues as a norm in the gay community will eventually decide to grant equal rights, it's an inevability. There will always be detrators, hell, there are people that would ban interacial relationships if the could but they are an underclass and eventually the people that argue against homosexual relationships will join them. This isn't pointed at anybody in this thread.

OU_Sooners75
3/25/2009, 02:09 AM
Just the opposite actually. Call it prison sex or whatever. The simple fact is, a certain percentage of those in cloistered single gender groups will engage in homosexuality they otherwise wouldn't. Therefore, I believe that proves the point that environment does affect some folks choice of sexual orientation.

I also happen to beleive people can and do successfully choose to become heterosexual even after years of homosexuality. I'll grant you, some folks are more mentally disposed towards homosexuality than others, but as to the folks on the bubble, they can come out of homosexuality.


Actually the percentage it rather small.

But my point stands....

you cannot make gay, you cannot teach gay....you are either gay or you are not.

In prison, no one made a person turn gay. No one taught them that howto be gay.

They decided while in prison, if they want sex, they must be gay.

In the animal kingdom...homosexuality occurs. It is nature...may be flawed, since survival counts on heterosexuality. But it occurs...and more than not, it occurs because of inheritance and/or enviroment...not because the animal was taught and made gay after birth. If that makes any sense.

OU_Sooners75
3/25/2009, 02:14 AM
Jesus wouldn't allow gayness. Gayness is a product of not being around Jesus.


And anyone with an advanced brain would know religion is myth.

Or would you like to talk about Greek Religion?

OU_Sooners75
3/25/2009, 02:16 AM
The gayness is a genetic thing, BUT the actual homosexual act is voluntary. You can be innately attracted to a dude, but it's still your personal choice to act on that attraction.


The "straightness" is a genetic thing, BUT the actual heterosexual act is voluntary. You can be innately attracted to a person of opposite sex, but it's still your personal choice to act on that attraction.


See how it works?

SicEmBaylor
3/25/2009, 02:17 AM
The "straightness" is a genetic thing, BUT the actual heterosexual act is voluntary. You can be innately attracted to a person of opposite sex, but it's still your personal choice to act on that attraction.


See how it works?

Yes, exactly. Reversing it changes nothing. You can definitely be straight and not have sex with women.

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 02:41 AM
Yes, exactly. Reversing it changes nothing. You can definitely be straight and not have sex with women.

Heh.

JohnnyMack
3/25/2009, 05:58 AM
Heh.

This.

Okla-homey
3/25/2009, 07:03 AM
Actually the percentage it rather small.

But my point stands....

you cannot make gay, you cannot teach gay....you are either gay or you are not.




Let me see if I understand your argument. Are you actually contending that folks who were heterosexual for part of their life, but later become homosexual, were born homosexual but were'nt aware of it?

soonerhubs
3/25/2009, 10:03 AM
Let me see if I understand your argument. Are you actually contending that folks who were heterosexual for part of their life, but later become homosexual, were born homosexual but were'nt aware of it?

In my readings, I have come to the conclusion that there are cases where this (heterosexual relations early, homosexual relations later) happens due to social pressure against homosexuality. This is called a passive gene environment correlation, and it occurs in situations including not only sexuality, but also in intelligence measures and externalizing/internalizing problems to name a few others.

However, at the same time, I feel it's a bit presumptuous to use the "either one way or another" argument here. Why couldn't it be both nature and nurture? That is actually the argument of numerous gene-environment correlation models.

Another thing to remember with all of these peer-reviewed journals that we read: The majority of these studies are limited in their generalizability, and even the most stringent social research looking at surveys or any other qualitative or quantitative data speak almost exclusively in probabilistic terminology. Probabilistic terminology means that genetics and environmental factors only increase the likelihood (or probability) or odds of these situations (homosexual or heterosexual act for that matter) taking place in any given circumstance.


If someone wants to be homosexual I say let them. It's their choice. It's against my religion to drink coffee and tea, but you won't see me boycotting the starbucks or the Lipton plant. However, if someone wishes to express such feelings or beliefs by boycott, protest, of funding a PR campaign, it's fine. It's just as acceptable as the multitudes of Gay-Straight alliance coalitions out there that set up proselytizing their message.

Addressing JohnnyMack's judgment of religious folks:
Chuck, the important thing to remember is that these self-righteous, judgmental proselityzers (and I refer to all religions when I say this) only want you in their flock if you fit a certain mold. They would be glad to love you......provided you stop that gay sinning you're doing. Stop it. Now.
To have someone get all high and mighty and say that a religion perpetuates hate because it calls a certain behavior a sin is a hypocritical paradox because that someone is perpetuating hate towards that religion by calling what that religion proposes a sin. (Thus the infinite loop continues.)
...in fact, perhaps I'm promoting disdain towards you for promoting disdain towards religions who promote disdain towards those who do not conform to such religions...
Get it? The cycle never ends.

C&CDean
3/25/2009, 10:33 AM
Don't worry about JohnnyMack. God frowned on him and made him an ugly poopyhead, so now he hates God for it. He's shallow like that.

SicEmBaylor
3/25/2009, 02:26 PM
What would you think of expanding the H1-B visa program to permanent resident alien or citizenship? While I understand the arguments that there could possibly be Americans to fill the work, I think the net impact of expanding cultural influence to places that are otherwise against our interests is a net gain. In my opinion the advantages to immigration lie at two ends of the spectrum, providing cheap manual labor and specialty labor with cultural influence, harsh but true.


I'm just a fan of keepin' it WASP.

NYC Poke
3/25/2009, 02:47 PM
Whenever I see the debate over whether or not sexuality is learned behavior, I think of this poor bastage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

C&CDean
3/25/2009, 02:55 PM
Whenever I see the debate over whether or not sexuality is learned behavior, I think of this poor bastage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Well if the doctor burned ol' gus off I'd probably just kill myself too.

NYC Poke
3/25/2009, 03:04 PM
Well if the doctor burned ol' gus off I'd probably just kill myself too.

Poor dude never had a chance. Oh, and don't make my mistake of clicking on the link in the story to phimosis. There's a picture, and you don't want to see it.

theresonly1OU
3/25/2009, 05:27 PM
Did you actually say that for every one immigrant, 10 are running drugs or committing crimes?

Okay, I get it. For every one legal immigrant, 10 are illegal and therefore committed a crime. The running drugs part is just thrown in there to add some flavour.

Hard as it is for you to have sympathy, I am still going to assure you that Nope does not do drugs and is not a drug runner. And, if we go to the US, we will be legal and will be committing no crimes.

No, I said for every 1 story I hear that shows a legitimate need for an illegal immigrant to stay in the US (i.e. needs an operation, family member dying, etc), I can find 10 personal experiences of my own where I have had to make contact with said illegal because they were committing or had committed a (normally drug related) crime. I also said it was due to my line of work, thereby acknowledging that my profession has a lot to do with the skewed numbers (at least I thought it did).

I understand you are hyper-sensitive to the subject due to your personal relationship, so hopefully this clarifies my post a little for you.

theresonly1OU
3/25/2009, 05:36 PM
And anyone with an advanced brain would know religion is myth.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uoHXtDg5HC4/Sal3mnZvVkI/AAAAAAAAD5A/X4O5dvJYNcI/s400/jesus_1233006972.jpg
I CAN HAZ JEZUZ?

Albert Einstein might have something to say about your comment, BTW.

Guess his brain wasn't advanced, according to you though.

Thomas Edison too; big Jesus lover.

Guess he was also of the non-advanced brain category.

Oh well, those retards didn't do anything useful, like invent the theory of relativitiy, or anything.

soonerscuba
3/25/2009, 05:53 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uoHXtDg5HC4/Sal3mnZvVkI/AAAAAAAAD5A/X4O5dvJYNcI/s400/jesus_1233006972.jpg
I CAN HAZ JEZUZ?

Albert Einstein might have something to say about your comment, BTW.

Guess his brain wasn't advanced, according to you though.

Thomas Edison too; big Jesus lover.

Guess he was also of the non-advanced brain category.

Oh well, those retards didn't do anything useful, like invent the theory of relativitiy, or anything.I'm guessing you are not aware of Edison's thoughts on the Jews.

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 06:04 PM
Or Einstein's thoughts on religion overall.

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Regardless, stating that a smart person believes or doesn't believe anything isn't a proof of any position. Smart people are wrong all the time. And stating that nobody with an "advanced" brain would ever believe in a religion is absolutely ridiculous. While the examples of "advanced" brains forwarded weren't the best, there's plenty of "advanced" thinkers throughout history who've been devoutly religious. Blaise Pascal, for one, was a brilliant mathematician (though a kind of lousy logician :)) Sir Isaac Newton was decidedly Anglican, though I'm not sure how he reconciled that with his belief in Alchemy.

Rogue
3/25/2009, 06:29 PM
Froze saved the whole page.

Okla-homey
3/25/2009, 07:24 PM
Or Einstein's thoughts on religion overall.

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Regardless, stating that a smart person believes or doesn't believe anything isn't a proof of any position. Smart people are wrong all the time. And stating that nobody with an "advanced" brain would ever believe in a religion is absolutely ridiculous. While the examples of "advanced" brains forwarded weren't the best, there's plenty of "advanced" thinkers throughout history who've been devoutly religious. Blaise Pascal, for one, was a brilliant mathematician (though a kind of lousy logician :)) Sir Isaac Newton was decidedly Anglican, though I'm not sure how he reconciled that with his belief in Alchemy.

Just call me unadvanced brained bitter-clinger I guess.

I'm not perfect by a long shot, but I'm blissfully possessed of childlike faith in my Lord and Savior. He has made a profound difference in my life and those of many people I love...and nothing the kewl kidz who eschew God can say will ever change that fact.

I also believe with very cell of my being that at the end of days, when He triumphantly returns to sort out the mess we've made of the world, "every knee shall bow" acknowledging His lordship.

Fortunately for all, we don't live in a country in which folks who don't share those beliefs can be punished or otherwise discriminated against for their lack of faith. I've been to some places like that. They aren't pleasant. I'm content to leave all that to God. He knows what He's doing, and He clearly must have a sense of humor...because He hasn't yet struck Bill Maher deaf, dumb and blind. ;)

We live under a secular government and that is a good thing. The thing that bothers me is the fact that we're seeing a movement in this country evolve that seeks to mutate "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion," as evidenced by the perjoratives voiced in this thread against us backwards superstitious ya-hoos who actually still beleive in God.

If the day ever comes when people of faith are somehow barred or otherwise constrained from being peacefully opposed to human behaviors they consider inherently base, sinful, and ultimately destructive, then we've lost a precious freedom vouchsafed by generations who struggled to make and keep this a place where ideals, no matter how unpopular or politically incorrect, are safely held.

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 07:29 PM
Just call me unadvanced brained bitter-clinger I guess.

If that's what you took out of what I wrote, then somehow I've failed in conveying the opposite message in terms that couldn't possibly be misunderstood. I used Einstein's own words to show that claiming him as a devout Christian (or theist of any stripe) is disingenuous, but went on to further say that there ARE plenty of smart people who believed and believe in God, even citing examples. For example, I think you're smart. I imagine you return the sentiment. At least one of us is wrong on this issue. That's OK-smart people can disagree on things.


We live under a secular government and that is a good thing. The thing that bothers me is the fact that we're seeing a movement in this country evolve that seeks to mutate "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion," as evidenced by the perjoratives voiced in this thread against us backwards superstitious ya-hoos who actually still beleive in God.

By one person only, IIRC. Don't think I've voiced any, though. And the pejorative terms are hardly one-sided.


If the day ever comes when people of faith are somehow barred or otherwise constrained from being peacefully opposed to human behaviors they consider inherently base, sinful, and ultimately destructive, then we've lost a precious freedom vouchsafed by generations who struggled to make and keep this a place where ideals, no matter how unpopular or politically incorrect, are safely held.

I agree, and I think you know me well enough by now to know that. Well, other than I think the term "politically correct" is unimaginably lazy.

Okla-homey
3/25/2009, 08:01 PM
If that's what you took out of what I wrote, then somehow I've failed in conveying the opposite message in terms that couldn't possibly be misunderstood. I used Einstein's own words to show that claiming him as a devout Christian (or theist of any stripe) is disingenuous, but went on to further say that there ARE plenty of smart people who believed and believe in God, even citing examples. For example, I think you're smart. I imagine you return the sentiment. At least one of us is wrong on this issue. That's OK-smart people can disagree on things.

Not you Froze. You are a godless communist, but I like you, and you are respectful of us religious folks' feelers.;)

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 08:12 PM
Thanks. For a blue-mud rubbin' corporatist pig, you're OK. :D

theresonly1OU
3/25/2009, 08:30 PM
Or Einstein's thoughts on religion overall.

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.
- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. - Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Regardless, stating that a smart person believes or doesn't believe anything isn't a proof of any position. Smart people are wrong all the time. And stating that nobody with an "advanced" brain would ever believe in a religion is absolutely ridiculous. While the examples of "advanced" brains forwarded weren't the best, there's plenty of "advanced" thinkers throughout history who've been devoutly religious. Blaise Pascal, for one, was a brilliant mathematician (though a kind of lousy logician :)) Sir Isaac Newton was decidedly Anglican, though I'm not sure how he reconciled that with his belief in Alchemy.

Looks like I get the not prepared award; I obviously used a bad example.

Here's another quote from Einstein that I should have looked at before posting. It's from March 24th, 1954, from Albert Einstein, the Human Side:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

But thanks for making my (obfuscated) point, Frozen. I think next time I'll try that google thing all the kids are going on about.

Frozen Sooner
3/25/2009, 08:59 PM
Happens to us all now and then. I'm sure a little bit later someone will pop up some quotes that make it look like Einstein was religious.

I kind of like what someone told me once: "Einstein wasn't religious at all, but he was smart enough not to argue about it." :D

OU_Sooners75
3/26/2009, 01:43 AM
Let me see if I understand your argument. Are you actually contending that folks who were heterosexual for part of their life, but later become homosexual, were born homosexual but were'nt aware of it?

Apparently it is more difficult to understand than I thought....when it comes to may POV.

We all know it is a great debate when it comes to homosexuality. Is it inherited? Is it by choice? Are you made homosexual?


IMHO, I think you are born with a messed up gene (or an extra gene or whatever) that triggers an attraction to the same gender. I also think a person has a choice if they want to live that lifestyle or not.

However, I do not think you can be taught to be a homosexual. I also do not think anyone can be made homosexual.

Therefore, I think it is a combination of being born that way and choosing to live that lifestyle.

Either way, it is not my call to be judgemental of a person that is a homosexual, gay, lesbian, or whatever you wish to call them.

IMHO, when we all meet our maker, we will be judged by what we did in life and how we lived life. Not by who we chose to have intimate relations with in life.

OU_Sooners75
3/26/2009, 01:46 AM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uoHXtDg5HC4/Sal3mnZvVkI/AAAAAAAAD5A/X4O5dvJYNcI/s400/jesus_1233006972.jpg
I CAN HAZ JEZUZ?

Albert Einstein might have something to say about your comment, BTW.

Guess his brain wasn't advanced, according to you though.

Thomas Edison too; big Jesus lover.

Guess he was also of the non-advanced brain category.

Oh well, those retards didn't do anything useful, like invent the theory of relativitiy, or anything.


And if you actually were able to understand what you read in the Bible, you would understand what I am saying.



FYI, Einstein was an atheist I do believe.

theresonly1OU
3/26/2009, 08:05 AM
And if you actually were able to understand what you read in the Bible, you would understand what I am saying.



FYI, Einstein was an atheist I do believe.

So do I, and I admitted as much about 3 posts above yours.

JohnnyMack
3/26/2009, 08:39 AM
Just call me unadvanced brained bitter-clinger I guess.

I'm not perfect by a long shot, but I'm blissfully possessed of childlike faith in my Lord and Savior. He has made a profound difference in my life and those of many people I love...and nothing the kewl kidz who eschew God can say will ever change that fact.

I also believe with very cell of my being that at the end of days, when He triumphantly returns to sort out the mess we've made of the world, "every knee shall bow" acknowledging His lordship.

Fortunately for all, we don't live in a country in which folks who don't share those beliefs can be punished or otherwise discriminated against for their lack of faith. I've been to some places like that. They aren't pleasant. I'm content to leave all that to God. He knows what He's doing, and He clearly must have a sense of humor...because He hasn't yet struck Bill Maher deaf, dumb and blind. ;)

We live under a secular government and that is a good thing. The thing that bothers me is the fact that we're seeing a movement in this country evolve that seeks to mutate "freedom of religion" into "freedom from religion," as evidenced by the perjoratives voiced in this thread against us backwards superstitious ya-hoos who actually still beleive in God.

If the day ever comes when people of faith are somehow barred or otherwise constrained from being peacefully opposed to human behaviors they consider inherently base, sinful, and ultimately destructive, then we've lost a precious freedom vouchsafed by generations who struggled to make and keep this a place where ideals, no matter how unpopular or politically incorrect, are safely held.

Homey, I acknowledge that I welcome the day when people don't lean on mysticism and the supernatural. You're free to worship the FSM of your choice, I just hope that one day man evolves beyond the need for such a crutch.

NYC Poke
3/26/2009, 02:25 PM
Apparently it is more difficult to understand than I thought....when it comes to may POV.

We all know it is a great debate when it comes to homosexuality. Is it inherited? Is it by choice? Are you made homosexual?


IMHO, I think you are born with a messed up gene (or an extra gene or whatever) that triggers an attraction to the same gender. I also think a person has a choice if they want to live that lifestyle or not.

However, I do not think you can be taught to be a homosexual. I also do not think anyone can be made homosexual.

Therefore, I think it is a combination of being born that way and choosing to live that lifestyle.

Either way, it is not my call to be judgemental of a person that is a homosexual, gay, lesbian, or whatever you wish to call them.

IMHO, when we all meet our maker, we will be judged by what we did in life and how we lived life. Not by who we chose to have intimate relations with in life.

Isn't it about time for you to get a new sig line? Or do you keep that up as a cautionary tale to warn others what happens when Posting While Intoxicated? :O

OU_Sooners75
3/26/2009, 02:46 PM
Isn't it about time for you to get a new sig line? Or do you keep that up as a cautionary tale to warn others what happens when Posting While Intoxicated? :O


LOL...I have my sig and avatars turned off.


I will replace it...sorry.

theresonly1OU
3/26/2009, 03:15 PM
Homey, I acknowledge that I welcome the day when people don't lean on mysticism and the supernatural. You're free to worship the FSM of your choice, I just hope that one day man evolves beyond the need for such a crutch.

You seem to have the whole annoying "meaning of life" thing figured out, then.

Good to know there's someone as evolved as yourself who has all the answers, in case one of us unevolved ever gets curious.

C&CDean
3/26/2009, 03:31 PM
You seem to have the whole annoying "meaning of life" thing figured out, then.

Good to know there's someone as evolved as yourself who has all the answers, in case one of us unevolved ever gets curious.

Like I said before, JM is just pissed at God for dealing him a **** hand.

theresonly1OU
3/26/2009, 03:51 PM
Like I said before, JM is just pissed at God for dealing him a **** hand.


heh.

KC//CRIMSON
3/26/2009, 03:56 PM
Like I said before, JM is just pissed at God for dealing him a **** hand.


I think what JM has been saying all along is that religion does not stack up to logic, that is why "faith' was created.

C&CDean
3/26/2009, 04:27 PM
No, JM is a poopyhead who got shat upon. He's bitter.

JohnnyMack
3/26/2009, 04:32 PM
No, JM is a poopyhead who got shat upon. He's bitter.

Hey ****face. Went to Max's last night. Off to Ruth's Chris tonight. Wish you were here!!!

C&CDean
3/26/2009, 04:35 PM
Hey ****face. Went to Max's last night. Off to Ruth's Chris tonight. Wish you were here!!!

I'll be there Monday. Hang around and party with the real mens.

Okla-homey
3/26/2009, 08:38 PM
Homey, I acknowledge that I welcome the day when people don't lean on mysticism and the supernatural. You're free to worship the FSM of your choice, I just hope that one day man evolves beyond the need for such a crutch.

I'll say this about the "crutch." He created all of us with a void in our being that only He can fill. He did that on purpose because He wants us to cling to him because He is our heavenly Father and He loves us.

The "evolved" try and fail to fill that void with everything from money and fame to dope and sex. Unfortunately, it never works. As evidenced by the level of abject misery in the world.

It has been truthfully stated "there are no athiests in foxholes." My prayer for you my friend is you'll never have to face a potentially life-changing and devastating challenge to make you come on over to the side of us "crutchies."

Frozen Sooner
3/26/2009, 08:46 PM
It has been truthfully stated "there are no athiests in foxholes."

1. Not proven and unprovable.

2. More of an argument against foxholes than it is against atheism, really.

Crucifax Autumn
3/26/2009, 09:39 PM
Please...For the love of GOD...Merge this thread with the wang thread!

yermom
3/26/2009, 09:48 PM
why ruin a perfectly good wang thread?

Chuck Bao
3/26/2009, 09:55 PM
Homey, I used to think like you do and that God made us all incomplete with our special set of handicaps of being rich, fat, gay, etc, and that God will make us complete.

Then, the religious right got on this whole kick that God wants his followers to be rich and that gay people are just against God's very nature. No, I'm not going there and worrying about the social country clubs also known as some churches. My faith in God is greater than that.

I still think about our own special handicaps, but I refuse to believe that these handicaps are meant to keep us from God. I've got my faith and my feeling of self worth and self respect and the feeling that I can have my own relationship to God regardless of my less than perfect status. That is even though some people are convinced I'm an abomination in the eyes of the Lord and immediately discount me and my relationship with God.

If anyone doesn't like that idea, they are invited to throw that stone and that stone and...

Frozen Sooner
3/26/2009, 10:05 PM
Not nearly as funny as I thought it'd be.

Chuck Bao
3/26/2009, 10:12 PM
Sure it is. It is hilarious. There is nothing else to say except to name our penises on a public message board. That is probably more productive.

Crucifax Autumn
3/26/2009, 10:14 PM
Does that make it a pubic message board?

Chuck Bao
3/26/2009, 10:48 PM
Does that make it a pubic message board?

Yeah, and you have to occasionally spit those curley Ls out. To the rest of us it's public.

Crucifax Autumn
3/26/2009, 11:28 PM
Just don't put the pubes in public or you'll end up all over the net.

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 12:37 AM
Let me see if I understand your argument. Are you actually contending that folks who were heterosexual for part of their life, but later become homosexual, were born homosexual but were'nt aware of it?

The best way I can explain my view on the deal with inmates having sex with each other is that it's all they can get. It's not out of true homosexuality. They aren't really attracted to the person, which is what true homosexuality is. They don't become gay, they're just extremely desperate. I have a hard time believing if those men were given the choice between some jackass stuck in their cell with them or some chick (even a very unattractive one), that they would choose the cellmate (unless they were actually gay).

It's an act of desperation, not one of true sexual attraction.

These aren't the most sensible people on the planet. They obviously aren't able to think rationally in normal every day situations, so how do you think they are going to respond when jerkin' it just isn't cutting it anymore?

Frozen Sooner
3/27/2009, 12:40 AM
Considering that what occurs in prison isn't really consensual sex, it really shouldn't be quantified on a hetero/homosexual attraction scale. Rape isn't about attraction.

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 01:01 AM
Also, about the whole reproduction argument; hetero couples who purposely get "fixed" so as not to ever have children, should they be only allowed to have civil unions?

The whole argument over the semantics of a word is ****ing retarded in my eyes. It means the same ****ing thing. It's like saying **** or urine. Same ****ing thing. No real difference.

The word "marriage" doesn't have to take on a religious connotation.

And what if a certain church is perfectly fine with allowing gay marriage, especially if it isn't Christian? If you don't like it, don't go there. It's really that simple.

OMG, you gays can't use the word MARRIAGE!!! We heteros have a patent on that ****!

What if they use the Latin word for marriage instead, will that make it less offensive?

Crucifax Autumn
3/27/2009, 01:10 AM
Butt Buddies (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155043/)

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 01:14 AM
Considering that what occurs in prison isn't really consensual sex, it really shouldn't be quantified on a hetero/homosexual attraction scale. Rape isn't about attraction.

What I'm getting at, though, is that if it's done out of pure desperation and not true attraction, I don't believe it's homosexuality. That's what I believe happens in prison. I would even guess that there are men or women out there that aren't attracted to their own sex, but they are either so unattractive to the opposite sex or just too awkward socially that they just have to settle for whatever they can get. To me that's not true homosexuality. It's desperation.

Okla-homey
3/27/2009, 05:06 AM
I would even guess that there are men or women out there that aren't attracted to their own sex, but they are either so unattractive to the opposite sex or just too awkward socially that they just have to settle for whatever they can get. To me that's not true homosexuality. It's desperation.

Word. I haven't thought about it that way, but you are absolutely correct. Also, I'm pretty sure there are women who become homosexual because they have been repeatedly traumatized by men and finally decide to switch teams because its safer.

Okla-homey
3/27/2009, 06:46 AM
:rolleyes:


I promise to respect everyone’s opinion. I promise to not get emotional or personal. I promise to laugh at everyone’s jokes.

Chuck Bao
3/27/2009, 06:59 AM
Alright, I misread sitzpinkler posts and I deleted my post. I will also repost it here because I think it is only fair.

This is the original post that was deleted.


Ack! You've finally caught on. The gays are the bungled and the botched. We couldn't get a date with the opposite sex if we tried and we have all tried. And, most of us just gave up a long time ago. We are LOSERS in the grand scheme of things which is all about producing progeny.

We went through that lowered expectations thing and found someone who will actually get it on with us. Is that such a really bad thing for you superman of the species to accept? No? Not satisfied? Okay, go ahead and kick and punch. Feel better?


Sitzpinkler is obviously saying that it isn't homosexuality, then what is it? This logic can be taken a little ways but not very far.

Homey, it wasn't meant as personal as you might think. Yeah, the whole bungled and botched thing bothers me, but you know there are some people thinking that way. And, for some reason I really want to get on board with those people who aren't going to get it any other way. Okay, you can right now and justifiably call me a socialist. And that's supposed to be a joke and loling and smiley face.

JohnnyMack
3/27/2009, 09:27 AM
I'll say this about the "crutch." He created all of us with a void in our being that only He can fill. He did that on purpose because He wants us to cling to him because He is our heavenly Father and He loves us.

Opinion.


The "evolved" try and fail to fill that void with everything from money and fame to dope and sex. Unfortunately, it never works. As evidenced by the level of abject misery in the world.

Your typical insulting rhetoric. Anyone who is an atheist is a morally bankrupt piece of crap. All the worlds ills are a product of people not finding Jesus.


It has been truthfully stated "there are no athiests in foxholes." My prayer for you my friend is you'll never have to face a potentially life-changing and devastating challenge to make you come on over to the side of us "crutchies."

Like watching my Stepmother die of cancer? Or my divorce? Or my Mom's heart attack? Yeah I didn't lean of the supernatural at any of those points. I got through just fine.

C&CDean
3/27/2009, 10:12 AM
Like watching my Stepmother die of cancer? Or my divorce? Or my Mom's heart attack? Yeah I didn't lean of the supernatural at any of those points. I got through just fine.

You know what? You remind me a lot of the guy who jumped off the Empire State Building and as he passes the 88th floor he goes "I'm getting through just fine...."

Don't ever forget the sidewalk is coming up at you like a mother****er JM. It ain't about "you getting through some life crisis." When it's your turn to turn out the lights - not on a step mom - but on your own life, where you gonna be in your head? Believing that us humans are somehow such a superior form of life and that we are "above" God (who doesn't really even exist anyhow) is the most arrogant position a person can have. And you call christians stupid.

JohnnyMack
3/27/2009, 10:17 AM
No, I just think you're stupid.

C&CDean
3/27/2009, 10:19 AM
Who loves ya John? And I hope your Ruth's Chris steak last night was as tough as my scrotal sack.

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 11:31 AM
Alright, I misread sitzpinkler posts and I deleted my post. I will also repost it here because I think it is only fair.

This is the original post that was deleted.



Sitzpinkler is obviously saying that it isn't homosexuality, then what is it? This logic can be taken a little ways but not very far.

Homey, it wasn't meant as personal as you might think. Yeah, the whole bungled and botched thing bothers me, but you know there are some people thinking that way. And, for some reason I really want to get on board with those people who aren't going to get it any other way. Okay, you can right now and justifiably call me a socialist. And that's supposed to be a joke and loling and smiley face.

Yeah, if you took my post as insulting to homosexuals, you misread me. I am in support of equal rights for homosexuals and gay/lesbian marriage.

I was just trying to clarify the difference between what I consider to be truly homosexual (which I believe to be genetic) and what is just an act of desperation because you have no other option.

If you truly aren't attracted to the same sex, then you're not homosexual. Steve and Steve can both go have gay sex all day, but if both of them would prefer that one another were women, well, they're not homosexual, just desperate for something other than their own hand.

To put it another way, you have be able to truly fall in love with somebody of the same sex to be homosexual. I seriously doubt that's what is happening in prison.

To answer jlew:

When I was a youngster, just out of high school, I went through a rough time in my life. A gay couple who was friends with my mom before she died took me in and helped get me back on my feet. They are wonderful people and if those two were to raise a child, I would have no problem with it. If something happened to me and my wife, I would have no problem with them raising our two kids. They are very stable, loving people and they are awesome with kids and my kids love them.

JohnnyMack
3/27/2009, 11:38 AM
Who loves ya John? And I hope your Ruth's Chris steak last night was as tough as my scrotal sack.

The steak was an 8. Good company, a little bit of bourbon and some amazing fresh crab along with it.

olevetonahill
3/27/2009, 12:20 PM
The steak was an 8. Good company, a little bit of bourbon and some amazing fresh crab along with it.

Lets see , Crabs, Steak, Good company, In a thread about Homosexuality . Are you coming out of the closet? :P

Frozen Sooner
3/27/2009, 12:35 PM
The steak was an 8. Good company, a little bit of bourbon and some amazing fresh crab along with it.

If Dean's scrote were served on a 500 degree plate, I bet you'd be down with it.

Let's test this at the next tailgate.

C&CDean
3/27/2009, 12:36 PM
The tubesteak was 8 inches. Fabuluth company, a little bit of bourbon and some amazing fresh crab along with it.

Cool.

C&CDean
3/27/2009, 12:37 PM
If Dean's scrote were served on a 500 degree plate, I bet you'd be down with it.

Let's test this at the next tailgate.

You, JM, and what ****ing army are gonna perform that test?

Chuck Bao
3/27/2009, 01:11 PM
Yeah, if you took my post as insulting to homosexuals, you misread me. I am in support of equal rights for homosexuals and gay/lesbian marriage.

I was just trying to clarify the difference between what I consider to be truly homosexual (which I believe to be genetic) and what is just an act of desperation because you have no other option.

If you truly aren't attracted to the same sex, then you're not homosexual. Steve and Steve can both go have gay sex all day, but if both of them would prefer that one another were women, well, they're not homosexual, just desperate for something other than their own hand.

To put it another way, you have be able to truly fall in love with somebody of the same sex to be homosexual. I seriously doubt that's what is happening in prison.

To answer jlew:

When I was a youngster, just out of high school, I went through a rough time in my life. A gay couple who was friends with my mom before she died took me in and helped get me back on my feet. They are wonderful people and if those two were to raise a child, I would have no problem with it. If something happened to me and my wife, I would have no problem with them raising our two kids. They are very stable, loving people and they are awesome with kids and my kids love them.

Yeah, and after re-reading your posts I first deleted my comment and then figured I wouldn't make you mad if I reposted it because Homey referred to it. I'm still undecided about the desparation part. I imagine it is true in some circumstances but couldn't be applied in a general sense and I know some people would love to do just that. The sarcasm wasn't mean for you, sitzpinkler.

theresonly1OU
3/27/2009, 01:31 PM
No, I just think you're stupid.

Jesus loves you, JM.

























You know, in case you ever wonder.

NYC Poke
3/27/2009, 01:55 PM
I call mine "Atheist." I try to avoid putting it in the wrong foxholes.

OklahomaRed
3/27/2009, 02:17 PM
JM would have to give it the "lick test" first. :D

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 02:58 PM
Yeah, and after re-reading your posts I first deleted my comment and then figured I wouldn't make you mad if I reposted it because Homey referred to it. I'm still undecided about the desparation part. I imagine it is true in some circumstances but couldn't be applied in a general sense and I know some people would love to do just that. The sarcasm wasn't mean for you, sitzpinkler.

With the desperate part, I was referring to how somebody in prison can start performing homosexual acts when they previously had no predisposition to do so. I wasn't saying that about homosexuals in general.

The part about the people who can't get somebody of the opposite sex, I'm not saying that it's common or anything, just that it's a probability that it happens. Again, I wasn't saying this about homosexuality in general. I believe homosexuality is genetic. The people I'm referring to here aren't the people you'd see at a gay club or in a committed gay relationship. These people wouldn't present themselves as homosexuals and they wouldn't live a gay lifestyle and they aren't really gay. I'm just saying there are probably people out there that don't have the ability (whether they're just hideous or social rejects) to get with someone of the opposite sex so they just get what they can. This is what I think happens in prisons. They don't really become homosexual, they just have a desperation for human contact that isn't satisfied by masturbation so they go after what is available.

I hope that kind of clears up what I was trying to say. Clear as mud, huh? :D

Vaevictis
3/27/2009, 03:15 PM
This is what I think happens in prisons. They don't really become homosexual, they just have a desperation for human contact that isn't satisfied by masturbation so they go after what is available.

Also, it's prison. There are a bunch of violent mother****ers who like making other people suffer in there, and rape fits the bill.

sitzpinkler
3/27/2009, 04:21 PM
Also, it's prison. There are a bunch of violent mother****ers who like making other people suffer in there, and rape fits the bill.

yeah, I touched on that in an earlier post:

"These aren't the most sensible people on the planet. They obviously aren't able to think rationally in normal every day situations, so how do you think they are going to respond when jerkin' it just isn't cutting it anymore?"

Vaevictis
3/27/2009, 05:03 PM
You're missing my point. I don't think sex itself is the main goal for a lot of these guys.

Humiliation, degradation, and control are the end. Rape is just the mechanism.

Okla-homey
3/28/2009, 07:07 AM
What about Lesbians Until Graduation. Whats up with that?

I've been pretty intrigued by a handful of wedding invitations we've received from Darling Daughter's former classmates who were homosexual in college, and assumed by me to follow that pattern thereafter. And those gals have all turned out to be LUGS.

Ann Heche?

sitzpinkler
3/31/2009, 11:19 AM
What about Lesbians Until Graduation. Whats up with that?

I've been pretty intrigued by a handful of wedding invitations we've received from Darling Daughter's former classmates who were homosexual in college, and assumed by me to follow that pattern thereafter. And those gals have all turned out to be LUGS.

Ann Heche?

Oh, that's easy, ALL women are, at the very least, bisexual :D :O